I think the pictures clearly prove that the proper mode for the practice of immersion is much water and nude.
Early Baptismal Art
- Thread starter Phil D.
- Start date
- Status
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
FINALLY, someone gets what I was really driving at!
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Although we might in our day dismiss their views as superstitious, it does not dismiss the strong probability that the procedure was that of early Christianity. Yes, it is a bit of a leap that that practice was the practice of the Apostles, but that is an assumption that we make of all our ecclesiastical practices. Isn't it so that if there is any chance that that practice (independent of the theology behind it) is traced back to the apostles, we must look on that tradition with a certain reverence.
Again, what might have been believed about the significance of the practice is one thing, but what was done procedurally is another. In terms of baptismal practice, you might be viewing them as more different than what Scripture allows for.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
I certainly agree with the first statement, having deliberately made that very point in the OP.
As to the last point, I'm not sure things are quite that cut and dried. I have found that virtually all theologians and exegetes prior to the 18th century (ed. - i.e., that I have read - ed.), whether RC, EO, Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed (in the last grouping would be such men as Calvin, Ley, Featley, Venema, Chamier, the Westminster annotators, Lightfoot, Turretin, a'Brackel. Witsius, among others) either expressly affirmed, or clearly inferred that Jesus was baptized by immersion. I also know that Calvin specifically expresses doubt that the phrase "to fulfill all righteousness" is referring to a practice related to the Levitical law (Commentaries, on Matthew 3:13).
Last edited:
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
There was such a thing as the Jordan River at flood stage, during which one could hardly even walk across because it was so deep and torrential. What can be said with certainty is that the earliest baptisers sought a significant body amount of water to do their deed. We all know the classic argument regarding Philip baptising the Ethiopian eunuch; while presumably the royal entourage had a flask of water on them to perform baptism by aspersion, it was highly desirable to arrive at a body of water to step into in order to perform the rite.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Like I said before, I think this line of discussion is a bit off topic, although I guess it has some relevance to the claim that the pictures in question show the baptism of Jesus (which was in the Jordan). So, as for the seasonal flooding of the Jordan River, that claim is of course directly confirmed in Joshua 3:15.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Really? With certainty? Please explain how this "significant body amount of water" is present in the baptism of Paul in Acts 9:18 or the Philippian jailer and his household in Acts 16:33.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Ok, "certainty" is a little strong. However, note that in those other baptisms, there is silence on the issue of whether there was a body of water nearby. So, there may or may not have been such a water supply. It would be wrong to conclude that there was none, or that a household baptism happened in a house! In the case of the Ethiopian, we have a positive assertion that a body of water was sought after and deemed acceptable. This is over and against the assumption that they had some water on their persons, which we are not certain of, admittedly. In the final tally, it's more likely the eunuch did have some water on him than that the others didn't have a lot of it. I think it's safe to conclude that where possible (and Didache concurs), a flowing body of water was preferred.
sorry to digress from the OP Phil, but it happens...
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Why is this wrong to conclude? There is no indication in either of the two cases I listed that it happened anywhere but in the immediate premises. The text in both cases speaks to that -- to insist in either case that the participants left the place in question is to read something into the text that is not there. In the instance of Saul/Paul, it simply says he got up, was baptized, and then ate. In the case of the Philippian jailer, we can say with a great deal of "certainty" that it did not happen that they left the house, since Paul is insistent that he will not leave unless the chief magistrates personally escort him out (Acts 16:37). The fact remains that in neither case is there any mention that anyone sought out a large source of water in which to be baptized.
With the eunuch, it is of course extremely probable that the group had some water on them. But they were on a desert road, so water was scarce. It is a providential blessing from God that they found any water at all (the expression by the eunuch in Acts 8:36 is one of surprise and excitement). Now there was no reason that he should not be baptized (v. 36 again). After all he had just read (and had explained) a text that mentions the Lord sprinkling many nations ...
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Why is this wrong to conclude? There is no indication in either of the two cases I listed that it happened anywhere but in the immediate premises. The text in both cases speaks to that -- to insist in either case that the participants left the place in question is to read something into the text that is not there. In the instance of Saul/Paul, it simply says he got up, was baptized, and then ate. In the case of the Philippian jailer, we can say with a great deal of "certainty" that it did not happen that they left the house, since Paul is insistent that he will not leave unless the chief magistrates personally escort him out (Acts 16:37). The fact remains that in neither case is there any mention that anyone sought out a large source of water in which to be baptized.
With the eunuch, it is of course extremely probable that the group had some water on them. But they were on a desert road, so water was scarce. It is a providential blessing from God that they found any water at all (the expression by the eunuch in Acts 8:36 is one of surprise and excitement). Now there was no reason that he should not be baptized (v. 36 again). After all he had just read (and had explained) a text that mentions the Lord sprinkling many nations ...
Yes, there is no mention, so we need to defer to the instance where one option was chosen above another. As for the Eunuch, there's still the clear indication that they went into the water. If sprinkling was the preferred mode, they could have stopped, baptised with drinking water, and then refilled their flasks in the oasis. Now, if sprinkling was a sufficient mode, then we might have to charge Philip or some sort of superstition as to the efficacy of having a dip and getting all wet; which is entirely possible as well, I suppose
It's also possible that households had large stone water jars, like the ones used when Jesus turned water into wine, something that someone could climb into and be immersed.
At this point we're speculating, but my point still stands - they chose to get into a pool when they very likely had other options.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Those waterpots held only about 20 gallons apiece (compare that with a large trashcan which is typically 33 gallons). It requires a great deal of imagination to suggest that someone could actually fit a body into a container that size and then have the body be immersed, dealing with narrowness of container size and water displacement in the process. Plus you've now likely polluted your only water source for the next week or so.
One factor that you have not considered with the case of the Ethiopian eunuch is water purification. That is still a problem in Palestine today (I had a professor who once studied at the University of Jerusalem; he used chlorine tablets that were dissolved into water in order to make it safe for drinking). Perhaps the water they carried with them was already purified, but if it were mixed with something like wine, that might make it unsuitable for a baptism. You say they could have simply filled up their containers again, but why would they do that if they knew nothing about the purity of the water source? Furthermore, if both went into the water source (which we have no idea how large or small it was, only that "some water" was there), then what happened to their clothes? Did they strip naked and then redress? The text says nothing about that. Philip was taken away immediately after by the Spirit. Did he leave soaking wet with soggy clothes and preach in that state? Seems unlikely. But we don't know, so it is foolish to continue to speculate. The one thing we do not need to speculate on is that a large source of water is mentioned in neither the case of Saul/Paul or the Philippian jailer; if we let the text speak for itself, it seems very clear that in both cases the baptism took place on the premises, and the presence of a large body of water is extremely unlikely.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
...With the eunuch, it is of course extremely probable that the group had some water on them. But they were on a desert road, so water was scarce. It is a providential blessing from God that they found any water at all (the expression by the eunuch in Acts 8:36 is one of surprise and excitement). Now there was no reason that he should not be baptized (v. 36 again). After all he had just read (and had explained) a text that mentions the Lord sprinkling many nations ...
Alright, I guess I'm going to have to capitulate just a bit in terms of my efforts to curb the discussion here.
As to the water situation with Philip and the eunuch, it seems there really isn't much need for us to wonder. Dr. William Thompson (1806–94), a famous Presbyterian missionary to Syria and Palestine, gave this firsthand account in a detailed documentary that he wrote about the region in which he lived and ministered for nearly half-a-century:
Also, the eunuch would most likely have been reading from the Septuagintal version of the Old Testament. In Isaiah 52:14 the LXX translates the Hebrew nazah with the Greek thaumazo, which means “to be amazed or astonished,” rather than with rhano ("to sprinkle") as it indeed does with the analogous prophecy of Ezekiel 36:25.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
That is fine. I am willing to drop the discussion, but you could have curbed this long before now when the erroneous "with certainty" comment was made earlier in the thread. At it stands now, you have chosen to "correct" me in the thread while not even addressing that part of the discussion. I would not have even commented had that been so patently incorrect of a statement. But you have chosen not to deal with that but with me instead. It makes you look extremely biased at best.
And in the future, please do not attempt moderate the moderator. Most of us are not going to take to that too kindly. I am sorry that your thread got derailed a bit, but that could have been handled much earlier instead of complaining at one side and giving a pat on the back to the other in the process.
And in the future, please do not attempt moderate the moderator. Most of us are not going to take to that too kindly. I am sorry that your thread got derailed a bit, but that could have been handled much earlier instead of complaining at one side and giving a pat on the back to the other in the process.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Tim, I sincerely apologize if I in any way came across as disrespectful or vindictive. Nor was I intending to moderate you as a moderator. Not at all, brother. By "capitulate" I meant that I was admitting defeat in my previous (naive?) attempts to keep the discussion strictly to the topic of early baptismal art - in other words, I was saying it was OK with me if you all want to rabbit-trail a bit. I offered the two pieces of information that I did simply because I had come across them in my previous studies of the baptism debate. I meant them only as fodder for the discussion, not as a supposed trump-card or total vindication for one side or the other. Also, I posted my comments before I saw your remarks in #41, so they were not given as a rebuttal to anything you said there. For the record, I think some of the points you've reiterated about Paul's and the jailer houshold's baptisms are fairly good ones in terms of questioning whether or not immersion was always used. Again, my apologies for anything I may have done wrong in all this. And I'll try to be more aware of the way I must come across to people in the future.
Phil D.
Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
Not to mention the fact that it is very hard to be fully immersed if you stand up for baptism, i. e. get baptized while standing, as the Scripture plainly states that Paul did in Ananaias' house.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Thanks, Phil. I apologize if I came across too harshly. I've said all I probably need to say about the two incidents in Acts (in which I was responding to another poster, as you have now stated, not trying to derail the thread), so I will let it go at that.
Pilgrim Standard
Puritan Board Sophomore
Is there a rule to determin when eis is used for "into" or "towards"
and when ek is used for "out of" or "away from" ?
Acts 8:36 and they went down both into[eis] the water... "towards or to the water?"
8:39 And when they were come up out of[ek] the water... "away from?"
or is ἀναβαίνω enough to convey the common translation?
Note: I know virtually nothing of greek that is why I ask.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Benjamin, I would probably describe my own knowledge of Greek as "only limited." I have, however, done a considerable amount of reading over the years in which I have seen discussions of this issue by a variety of authors. My impression from this is that, no, there is no hard grammatical rule that governs the use of the prepositions en and eis. Most would say that their meaning must largely be determined by context. In that regard, most "neutral" and even pre-19th century paedobaptist exegetes that I have read conclude that when the overall context of the baptismal passages are considered, as well as the overall treatment of that topic in the New Testament, eis most likely refers to a movement "into" the water, and en denotes "in" - in which case a corresponding ek would naturally mean a movement "out of". I could put together and post a collection of 6 to 8 such statements if someone is truly interested (although it would probably be a day or two before I could make that happen).
I might add that the most obvious indication of such a consensus is the fact that virtually every English Bible translates en and eis as "in" or "into" when they are used in connection with water baptism. Of course collectively these translations reflect the prevailing view of literally hundreds of Greek scholars who worked on them over the course of five centuries. And yes, the conjunctive use of katabaino and/or anabaino in passages like Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:9-11 and Acts 8:36-39 are strongly corroborative of such an understanding. It is primarily in highly polemical works on one side of the baptism debate that you will find this view questioned.
Last edited:
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
I apologize also for causing the tangent with my absolutist language of 'certainty.' Cheerfully retracted.
I think the position that seeks to dismiss baptism by immerision altogether by John, Jesus, and the Apostles cannot be made convincingly. It would not have been surprising if the earliest Christians would have wanted to mimic Jesus' baptism in a river, even if other modes were acceptable given the circumstances. We can surmise that early baptismal art seeks to portray the ideal, not the exception. This is common with religious art in general.
I think the position that seeks to dismiss baptism by immerision altogether by John, Jesus, and the Apostles cannot be made convincingly. It would not have been surprising if the earliest Christians would have wanted to mimic Jesus' baptism in a river, even if other modes were acceptable given the circumstances. We can surmise that early baptismal art seeks to portray the ideal, not the exception. This is common with religious art in general.
- Status
