Truth Magazine

By Jefferson David Tant

Introduction

Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mk. 16:16; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-5, etc.), then it behooves me to make sure that my baptism is pleasing to the one who has given the ordinance. I cannot please myself, my family, my church. I can only strive to please the Lord. “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

The Bible teaches also that there is now but one baptism (Eph. 4:5). The religious world now offers eight or more, from immersion in water to the sprinkling of rose petals to baptism in behalf of one’s dead ancestors. Therefore, a decision and choice needs to be made concerning this.

Other factors that have a bearing include not only mode of baptism, but also the purpose, the proper subjects, as well as the element in which baptism takes place. These need to be considered, but the purpose of this study is an inquiry into the manner or mode of baptism, whether it shall be by immersion in water, or by other means.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the scholars, historians and others quoted herein are those who practice the sprinkling or pouring of water for baptism. I have purposely sought out no author (though there are thousands of reputable men) who practices immersion. The reason for this is that the understanding of those who practice sprinkling or pouring might effectively contradict their own practices. In other words, their understanding of what the Scriptures teach shows the inconsistency of their practice. Furthermore, their words in support of immersion cannot be dismissed as the words of those who may be prejudiced by some church doctrine, or whatever, in favor of the practice of immersion.

This study is offered with the sincere desire that it may help us to a more perfect understanding of the Will of God.

The Testimony of the Biblical Context

John came, who baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins (Mk. 1:4-5).

Note 1: They came to the Jordan River. Such would hardly have been necessary if the baptism were done by sprinkling or pouring. It would have been an inconvenience wholly without reason.

Note 2: The text says they were baptized of John in the river Jordan. It does not say at, but in.

Jesus . . . was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water. . . (Mk. 1:9-10).

Note: If he came up out of the water, it is obvious that he first went down into the water. Why did he do this, unless the practice was immersion?

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came, and were baptized (Jn. 3:23).

Note: If the Scripture is not referring to immersion, then why the necessity of much water? Wouldn’t a few drops of water do just as well? It says he was baptizing there because there was much water. The presence of the much water was not incidental or accidental.

And he (eunuch) commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip (Acts 8:38-39).

Note: It is obvious that immersion is implied in this passage, considering the going down into and the coming up out of the water.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name (Acts 22:16).

Note: Here the washing of the flesh symbolizes the washing of the soul. Which best represents the washing of the flesh -immersion, sprinkling or pouring?

We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).

Note 1: Which best represents a burial – sprinkling, pouring, dropping of rose petals, or immersion?

Note 2: Which best represents a resurrection – having water sprinkled on the head, or coming up from an immersion in water?

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ (Gal. 3:27).

Note: In the figure given, we clothe ourselves with Christ, putting him on, as we would a garment. Since this is done in baptism, which best represents the surrounding of ourselves with Christ – putting him on – immersion, sprinkling or pouring?

One Lord, one faith, one baptism . . . (Eph. 4:5).

Note: If there is only one baptism now, which shall we choose of the three that are most popularly offered -immersion, sprinkling or pouring?

Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him the dead (Col. 2:12).

Note: See comments on Romans 6:4.

The Testimony of the Greek Lexicons, Dictionaries, Etc.

Baptizo: 1. to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge. . . 2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water. . . 3. to overwhelm. . . (Grimm’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated, Revised and Enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., a standard reference work recognized both in Europe and America to be an outstanding work).

Baptizo: to dip, immerse, sink; 1. to overwhelm. . . 2. to perform ablutions, wash oneself, bathe. . . 3. Of ablution, immersion, as a religious rite, to baptize. . . (A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, G. Abbott-Smith, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.).

Baptizo: to dip, immerse, or plunge in water (Parkhurst).

Baptizo: to immerse, to sink (Robinson).

Baptizo: to dip repeatedly (Liddell and Scott).

Baptisma: 3. of Christian baptism; this, according to the view of the apostles, is a rite of a sacred immersion, commanded by Christ, by which men confessing their sins and professing their faith in Christ are born again by the Holy Spirit into a new life, come into the fellowship of Christ and the church (I Co. xii. 13), and are made partakers of eternal salvation (Grimm’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, op. cit.).

Comment: Of literally scores of such authoritative works, Greek dictionaries, lexicons, etc., I have never heard of even one that defines baptizo (baptize) or baptisma (baptism) as sprinkling or pouring. Indeed, there are other words in the Greek language that denote these actions. The word rantizo means “to sprinkle,” and the words cheo and ballo may be translated as “to pour,” but these words are never used in reference to baptism in water in the New Testament.

It is of more than passing interest to note that in Luke 16:24, the rich man asked if Lazarus might “dip the tip of his finger in water.” The word “dip” there is translated from the Greek bapto, the root form from which we get “baptize.” Would one be led to think that the rich man simply asked for Lazarus to sprinkle some water on his finger, or for Lazarus to immerse the end portion of his finger in water, that it might give some relief to the parched mouth of the rich man? I think that latter would be obvious, and so did the translators.

The Testimony of the Encyclopedias

“Baptism: . . . When in the ceremony the candidate for baptism is submerged under the water, he is thereby buried with Christ and dies with him; i.e., this submersion in water is for the Apostles, not merely a symbol of purification, nor only a symbol of being buried, but a real act of wonderful effect. The candidate for baptism experiences actually and genuinely the death of Jesus in his own body, and is likewise actually laid in the grave, as Jesus lay in the grave. . . When he emerges again from the water, the resurrection of Christ becomes his” (Encyclopedia Britannica, “Baptism”).

“Baptistery: . . . The round church of Santa Costanza, in Rome, built, probably, as a tomb for the daughter of Constantine, was also used, in early times, as a baptistery. Following this tradition, baptisteries, throughout the early Church, were separate buildings, circular or polygonal in plan, up to the 9th or 10th century. When the change from immersion to sprinkling as the method of baptism rendered large baptisteries unnecessary, the baptistery became a mere chapel within a church. ( Encyclopedia Britannica, “Baptistery”).

“Baptism – that is, dipping, immersion, from the Greek word baptizo” (Encyclopedia Americana, “Baptism”).

“The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: Pope Stephen 11, being driven from Rome by Adolphus, King of Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short time before, had usurped the crown of France.

“While he remained there the Monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him whether, in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of the infant would be lawful.

“Stephen replied that it would, yet pouring and sprinkling were not allowed except in cases of necessity.

“It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent.

“In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practiced, in ordinary cases, till after the Reformation – about the middle of the 16th century.

“From Scotland it made its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the Established Church” (Edinburg Encyclopedia, “Baptism”).

Comment: The Encyclopedias note the original practice of immersion. Please keep in mind that the ordinance authorizing the change was granted by the Pope in Rome, not Jesus Christ.

A little known fact of history (yet documented) is that the Church of England (1534), the Presbyterian (c. 1540) and the Congregational church (soon after) all practiced immersion for about 100 years, or until the Wesminster assembly in 1643. At that time, a number of bishops, seeing how much more convenient sprinkling was, came before parliament, insisting that “the devil of immersion ought to be legislated out of the realm, it is so troublesome.”

“The Westminster assembly convened July 1, 1643. Very naturally the question was brought before this august body of divines, ‘shall we continue the practice of immersion, or shall we adopt sprinkling instead?’ When it came to a vote, twenty-four voted to continue the ancient and apostolic practice, and twenty-four voted in favor of sprinkling. Dr. Lightfoot was chairman, and it was his duty to give the deciding vote. He cast his vote in favor of sprinkling” (Edinburg Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 236).

In 1644 parliament acted upon this, repealing laws enjoining immersion, enacting, in their place, laws enjoining sprinkling. Those who were not sprinkled were to be treated as outlaws.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 112-114
February 15, 1990

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: Does 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 apply to physical fitness, in that we should exercise regularly and eat healthy foods?

Reply: Each passage should be understood in the relation to its actual language and the context in which it appears. The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). Then follows in the text a listing of numerous different kinds of sinners: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. Some of the Corinthians had been guilty of such sins. However, they had been washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11).

Then the apostle draws an analogy. Foods (meats) are made for the alimentary canal (belly) and the latter is designed for ingestion of foods. Both the foods and the alimentary canal are designed to enable the digestive process to occur properly so as to make continuation of life and health possible. But both are perishable and will decay as God planned it. In a like manner, the body was not designed for fornication. It was for the Lord that the body was designed and the Lord came to redeem the body from its corruption (1 Cor. 6:13-14).

It is then pointed out that those who have been washed, sanctified, and justified are members of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15). To join one’s self to a harlot in the sin of fornication is, therefore, completely inconsistent for “shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid” (1 Cor. 6:15). The reason for this is that one who is joined to a harlot is one body, “for two, saith he, shall be one flesh” (1 Cor. 6:16). Sexual union is that which makes them one body or one flesh as Genesis 2:24 says. However, the person that is joined to the Lord is one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). It follows, therefore, that one who is Christ’s must flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18).

Every sin except the sin of fornication is without the identification of body as one flesh (1 Cor. 6:18). Therefore, the person who commits fornication sins against the body, that is against the entire purpose and design of the body that is the house of the spirit that is one with the Lord. Since we know that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in us and whom we have of God and we are not our own, having been bought with a price, we are to glorify God in our bodies and our spirits that belong to God (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Glorify means to extol, magnify, or praise. In this context, the idea is to have the body extol the virtues of God. It cannot do this joined to a harlot. What one permits his body to do should morally and spiritually be consistent with the character and nature of God. In this particular passage, physical exercise and the eating of health giving foods is not under consideration. The sin of gluttony would be included. Certainly, the body should be cared for because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Exercise is good for the body and profits a little (1 Tim. 4:8). Godliness is the important issue and this is what is under consideration in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20. Godliness is that which shows in one’s acts respect for the law of God.

Question: Is over eating a sin? How much is too much (gluttony)?

Reply: A study of the two words used in the Greek text of the New Testament will help us to understand what gluttony is and, therefore, assist in the answering of these two questions. Gaster, according to Joseph Henry Thayer in his lexicon, has two basic meanings in the New Testament: uterus or the womb and the stomach. In the latter sense, “by synecdoche a glutton, gormandizer, a man who is as it were all stomach. . . Ti. 1: 12. ” This passage is the only time it is used in this sense. The passage literally says Cretans are idle bellies or as some translations put it “slow bellies.” The idea is that in their idleness they spend their time filling their stomachs. Phagos means, according to Thayer, a voracious man, a glutton. The word is used twice in the New Testament (Matt. 11: 19; Lk. 7:34). Jesus said they who opposed him charged him with being gluttonous. He was not, of course.

Is gluttony a sin? Yes, the uses of the words to designate it in the New Testament are in the context of its being a sin. How much over eating is too much (gluttony)? One cannot answer this question with finite terms of ounces of either solid or fluid food. Further, the size and physical condition of the person eating would also affect how much is too much. When one is insatiable in appetite or consumes food to the discomfort of the body by distending the stomach, the point of gluttony has been reached. If one eats to maintain proper weight without adding tat and without discomfort, one eats in moderation. If this is the disposition and intention, the point of gluttony will not be reached.

Question: Here is another question related to the life of Paul. “I am quoting from a religious magazine I receive each month. ‘Paul was chosen to preach; he could not be unfaithful to the heavenly vision’ (Acts 26:29). ” Does this mean Paul had no choice to obey or not. “He did say, ‘Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.'”

Reply: Acts 26:19 is a part of a straightforward narrative account which is made up principally of declarative statements of fact. The passage in point is one of these: “Whereupon O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” Disobedient in this passage is from apeitho, which means to be not persuaded. He was persuaded by what he saw and heard to the point that he was convinced that Jesus Christ indeed spoke to him. Being thus persuaded that Jesus was the Messiah, he obeyed what he told him to do.

The issue of whether he could or could not make a choice is not the point of the passage; he is simply stating what he decided or chose to do. Surely, he could have rebelled. But being convinced that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, it would have been completely inconsistent for him to have disobeyed. Therefore, he did not. In this context, one might make the statement, “he could not be unfaithful to the heavenly vision.” Could not in this context would mean that it would be totally inconsistent to disobey the Lord, having been convinced that he in fact was the Messiah. In this sense, he could not disobey consistent with his conviction.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 133-134
March 1, 1990

By Robert Hudson

I ask you to think for a moment on this question: What is your passion? What are you passionate about? This very question is one that would often be misunderstood, one that would very often only be considered from an illicit sexual standpoint. This is an injustice to a very strong and thought provoking word. The word can be defined in many ways and the most common is that which we will examine in this article. Webster states that passion “usually implies a strong emotion that has an overpowering or compelling effect.”

With this in mind let us again ask ourselves what has this strong effect in our lives, our thoughts, our direction in life? Is it God? Well it should be; nothing should change us more than the influence of God in our lives. How many of us can see the impact of God in the lives of those around us? We need to feel this impact so strongly in ourselves, in our day to day living that there is no doubt or question when we proclaim that our God and his word is our passion.

In Philippians 3:8 Paul writes, “I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.” The words of the apostle here are most applicable to our train of thought; he had changed what meant the most to him, thereby he changed his passion. He was no longer driven by that which once had been his motivation, in fact he had laid that down, left it behind, and viewed it as worthless and even as trash which he had no desire or use for.

This concept of changing our passion or finding a new motivation is one that is developed throughout the ministry of Christ and continued in each of the books of the new covenant. Peter clearly informs us that we must change in 1 Peter 2:1-2, “Therefore laying aside all malice, all guile, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word that you may grow thereby.” We recognize that the evil works listed by Peter all have tremendous motivational powers. It is not unusual at all to see someone whose passion is that of envy, and that envy takes over all direction and guidance of his life until he ends up warped and twisted shells of the person that he once was. The apostle tells us to change what is directing us; in essence he says, “Turn from passions of evil to passions of righteousness.”

We often refer to patriots or martyrs as men of passion. Why? Because their conviction is so strong that they are willing to die for the cause. They demonstrate a high level of visibility concerning what they believe in, what they stand for. This is viewed as an honorable trait, and we need to develop this same degree of intensity in order to be pleasing to, and effective for our Savior and God. I guess the whole point here comes down to one rather simple question, how much does God mean to you? As easy a question that this is to ask, it’s much more difficult to honestly answer. Are we passionate about our service to Christ?

One of the most dramatic illustrations of passionate service and dedication to God is found in the death of the Judge over Israel, the man of God Eli. This is recorded in 1 Samuel 4:12-18; for reasons of space I shall set the context for you. The children of Israel had just lost a major battle to the Philistines, the army had fled, many people had been killed and the ark of God had been stoken by the enemy. Eli, who was 98, heard all of this from a young man who had escaped. Not only did this young man bear this news of great defeat and destruction, he also informed Eli that two of his own sons had died in this battle. Let us notice what Eli’s reaction was to all this. “Now it happened, when he made mention of the ark of God, that Eli fell off the seat backward by the side of the gate; and his neck was broken and he died, for the man was old and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years” (1 Sam. 4:18). What news had the most impact on Eli? Find that and we find his passion. It wasn’t the fact that the army had fled, or that many had died. Yes, these hurt him; his own children had been killed and he would see them no more. What hit this man of God the hardest was that the ark of God had been taken by an ungodly people. He cared about all of these other things, but he cared most about God. God was his passion.

Eli is not the only example of a passionate servant that we find in the Scriptures. Time after time we see men and women who were willing to die for, and most importantly, live for their Father and God. The question that needs to be addressed at this time is where did their godly zeal and passion come from? The writer of the Hebrews letter after discussing many of these impassioned men says, “all these obtained a good testimony through faith.” All spiritual direction and guidance, all righteous motivation, all godly passion must be grounded in faith. After all how can one truly be devoted and given to that which does not have his total trust and conviction? With faith comes a degree of passion and, as that faith grows, passion grows with it.

Our passion for God is predicated by our level of knowledge. We have all heard of a vicious circle, some set of unfortunate events that demand all the strength that only God could supply. What made Jesus rise up and walk to a quiet place to talk to God? The same thing that will make you get up earlier, or stay up later, or watch one less TV program so that you may pray to your Heavenly Father, a true passion for God.

Intensity and depth, love and devotion, strength and discipline, these are the elements that form the passion for God that all of us must have in order to please God, to serve him, and to bring others to him. Passion is such a misunderstood and yet powerful word; does it dwell in your heart as far as your God and Savior is concerned?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 117, 120
February 15, 1990

By Donald P. Ames

Looking back into the Old Testament, one can see many appropriate lessons that are still needed today. We can see many things God did not like about the Jews that we are warned to beware of today (see 1 Cor. 10). We can also see some things that they did that pleased God – and we ought to take into consideration today. Such is the case as one looks at Numbers 9.

God Planned His Worship

God did not leave men free to select what pleased them in regards to worship. From the time of delivery from Egyptian bondage, God spelled out to the children of Israel exactly what he expected of them. The Passover was certainly a typical example. It was to be observed on the 14th day of the first month each year after their delivery. God did not want them to forget the great things he had done for them. He wanted them to show their appreciation. He also wanted them to observe certain rules and regulations in the observance of this feast. “You shall keep it at its appointed time. According to all its rites and ceremonies you shall keep it” (Num. 9:3).

Today, God has not left us free to select whatever form of worship we might choose to engage in either. True, we are not under the Old Testament (Rom. 7:14; Col. 2:14; etc.); but God has still let his will be known. He has selected the time (i.e., the first day of the week – Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1-2), and specified details (the Lord’s Supper, singing, freewill contributions, etc.). If he was so specific in the O.T. for that which was a mere “shadow of things to come” (Heb. 10:1), should we expect him to be unconcerned and non-specific for the actual body in the N.T.?

But Some Could Not

Reading on in Numbers 9, we find some men were unable to keep the Passover. They had been defiled by the dead body of man (9:8). These men were upset, and came to Moses to request a hearing. They wanted to know why they could not be allowed to keep the Passover also. To Moses’ credit, he did not take the action upon himself, but inquired of the Lord. God then made arrangements for these men to be able to partake of the Passover upon the 14th day of the second month, “according to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it” (9:12).

Somehow we have lost that zeal and devotion to the Lord in many areas today. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people actually got upset because they were traveling, had the wrong address, and really felt bad because they arrived to find the assembly had dissolved and everyone had gone home? Do you suppose they would call someone up and protest that they had tried, and still want to worship – though late? If the weather hindered some, would they insist worship start over so they could get the full benefit? Would they protest being unable to lay by in store, as God had prospered them? Would they even be too upset about coming in late? Or missing class study?

Fortunately, like those in Numbers 9, frequently we do have another opportunity to worship if we are unable to make the AM (or PM) services. But that is not the point I am making. The same points could be made for the PM services. If we were traveling, made the AM worship, but due to a misunderstanding, missed PM services, would we be upset, or write it off as, “Oh well, at least we got to go this morning”?

These men were upset. True, they had a valid reason for not being able to be present. But that is not what concerned them. They wanted to observe the Passover. They could not avoid being “unclean” but that did not mean that they didn’t care. Like those of Macedonia, they “first gave themselves to the Lord” (2 Cor. 8:5). That worship meant something to them! When we really reflect on all God has given us and the encouragement worship is designed to provide (Heb. 10:24), we ought to want to be there. Children should be taught that they “get to” worship, not just that they “have” to. We have indeed lost sight of an important principle here.

Some Did Not Care

Perhaps the third group mentioned here in Numbers 9 can help us understand more how God feels about his worship. Some of the Jews absent from the Passover worship were absent because they just did not care. They didn’t want to be bothered, had other things to do, preferred to sleep in or “go fishing” instead. Maybe they didn’t want to have to get the sacrifices ready (“too much bother”), or even were too greedy to be willing to give up a lamb for sacrifice. Maybe they felt “God is too good to punish us” or that the memorial was now obsolete. For whatever reason, they failed to put their presence. What did God think of it? “But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off from among his people, because he did not bring the offering of the Lord at its appointed time” (9:13).

How do you think God views such indifference today? When he sent his only begotten Son to die on the cross for our sins, shed his blood that he might purchase us (Acts 20:28), set up the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of his sacrifice – and we don’t even care enough to observe it? When he has richly blessed us all week, yet we are often so greedy with our possessions we resent having to give a portion of it back to the Lord? When we refuse to gather together to raise our voices in praise to God in song for all his majesty and loving care? When we are so jealous of “our time” that we just can not afford to take a minute portion of it out on the Lord’s day to attend worship? When we could care less if others who are weak might be in need of our great “strength” and “wisdom”? Or when we decide the N.T. instructions don’t even apply to us and therefore we don’t have to be “bothered” with them, or doing them as frequently as the N.T. says? Do you think he will ignore the same attitude by those on vacation or traveling who think their “time schedules” are more important than the memorial of his Son (remember: frequently in the O.T., not only was the day, but the place was also specified, requiring many to travel several days to get there for the annual worship days)?

In the Old Testament, God said, “Cut them off” from among the people. That was only for a physical deliverance one time from the bondage in Egypt, but Christ shed his blood that we could be delivered from eternal bondage, and is ever interceding before God’s throne in our behalf! I wonder just how much God really cares about our attitudes? How disappointed does he get with us? What do you think he’ll say about it in the Judgment?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 115, 119-120
February 15, 1990