John's Baptism, the Jordan, and Ænon

In response to my last you say: “How do you get along with the version of the Baptist Union, in which they translate Matt. 3:11 — ‘I indeed immerse you in water’? Is not the preposition en used here, and are they not justified in saying ‘in water’? I would prefer to retain the word ‘baptize’: but why not translate, ‘I, indeed, baptize you in water’?”

You put the matter very well; and I will endeavor to make my answer plain to one who has not studied the Greek as well as to one who has. Let me say, then, three things: —

1. The preposition en often means “with.” It is so translated in our Common Version more than a hundred times. Take one verse as a sample to illustrate its use in expressing, as the grammars say, “the manner, means, or instrument.” It is found in I Cor. 5:8: “Let us keep the feast not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” Three times in this verse en is translated “with.” No English scholar, I think, would translate it in any other way.

1. That this is the proper translation whenever it is used in referring to water baptism is made clear from the fact that in three out of eight cases in which water baptizing is spoken of there is no preposition at all. For example, in Matt. 3:11, John is represented as saying, “ego baptizo humas en hudati,” while in Luke 3:16 the same statement of John is in these words: “ego baptizo humas hudati.” In this last form hudati can be nothing else but the “dative of means, or instrument.” “I baptize you with water” is the obvious and only translation. Hence the parallel passage in Matthew must naturally be translated in the same way. In other words the case stands thus: Luke’s version of what John says can only mean “with water”; Matthew’s version, taken by itself, could be translated either “with water” or “in water.” The former makes the two accounts to harmonize completely, and is therefore to be preferred.

1. You will see also that it is too plain for contradiction; that, as no one would ever think of saying, “I immerse you with water,” “immerse” is not the proper translation of “baptize” in Luke 3:16. And if not in this verse, then it is not in the parallel verse in Matt. 3:11.

But we wish to study this passage which speaks of John’s baptism a little more thoroughly, to see whether the definition of “baptize” as expressing the idea of ceremonial cleansing does not entirely fit the whole connection far better than the theory that it means immerse.

Here is the passage in full: “I, indeed, baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

Understanding the word baptize to express purification or cleansing, everything is plain. John’s cleansing was by water; Christ’s should be by the Spirit and by fire. An evident advance in thought, which is entirely natural, purification running through the whole. And as if to make it still plainer the very next clause reads: “whose fan is in his hand; and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

“John the Baptist” was not “John the Immerser,” but “John the Purifier.” He was recognized, I take it, as a sort of stern, rigid, uncompromising Puritan. The people came to his baptism, confessing their sins. He preaches plain truths; tells them of One yet to be revealed, who will purify them more thoroughly by far.

They would natifrally think of the prophecy four hundred years before — “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap, and he shall sit As a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the Sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.”

These prophecies — referring to the coming of Christ and particularly to his forerunner — might naturally lead them to expect some one who should come as a Purifier; and they would recognize John as fulfilling the prophecy. Hence that question of the priests and Levites who were sent to John to find out who he was. He was not Elias, nor the Christ, nor a prophet. “Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?” I know of no prophecy foretelling that either Christ or his messenger should immerse anybody; but various prophecies spoke of them as purifiers. For example: “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean”; “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” I understand these prophecies to foretell, in figurative language, that Christ should come to purify. For ceremonial purification was so often by sprinkling, so generally by sprinkling, that the figure would be readily understood. And so the writer to the Hebrews speaks of having “our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.”

If it be asked just here, why “sprinkle” was not used in the Commission instead of “baptize,” if ceremonial cleansing was to be expressed, it may be answered that sprinkling was sometimes of blood, sometimes of ashes, not always of water. Christ wished to employ water henceforward as the only emblem of purification; and so he chose another word, already in well-established usage — a word that had been for centuries used to express the idea of ceremonial cleansing by water, and whose original signification would suggest the thoroughness and completeness of the cleansing that was to be wrought.

Understanding “baptism” to express this general idea, all is plain. Understanding it to mean “dip, plunge, or immerse,” everything is awkward and obscure.

Take another passage: “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim, because there was much water there and they came and were baptized... Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.” This whole narrative indicates the close relationship between the two words “baptize” and “purify.” Two views may be taken of it: either that the two terms are used interchangeably, as substantially synonymous; or that, without being synonymous, the baptizing which was understood to symbolize purity led to a discussion about purifying in general.

Either view is inconsistent with the theory that regards baptism as a symbol of death and resurrection. For in that case, while the ordinance might have led to a general discussion of that topic, it is not easy to see how purifying could have become the subject of dispute at all.

But I think that more than this is demanded by the exegesis of this passage. Two parties baptizing: a controversy as to whether they both had an equal right to do so; the settlement of that controversy by John’s telling them that Christ had as good a right to baptize as he, and even a better right — that I can understand. Such a paraphrase makes the whole case* clear. But this supposes baptizing and purifying to be employed as substantially synonymous terms; and this, I cannot help thinking, is the true interpretation.

“But could not a general discussion on purification grow out of baptism,” it is asked, “without supposing the two things to be the same?” Most certainly; but what has their statement of the case, when they come to John, to do with a general discussion of that sort? Nothing. The nature of the dispute is not specifically stated, and can be only inferred from what precedes and from what follows. The antecedent fact stated is that both Jesus and John were baptizing near together. The natural inference is that the dispute was as to the apparently conflicting claims of the two; and this inference becomes irresistible when we discover that this was the only question which they brought to John and the only one to which he makes the slightest allusion in his reply. If they did have a discussion of the general subject of purification, their statement of the case to John is quite unaccountable, and his whole reply still more so.

Read over the whole narrative as it is recorded in John 3: 22-36, and you will see plainly that the facts are: —

(1) Both Jesus and John were baptizing in Ænon.

(2) There arose a question about purifying.

(3) Some persons went to John to tell him that Jesus was baptizing; and they evidently had a feeling that he ought not to be doing it.

(4) John assures them of Christ’s supremacy in all things.

That is the whole story; and I am constrained to believe that there was but one subject suggested by these verses, — which in one place is called baptizing, in another purifying, — the two words being used interchangeably as though substantially synonymous.

What do the Baptist critics say to this?

Dr. Carson replies in substance: — “It is none of our business to explain the connection! The historian states that they were immersing; and purification and immersion we know are not the same: purify is a general term: baptize is not.” If this style of argument is not what logicians call “a begging of the question,” we confess that we do not know what would be.

“But does not the historian say that John was baptizing at Ænon, because there was ‘much water’ there? And does not that indicate immersion as the method of his baptism?”

I answer: —

1. Every scholar knows that the word “Ænon” means “fountains” or “springs.” The springs are still there, as they were two thousand years ago.

1. Any one who knows even a very little Greek can discover that the words translated “much water” are in the plural, and literally translated would read “many waters.”

1. Even a Baptist minister would need neither a great body of water, nor many springs, even for purposes of immersion. Hence an allusion to either “much water” or “many waters” is not at all necessary to explain the simple fact of baptism, whatever the method of it may have been.

1. For some other reason, therefore, than baptism did John choose this location: and it is not difficult to find a reason far more satisfactory. Immense throngs of people waited on the ministry of this mighty preacher. Many of them came from afar. It was, so to speak, a great “camp-meeting” that was held at Ænon. The “many springs” would be in requisition for accommodating both man and beast.

1. John never baptized, except where there was running water. He would have revolted from the thought of a baptistery. It must be “living” water. Hence the Jordan. But one of the living springs at Ænon might have answered his purpose, no matter what his manner of baptizing. For myself, I am of the opinion that all his Jewish education would lead him to dip a bunch of hyssop into the running water, and sprinkle it upon the people in token of their turning away from their sins unto the living God. The words of the Psalmist were familiar to him: “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.” It was so often by sprinkling of the hyssop that cleansing came under the law. He had read the prophecy, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.” He had often heard that other prophecy, “So shall he sprinkle many nations”; and although he knew full well, as his preaching shows, that he did not understand any outward ceremony as having in itself saving or cleansing power, yet when an outward ceremony symbolizing inward cleansing was to be used he would most naturally employ the ceremony which from time immemorial had been used to express it.