Rev. Donald MacLean, Glasgow
The substance of a sermon preached at Inverness communion on Monday, 28th June, 1993
Text: Praise ye the Lord: for it is good to sing praises unto our God; for it is pleasant; and praise is comely. The Lord doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel. He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds. Psalm 147:1, 2 and 3.
THE Psalmist is extolling the grace of praise, saying that it is “pleasant” and “comely” to sing praises to God. To the gracious soul it is pleasant and comely (or proper) to sing praises to our God, and it ought to be so to us today when we are met to render thanks to God for the means of grace. It is proper for us to give praise to God for providing these means of grace, and for giving us the opportunity to engage in His worship in His “tabernacles of grace” in this world.
The Psalmist points out a particular reason for praising God: that “God doth
build up Jerusalem”. It is comely that we should praise the Lord as the one who builds up Jerusalem, gathers the outcasts, and reveals Himself so graciously in healing the broken in heart and binding up their wounds. The grace of God in building up Jerusalem involves gathering together the outcasts of Israel.
Jerusalem is a type of the church of God. Jerusalem was “the city of the great King”. It was there that Zion was. It was the place of which God said, “This is my rest, here still I’ll stay; for I do like it well,” (Psl. 132:14). We are not concerned at present with the historical application of the text – that when God gathered the people of Judah and Jerusalem back from captivity they proceeded to build the city and the temple. We are concerned rather with the truth that “God doth build up Jerusalem” – that He builds His church.
We shall consider first, that it is by the gathering of the outcasts that Jerusalem is built up. Therefore we shall enquire, Who are these outcasts?
Secondly, we shall consider that the gathering of these outcasts together is by the King of Zion – the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He says, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold” (they, of course, in the first instance were those of the Gentile world who were outside the fold of Israel): “them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice…” (John 10:16). So there is the bringing in of other sheep, of outcasts, by the Shepherd King of Israel.
Thirdly, we shall consider that the gathering together of the outcasts is also by “the great trumpet” of which we read in Isaiah, chapter 27, verse 13, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come that were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem.”
I. First, let us consider that the gathering of the outcasts is the way in which Jerusalem is built up. Who are the “outcasts”? We view them first as all the members of the human family. They became outcasts from the favour of God. The covenant God made with Adam, the federal head of the human race, was a covenant made with both himself and his seed, but it was a covenant which he broke although he was placed in the garden of Eden. (Eden means “delight” or “paradise”. It was a delightful place for him because he had fellowship and communion with God, and enjoyed the favour of God). Adam, by his sin in yielding to the temptation of Satan and breaking the covenant of works, became an outcast from the favour of God. God “drove out the man” from the garden. The word “drove” indicates that Adam was put out by the hand of God from that delightful place and became an outcast, ready to perish in his sins.
The whole human family, being in Adam, was driven out from the favour of God. You and I, “born in sin and shapen in iniquity”, came into the world as outcasts from the favour of God. We are members of a guilty, lost, ruined and hell-deserving race. By nature we are outcasts from the favour of God, and have
lost fellowship and communion with God. We are outcasts who are exposed to all the miseries of this life, to death itself and to the pains of hell forever.
If we look back towards the tree of life, we see that between man and the tree of life there is a flaming sword turning this way and that way, closing him out from the tree of life and closing him in to the death that sin deserves. The Cherubims of glory were there to signify that behind the flaming sword is the throne of God – the throne where justice and judgement have their habitation. The throne of God would crack and the universe would go out of existence before one sinner could return by that way to the favour of God.
Among the outcast children of men, are those who are called in our text, “outcasts of Israel”. Their father was Jacob, and they were set apart from the rest of mankind, not by any righteousness of their own, but because God declared, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” (Rom. 9:13). That is, there are certain outcasts who were embraced from all eternity in the love of God. That merciful, gracious love was love to unworthy outcasts who were ready to perish. God’s purpose was to gather them and bring them back to Himself, and so to build up Jerusalem. This was the purpose of His everlasting love. There was never a time when these outcasts to be gathered were not loved, and there will never be a time when they will not be embraced by that love. Therefore, it is good to sing praises with respect to the love of God. How David delighted in singing of the love of God, which was made known to him in the City of Salvation. It is a love which was made known to the people of God in every age and generation. It is a love of which God Himself said, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving kindnesses have I drawn thee,” (Jer. 31:3). By drawing the outcasts, Jerusalem is built up.
II. Secondly, the outcasts are gathered together by the King appointed over Jerusalem, the Lord Jesus Christ. That glorious and mighty King was appointed by God the Father; He was set apart from eternity to be King over Zion, God’s holy hill. It was He who was to carry out the decree of God’s love in gathering outcast sinners, and to gather such a number as will exceed the stars of the sky. God “telleth (or counts) the number of the stars”, as we read in verse four, and “He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power,” (Isa 40:26). He knows the names of all the stars, but it is better still for you and me that He knows the names of all those whom He loves with an everlasting love. It is He who has appointed Christ to be King in Zion, God’s holy hill: to be King of Jerusalem.
There is some dispute among linguists with regard to the exact meaning of “Jerusalem”. We all know the meaning of “salem”. King of Salem means King of Peace. With regard to the meaning of the prefix “Jeru”, there is, as I say, some dispute, but we believe that the true meaning of “Jerusalem” is “the vision of
peace”. Therefore, when we think of Jerusalem, we may think of being given a view of the love of God in raising up this King of peace to bring the outcasts to have peace with God and to be restored to His favour. Therefore, this King is to be viewed not only as the Shepherd King but also as the priestly King who was to make peace. He is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. He is the King, yes, but His kingship is founded upon His priesthood.
It is with regard to His priesthood that the Saviour said, “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring…” They were to be gathered together in Him and brought into the fold of God’s favour in a particular way: by the death of the priestly King, the death of the Shepherd King, the death of Him who said, “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep,” (John 10:11). This, then, is the first way that we must view the outcasts being brought in and reconciled to God: by the death of the King of Zion, the death accomplished outside the city of the great King. How wonderful! Outside the city of the great King! That was the place where this death was accomplished. That was the place where the outcasts of Israel met in this glorious person in a particular way. In what way? In that the Lord laid upon Him the iniquity of them all. That is how they met in Him, their substitute: by the guilt of their sins being imputed to Him.
When the guilt of their sins was imputed to Him, and He was to lead them to the tree of life and to the favour of God, this meant that He had to meet the sword that was aflame with the fire of divine indignation against the sins of the outcasts. This is what He did. This is how He gathered them to be reconciled to God: by His death in which He was wounded for their transgressions and was bruised for their iniquities. The fire of holy, divine wrath against them was extinguished for all eternity in His wounds. When He said on the cross of Calvary, “It is finished,” the work of reconciliation was carried out, inasmuch as everlasting salvation was secured for them. His death secured for them the certainty that they, as outcasts, would be gathered in; that they would be saved and restored to the favour of God.
He who died rose again by the power of an endless life, and ascended up on high. The “doors that do last for aye” were opened so that the King of Glory would return to His place. He Himself knew what it meant to be restored to the enjoyment of His Father’s love when He finished the work that the Father gave Him to do. Now those who were in Him, and for whom He died, are gathered in and restored to the favour of God. This, then, is the first way by which the outcasts were gathered in: by their sins being imputed to Christ, and by His dying for the ungodly. “God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” (Romans 5:8). This leads me to notice the other way in which the outcasts are gathered together.
III. Thirdly, the outcasts are gathered together by “the great trumpet”. We quoted from Isaiah, chapter 27, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown.” That trumpet is the gospel trumpet. It is a great trumpet! Oh yes, men despise the gospel nowadays, but the fact is that the gospel trumpet is a great trumpet. And its sound is a joyful sound! “O greatly blessed the people are the joyful sound that know;” (Psl. 89:15). The trumpet of the everlasting gospel is the great “jubilee trumpet” proclaiming “liberty to the captives, the opening of the prison to them that are bound”, and the bringing of the outcasts near to God against whom they have sinned.
The gospel is typified not only by the jubilee trumpet, but also by the two trumpets which Moses was commanded to make, as we read in Numbers, chapter 10. These trumpets were each made in one piece, and of pure silver. There was no fault in them. So this great trumpet of the everlasting gospel, the trumpet of the Word of God, is pure and without error. It is inerrant, and that makes it a great trumpet. You may trust your soul for eternity to the Word of God and be assured that what the Word declares will be found to be true.
The inerrancy of the Word of God is founded upon its inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God so led those men (Paul, Peter, James, John, Jeremiah, Moses, and others) who wrote the Scriptures, that the Scriptures are inerrant. These men were borne along by the Holy Spirit to record the vision of peace, to record the glorious view of God as the God of peace through the Lord Jesus Christ. As Scripture itself declares, the Word of God is inspired or God-breathed. It is the fruit of the work of the Spirit of God and is therefore inerrant.
The Word of God is the instrument by which God builds up Jerusalem. It is the only way. The church will not be built up by other ways. The gospel trumpet, not the notions and unscriptural schemes of modern evangelism, is the instrument by which the outcasts are gathered in. All the talk that goes on about “dialogue” being better than preaching is irrelevant to this real issue that the gospel trumpet is the instrument by which the outcasts are gathered in.
Who is to blow this great trumpet? The trumpet of jubilee was blown by the high priest. But who is to blow the gospel trumpet? Ministers of the gospel! Paul says, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us:” (through our sounding the gospel trumpet) “we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” Therefore, the gospel ministry is instituted by God to build up Jerusalem. God provides ministers to sound this trumpet.
All those who are engaged in sounding the trumpet of the gospel (the instrument for bringing the outcasts to be reconciled to the favour of God) must themselves have spiritual experience of what it means to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. They themselves must have heard the great trumpet proclaim the great salvation to their own souls. Also, they must know that if they
are to sound the trumpet of the gospel, they are to do so by divine teaching and in the strength of the grace of God the Holy Ghost. This is what ministerial grace is in the first instance: sounding the gospel trumpet in the strength of the grace of the Holy Spirit, and looking to God to build up Jerusalem by giving the increase. In their preaching, Paul (with all his knowledge in the doctrines of divine revelation, and his having been raised up to the third heavens), and Apollos (with all his eloquence, and all his knowledge of the Word of God, and his being full of faith and of the Holy Ghost), but planted and watered. It was God who gave the increase. It is God who builds up Jerusalem.
One of our great needs, as a church, is the raising up of ministers to preach the gospel – to sound the gospel trumpet. This ought to be a matter of prayer among us. The Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of prayer, is to be sought, so that there may be prayer for the raising up of ministers to sound the gospel trumpet.
When the gospel trumpet is blown it has its effects, by divine power, upon outcasts. When sin is declared to be sin, when the grace of God is shown as love to the unworthy, when the sacrifice of Christ is set out as the foundation for a sinner to trust upon in view of death, judgement and eternity, then souls are brought into a sense of being ready to perish, and of being outcasts from the favour of God. They are broken in heart and wounded. They are grieved in mind. What grief of mind do they have? Ask David. Here is what he wrote:
“Gainst thee, thee only, have I sinned,
in thy sight done this ill:
That when thou speak’st thou may’st be just,
and clear in judging still,” (Psl. 51:4).
The outcasts are grieved on account of having sinned against God: grieved on account of being cast out of the favour of God: grieved on account of being closed out from communion with God. They are broken in heart and wounded in their consciences. Faithful, my dear friend, are the wounds of a friend.
We read that when the great trumpet is blown, “they shall come”. Yes, they shall come. They shall come! A seed shall come and do service to Him. The outcasts who are ready to perish shall come because this gospel trumpet has a call. It is the call of the King. “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” (Mat. 11:28). They hear through the trumpet of the gospel that a Saviour is provided who is able to save to the very uttermost all those who come unto God by Him. And they come.
When they come, they enjoy the blessings which are mentioned in the text: “He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.” There is healing in this trumpet. In the gospel there is healing for the broken-hearted, the binding up of the wounded conscience, the imparting of peace to the conscience by bringing the soul to a saving knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and
into the favour of God. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
In being justified, the outcast is not only forgiven and restored to the favour of God, but also is brought to enjoy communion and fellowship with God, and to worship God in the holy mount. This is how Jerusalem is to be built up. “The living in Jerusalem” are they who hear the joyful sound. How greatly blessed they are who not only hear but also “know” the joyful sound, (Psl. 89:15). And what else is true of them? “In brightness of thy face, oh Lord, they ever on shall go.” They are enjoying the favour of God, enjoying fellowship and communion with God. This is how God builds up Jerusalem.
Praise is to be given to God for building up Jerusalem. “Praise ye the Lord: for it is good to sing praises unto our God; for it is pleasant; and praise is comely. The Lord doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel.” This praise comes, first of all, from the people of God when they see souls being gathered in to Christ, when they see sinners getting healing for their souls and having peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ, and when they hear these sinners praising the Lord’s goodness with the words of the Psalmist:
“All thine iniquities who doth
most graciously forgive:
Who thy diseases all and pains
doth heal and thee relieve,” (Psl. 103 3).
Not only the Lord’s people rejoice because of outcasts being gathered in, but the outcasts themselves have a song of praise. “He hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God.” Those who are taken out of the fearful pit and have their feet set upon the Rock of Salvation are praising the Lord, as we read in Isaiah, chapter 12, “Oh Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me.” And what then is promised to them? “Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.” The soul that has been brought to Christ has this song of praise, “Behold, God is my Salvation! The Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song.” This is their rejoicing: “Praise the Lord, call upon His name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that His name is exalted. Sing unto the Lord, for he hath done excellent things.” He has done things that excel, things that demonstrate and make known the excellent glory of the mercy of God. These outcasts have become the worshipping people of God. They are now of that circumcision who “worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,” (Phil. 3:3). So Jerusalem is built up.
This is what we should be praying for: that the Lord would build up His cause among us as a branch of the visible church. We must begin here: “The Lord doth build up Jerusalem.” He does so through the person and work of the
King of Zion, and by the instrumentality of the great trumpet of the gospel. When, by the power of the Holy Ghost, the gospel is blessed, then souls are gathered to Christ and God, and Jerusalem is built up.
Consider another view of the city and its King: that is, that the King rules. This city is “the city of the great King”, and He rules by the sceptre of His Word. As he rules by His Word, so he uses instruments in that ruling work. These instruments are the officers of the church. Ministers and elders, composing the various courts of the church, (kirk-sessions, presbyteries, synods and so on) are concerned with rule in the church.
Rule in the church of God is for the protection of the church and of the people of God. This is mentioned in verse 13: “For he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates.” Through the government of the church He strengthens the gates against the enemies; and so, as we read next: “He hath blessed thy children within thee. He maketh peace in thy borders.” The great importance of the government of the church and the Kingship of Christ is largely lost sight of in our day and generation. People were saying that it was absurd (and of course it was) for the Museum of Religion in Glasgow to have in its exhibition a statement to the effect that the Queen of Britain was the head of the Church of Scotland. It is all very well for people to be incensed at that and to point out that Christ is the King and Head, but what does it mean for Christ to be ruling in the church? He is now, as to His person, on the right hand of the majesty on High, but He rules and reigns in His church in the world through the officers who are appointed and called to office in the church. Therefore, they are bound to exercise rule in the church, and that is a great part of its protection.
One reason why the gospel is being largely lost in Britain is that discipline has not been carried out against those in the church who are trying to silence the sound of the great trumpet. They wish to put human ideas and their own religious notions into the trumpet, and they pervert the Word of God in various ways. So it is important that the gospel trumpet be preserved, and if it is to be preserved there must be rule in the church. When the trumpet of the gospel and the worship of God are interfered with and marred, then there will be no building of the church according to the mind of God. It is of great importance that the government of the church be maintained in a proper way so that the trumpet will sound out the truth concerning the glorious King and Priest of the church.
We read in the Revelation, chapter 11, of the two witnesses who “are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.” They were slain in the city, “which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” The Lord said, “I will give power unto my two witnesses and they shall prophesy.” Therefore, “the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet.” This leads me to conclude that
these two olive trees are the Kingship and the Priesthood of Christ. (It is a reference back to the vision that was given to Zechariah of the two olive trees and the golden oil going into the lamps. These two olive trees were “the two anointed ones”, that is, Zerubbabel and Joshua in the first place, or the doctrines of the Kingship and the Priesthood of Christ).
We hear much today about the need for revival. My view is that as the Spirit of God made these two become alive, so there will be a revival of the doctrines of the Priesthood and Kingship of Christ. These two great doctrines will become prominent again, and the Lord will build up Jerusalem. These doctrines have been largely slain in the churches today. In how many places in the churches is there teaching about the priesthood of Christ, the sacrifice of Christ, and the blood of Christ cleansing from all sin? Where is the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ, and where is obedience to His Word by holding fast the worship and doctrine He has given? If there is to be a genuine revival it will be bound up with a revival of the great trumpet sounding these doctrines, the Kingship and the Priesthood of Christ, and all related doctrines. Then God shall build up Jerusalem, and He will appear in glory and majesty to men. “The Lord doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel. He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.” May we ourselves witness this.
“Thou shalt Jerus’lem’s good behold
whilst thou on earth dost dwell.
Thou shalt thy children’s children see,
and peace on Israel,” (Psl. 128:5).
And may it be so. May the Lord bless His Word to us.
The Mode of Baptism How Baptism should be Administered
(A paper delivered at the 1996 Youth Conference in Inverness)
Rev. K. M. Watkins
Part One: The meaning of the term “baptism”, and instances of baptism
IN considering the proper mode of baptism, we aim to answer the question, How? – how should baptism be administered? It is the answer given by Scripture that we seek: “What saith the Scripture?” Now it is not unusual for Scripture’s answer to lie not on the surface of her pages, but much deeper, making it necessary for us to search the Scriptures. This is the case with the subject of this paper: there is no other way to answer the question of the right mode of baptism but by a careful examination of the Scripture evidence.
Concerning the mode of baptism, the great controversy among Protestants is
between the so-called baptists and the paedobaptists. The former, whom we shall call immersionists, are united in believing with the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 that, “Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.” Notice that for the immersionist, complete immersion under the water is not simply preferable but absolutely essential. If there has been no immersion, there has been no baptism. The paedobaptists on the other hand teach with the Westminster Confession that, “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.” Notice now that for the paedobaptist, whilst affusion (whether by pouring or sprinkling) is the preferred mode of administration, nevertheless immersion is still accepted as valid. As long as there is water, it is a valid baptism as far as most paedobaptists are concerned, unlike the immersionists who so insist upon their form of immersion as to deny any other mode to be lawful.
We shall group Scripture’s evidence bearing upon the question into four categories, showing under each that not only is immersion not required by the Word of God, but also that in fact affusion (whether by pouring or sprinkling) is the preferable mode.
First: the Greek words that are used for baptism, contrary to loud and persistent immersionist claims, do not demand that baptism must be by immersion, but rather admit affusion as an altogether acceptable mode.
The great foundation stone of the immersionist argument is laid in their insistence that the Greek words employed in the New Testament for the ordinance of baptism are so rigid in meaning that their very use demands immersion. Of course, if they are to prove their point, they must show that those words are always used only for immersion and never for mere affusion. Anything less than this, even just one instance where the words do not mean immersion, will cause the immersionist argument to fail. The point is not whether these words may be used of immersion, which we do not dispute, but whether they are used only of immersion, such that whenever we meet with them we may as easily and certainly translate them “immerse” as “baptise.” It is this that we deny.
Since the Greek word bapto is never used of the sacrament of baptism in the New Testament, we will not spend time on it, especially as immersionists themselves acknowledge with us that its use is not confined to immersion. Instead we will focus on the word baptizo and the words formed from it (baptisma, baptismos and baptistes). These are the words used for baptism in the New Testament, and it is these words that the immersionists argue can be used only for immersion. But the evidence shows that whilst these words are indeed used to speak of immersion, yet their meaning is not confined to that.
From the Church fathers in the early centuries after Christ, various quotations could be drawn to show that baptizo did not uniformly mean immersion to them. Just one example will suffice: Athanasias wrote in the first part of the fourth century, “Three baptisms, purgative of all sin whatever, God has bestowed upon the nature of men. I mean that of water, and again that by the witness of one’s own blood; and thirdly, that by tears, in which also the harlot was cleansed.” Water baptism is put alongside two others: that of a martyr’s blood and a harlot’s tears. A martyr cannot be immersed in his own blood – yet it is called a baptism. Even a repenting harlot washing the Saviour’s feet with her tears cannot be immersed in her tears however profuse her weeping – yet that too is called a baptism. So in the writings of the early Church fathers, whilst often the word is used for immersion, it is plain that it is not always so used – baptism does not always speak of immersion.
Turning to the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which is of special relevance since it was so widely used among Greek speaking Jews in New Testament times, the immersionist has to show that every usage of baptizo means to immerse. But in Numbers 19:13, we read, “Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean.” Only by the ritual sprinkling with the water of separation made from the ashes of the red heifer, could a man be cleansed from contact with a dead body – but elsewhere in this same piece of literature, the Greek Septuagint, this sprinkling is called a baptism! So that far from always meaning immersion, here baptizo expressly means sprinkling!
Now of course our immersionist friends will wish us to turn away from these human writings and translations of the Old Testament to the New Testament itself, to the inspired usage of these Greek words based on baptizo. We are very happy to do so, for the New Testament makes it clearer still that in the Greek language immersion is not always meant by baptizo. In 1 Corinthians 10:2, the children of Israel “were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” But the Israelites were not immersed in Moses – the very idea is preposterous. Neither were they immersed in the cloud – for at that time it was expressly said to be behind them. Neither were they immersed in the sea – indeed the whole miracle of the Red Sea was that they were not immersed in it, when the Egyptians were. This passage shows that the Greek word for baptism may be used without any reference to mode whatsoever; thus immersionists can prove nothing concerning mode from its use. 1 Peter 3:21 is similar. Noah’s deliverance from the flood is likened to baptism: “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” But again, the whole point concerning Noah
and the others in the ark was that they were not immersed, when all the world was. So the word can be used in a context where the very opposite of immersion is spoken of!
Mark 7:4 is another testimony against the immersionist dogma: “And when they come from the market, except they wash [or baptise], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [or baptising] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables [couches or beds, upon which they would recline at meals for example].” Perhaps they did immerse their hands in water, but we cannot believe that they immersed their tables, couches and beds in water! Hodge was surely right when he wrote, “To maintain that beds or couches were immersed, is a mere act of desperation.” In Luke 11:37f., it is recorded of the Saviour that, “A certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed [or baptised himself] before dinner.” If baptizo always means immersion, then among the Pharisees it must have been the custom to fully immerse themselves whenever they would eat. We know that they bound heavy burdens grievous to be borne upon men’s shoulders, but the idea that they had to fully immerse their whole bodies just to eat is plainly ridiculous! Combining the information from these two texts we find that the New Testament usage of baptizo actually proves the affusionist argument not the immersionist – even that by the application of water to just part of the body, in this case the hands, the whole person is considered to be baptised.
In Hebrews 9:10 we read of “divers washings [or baptisms].” Immersionist doctrine demands that this must mean diverse (or various) immersions. Now in this place the apostle is comparing the cleansing efficacy of Christ’s sacrificial blood with the inefficacy of the ceremonial washings of the Old Testament called baptisms. But the Old Testament washings were by affusion, or sprinkling, as the chapter expressly states, not just once but three times over: “the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean” v. 13; “Moses . . . sprinkled both the book, and all the people” v. 19; and “Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of ministry” v. 21. The only immersion in these diverse baptisms is forced into them by immersionist preconception. At the wedding in Cana were “six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews” (John 2:6). These were pots with narrow necks for pouring, not baths for immersing – for the manner of the Jews in baptising or washing was by affusion, not immersion.
Thus, the very bedrock of immersionism is found to be only the sand of error. The only place where the Greek words for baptism always and only mean immersion is in their own mistaken dogma. On the contrary the Greek words
show that those who hold to sprinkling and pouring, without altogether rejecting immersion, are building their doctrine of the mode of baptism upon the unassailable rock of truth.
Secondly: we now come to the recorded instances of baptism in the New Testament. Immersionists maintain that all such instances without exception were by immersion. Again we have only to show that in just one case baptism was not by immersion, and then the whole immersionist argument fails since they make immersion essential to baptism.
In attempting to prove their point, the immersionists make much of the prepositions used in these cases. Consider Matthew 3:6, “And were baptised of him in Jordan.” This is enough for the immersionist: if the people were baptised by John in the river, then they must have been immersed in the river. Yet many times this same preposition is and must be translated at. But even if in is an appropriate translation, it does not demand the idea of immersion, for if they but went down to stand in the river, and there John sprinkled or poured water on them, it could well be described as being baptised in Jordan – they were in the river but never immersed in it. Indeed, Greek writings show that travellers pitched their tents “in the river Jordan” – meaning only upon the substantial dry river bed alongside the water stream that was relatively narrow for much of the year. The immersionist case is unproven. Later in that chapter, the Saviour’s baptism by John is recounted. “And Jesus, when he was baptised, went up straightway out of the water” (v. 16). The immersionists make much of the preposition translated out of, but once it is realised that it is usually translated away from, the idea is given that Christ was not in the water but only alongside it. But even had He been in it, and then come out of it, this would not prove immersion, for He could simply have been standing in the water and then sprinkled.
A favourite immersionist text is Acts 8:38f., “And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptised him. And when they were come up out of the water …” Here is baptism by immersion, they cry, for the eunuch went down into (eis in Greek) the water, and came up out of (ek in Greek) the water. What can this mean but immersion? But in fact, this should be a favourite anti-immersionist text, for careful examination suggests the very opposite. Whilst eis can mean into, it can also mean simply to, as in John 11:38, “Jesus cometh to (eis) the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.” It is certain that He did not enter into the grave of Lazarus – a stone lay upon it, so how could He? Likewise, whilst ek can mean out of, it can also mean away from, as in John 12:32f., “And I, if I be lifted up from (ek) the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.” When Christ was crucified, certainly He was not lifted up out of the earth, but on the cross He was lifted up away
from the surface of the earth. Thus there is no reason whatsoever why the text in Acts 8 may not be rendered, “And they went down both to the water … And when they were come up away from the water.” How different the account sounds now! Any idea of immersion vanishes.
But although the Authorised Version’s rendering is “into the water” and “out of the water”, still there is no proof that baptism is by immersion. Why? For the simple reason that if this language demands that the Ethiopian was immersed, then it demands equally that Philip was also immersed. Four times over the text (verse 38) emphasises that whatever is said of the Ethiopian, is also said of Philip: “And they [first] went down both [second] into the water, both [third] Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him. And when they [fourth] were come up out of the water.” The one baptising was as much in and out of the water as the one baptised. Let immersionist ministers immerse themselves when they immerse others, if they would be consistent with their interpretation of the text.
The immersionists also like to mention John 3:23, “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there.” There you are, they say, because baptism is by immersion, much water is needed. But literally it is that there were many waters there. Aenon was a place of springs and fountains very suitable for affusion, not a large body of standing water necessary for immersion. And seeing that many people went out to John in the remote wilderness, it was necessary just for the sake of human subsistence that there should be sufficient water for drinking purposes, not for immersing purposes. Immersion can only be forced into this text, not drawn from it by exegetical necessity.
In fact, when New Testament baptisms are fairly considered, it is seen that immersion would often have been so impracticable as to be impossible. John the Baptist could not have baptised the multitudes by immersion. He would have needed almost miraculous strength to lower into the water and raise out of the water again the constant stream of persons who came to him. Neither could the apostles have immersed the three thousand converts on the one day of Pentecost. Where would all that water be found in a city like Jerusalem? The only reservoirs of water available within the city were for drinking purposes and strictly controlled — surely we cannot imagine that the whole city would stand back whilst thousands were plunged into their valuable water resource? How could so many have been baptised in just one day? In what clothing were they immersed — their ordinary clothes? Surely not. Whence came more suitable clothing then? Did the Philippian jailer — and his family — have sufficient water and a suitable container in the jail to be immersed in? Or did he allow the apostle to lead him to the nearest river, in the middle of the night, leaving the jail unsupervised? The very idea
is a most unnatural interpretation of the account given in Acts 16:33, “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”
At the apostle Paul’s baptism he “arose, and was baptised” Acts 9:18. The more literal rendering of “standing up, he was baptised,” shows how contrary to immersion Paul’s baptism was. When he stood up, he was baptised – not when he had walked to the river to find sufficient water and a suitable place to be immersed in, but as soon as he stood up he was baptised, and that had to be by affusion. Again, when the household of Cornelius was to be baptised, Peter said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:47). The natural meaning is plainly that water should be brought and applied to them by affusion, not that they should be brought to water to be immersed in it.
The recorded instances of baptism are so far from proving universal immersion that many of them rule it out completely.
To be continued