Rev. Ronald Hanko
Rev. Hanko is a minister in the
Protestant Reformed Churches in America and has authored a number of books,
including (among others) the following: Doctrine According to
Godliness: A Primer on Reformed Doctrine (2004), The Coming of Zion’s
Redeemer: Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (2015).
He was also the joint author of Saved by Grace: A Study of
the Five Points of Calvinism (1995) and its
accompanying study guide (all of which can be purchased at http://www.cprc.co.uk and http://www.rfpa.org).
*
*
*
*
* *
[Previous section: “Acts 19:1-6 and Rebaptism”]
There are a few other passages we must look at that bear on the question of
the mode of baptism. They are John 3:23,
Acts 2:41 and 4:4, and Acts 9:17-18 and 22:12-16.
John 3:23
The passage in the KJV reads:
And John also was baptizing
in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and
were baptized.
Baptists like this verse because of the
translation of the KJV, which refers to “much water” at Aenon where John was
baptizing. The need for much water
implies, so it is thought, baptism by immersion, since very little water is
needed for sprinkling or pouring, though it must be admitted that even if that
is true it is only an inference and not directly stated.
However, the word translated “much” in the KJV can
also be translated “many,” and is more often translated that way in the New
Testament. It is translated “much”
around 75 times and nearly 190 times as “many.”[1] Translated that way, the verse would read:
“And John also was baptizing in Aenon, near to Salim, because there were many waters there.” Grammatically, this is the better translation,
since the word waters and the verb are plural, not singular—that is,
even if one uses the translation “much,” the passage speaks literally of “much
waters.”
Since this was the reason for John’s baptizing
in Aenon, the question must be asked and answered, “Why were ‘many waters’
necessary in order to baptize the people that came to him?” A mere abundance of water does not answer
this question, since there was no more water at Aenon than anywhere else along
the Jordan—i.e., if John only needed enough water to immerse people, he could
have found that anywhere along the Jordan.
The answer is to be found in the name of the
place. Aenon means “springs” or “fountains,” and in Leviticus 14:5-6, 51-52 and
15:13 (cf. also Num. 19:17), we learn that at least some of the Old Testament
washings were being done with clean
running water. In each of these
passages, the word translated “running” is actually the word “living” and
refers to fresh water, which was a picture in the Old Testament of the
Holy Spirit:
In the last day, that great
day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried saying, If any man thirst, let him come
unto me and drink. He that believeth on
me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water. (But this spake he of the Spirit,
which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet
given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:37-39)
Notice what the Old Testament passages say:
And the priest shall command
that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running [i.e., “living”—RH]
water: As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the
scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of
the bird that was killed over the running [i.e., “living”—RH] water. (Lev. 14:5-6)
And he shall take the cedar
wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the
blood of the slain bird, and in the running [i.e., “living”—RH] water, and
sprinkle the house seven times: And he shall cleanse the house with the blood
of the bird, and with the running [i.e., “living”—RH] water, and with the
living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the
scarlet. (Lev. 14:51-52)
And when he that hath an
issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for
his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running [i.e., “living”—RH]
water, and shall be clean. (Lev. 15:13)
Adams sums the matter up very neatly with a
quote from another writer:
To think that John would
leave the Jordan river (the largest source of water supply in Palestine) for
any other area in order to find more water is, upon reflection, unthinkable. But it is interesting to ask why John did
leave Jordan at this time. Christy
proposes the following idea, “The thought that was no doubt in the mind of John
leading to this change of location was the contrast of the cool clear water of
these ‘many springs’ with the foul, muddy flood of the Jordan ‘overflowing all
its banks,’ as it usually did at this season of the year (Joshua 3:15), and
then the insistent requirement of the law, that he should use clean water for
baptism, altogether render it easy to account for his presence at this
time. Here again, simply the use of the
right translation is sufficient to remove all the difficulty. John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim,
because there was much water or many springs there, as there are at this time,
and that is all there is of it. It
really proves nothing either way, except perhaps, that John was endeavoring to
comply with the law, which, as he know said that “he should sprinkle them with
clean water.”[2]
It was not, therefore, the quantity of
water which mattered, but the fact that it was living or running water—not
stagnant or polluted water. That kind of
water John found both in the Jordan, when he baptized there, and later in the
springs of Aenon which still exist today.
There is no proof in the passage for immersion.
Acts 2:41 and 4:4
Then they that gladly
received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them
about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)
Howbeit many of them which
heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
(Acts 4:4)
These passages from Acts make reference to the
baptisms that were carried out on Pentecost and subsequently when great numbers
of people were baptized by the Apostles.
These baptisms were carried out at Jerusalem and those who deny baptism
by immersion have long pointed out, though Baptists have seldom listened, that there
are no rivers in or near Jerusalem and that the only available water
supplies that could have been used for baptizing these thousands (three
thousand on Pentecost, and [1] another
five thousand a little later) were pools, such as the pool of Bethesda or the
pool of Siloam (John 5:2; 9:7).
These pools were the cities’ drinking water
supply as well as the source of water for every other purpose. It is unlikely that there was enough water in
these pools to baptize as many people as were baptized on these occasions, and
even more unlikely that the authorities, who were hostile to the early church,
would have permitted the use of the city’s water for this purpose.
[Note: Commentary on Acts
9:17-18 and 22:12-16 still to be added here]
Revelation 19:13
Revelation 19:13 uses a form of the word
“baptism” that sometimes means to dip and is so translated in this verse: “And
he was clothed with a vesture dipped [i.e., ‘baptized’—RH] in blood: and his
name is called The Word of God.”
The Old Testament reference to which this
passage alludes, however, suggests that “dipped” is not the best translation in
Revelation, since it speaks of sprinkling!
The Old Testament reference is Isaiah 63:3-4, which says: “their blood
shall be sprinkled upon my garments,” thus picturing Christ as Judge in
the same terms as He is described in Revelation 19.
The passage, therefore, instead of being
evidence in favor of the Baptist argument that baptism means immersion, actually
proves the opposite.
[Next section: “Conclusions”]
==========
FOOTNOTES:
1.
Robert Young, Young’s Analytical
Concordance to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 678.
2.
Adams, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism,
pp. 13-14, quoting from Wilbur A. Christy, A
Modern Shibboleth, pp. 82-83.
No comments:
Post a Comment