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: “John’s
Baptism”]
In this chapter, continuing our
study of the mode of baptism, we wish to look at the
baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36-39).
This, along with the baptism of Christ, is taken by most Baptists to be
the clearest example in Scripture of baptism by immersion.
We read in Acts 8:36-39:
And as they went on their
way, they came to a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized? And
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he
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 were come up out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more; and
he went on his way rejoicing.
Here again the argument rests primarily on the
prepositions used.[1] It is usually
assumed by Baptists, as well as by many paedobaptists, that the words “down
into the water” and “up out of the water” describe the baptism of the Eunuch and therefore also indicate that he was
baptized by immersion (Acts 8:38-39).
There are problems with this.
1. The prepositions used, “[down] into” (eis in Greek) and “out of” (ek in Greek) do not imply immersion at
all. They do not necessarily even imply
that anyone was in the water. The
word translated “into” in Acts 8:38 (eis)
is translated in the King James Version of the New Testament in many different
ways, including “at” (20 times), “in” (131 times), “into” (571 times), “to”
(282 times), “toward” (32 times), and “unto” (208 times). This can be checked with a good
concordance. The word translated “out of”
(ek) in the King James can also be
translated very differently: “from” (182 times), “up from” (2 times), and “out
of” (131 times). Substituting these
different translations in the two verses will immediately show what a
difference that makes. We beg our
readers to take the time to do so. The following tables will help:
Possible translation
|
Times so trans
|
If translated this way, the passage under discussion reads ...
|
|
eis
|
(down)
into (KJV)
|
571
|
And
they went down both into the
water...
|
at
|
20
|
And
they went down both at the water...
|
|
in
|
131
|
And
they went down both in the water...
|
|
to
|
282
|
And
they went down both to the water...
|
|
toward
|
32
|
And
they went down both toward the
water...
|
|
unto
|
208
|
And
they went down both unto the
water...
|
This table makes it clear that only one of the
possible translations, the second, does not make sense, but also shows that the
preposition does not necessarily imply that Philip and the eunuch were even in
the water, i.e., “they went down both unto the water.” Even the translation “into” does not, in
itself, imply that either or both of them was actually under the
water. One can be said to go down “into”
the water and only be standing in the water.
Possible translation
|
Times so trans
|
If translated this way, the passage under discussion reads ...
|
|
ek
|
(up)
out of (KJV)
|
131
|
When
they were come up out of the
water...
|
from
|
182
|
When
they were come up from the water...
|
|
up
from
|
2
|
When
they were come up from the
water...
|
Again, the point is simply that these
prepositions do not necessarily imply immersion and do not say anything about
the mode of the eunuch’s baptism.
As a further example of what we are talking
about, we refer our readers to John 20:4 and Luke 12:36, where these words are
translated “to” and “from.” John 20:4
says, “The other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to [eis] the sepulchre.” Luke 12:36 reads, “And ye yourselves like
unto men that wait for their lord, when he shall return from [ek] the wedding.”
These words, then, are not describing the baptism at all, but what took place immediately
before and after it. If they are not
describing the baptism, they are also not describing a baptism by
immersion. There is simply no evidence
in the passage regarding the mode of baptism.
Here, too, that must be determined from other passages.
The proof that these prepositions are not
describing the baptism is easily found in the text, since they are applied both to the eunuch and to Philip! If they are describing an immersion baptism,
then Philip also baptized himself by
immersion—for he also “went down into” and “came up out of” the water. Either they describe the baptism by immersion
of both—Philip baptizing himself, as well as the eunuch—or they do not describe
the baptism at all. Indeed, it is almost
as though Scripture is emphasizing this, for twice it speaks of the fact that both went down into the water (v. 38).
The only possible conclusion, therefore, if we
will but pay attention to Scripture, is that Acts 8:36-39 says nothing at all
about the mode of baptism. Acts 8:36-39
is not proof for baptism by immersion. It
simply does not say how Philip baptized the eunuch. The argument for sprinkling or immersion must
be based on other passages.
[Next section: “Old Testament Baptisms”]
==========
FOOTNOTES:
See the previous section, “The
Baptism of Christ.”
No comments:
Post a Comment