Romans 6 and the Burial Figure

In reply to my tenth letter you say: “You have spoken somewhat of the use of the preposition eis, upon which the Baptist writers have a good deal to say; but I would be glad to have you discuss that matter of the prepositions which are translated ‘into’ and ‘out of’ more fully, so that if I accept your views upon the main question (as I think I shall be compelled to) I may be able to meet the arguments of my Baptist brethren on that part of the subject; for you know, as well as I do, how much stress they lay upon it.” You say also: “Perhaps you are right in what you maintain — that the way in which the apostles baptized settles nothing as to the law of baptism, and does not, therefore, form any absolute rule for our direction; but I am not sure as yet that I am prepared to follow you fully in that line of your discussion.”

I am glad of your frankness; this is what above all else I appreciate — that you should criticise thoroughly every word I write; and that you should yield to no argument that you. can find any fault with. As you said in one of your first letters to me, “Nothing will do us any good but the truth.”

With your permission I will take up your last difficulty first. What I hold is this, that even if it could be shown that the apostles invariably immersed (which I by no means accept as a fact) still it would not result from that fact alone, that we are under any obligation to immerse. If the law of baptism requires immersion, then it is our duty to practice immersion whether the apostles did or not; if the law does not so require, we are bound only by what it does require. The law of God is perfect and covers the whole ground. There is no such thing as a work of supererogation. There is no virtue in “will-worship.”

In a former letter I gave various instances in which the manner of doing things is entirely different from what it was in those days; showing that we had just as good a right to do them in our way as they had to do them in their way. We recognize and acknowledge this in respect to our modes of preaching, of dress, of eating and drinking, and many other like things. So far as there is anything said on the subject, it seems probable that they celebrated the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s day; as it is entirely certain that they always partook of it reclining, but we do not hold ourselves under obligation to have communion every week. Nor do Christian people at the present day make their own practice in such matters a law for others. Some sit around a table to receive the communion; some receive it sitting in their, seats at church; some receive it kneeling; some have communion every Sabbath; some every month; some once in two or three months; some once a year. Some churches almost invariably practice sprinkling; but they do not, by so doing, declare that the Baptists are wrong in practicing immersion.

If the example of the apostles settles just how baptism should be administered, then we might conclude that it was only done properly when it was at a river, or, to say the least, out-of-doors. There is no instance in the New Testament of baptism in a baptistery: and if what the apostles did makes law for us our Baptist brethren who use a baptistery have certainly gone astray. I think, upon full consideration of the whole case, we must agree that the law of the ordinance itself and alone must settle the question. If it has been shown, beyond a reasonable question, that the word baptizo was well understood to express the general idea of ceremonial cleansing by water, then that is all that we need to know; beyond that it is a matter of interesting study and interpretation but of no vital consequence.

As, however, the point to which you call my attention — whether the prepositions used in connection with the ordinance of baptism, as set forth in the New Testament, prove immersion — is so often referred to by our good Baptist brethren, I am very willing to go into the investigation: and think you will find that the facts do not make their position so strong as they seem to suppose.

Take, first, the rendering of eis as meaning “into.” I wish to make the discussion as brief as I can; so I will give you the bare facts with little comment. This preposition eis which is appealed to to prove that persons who were baptized by the apostles and by John the Baptist went into the water is, in our translation, rendered about five hundred times “into,” and about the same number of times it is rendered “to.” So that no argument based upon this preposition can have very much force to maintain the theory of immersion. If you were to look into “The Englishman’s Greek Concordance,” you would find that in many of these examples the rendering might be changed from one to the other without any violence. But in some it would be quite impossible to use “into”; such as: “His disciples were come to the other side”; “Go thou to the sea, and cast a hook”; “Go home to thy friends”; etc.

There is one unequivocal method of saying that a man went into the water, or into his house, or into a city; and that is to use a verb compounded with the preposition eis as a prefix, either alone or followed by the preposition. Thus in the twentieth chapter of John, beginning with the 3d verse, we have this passage:

“Peter, therefore, went forth, and that other disciple, and came to (ērchonto eis) the sepulchre. So they ran both together; and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre (came to = ēlthe eis). And he, stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying: yet went he not in (went in = eis-ēlthen). Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre (went into = eis-ēlthen eis). Then went in also that other disciple (went in = eis-ēlthen) which came first to the sepulchre (‘which came to’ is, literally, ‘the one coming to’ = ho elthon eis).” I quote this paragraph in full, at the risk of marring my letter with more Greek than I like to introduce, so that you may see how the distinction is made between “going to” and “going into” a place.

Now what I wish to add is this: that this Only unequivocal method of expressing the idea of going into is never used in speaking of going into the water for baptism.

You see plainly from the verses which I have quoted that eis by itself does not convey the meaning of “into.” Three times in this short paragraph “coming to” the sepulchre is expressed, always by eis alone; and three times the idea of going “into” is also expressed, and always by a different method. And these examples illustrate the law of the Greek language.

If it be true that the eunuch was baptized by immersion, it is not because it is so recorded. For admitting that they both went into the water, that might easily have been without any reference to immersion. The style of dress, a loose flowing robe, was very favorable for stepping into the water; and the sandals that were worn were removed in the easiest possible way. And the baptism might easily have been by pouring or sprinkling. Some of the oldest pictures in the catacombs of Rome represent the baptism of those days as having been performed by pouring water upon the person standing in the water. Everything must be determined in the end by the meaning of the word itself. Assuming that they both went down into the water, that does not prove that it was for the purpose of immersion; after they were in the water, we are informed that Philip baptized him.

And as we have found that beyond all question the word “baptized” was broad enough to cover every method of ceremonial cleansing — from sprinkling to immersion — we cannot affirm that the eunuch was immersed. The running water was reached and it may have been sprinkled or poured upon him. Their being in the water proves nothing as to the mode of the baptism.

The prepositions which are translated “out of” in like manner determine nothing; as you will see from a study of their use in the New Testament as well as from the Greek language generally. The first of these prepositions is apo, which is used by Matthew and also by Mark in their account of the baptism of Christ.

This preposition properly means “from” and not “out of.” Some dictionaries do not give “out of” as one of its meanings; and it is very doubtful, to say the least, whether it should ever be translated so. It is used more than six hundred times in the New Testament and only some forty times translated “out of.” I am not hazarding much in saying that “from” would be a better rendering in every one of these instances. In the Revised Version this is the rendering which is given in almost all if not every one of the cases. Take a few of the examples and it will be seen that the change is fully justified. “The lightning cometh out of the East”; “They intreated him to depart out of their coasts”; “Coming out of the country”; “Lot went out of Sodom”; “Letters out of Judea”; etc. “From” might quite as well be used as “out of.”

The learned gentlemen who served the American Bible Union in making their version have generally shown much critical ability: and where their Baptist views — shall I say prejudices? — do not warp their judgment it is very much to be respected. Their treatment of apo is an illustration of both their critical ability in general and their denominational prejudices in particular. For finding apo translated forty times in our common version by “out of,” they correct it by substituting “from” in nearly every other instance, except these two which refer to baptism! The remaining four passages in which they leave it are such as “vanished out of their sight,’’ where they might as well have said “vanished from their sight,” and three others of equal insignificance! It would not do to correct every other one of the whole forty and leave these two Baptist turrets solitary and alone lest the reason of it should be too obvious! As it is, they have scarcely saved themselves from the charge of making a sectarian translation.

The preposition ek is the other preposition which is rendered “out of,” and this rendering is more plausible. All I wish to say is that this is so often rendered “from” that no strong argument can be drawn from it to prove that the baptized had been into the water and come “out of” it. You would find, if you cared to look it up, that even ek is rendered “from” about one hundred and seventy times in our Common Version against about one hundred and forty times where it is rendered “out of.”

The certain way of stating that one went out of a place may be seen from the following examples: —

Mark 5:8. “Come out of the man” (ex-elthe ek tou anthropou).

Mark 7:31. “Going out from the coasts of Tyre” (ex-elthon ek ton horion Turou).

Luke 4: 22. “Going out of his mouth” (ek-poreuomenois ek ton stomatos autou).

You observe that in these cases the preposition ek (or ex before a vowel) precedes the verb as a part of it and also precedes the noun: a construction similar to that which we found in the case of the preposition eis where the idea of entering into was expressed. There is no case where this unequivocal manner of saying that one goes “out of” a place is found in connection with baptism. We are compelled, therefore, to the conclusion that there is no certain evidence in the New Testament that any one either went into the water or came out of it in connection with baptism.

But I repeat it, if there were, it still remains unproved that the baptism was by immersion; and if it were, it still does not, by any means, show that in the judgment of the apostles it could not have been performed in some other way. The fact that my neighbor, Dr. G., has not in ten years baptized any person except by sprinkling does not show that he considers no other method to be valid baptism.

The statements of Matthew (3: 6), “They were baptized of him in the Jordan,” and of Mark (1:5), “They were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan,” are often appealed to by our Baptist brethren as settling the question in favor of their theory. But suppose we admit that these are examples of undoubted immersion (as we would be willing to if we could honestly) — what then? We do not deny that immersion is one of the proper methods of baptism coming within the range of the term chosen by our Lord. Naaman’s case shows that it is; but then the immersion of these persons in the river Jordan would not by any means prove that that was considered the only method of baptism. The meaning of the word itself must settle that question. If that requires immersion, our Baptist brethren are right; if it does not, as I think has been plainly shown, they are mistaken. We do not object to their practicing immersion, as they prefer to do: we object to their claim that immersion is the only baptism. And if we should admit that these passages plainly describe immersion, it would not at all weaken our argument nor at all substantiate their claim. To make that claim good they must prove that no other method is allowable. That they can only do by showing that the word itself means nothing else.