Baptism with the Spirit

In your letter which has just come to hand you are kind enough to express yourself satisfied upon the various points which have thus far been discussed; and you send me a “list of passages to be expounded, and of arguments and objections of Baptist writers to be considered, in order to relieve your mind from the difficulties which deter you from a full acceptance of the views which are held by those who differ from them.”

The first passage which you mention is Luke 12:50: “I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.” This passage is made much of by the Baptist writers. Especially do they quote with great confidence Doddridge’s paraphase of it: “I have, in the meantime, a most dreadful baptism to be baptized with, and know that I shall shortly, as it were, be bathed in blood and plunged in the most overwhelming distress.”

I accept this paraphrase, and find no difficulty in harmonizing it with the view hitherto presented. In the first part of this correspondence attention was called to the fact that wherever the word baptizo is used figuratively in classical writings it is always in a bad sense. This example illustrates the same usage.

A passage in the Septuagint, to which reference was made, but the consideration of which was postponed, is equally in point. It is found in Is. 21:4: “Iniquity overwhelms me.” Matt. 20: 22, 23 and Mark 10: 38, 39 belong to the same class. In all these passages the classical usage (where the word is employed figuratively) is retained. The literal sense has undergone a change — the word never being employed either in the Old Testament or the New to express literal immersion. But a figurative immersion in calamities, sufferings, or sins is expressed by it in the Bible just as in the classical writings. In its sacred or ecclesiastical sense it expresses the idea of ceremonial cleansing with water, and figuratively the idea of spiritual cleansing, of which the ceremonial was a type. Outside of that it is used in its classical sense.

And in this there is nothing inconsistent with the well-known laws of language. A word which has passed into a new sense does not necessarily lose its old one, but often retains it, both senses being carried along together for all subsequent time. Thus, for example, bapto means both “dip” and “dye.” The same writers use it in both senses. Were one to be called on to translate the sentence, “He dyed it red, by dipping it three times in blood,” it would be perfectly proper to use the same word bapto in both parts of the sentence. Pneuma means both “wind” and “spirit,” and may be used by the same author in both senses. Were you to translate this sentence into Greek, “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit,” you would be entirely justified in using pneuma in both parts of the paragraph. Exactly this is what John does (see 3: 8).

Various other examples might be given of a similar kind.

The facts, then, in respect to the use of baptizo, I understand to be these: —

(1) In classical literature its meaning (as well as we can express it in one word) is “immerse,” without reference to material or result.

(2) Its figurative meaning (corresponding to this) is “immerse” or “overwhelm,” but always in a bad sense.

(3) Its secondary sense, found in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the writings of the Jews and the Christian Fathers, is to cleanse ceremonially by water.

(4) This secondary sense is also used figuratively to express the idea of spiritual cleansing, as by the Holy Spirit and with fire.

The last three uses are found illustrated in the Bible; the first never.

You are so well acquainted with the laws of language, from your teaching of the English, that you understand that it is entirely proper to speak of a “secondary” sense as “literal.” Some have failed to distinguish between a secondary meaning and a figurative meaning. Any word having both a primary and a secondary meaning may be used figuratively in either. For example, take bapto, meaning primarily to “dip” or “plunge,” secondarily to “dye”: it may be used figuratively in either of its senses. Thus we may say of a man that he is “plunged in iniquity,” or that he is “dyed in iniquity.” A secondary sense of a word is one thing; a figurative sense is another.

Another of the passages to which you invite my attention is John 3:5:“Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

I am aware that this passage has been appealed to in defense of Baptist views. Indeed it would not be easy to enumerate the absurdities that have been imposed upon this verse. Out of its misinterpretation have grown baptismal regeneration and all sorts of fanciful analogies, exactly suited to some of the centuries through which the Church has passed — such as the talk of being “born of the womb of the waters,” and all that.

Now to my mind there is no more allusion to baptism in this verse than to the planet Mars or the French Revolution. It is simply natural birth that is here spoken of. Being “born of water” was without doubt a well-known form of speech which Christ used in that sense. Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus replied: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”

And here I beg leave to vindicate Nicodemus against the imputations upon his common sense which are found in so many of the commentaries; and in like manner the annotators have done injustice to the woman of Samaria, who appears in the next chapter. Christ used figurative language which both of these persons understood well to be figurative. We do, with all our Occidental dullness and unpoetical temperament. Much more did these Orientals, who are wont to talk in figures and dispute in figures on all subjects.

Nicodemus simply employs the same figure of speech that Christ does, and replies: “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born — of course, I know that is not what you mean; explain a little farther.”

Jesus answered: “Except a man be born naturally, and also spiritually, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” “Born of water” in the first part of the sentence and “born of the flesh” in the latter part (for it is but one paragraph) are evidently parallel and equivalent expressions. The latter is simply epexegetical of the former. Let the whole paragraph be read together, just as it will be found in any paragraph Bible, and the meaning is obvious: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

Those who find any baptism here are compelled to find three births: “born of the flesh” (natural birth), “born of the water” (baptism), “born of the Spirit” (regeneration). According to this exegesis, Christ should have said to Nicodemus, not, “Ye must be born again,” but, “Ye must be born twice more; as yet you have been born only of the flesh — hereafter you must be born of the water, and of the Spirit.”

And why of the water first; if it be baptism? Is this Christ’s way of putting things to one already steeped in ritualism? Baptism first? — the Holy Spirit afterwards? So Alexander Campbell interpreted this passage. I wish that he had been the only one that had made the mistake of finding baptism here; but with all due deference to the large number of them, there never was a more fanciful exegesis known to the Middle Ages. The reading of a single volume upon obstetrics — even had they been thus compelled to read one volume less on systematic theology — would have suggested to the commentators the true meaning of this passage, upon which so many of them have stumbled. On the interpretation of this verse I will put the doctors of medicine against the doctors of divinity, and they will vote them down by an overwhelming majority and tell them that this expression was undoubtedly a well-known mode of speaking of natural birth and nothing else.

The next passage upon your list, of which you request an exposition, is 1 Cor. 15:29: “Else what shall they do, who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?”

This must be admitted to be one of the most obscure passages in the Bible; at least if we judge from the great variety of interpretations which it has received. I do not propose to refer to them all, but to three which are appealed to in favor of Baptist views. The first would paraphrase the words thus: “Why do we subject ourselves to all manner of sufferings such as constantly overwhelm us in hope of the glory to come if there is for us no resurrection and so no glory to come?” The second thus: “Why are we overwhelmed in grief and buried in sorrow on behalf of the dead if there is for them no. future life and all their pains and miseries have come to an end?” The third thus: “Why do we, by our baptism, represent resurrection as well as burial, if there be no resurrection?”

Of the first two interpretations, or any others, which in like manner make the baptism figurative, it is only necessary to say that in that case the passage is simply another example belonging to the same class with Luke 12:50, which has been already explained and shown to give no support to the Baptist view of the baptismal rite, etc.

Of the third interpretation it is, perhaps, enough to say that the words employed do not seem to be at all a natural method of expressing that idea, and that the verse which follows has no legitimate connection with any such allusion to the mode of baptism. If the paraphrase above is correct, why did not the apostle say, “Why, then, are we baptized for the resurrection?” instead of saying, “Why are we, then, baptized for the dead?” And the utter want of connection between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses is obvious. Substitute the paraphrase and the two verses read thus: “Why do we by our baptism represent resurrection; and why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” I see no connection, but everything disjointed.

To my mind there is in this passage no allusion to immersion, literal or figurative. Baptism is not spoken of with any reference to the mode of the ordinance, but simply with reference to the fact that it was the outward profession of allegiance to Christ. A man began his Christian course by that profession. It cost him his life oftentimes to make it. Many lived but a few days after they had taken this oath of allegiance to their divine Lord. It was to be baptized to-day and die to-morrow. To put on Christ by baptism was to put on the robes of the dead. “Now if there be no resurrection of the dead,” says Paul — “if there be for us no future life, what mean those among you who from time to time are baptized for the sake of being enrolled with the dead, as they know they will be immediately upon their professing Christ? Why are they, then, baptized for the dead? Why do they make any profession of faith in Christ at all? With such profession their life here ends, and there is no life hereafter. Why are they such madmen, and why are we all such madmen, who stand in jeopardy every hour? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most miserable. We lose this world and gain nothing beyond.”

Such is my paraphrase of this verse and its connection, in which there appears no allusion to any mode of baptism; but only to the perils of a Christian profession such as baptism involved.