00B.21 Chapter 14--Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies--No. 6

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

No. 6 In the Methodis tHerald of August 5, the editor uses as the subtitle for his article these words: "Baptism of Jesus in Jordan." He tries to tell us why Jesus was baptized. Here is the way he gets at it:

How and why Jesus was baptized is one of the most puzzling questions to many people found in the Bible. John baptized unto repentance, and water baptism was a sign that the people had re­pented and were prepared in their hearts for the reception of Jesus.

Jesus had no sin and did not need to repent, neither did he need the sign of repentance—water baptism. Then, again, John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. It was not so accepted by Paul. He asked the believers at Ephesus, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" They answered, "John’s baptism," and all were baptized again. Jesus was not baptized for our example because he did not apply for baptism until all the people had been baptized. (See Luke 3:21.) And besides, he was thirty years of age at the time of this scene. He would not have us wait until that age to be baptized. Then why was Jesus baptized? He was not baptized in the sense that we are baptized today. Therefore, we have confused the meaning of this scene at the Jordan River. Here is the explanation: he was dedi­cated to his priestly office as the High Priest of God. When Jewish priests were dedicated, water was poured upon their heads and they were anointed with oil. The Son of God had water poured or sprinkled upon his head by John as a sign or preparatory step for the anointing of the Holy Ghost. God anointed him with the Holy Ghost. This scene at the Jordan would not have taken place had it not been that Christ was fulfilling the law found in Numbers 4:3 : "From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work of the tabernacle of the congregation." See, also, 1 Chronicles 23:3.

REMARKS

If the baptism which John was administering to the people was simply the rite by which priests were initiated into office, then it follows that all who were baptized by John were thereby inducted into the priestly office and duly qualified to serve in the sanctuary. And the editor has argued that John baptized the whole population—six million, all told; therefore, the whole population was turned into priests. If the editor will not accept the conclusion of his own reasoning, how will he distinguish between the baptism which John administered to Christ and that which he ad­ministered to others? And what authority does he have for making any such distinction? If all whom John baptized were not thereby made priests, how will he limit the num­ber, and how many priests will he allow? He dare not limit the number to the tribe of Levi, for this would leave Jesus out.

We have shown that Christ was of the tribe of Judah and could not, therefore, be a priest on earth. (Hebrews 8:4; Hebrews 7:14.) He was or is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Aaron. He was not made a priest by the law—which the editor says John was fulfilling—but by an oath which was since the law. (Hebrews 7:28.) The law which the editor says Christ complied with at his baptism required a ceremony which lasted seven days, and lambs and calves were offered each day. This did not happen in Christ’s case. But in all that ceremony the sub­ject did not have water —simple water—poured or sprinkled upon him. We read all about this ceremony in the eighth chapter of Numbers. There was nothing similar to it at Christ’s baptism.

Jesus was baptized to "fulfil all righteousness," or to do all that was right; to obey all of God’s commands. John’s baptism was from heaven. It was authorized of God. "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." (John 1:6.) "He that sent me to baptize in water" (John 1:33) is the way John referred to his own commission. Our Savior was manifested as the Son of God at his baptism. That is one of the reasons why John baptized and is a reason why Christ was baptized. (John 1:31.) But our editor is a genius at making out analogies and at leaving out sense and jingling sounds in Bible terminol­ogy. Read the following:

Why did he stand in the river Jordan for John to baptize him? Read Joshua 3:8 : "And thou shalt command the priests that bear the ark of the covenant, saying, When ye are come to the brink of the water of Jordan, ye shall stand still in Jordan." Christ bore the ark of God’s covenant with man. Joshua 3:17 says: "And the priests that bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord stood Arm on dry ground in the midst of Jordan." They did not have to go under the water to be "in the midst of Jordan." The picture you see here portrays the truth of the Bible, and the people of Bible lands have preserved this truth. The allusion here is to the crossing of the children of Israel into the promised land when God cut the river off and caused the headwaters to stand up in a heap. Then the priests who bore the ark stood in the midst of the river bed till all the people had passed over. This was done to assure the people that the waters would not break upon them. But what analogy, similarity, or likeness is there between this and Christ’s baptism? Just none a t all. Christ was not a priest, or of the priestly tribe, and if he had even touched the ark he would have been guilty of a capital offense, according to the law. But the editor showed that the priests stood in the "midst of Jordan" and yet were on dry ground, and what is to hinder the reader from infer­ring that Christ was on dry ground when he was baptized "in Jordan" and "came up out of the water"? If the editor did not desire his readers to draw that conclusion, what was his purpose here?

We shall give attention to that picture next week. The following is the entire editorial in the Herald of August 12. Read it carefully:

JESUS "WENT UP STRAIGHTWAY OUT OF THE WATER"

It is surprising to know how many people are so unlearned that they do not know that "straightway" means immediately and not straight up—perpendicular. It is shocking to hear people use this word to try to prove that Christ went straight up out from under the water, while it only means that as soon as the dedication was over he came away from the scene.

He "went up straightway out of the water" after the ceremony was performed. The two little words "out of" in Matthew 3:16 are from the Greek word "apo," and every Greek scholar we have read after translates it "from" or "away from." The translators of the English Bible translate it, three hundred seventy-two or three times, "from" in other Bible phrases. Alexander Campbell translates this word "from" instead of "out of" in his New Testament. The American Bible Union of Baptist persuasion did the same thing. Greek scholars say that "out of" in Matthew 3:16 is an incorrect transla­tion and should have been "from." The Revised Version renders it "from." Doctor Carson, who was one of the strongest immersionists in latter times, says: "The proper translation of ’apo’ is ’from.’    ’He came up from the water.’ " (See "Carson on Baptism," pages 126­140.) The simple statement should be that Jesus, when he was dedicated to his priestly office as God’s High Priest, came immedi­ately away from the water. In Luke 4:1 we read: "Jesus returned from Jordan." The word "apo" is translated hundreds of times in the New Testament in phrases like, "Let this cup pass from me," "Depart from me," etc.

"MUCH WATER"

Great play is made upon these two words by immersionists. (John 3:23.) JJ non is a land of springs. You can turn to any good Bible dictionary and you will find that the word " Jnon" means "springs," and the word "much" is from a Greek word meaning "many"—Jnon, a land of many springs. The law required that water for baptizing should be taken from a running stream. J non easily met the requirements for John to baptize. Ask someone to name a river in J non, and see how hard a job he will have. It is interesting to hear the play on these two words by some immersion- ists, and yet the explanation is so simple—J non means "springs," and "much" is from a Greek word always meaning "many." John, a priest under the law of Moses that required sprinkling and pouring as a purifying sign, who never heard of anyone being immersed, was over in J non, where there were "many" "springs" sprinkling water upon the people, a sign of Christ, who would sprinkle "many nations" with his blood.

What a pity that people, through the wrong mode of baptism, have had their minds turned away from the blood of Christ, the one essential thing that God and Christ were trying to point us to through outward signs!

"STRAIGHTWAY" The point the editor refutes on the word "straightway" is new. We never heard that one. But for once the editor scored a point. We congratulate him! He is right— "straightway" means "immediately."

"apo’—from

We are told that when the record says that Christ came up out o f the water it simply means that he came up from the water. The Greek word "apo." which is translated "out of" in the King James Version of Matthew 3:16, means "from." All scholars will admit this. From that word alone, therefore, we cannot determine whether or not Christ had been in the water or only near it. The editor could not say that "from the water" means that he had not been in it. And he has already admitted that Christ stood "in the river Jordan for John to baptize him." What has he gained by the expression "from the water"? The editor quoted both Matthew and Luke on this ex­pression, but did not refer to Mark! Do our readers know why he slighted Mark? Will someone venture a guess? Well, everyone can form his own opinion, but here is a fact: Mark says "coming up straightway out of the water," just as Matthew does; but Mark did not use "apo." (Mark 1:10.) He used "ek" and that word always means "out" or "out of." Therefore, Christ did "come up out of the water" after his baptism, and our editor’s dissertation on "apo" helps his case not one whit.

"MUCH WATER" The word "^non" does mean "springs" and the word for "much" does mean "many," but this word does not modify "^non." It modifies "water" or "waters" (plural in the Greek). The verse might be translated: "And John also was baptizing in Mno n near to Salim, because there were many waters there." But whose cause does that rendering help? As an appropriate reply to all the editor says on this point, let us read what Dr. Adam Clarke, the justly re­nowned Methodist commentator, says on this passage. The following is taken from his Commentary. The editor says John had never heard of an immersion, but Dr. Clarke says it was a custom of the Jews to "plunge themselves under the water." But here is Clarke’s language:

There was much water. And this was equally necessary, where such multitudes were baptized, whether the ceremony was per­formed either by dipping or sprinkling. But as the Jewish custom required the persons to stand in the water, and having been instructed, and entered into a covenant to renounce all idolatry, and take the God of Israel for their God, then plunge themselves under the water, it is probable that the rite was thus performed at &non. The consideration that they dipped themselves tends to remove the difficulty expressed in the note on Matthew 3:6. See the observations at the end of Mark. (Comments on John 3:23.) In the comments at the end of Mark, Dr. Clarke quotes this language from Dr. Lightfoot: That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons and the baptism of proselytes was) seems to appear from those things which are related to him—namely, that he baptized in Jordan; that he baptized in &non , because there was much water there; and that Christ being baptized came up out of the water, to which that seems to be parallel (Acts 8:38), Philip and the eunuch wentdown into the water.

Therefore that picture does not represent John’s baptism correctly, according to these scholars. Both Dr. Clarke and Dr. Lightfoot were affusionists, but they were scholars and honest men. They ruin Editor Swift’s arguments.

We shall see the picture next week.