00B.20 Chapter 13--Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies--No. 5

XIII. "Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies"

No. 5

Editor Swift’s editorials in the Methodist Herald on the subject which is used as a caption to this article are not very well organized. We would have expected less repetition and more systematic and connected argumentation from a paper which is the official organ of six conferences composed of three hundred and eighty-five thousand Methodists, even if we did not expect either truth or sound reasoning. As there is much repetition of points that we have already replied to, we shall not quote in full the editorials that get our atten­tion in this issue of the Gospel Advocate. In each issue of the Herald the editor continues to argue that John the Baptist was a priest and that his baptism was nothing but the sprinkling of the water of purification upon the people which was prescribed by the law of Moses. But we have previously called attention to the fact that the law never did command, prescribe, or even suggest the sprinkling of water alone, unmixed water, upon any person for any purpose. The water of purification of the law was a mixture of blood, ashes, and water. (See Numbers 19:1-22; Hebrews 9:12.) John baptized in the Jordan River—in water, unmixed with anything. In the Herald of July 15 we have these words:

Moses sprinkled with water to cleanse, purify, sanctify, etc. The words "purge," "cleanse," "wash," and "sanctify" are used inter­changeably in the Bible, meaning baptism. The scriptural translation of the word "baptize" in a literal sense means to cleanse ceremonially with water. The writers of the Gospels understood the words "bap­tize" and "purify" to mean the same. The Jewish law for purifying required sprinkling. New Testament writers call Jewish sprinkling baptism. John the Baptist, who was a Jew, understood Jewish cus­toms of cleansing from physical defilement.

"And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer for purification of sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel: and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon him," etc.

Josephus, the most noted Jewish historian, who was born A.D. 38 and died A.D. 100, was well acquainted with the customs of his people, and in his writings ("Antiquities of Jews," book 4, chapter 4), referring to the customs of cleansing from a dead body, says: "Baptizing by this ashes put into spring water, they sprinkle on the third and seventh day."

These paragraphs abound in false assertions and also give us a grossly perverted quotation. Note the false statements.

• Moses never did sprinkle water upon anybody or any­thing for the purpose of cleansing.

• Purging, cleansing, etc., came as a result of the wash­ings or baptizings, but were not themselves the baptizings.

• An editor ought to be able to distinguish between the result or the consequence of an act and the act itself.

• Baptism does not mean to cleanse ceremonially by water, for no one was ever cleansed ceremonially by water. Such cleansing was by blood, ashes, and water. (Hebrews 9:12.)

• No New Testament writer ever called any Jewish sprinkling baptism. After a man under the law had the water of purification sprinkled upon him, he had then to wash his clothes and bathe his body in water. (Numbers 19:16-20.) Paul calls this washing and bathing baptism. (Hebrews 10:22.) That cleansing of the flesh by that sprinkled mixture typified the cleansing of our hearts or consciences by the blood of Christ, and that washing typified our baptism in water. "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil [defiled] conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Hebrews 10:22.)

• The editor miserably misquotes Josephus, as anyone can see who will take the pains to consult that author. (A copy of Josephus can be found in any good library.) He does not say "baptizing by this ashes," etc., but he said bap­tizing or "dipping a part of these ashes into spring water." The priest should then sprinkle this mixture upon the un­clean person. In fact, Josephus says, in English, dipping and not baptizing, and the dipping or baptizing was one thing and the sprinkling was another. The ashes were dipped. That quotation ruins Methodist doctrine.

What will three hundred and eighty-five thousand Methodists think of their editor when they examine this quotation in Josephus? The editor cited the passage. Let them all turn to the place and read. As there is nothing but repetition in the issue of July 22, we pass it by and come to the issue of July 29. We quote from that editorial as follows:

John was a priest in regular order of the same tribe of Levi, Moses, and Aaron. His predecessor, Moses, had baptized a great throng. "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, ... he sprinkled the book and all the people." Read at this juncture 1 Corinthians 10:1-2.

Malachi (Malachi 3:1-3) says that John, the "purifier," would purify (baptize) the sons of Levi. Now read Matthew 3:5-6 : "Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan." It is estimated that he was in the wilderness from nine to eighteen months baptizing this great multitude of from one to six million people. He was the only baptizer. Some say only six months, but we will give the high­est estimate. If he had immersed three hundred a day for eighteen months, there would have been only one hundred sixty-two thousand baptized, with five million eight hundred thirty-eight thousand per­sons left unbaptized. No man ever made could have stood the physical strain of baptizing three hundred every day for eighteen months to reach even that number, one hundred sixty-two thousand.

He would have been paralyzed or dead before he was half through baptizing that many. John, a regular priest, had to follow the law of Moses. Stephen was stoned to death because his enemies said he spoke against the law. (See Acts 6:11.)

John’s manner of baptizing this great multitude made some of the people believe that he was Christ, because this same book of law and prophecy said Christ would "sprinkle many nations." (Isaiah 52:15.) They even sent Jews, priests, and Levites from Jerusalem down there to ask him if he was the Christ. (John 1:19.) "Why bap­tizes! thou then, if thou be not the Christ?" they asked. He an­swered: "I baptize with water.” So did Moses. How? He took "scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people." Here is God’s command to all the priests (Numbers 8:7): "Sprinkle water of purifying upon them." This is what John, the "purifier." did, using, no doubt, the hyssop weed that held a lot of water. It was a command to use this weed. He could sprinkle the multitudes without any trouble with this weed.

"IN JORDAN"

"In Jordan" has no special significance. Jordan is a country. It has three banks. Go down one bank en route from Jerusalem to Jericho and you are "in Jordan," a half mile or more from the water of the Jordan River. This writer went that way. We went down another bank and we were still "in Jordan." One guide said: "We will get up early tomorrow morning and go down in Jordan." He did not mean to even touch the water. "In the river Jordan" has no more significance than the other phrase. The writer washed his hands "in the river Jordan" and "in the Dead Sea," but he did not go under the water. Jesus "sat in the sea." but not under water. The shin was i n the "midst of the sea." but not under water. We live in Tennessee, but not under dirt. "Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ Hill," but not under that great rock. "John did baptize in the wilderness." but not under the ground. Jesus "abode" at the place "where John at first baptized." (John 10:40.) Did Jesus live under water? The little preposition "in" comes from the Greek word ”en” which means "at" and "by" as well as "in." He was baptizing ”in Bethabara beyond Jordan." Bethabara is not a river. "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness." This was not under the ground. A house is not really located on a street, but in the street. Why? O n would mean obstruction to traffic, etc. I n a street means from the original term "at," "by," or "near." This was de­bated and settled—agreed to—by two leading daily papers of America.

INACCURATE STATEMENTS

It is not pleasant to have to point out false statements in the writings of a religious editor, but truth demands it, and we beg our readers to examine carefully all that is said, and we take them to witness that there is no bad spirit in our replies. Look at this:

THAT MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT The editor estimates that there were six million people in Jerusalem and Judea, and he makes the record say that John baptized them all—every individual. (He should never again say that the thief on the cross had not been baptized. Let all Methodist preachers take notice.) He says John could not in nine months’ time have immersed this vast number. He concludes that John, therefore, sprinkled them in great multitudes with a hyssop weed. With that method, how did John avoid throwing water upon the Pharisees and Sadducees whom he refused to baptize? (Matthew 3:7-8.) Mark the fact that the editor estimates that a man could im­merse three hundred in a day. Then the twelve apostles could easily have baptized the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, according to that estimate, made by a Methodist editor, and away goes the favorite Methodist quibble! Again let all Methodist preachers take notice. The editor says: "He (John) was the only baptizer." Yet he was only a Levitical priest, doing that which the law commanded all priests to do, according to the editor! Where were all the other priests? What were all those other priests in Jerusalem and Judea doing at this time? Surely, the readers can see that the editor refutes himself at every turn! As to the editor’s inference that all the people — six million—the whole population—were baptized, it is sufficient to mention again that John refused to baptize some of them. (Matthew 3:7-8.) Also, just a little later Christ came into this same country and began making and "baptizing more dis­ciples than John." (John 4:1-4.) If John had baptized them all, where did Christ find anybody to baptize? More­over, after John had baptized the whole population, accord­ing to the editor, Christ came into the same region baptizing, and "all men" went out to him. (John 3:26.) Of course an intelligent reader will understand that the expressions, "then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about the Jordan" (Matthew 3:5), and "all men come to him" (John 3:26), are figurative statements. They are hyperbolic. Sincere souls will not be confused by this kind of quibbling.

It should be remembered that the editor’s conclusion from this "six-millions" argument is that John baptized this great host by using a hyssop weed and by sprinkling people in wholesale fashion or en masse. But right in the middle of the page where this argument is so triumphantly made the editor displays a picture of John pouring water from a cup upon the head of our Lord.

Thus he proves by a false handling of figures that John sprinkled with a reed, and on the same page he proves by a false picture that John baptized by pouring from a cup! It is now in order for the readers to turn to the Bible and see what it says. The plain statements of God’s word will refute any argument a Methodist can make in favor of sprinkling. IN THE JORDAN The editor says: "Jordan is a country." That may be true, but the record does not say that John baptized "in Jordan" and leave us to guess what Jordan is. It says that people were baptized in the "river of Jordan." (Mark 1:5.) It tells us that John baptized "in water." (Mark 1:8; Matthew 3:11, R. V.) It shows that Jesus was baptized "in Jordan" and then came "up straightway out o f the water." (Mark 1:10; Matthew 3:16.) Of course "straightway" means "im­mediately." The editor refutes the idea that "straightway" means in a perpendicular posture! That provokes us to lapse into slang, and we say: "Atta boy! Knock ’em cold, editor!"

"In Jordan," "down into the water" and "up out of the water," and the like expressions do not necessarily prove that a person has been under the water, and no logical man would make that claim. The Scriptures show clearly that the going "down into the water" and the coming "up out of the water" did not constitute baptism. They went down into the water first. He "baptized him" second. They "came up out of the water" third. The going into water and the com­ing out of water are only circumstances which are used to prove that the act of baptism requires (1) water, (2) a going down into the water, and (3) a coming up out of the water. Sprinkling and pouring do not require such circumstances. Neither sprinkling nor pouring is baptism.