A Bible History of Baptism

5. His rejection of the Pharisees is adduced as proof that “though great multitudes came to John and followed Christ, yet comparatively few brought forth fruit to justify their baptism.”70 But how is it supposed that John could know any thing, ordinarily, as to the fruits manifested by those who sought his baptism? It is perfectly evident that, – as at Sinai, on the day of Pentecost, and on every other occasion that is on record in the ministry of the apostles, – so, in the case of John’s hearers, – a good profession was the sole ordinary condition of baptism. Is it asked, – How, then, came John to refuse the Pharisees? That he did, in fact, refuse them, is an assumption, without proof or probability. He warned them; and that is all we are told of the matter. As to the occasion of such warning, – the ruling sin of that sect was self-righteousness. The pride of it found expression in unmistakable tokens. Says Jesus, “All their works they do for to be seen of men. They make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments.” – Matt, xxiii, 5. The phylacteries were parchments on which portions of the law were written. They were folded in the form of a cube, and bound to the forehead or the arm, with ribbands. The borders were fringes and ribbands of blue, which God directed Israel to wear on the skirts of their garments, as a memorial of their covenant relations to him. (Num. xv, 38, 39.) These the scribes and Pharisees made broad, so as to be seen of men. The first step therefore toward a true repentance, on their part, would have been a putting off of these badges of self-righteousness. And their being worn by any of John’s hearers was to him an instant and evident token of vain glory and self-righteousness unabased; whilst putting them off would have been a manifest fruit and evidence of repentance.

The facts, therefore, as set forth in the gospels, clearly indicate that the ministry of John was attended by an apparent revival of religion, but little short of that which occurred at Sinai, when the covenant was first made. And although, like the tribes in the wilderness, many of those who received John’s baptism failed to profit, for lack of true repentance and faith, – many brought forth fruit out of good and honest hearts. Of such, the college of the apostles was formed; and of such, no doubt, largely consisted the firstfruits of the gospel, in Judea and Galilee, – as we see repeated traces of it in the ministry of Paul, among the far off Gentiles. (Acts xiii, 24, 25; xviii, 25; xix, 3.)

Section LVI. —John did not Immerse

As to the mode of John’s baptism, there are several circumstances which interpose insuperable objections to the supposition that it was by immersion.

1. That form would have been utterly incongruous to John’s office as the herald of the covenant. No rational account can be given of the origin and meaning of such a rite, in that connection. The Levitical law was, in all its ordinances, a testimony to the covenant; and of it John was a minister. But in that law there was but one administered baptism, and that by sprinkling, whilst there were no immersions of persons, whatever. It therefore furnishes no trace of the origin of the supposed form. On the other hand, it certainly did not originate with John. Baptism, – the rite which he administered, was in his day, no novelty among the Jews. The only remaining supposition, if we assume John to have immersed his disciples, is, that it may have been borrowed from the inventions of the scribes. But, in the first place, there is not a trace of evidence nor of probability that such a rite was then included in the ritual of the scribes; – and in the second, it is preposterous to suppose that, in such circumstances and on such a mission, John would have turned his back on the ordinances of God’s law, by which for fifteen centuries the covenant had been sealed, and chosen for the characteristic and seal of his ministry one of those inventions by means of which that law was made void and God’s people led astray. (Mark vii, 6, 8, 13.) This too, when he in the most open and decisive manner set himself in opposition to the inventors of those rites, whom he denounced as a generation of vipers!

2. The meaning of the rite, in supposed connection with John’s ministry, is as inexplicable as its origin. Neither the law nor the Old Testament Scriptures anywhere give a clue to it. John in his ministry is equally silent. Or, rather, his statements are altogether incongruous to the supposed form. – “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” – Matt. iii, 11, 12. Thus, John, announced the Lord Jesus, not in his character of humiliation and death; but in his exaltation and royalty, as he appeared at Sinai, the covenant King of Israel, – as he is now, the enthroned Baptizer, dispensing his Spirit and grace to his people, and pouring out the fire of his justice on his and his Father’s enemies. In such circumstances, and in connection with such a preaching, what meaning could the disciples of John have discovered in the rite of immersion? Respecting it, they ask no questions, and John makes no explanation. If it be supposed to have meant the burial of Christ, this much at least is certain, that the resemblance was not so close as to have been self-evident to the people. And even though understood by them in that sense, it would have been so far aside from the immediate intent and end of John’s ministry, and so defective in its testimony, since it knows nothing of the resurrection, that it would have been calculated to distract and perplex his hearers, rather than to serve the object of his preaching. But John was explicit as to the meaning of his baptism. Whatever its form, it meant – not the burial of the Lord Jesus, but the baptism of the Spirit by him dispensed. “I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.”

3. The great discomfort, and the gross indecency which are inevitably involved in the supposition that John immersed his followers are decisive against it. Neither had John a water-proof suit in which to officiate, nor were his auditors supplied with “immersion robes,” nor change of garments, so needful, now, to obviate the discomfort and danger of the dripping attire. But this, even, is a less consideration than the indecent exposure which the supposed rite would have involved. The garments of the Jews were of two patterns. That next the person was in the form of a sleeveless shirt, descending to the knees. A second garment was of the same shape, but usually of more costly materials, which reached to the ankles. Over all were thrown one or two shawls or blankets, large enough to enwrap the entire person. Beside sandals, which were not ordinarily worn, except by those in easy circumstances, – these were the only articles of apparel. Those of the women were of nearly the same shape; the distinction of sex appearing mainly in the materials and ornaments. When at rest, the garments were left free. But in preparing for labor or for travel, they were drawn up to the knees, and fastened with a girdle at the loins, thus leaving the lower limbs unencumbered. That, with such clothing indecent exposure must have been a constant incident to the extemporaneous and hasty immersions which the Baptist theory requires, is manifest; and the weight of the consideration needs no enforcing.

4. The number resorting to John was such as to preclude the possibility of their having been immersed. When Israel came out of Egypt, they were “about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, beside children; and a mixed multitude went up also with them.” – Ex. xii, 37, 38. When about to enter the promised land, the census was six hundred and one thousand, seven hundred and thirty men, from twenty years old and upward, beside the Levites, who numbered twenty-three thousand males from a month old. (Num. xxvi, 51, 62.) Upon this basis, the whole number of the people was between three and four millions. In the days of David, in the enumeration from which the tribes of Levi and Benjamin were omitted, the number of fighting men was one million five hundred and seventy thousand. If we make a proportional addition for the omitted tribes, it gives a total of one million, eight hundred and fifty-five thousand seven hundred and fifty-four. These would represent a population of seven or eight millions. From two independent statements occurring in Josephus, it appears that the population, just before the destruction of the nation, was at least as much as four million souls.71 If we suppose John to have stood in the water three hours a day, during the six months of his ministry, and to have administered the rite at the rate of one per minute, during the entire time, the total results of such miraculous labors and endurance, would have been about thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty persons baptized, that is, one in every one hundred and twenty-two of the people. Without the intervention of miracle – and John did no miracle – even this was utterly impossible. And yet, how entirely it falls short of the statements of the evangelists, upon any candid interpretation of them, is evident.

That the theory of immersion is encumbered with difficulties of the most serious nature must be evident to every candid reader.

Section LVII. —John Baptized by Sprinkling with unmingled Water

We are now to consider an important feature in the history of this rite, which has not yet been brought into distinct notice. It has appeared how thoroughly the sprinkled baptisms of the Levitical system are identified in their meaning and office with the prophecies concerning the sprinkling of Israel and the nations, and the outpouring of the Spirit, in the days of the Messiah. The point of present interest concerning those prophecies is, that in all the expressions referred to, the figure is that of water alone, – the sacrificial elements never being alluded to in that connection. A coincident fact appears, with relation to John’s ministry. In his own announcement he uses language which seems to be emphatic and exclusive, – “I indeed baptize you with water.” – Matt. iii, 11; Mark i, 8; Luke iii, 16; John i, 26. So, Jesus says, – “John truly baptized with water.” – Acts i, 5. And Peter refers to it in the same terms. (Ib. xi, 16.) This form of expression constantly used, and the antithesis always stated, between his baptism and that of the Holy Spirit, to be administered by the Lord Jesus, render it certain that John baptized with water alone, without any sacrificial elements. A careful examination of the prophecies above referred to and a consideration of the subject matter of John’s preaching, may furnish the explanation of these facts. The Mosaic ritual was constructed with a view to a very full and systematic exposition of the gospel, in the symmetry of its parts and proportions. In the baptisms of that ritual, therefore, provision was made for showing forth, not only the power and grace of the Lord Jesus in the bestowal of the Spirit, but, also, the virtue of his blood, which was the procuring cause of the Spirit’s grace. But that blood is the token of humiliation and sufferings. On the contrary, the theme of the prophecies here referred to is, the exaltation and glory of Christ’s throne, and the conquests of his saving scepter, after the days of humiliation and sorrow shall have been forever ended. This was the distinctive meaning of the water of the Sinai baptisms, and by the figure of the sprinkling or pouring of bare water, the prophets represent the same thing.

So, when John came in the spirit and power of Elias, he did not, indeed, ignore the office of Christ as the atoning Lamb of God. But his distinctive commission, and the controlling function of his ministry was to herald the coming of their covenant King, in his exaltation and power to an apostate and rebellious nation – to warn them of the office which he would fill, and the judgment which he would execute, who should baptize them, not with the Holy Ghost only, but with fire also. As appropriate, therefore, to this, his office and message, he dispensed a baptism of water alone, which spake of authority, power, and royal grace, and omitted that element which signified humiliation and death.

Whilst the rite was thus modified – its nature and significance remained the same. As already indicated, the quantity of ashes used in dispensing the Levitical baptism was so small as to be wholly inappreciable to the senses. The instruction therein conveyed was dependent upon the association of ideas, and not upon the quantity of the elements used. The bestowal of the Spirit by the Lord Jesus, of necessity, presupposes the sacrifice of himself as the condition and price of his exaltation and power, by which the Spirit is sent and salvation bestowed. What the Levitical blood and ashes of sprinkling expressed the baptism of John implied. The two rites thus conveyed the same instruction, and filled the same office. They were essentially one and the same baptism. The latter form anticipated the immediate sending forth of the gospel to the Gentiles, divested of the sacrificial system and the burdens of the ritual law. That they were the same in mode will not be questioned by any who have candidly traced the foregoing line of investigation. With an enumeration of some of the points therein involved, we will close this branch of our subject.

1. Hitherto the Baptist argument has been entrenched in the definition of baptizo. After the same example we now plant ourselves on the ascertained meaning and use of the word, as illustrated in the foregoing pages. We have found it to be the accepted designation for the administered rites of Levitical purifying, which, in all their circumstantial variations, were performed always by sprinkling. The rite dispensed by John was an administered baptism. It was, therefore, administered after the example of the Levitical system, by sprinkling.

2. John was the herald and champion of the covenant, and the messenger of the Lord Jesus as its surety and king. His commission, as announced by Malachi, was, in God’s name, to admonish Israel to “Remember the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments;” – Mal. iv, 4. – “The law of Moses,” – that covenant law by the acceptance of which Israel became the people of God. His ministry derived all its significance from the terms of that covenant, and from the office of its Surety, in purging his floor with the baptisms of the Holy Ghost and of fire. This was the whole theme of his ministry, as it was the whole substance of the prophetic terms of his commission. To seal such a testimony, no rite could have been so appropriate as the perpetuated and familiar form of the Sinai baptism, the original seal of the same covenant, by which its scope and intent were so luminously set forth.

3. John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, in the name of Him whom God was about to exalt “to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” – Acts v, 31. In the Levitical baptism the administrator represented the Lord Jesus in this very function of his grace, and the sprinkled water represented the Holy Spirit shed by him upon his people, by whom that repentance is wrought, and remission conveyed. It was the “purification for sin,” the symbol of remission. It was thus a visible representation to his hearers of the very things which John was commissioned to utter in their ears.

4. At the time of John’s coming, all the thoughts and conceptions of Israel on the subjects involved in his ministry, except as perverted by the traditions of the scribes, had been molded by the Mosaic ritual respecting the purifying of the unclean, and by the testimonies of the prophets, uttered in the language of that ritual. John was sent, not to ignore or obliterate the impress thus made by the instructions and discipline of fifteen centuries, but to confirm and build upon it, to reiterate and seal the same testimonies. To this end, no other rite was appropriate or congruous, but the old familiar baptism by sprinkling, the interpretation of which was so abundant in the prophets, and the meaning of which was known to all Israel.

5. The baptism administered by the Lord Jesus is never known nor alluded to in the Scriptures under any other form than that of affusion. It is the antitype of the ritual sprinklings of the Old Testament, the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the sprinkling of Israel and the nations, the outpouring of the Spirit upon them; and its fulfillment is in the New Testament invariably spoken of in the same style. To symbolize this, John’s baptism must have been by affusion.

6. In the use of this rite, all the difficulties which embarrass the hypothesis of immersion disappear. As, at Sinai, all Israel were baptized at once, so, under John’s preaching the number to be baptized would involve no embarrassment, exposure, or exhaustion. As many as were assembled at one time could be baptized in one group, with the hyssop bush. Thus, no excessive fatigue was involved; no time was consumed in mere manual labor; no danger to the health, nor liability to indecent exposure was incurred. The meaning of the rite was familiar to all, and in its use congruity and symmetry were maintained in every part and relation of John’s ministry.

The view thus presented is not inconsistent with the supposition that many of John’s disciples may have received the rite while standing in the waters of the Jordan. The law requiring the use of running water, the propriety of the one river of Palestine as a type of the river of the heavenly Canaan, and the necessities of the multitudes who waited on his ministry, united in bringing him to the river. And the rite would be performed by the baptist dipping a hyssop-bush into the stream, and therewith sprinkling those who presented themselves around him. That, in these circumstances many of the people would enter the water is beyond question. The suggestion is to be considered in the light of eastern habits and modes of dress. The people were clothed in loose garments, with no covering to the feet except sandals worn by a few. Coming, the most of them, from a distance on the rocky roads of that country, – the feet sore and lacerated, and the climate hot, – no impulse would have been more natural or more congruous to custom, than to step into the water, for the sake of its refreshing coolness. A curious illustration of this occurs in the Phædrus of Plato. He describes Socrates walking in the environs of Athens accompanied by Phædrus: —

Socrates. “Here; let us turn aside to the Illyssus, and, where you prefer, we can recline in quiet.”

Phædrus. “For the occasion, as it seems, I happen to be barefoot, while you are always so. Thus it will be quite convenient for us, wetting our feet in the shallow stream, to walk not without enjoyment, especially at this season of the year and of the day.”72

It is altogether supposable that Philip and the eunuch stepped thus into the water, as the most convenient way of access to it; and it is equally possible that such may have been the case with many of John’s disciples, and that Jesus himself may have been thus baptized. Nor is this a mere fanciful conjecture. Among the remains of Christian art which have been transmitted to us from the third and fourth centuries of our era, there are several representations of the baptism of our Savior, some of them in bronze bas-relief, and some in Mosaic. In them all, John pours water on the head of Jesus. In several, Jesus stands in the Jordan, and John from the bank administers the rite. In others, both are on dry ground. In no instance does John appear in the water. At the date of these representations, immersion is supposed to have been almost universally prevalent in the church. They, therefore, the more forcibly demonstrate the strength and prevalence of the tradition which still survived, representing John to have baptized in the Jordan, by affusion. In them the idea of immersion is doubly excluded, – by the direct representation of the water poured upon the head of Jesus; and by the fact that the invariable position of John, out of the water, renders immersion physically impossible, as administered by him.

Part X.

CHRIST’s$1BAPTISMS AND ANOINTING

Section LVIII. —The Meaning of his Baptism by John

“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee; and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.” – Matt. iii, 13-15.

Several theories have been advanced, and much discussion had as to the nature and intent of the baptism of Jesus by John. Archbishop Thomson,73 supposes it to have been, (1.) That the sacrament by which all were hereafter to be admitted into His kingdom might not want his example to justify its use. (2.) That John might have an assurance that his course as the herald of Christ was now completed by his appearance. (3.) That some token might be given that he was indeed the anointed of God. Dr. Dale thinks that it was a public and official announcement of his entrance upon the work of fulfilling all righteousness. He strenuously denies that Jesus was baptized with the baptism of John. “It is one thing to be baptized by John and quite another to receive the ‘baptism of John.’ The ‘baptism of John’ was for sinners, demanding ‘repentance,’ ‘fruits meet for repentance,’ and promising ‘the remission of sins.’ But the Lord Jesus Christ was not a sinner, could not repent of sin, could not bring forth fruit meet for repentance on account of sin, could not receive the remission of sin. Therefore, the reception of the ‘baptism of John’ by Jesus is impossible, untrue, and absurd.” But this baptism was his inauguration into the office of fulfilling all righteousness. “No one could share in such an inauguration with a fitness comparable with that of the great Forerunner. And to this fitness of relationship, reference is had in the words – ‘Thus it becometh us.’ ‘Thus,’ by baptism, ‘us,’ administered by thee, my Forerunner, to me the Coming One proclaimed by thee; ‘now,’ entering upon my covenant work, which I now declare and am ready to begin, – ‘to fulfill all righteousness.’ Can there be, in view of the persons, the time, and the circumstances, any other satisfactory interpretation of these great words?”74

According to another theory, it is held that as the consecration of Aaron was by baptism, anointing, and sacrifice, so all these were realized in the priestly consecration of Jesus. First, He was baptized by John. Then, the heavens were opened unto Him, and the Spirit of God descended upon Him, and He was thus “anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power.” The sacrifice was not till the end of His earthly ministry, when he offered up Himself.

This latter is perhaps the most commonly received theory on the subject. And yet, a more perplexing and unsatisfactory exposition could hardly be devised. According to it Christ’s consecration to the priesthood was a confused imitation of that of Aaron, was partly ritual without meaning, and partly real, and took place, part of it in the beginning of his public ministry, and part at its close, so that until his very death his priesthood was inchoate and incomplete. Upon this explanation, the baptism of Jesus was a mere unmeaning form, in supposed imitation of something in the consecration of Aaron. But Aaron and his consecration and priesthood were, in every part and aspect of them, figures of the true, – of the realities which are in Christ. Aaron’s anointing is admitted to have been a symbol of the real anointing of the Holy Spirit, shed upon Jesus. The sacrifices offered at the consecration of Aaron, although by this theory misconceived, are so far correctly spoken of as that their fulfillment was had in Christ’s one offering of himself. What then could be meant by Aaron’s so called baptism, if its antitype is to be found in the ritual baptism of the Lord Jesus? One rite representing and setting forth another, which is nothing but a defective imitation of the first!

In fact, the washing of Aaron by Moses was not a sacramental baptism at all – a rite, that is, by which blessings of grace are represented and sealed to the recipient. It was as we have already explained a symbolical act setting forth the endowment of the Lord Jesus by the Father with a sinless humanity.