Why Sprinkling? (and a random board ??)
- Thread starter A2JC4life
- Start date
- Status
PresReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
Joh 1:19-28 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. (25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (26) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (27) He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (28) These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
What was John doing that made them think he was the Messiah? Baptizing. But how, and why would that make them think of the Messiah?
Isa 52:13-15 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. (14) As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (15) So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
What was John doing that made them think he was the Messiah? Baptizing. But how, and why would that make them think of the Messiah?
Isa 52:13-15 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. (14) As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (15) So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
Rachel,
Vines is reasonably straightforward, and I think his definition is a bit more confined to general terms most people can agree upon.
The substance into which or by which baptism is done is evidently separate from the act of baptism. If "dye" or "wine" may effect a baptism, then clearly water is only one type of instrument. If fluid is typically a major factor, then blood certainly qualifies.
By which I only mean to say that if Heb.10 classifies the principal and formational ceremonial cleansing of the OT under the term "baptismos", then a bloody-baptism isn't inherently objectionable.
Yet, plunging hundreds of thousands of Israelites into a blood-vat, however dramatic, was neither practical nor necessary. The symbolic sprinkling of being covered by the blood of that covenant was sufficient for their being "merged" into that covenant. They were sanctified by that blood.
Jesus, by calling HIS blood "the blood of the New Covenant" (Lk.22:20; 1Cor.11:25; Heb.12:24), not only calls to mind the Old Covenant, and its inauguration, but is certainly advising his disciples that they must identify with him in a New Covenant, and be sanctified by its blood (Heb.10:29).
This is the New Covenant age, and one in which the blood of sacrifice has been spilled, never again to be sacrificed. But we still have the wine of communion to remind us of it. And the Old Testament also had water (clean, or sometimes mixed with blood or ashes). There were many ways of cleansing things in the OT. A ritual wash is no less a cleansing on account of it's being a ritual.
Ezekiel tells Israel that when the New Covenant arrives, in contrast to blood of animals sprinkled on the people, he will sprinkle them with clean water, and they will be clean. Without even bothering to make a tie-in to ritual baptism, you have to reckon with the simple fact that God uses the symbol of a shower to indicate a thorough cleansing.
So, to object that a New Testament baptism-by-sprinkling might not "use enough water" is to make a demand that Ezekiel might find puzzling. How much water does God need to make his point?
Consider the Bible's own use of the term, speaking of baptism into Moses and Jesus. Your union with Christ is a character-defining integration into his identity. Your life as a Christian is now "hidden with Christ in God."
The Bible uses "baptism" in a multi-faceted way--by means of this symbol speaking:
of cleansing (Tit.3:5),
of pouring out unto indwelling and gifting by Holy Spirit (Act.10:44-47),
of union with Christ in his death (Rom.6:3),
of union with Christ in his life (Gal.3:27),
of solidarity with fellow believers (1.Cor.12:13).
"...one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all..."
***************
There are two OT baptisms that are frequently overlooked. They are overlooked because only the NT calls attention to their baptismal character. The second is mentioned in 1Cor.10:2--Israel was baptized in the Red Sea crossing. This is the Exodus, and it is a baptism of judgment. Jesus makes this connection explicit also when he speaks of the "baptism" he must undergo (Lk.12:50); while also speaking of his "exodus" (Lk.9:31) pointing to the same event--the cross.
The first baptism in the Bible shares the judgmental character of the second, Noah's flood--1Pet.3:20-21. Note that in both of these events, ALL the participants are baptized in one form or another. Israel, and Pharaoh and his hosts; Noah and his family, and all the inhabitants of the earth.
The only way to safety in the midst of the judgment of baptism is through the God-appointed means of salvation. In the case of Noah, it is inside the Ark. In the case of Israel it is by union with the mediator of the Old Covenant, Moses. Both of these typify Christ and the antitype found in the New Covenant.
In both cases of those who are saved, they are only sprinkled with the instrument of judgment: water--they are not overwhelmed and drowned in it. Israel goes through the sea dry shod, but are sprinkled with rain, Ps.77:17. And we are all familiar with the "rains" that came down, while the floods arose, and bore the ark upward in the deluge.
The point is, that "sprinkling" is used by the Bible itself to indicate the reality of judgment--one that falls on us but lightly, who yet deserved no better than the rest of mankind, or Pharaoh and his hosts.
A.J.
Puritan Board Junior
Rachel, the author of Hebrews describes in the succeeding verses the baptisms he mentions in 9:10. Verses 12-14 and 19-21 make clear that the baptisms (as indicated in the original) he is discussing involve the purification/cleansing of persons in addition to things. And these were done by sprinkling. The OT references of these verses bear this out.
Hebrews 9:12-14 summarizes what happened in Numbers 19:1-13. Verse 13 from Numbers is especially important since we find both sprinkling and water together there. Persons were the ones purified/cleansed by water that was sprinkled. (cf. Ezekiel 36:25-28)
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; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
Hebrews 19:19-21 describes the event in Exodus 24:1-8. Notice as well that in the institution of the Lord's Supper, the Lord Himself uses the language of Exodus 24:1-8 to describe the once for all effect of His shed blood to His elect (cf. Luke 22:1ff especially verse 20 with Exodus 20:8). Observe the striking parallel as it relates to the argument of the author of Hebrews concerning the superiority of Christ and His ministry. As before, the sprinkling in the Exodus account was done to persons.
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Therefore, the only way to deny the validity of sprinkling as a mode of baptism is to deny any connection between Hebrews 9:10 on the one hand, and 9:12-14 and 9:19-21 on the other. That is, for the immersionist case from this important chapter to be convincing, he/she must argue that the sprinkling rites of 9:12-14 and 9:19-21 are not the baptisms of 9:10. This can't be done and does injustice to why the inspired writer connects these purification rites at all to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (cf. 10:22; 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2).
-----Added 6/10/2009 at 11:37:32 EST-----
This is the same OT text the Ethiopian eunuch would have just been reading before Philip explained to him what the Scriptures meant and baptized him (Acts 8:27ff.).
Last edited:
A2JC4life
Puritan Board Freshman
For clarification, when I said "physical things" I did not mean purification of objects. I meant physical aspects of our lives - food and drink and "hygiene" for lack of a better way to phrase the connection. These were the "washings" that went together with "food" and "drink."
As I said, though, I will give Hebrews further study. I haven't had a chance yet.
As I said, though, I will give Hebrews further study. I haven't had a chance yet.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
There is never any talk of being immersed in Christ's blood in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is poured out in Spirit baptism and revival - in such a way does Christ apply His forgiveness and cleansing.
Were those in Noah's ark immersed or sprinkled/splashed or were the unbelievers not immersed? Were the children of Israel immersed or sprinlked or were the Egyptians not immersed?
"So shall He (that is Christ) sprinkle many nations." (Isaiah 52:15)
The Presbyterians allow for sprinkling or pouring and accept those who've been immersed out of charity. Although immersion is not ideal, it does involve washing with water, which is even more essential than how it is done.
Were those in Noah's ark immersed or sprinkled/splashed or were the unbelievers not immersed? Were the children of Israel immersed or sprinlked or were the Egyptians not immersed?
"So shall He (that is Christ) sprinkle many nations." (Isaiah 52:15)
The Presbyterians allow for sprinkling or pouring and accept those who've been immersed out of charity. Although immersion is not ideal, it does involve washing with water, which is even more essential than how it is done.
Rachel,
I'm a little confused now. That doesn't sound quite like an honest question to me. It sounds more like you have a pretty well-formed opinion--that if it was OK to baptize by sprinkling, then the word "baptism" wouldn't have been used, and the word "sprinkling" would have been.
Your original question seemed to be a desire to know why sprinklers thought they had a biblical justification for using that method to baptize. Since then, you have gotten answers that range from a single verse to extended explanations.
No one has tried to change your mind--I certainly haven't. But your question "what is your biblical justification" has been fairly responded to. Now, it just seems as though you want us to question that justification.
Is that a fair evaluation of your intent?
I have a different question for you: Do you not find it strange that although the writers of the NT had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?
{actually, "kataduo/kataduno" (drop the strengthened form, en- pref.) is more common word}
I'm a little confused now. That doesn't sound quite like an honest question to me. It sounds more like you have a pretty well-formed opinion--that if it was OK to baptize by sprinkling, then the word "baptism" wouldn't have been used, and the word "sprinkling" would have been.
Your original question seemed to be a desire to know why sprinklers thought they had a biblical justification for using that method to baptize. Since then, you have gotten answers that range from a single verse to extended explanations.
No one has tried to change your mind--I certainly haven't. But your question "what is your biblical justification" has been fairly responded to. Now, it just seems as though you want us to question that justification.
Is that a fair evaluation of your intent?
I have a different question for you: Do you not find it strange that although the writers of the NT had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?
{actually, "kataduo/kataduno" (drop the strengthened form, en- pref.) is more common word}
Last edited:
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
Are you sure about that word? I can't find it in the GNT, BDAG, or LSJ.
A2JC4life
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm sorry; I don't mean to come across as obnoxious.
I must admit that my head is foggier than usual this week (sick kids last week mean lack of sleep!), so my thought process is probably a bit zig-zaggy. I'm still trying to see this from all angles. The link between the other verses that talk about sprinkling, and the verses that talk about baptism seems, to my mind, to be tenuous at best. And I find it strange that this would be such an obscure link, and that a word whose primary meaning is "to dip" would be used consistently instead of a readily-available word for "to sprinkle," if sprinkling is what the authors had in mind. But my question was not meant to be contentious, but rather to seek out a response such as your own, in order to continue looking at the question from both sides. Do you happen to have a Strong's number or something available, so that I might look up this word you mentioned?
I must admit that my head is foggier than usual this week (sick kids last week mean lack of sleep!), so my thought process is probably a bit zig-zaggy. I'm still trying to see this from all angles. The link between the other verses that talk about sprinkling, and the verses that talk about baptism seems, to my mind, to be tenuous at best. And I find it strange that this would be such an obscure link, and that a word whose primary meaning is "to dip" would be used consistently instead of a readily-available word for "to sprinkle," if sprinkling is what the authors had in mind. But my question was not meant to be contentious, but rather to seek out a response such as your own, in order to continue looking at the question from both sides. Do you happen to have a Strong's number or something available, so that I might look up this word you mentioned?
Here's what I picked up ref. LSJ (via internet):
enkata-dunô [u_], aor. -katedun, of the sun,
A. set upon a place, Hp.Aër.6; sink beneath, hudasin AP7.532 (Isid.); muchon Opp. H.1.153 : abs., sink, be absorbed in, Archig. ap. Aët.3.167, Gal.7.217: metaph., to be immersed in, c. dat., Dam.Pr.10:--Med., tois oikeiois epitêdeumasi Procop.Arc.1 .
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
A related term in a more Bible-oriented lexicon would be "enduo", Strongs # G1746 (drop the kata)
{I added in the earlier thread, "kataduo/kataduno" (w/out the strengthened en- prefix) is probably more common word}
**************
My purpose is not to play "one-up" or anything, on Rachel or anyone else. The point is simple: if "baptize" meant something other than "baptize", then we wouldn't have a transliterated word. It doesn't just transfer over as "immerse," no matter if that word could be used in a majority of instances to explain the meaning of "baptizo".
Like most terms, "baptizo" has a history of meanings and a semantic range. One of those is "ritual washing." There are many ways that idea can be incarnated.
Last edited:
This is a well known statement. What surprises me is that Calvin is trotted out so frequently as though his statement was intended to provide support for immersion practice.For what it is worth ....
"Yet the word baptize means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church_ John Calvin, Inst. IV.15.19
It was as well know in Calvin's day as it is today that the Greek-Orthodox "swoosh" their infants three times bodily through a font or trough. I'm not sure if they've drenched adults recently.
I know this for an iron-clad fact: the descriptions of the elaborate rites and nude adult immersion-baptisms that have come down to us from the ancient church were neither attractive to Calvin (when seeking to purify the church's worship according to Scripture), nor are those ancient practices sought after by today's baptists.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
This is a well known statement. What surprises me is that Calvin is trotted out so frequently as though his statement was intended to provide support for immersion practice.For what it is worth ....
"Yet the word baptize means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church_ John Calvin, Inst. IV.15.19
It was as well know in Calvin's day as it is today that the Greek-Orthodox "swoosh" their infants three times bodily through a font or trough. I'm not sure if they've drenched adults recently.
I know this for an iron-clad fact: the descriptions of the elaborate rites and nude adult immersion-baptisms that have come down to us from the ancient church were neither attractive to Calvin (when seeking to purify the church's worship according to Scripture), nor are those ancient practices sought after by today's baptists.
Easy there pardner, I didn't quote Calvin for support of immersion. I quoted Calvin as linguistic support for baptizo because you asked -
Do you not find it strange that although the writers of the NT had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?
As the Genevan Reformer attests the NT writers did use the word for immerse. That's all.
Bob,
It's possible that you didn't see that my question was simply Rachel's question, with the terms switched out.
Her point was that "rhantizo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be sprinkled for the remission of sins," etc.
My rejoinder: "enkataduo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be immersed for the remission of sins," etc.
If you tell me "But that's exactly what they did said, according to Calvin," I will have to say "I think Calvin would oppose your appropriation of his language to make such a case, as much as I would."
Calvin is certainly acknowledging a denotative definition of the term, but not a connotative definition--that much is obvious from the context (and his practice). And he acknowledges baptismal-immersion can be found in the ancient church--but he doesn't say it is defined and delimited as such in Scripture.
Peace.
It's possible that you didn't see that my question was simply Rachel's question, with the terms switched out.
Her point was that "rhantizo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be sprinkled for the remission of sins," etc.
My rejoinder: "enkataduo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be immersed for the remission of sins," etc.
If you tell me "But that's exactly what they did said, according to Calvin," I will have to say "I think Calvin would oppose your appropriation of his language to make such a case, as much as I would."
Calvin is certainly acknowledging a denotative definition of the term, but not a connotative definition--that much is obvious from the context (and his practice). And he acknowledges baptismal-immersion can be found in the ancient church--but he doesn't say it is defined and delimited as such in Scripture.
Peace.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, it is possible that I missed that.
I did not attribute any such conclusion to the Reformer, did I?
Simply linguistics, brother.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
lsj - ἐγκαταδύνω
Thanks Lance.
I was wondering why it was hard to locate, and the assimilation/sandhi of the "n" to "g" seems to explain that.
I was wondering why it was hard to locate, and the assimilation/sandhi of the "n" to "g" seems to explain that.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Another reason that Presbyterians accept people who have been immersed without rebaptising them by sprinkling or pouring is that part of the symbolism of the washing of baptism is that it should only be done once only, because it speaks of the washing of regeneration and baptism in the Spirit which only happens once at the beginning of true Christian life.
What is water baptism a symbol of? It is a symbol of baptism in the Spirit. How is baptism in the Spirit spoken of? Immersion in the Spirit? No. The Spirit is poured out on believers (Acts 10:45).
We are anointed by the Anointed One (Messiah, Christ) to be kings, priests and prophets. In the Old Covenant the anointing of kings, prophets and priests didn't involve immersion. There is an overflow of Christ's anointing with the Spirit upon His people.
What is water baptism a symbol of? It is a symbol of baptism in the Spirit. How is baptism in the Spirit spoken of? Immersion in the Spirit? No. The Spirit is poured out on believers (Acts 10:45).
We are anointed by the Anointed One (Messiah, Christ) to be kings, priests and prophets. In the Old Covenant the anointing of kings, prophets and priests didn't involve immersion. There is an overflow of Christ's anointing with the Spirit upon His people.
- Status
