Thoughts on Baptism

SPRINKLE is from two words only in the Old Testament, namely, nah-zah and zah-rak. The first is quite uniformly rendered both in the English and Greek, as will be seen by the following table:—

Nahzah. | Common Version. | Septuagint.

Ex. 29:21 | sprinkle. |rhaneis.

Lev. 4:6 |sprinkle. | prosrhanei.

17 | sprinkle. | rhanei.

5:9 |sprinkle. | rhanei.

6:27 | sprinkled. | epirrhantisthe.

27 | sprinkled. | rhantisthe.

8:11 | sprinkled. | errhanen.

30 | sprinkled. | proserrhanen.

14:7 | sprinkle. | perirrhanei.

16 | sprinkle. | rhanei.

27 | sprinkle. | rhanei.

51 | sprinkle. | perirrhanei.

16:14 | sprinkle. | rhanei.

14 | sprinkle. | rhanei.

15 | sprinkle. | rhanei.

19 | sprinkle. | rhanei.

Num. 8:7 | sprinkle. | perirrhaneis.

19:4 | sprinkle. | rhanei.

18 | sprinkle. | perirrhanei.

19 | sprinkle. | perirrhanei.

21 | sprinkleth. | perirrhainon.

2 Kin. 9:33 | sprinkled. | errhantisthe.

Isa. 52:15 | sprinkle. | thauraasontai.

63:3 | sprinkled. | kategagon.

Here we find the same definiteness, and nearly the same uniformity, of rendering. In all the instances except the last two, the Septuagint uses the same word, or different forms of the same root, while the English has the same word throughout. As the idea of sprinkling is not found in tah-val, so the idea of immersion is not found in nah-zah.

The Hebrew word zah-rak occurs thirty-four times, as follows:—

Zak-rak.| Common Version.|Septuagint.

Exodus 9:8| sprinkle.| pasato.

10| sprinkled.| epasen.

24:6| sprinkled. | prosechee.

8| sprinkled.| kateskedase.

29:16| sprinkle.| proscheeis.

20| sprinkle.| (wanting.)

Lev. 1:5| sprinkle.| proscheousi.

11| sprinkle.| proscheousin.

3:2| sprinkle.| proscheousin.

8| sprinkle.| proscheousin.

13| sprinkle.| proscheousin.

7:2| sprinkle.| proscheei.

14| sprinkleth.| proscheonti.

8:19| sprinkled.| prosechee.

9:12| sprinkled.| prosecheen.

18| sprinkled.| prosechee.

17:6| sprinkle.| proscheei.

Num. 18:17| sprinkle.| proscheeis.

19:13| sprinkled.| perierrhantisthe.

20| sprinkled.| perierrhantisthe.

2 Kin. 16:13| sprinkled.| prosechee.

15| sprinkle.| ekcheeis.

2 Chron. 29:22| sprinkled.| prosechean.

22| sprinkled.| prosechean.

22| sprinkled.| periecheon.

30:16| sprinkled.| edechonto.

34:4| strowed.| errhipsen.

35:11| sprinkled.| prosechean.

Job 2:12| sprinkled.| katapassamenoi.

Isa. 28:25| scatter.| speirei.

Eze. 10:2| scatter.| diaskorpison.

36:25| sprinkle.| rhano.

43:18| here and there—mar. sprinkled | exenthesan.

Hos. 7:9| sprinkle.| proscheein.

This word is somewhat more variously rendered, both in the English and in the Septuagint; but the same idea obtains throughout. Its signification, to scatter, hence, to sprinkle, admits of a variety of renderings; but in this, as in nah-zah, the idea of dipping or immersing is not found.

We think nothing more is required to show that the language of the Scriptures admits of no such ambiguity as to put baptizo for rhantizo, or immerse for sprinkle. In Lev. 4:6, we find both dip and sprinkle used, and it is easy to see that they cannot be interchanged.

There are two texts in the Old Testament which have been greatly misapprehended, and from which unwarrantable inferences have been drawn. Eze. 36:25, reads thus:—

"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean."

On this, Dr. Scott remarks:—

"In allusion to the divers washings and sprinklings of the ritual law, the Lord promised to sprinkle clean water upon his people, and to make them clean from all their filthiness and idols." This reference is correct, as may be seen by examining a few passages. In Num. 8:7, they were commanded to "sprinkle water of purifying" upon the unclean. In chap. 19:18, it is commanded that, if any one touch the dead body of a man, he shall be unclean; "and a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave."

This was for what is denominated "ceremonial uncleanness," having no relation to moral defilement. Paul refers to it in Heb. 9:13: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh." It was not as an ablution to cleanse from filth, but it was figurative, ceremonial, and typical; and the gospel fact which it prefigured is stated by the apostle thus: "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Verse 14. And for this reason Paul speaks of "the blood of sprinkling," and "having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." Heb. 12:24; 10:22.

Thus it is seen that these sprinklings of the ritual law, to which reference is made in Eze. 36:25, have no relation to any New Testament ordinance; they looked to a different object. And while that object is so definitely stated, there can be no excuse for the error of applying them to baptism in order to give countenance to sprinkling for that ordinance. The sprinkling of the conscience by the blood of Christ is declared to be their antitype, and a gospel duty is as clearly shown in connection therewith: "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Heb. 10:22.

Isa. 52:15, "So shall he sprinkle many nations," has been the ground of much speculation, and from it have been drawn some very erroneous conclusions. Even Dr. Clarke, who approves the rendering of the Septuagint, which is quite different from our common version, asks, in brackets, "[Does not sprinkling the nations refer to the conversion and baptism of the Gentiles?]" Scott, who offers no objection to the translation, much more appropriately refers it to the blood of sprinkling, the same as Eze. 36:25; to the sacrifice of Christ, to which so plain reference is made in the context. But the translation in the Authorized Version cannot be defended.

It should be understood that there are different forms or species of every Hebrew verb; and some of these have significations peculiar to themselves, which do not belong to any other species of the same word. Gesenius gives two definitions to that form of nah-zah used in this text: 1. To cause to leap for joy, to exult, to make rejoice. 2. To sprinkle, e. g., water, blood, also oil, with upon or towards. He accordingly renders this text, "So shall he cause many nations to rejoice in himself."

The Septuagint has thaumasontai from thaumazo, to wonder, marvel, or admire. This very well preserves the idea of the original, and preserves the parallelism of the composition in the original. "As many were astonished at thee, . . . so shall he cause many to wonder, or admire." And this Gesenius notices and approves, thus: "Gr., Syr., Vulg., Luth., Eng., 'So shall he sprinkle many nations,' see No. 2., i. e., my servant the Messiah shall make expiation for them; but this accords less with the parallel verb, shah-mam." Shah-mam is the verb used in verse 14, and means, to be astonished.

A translation of the Old Testament by Isaac Leser, a Jew, gives this text as follows:—

"Just as many were astonished at thee, so greatly was his countenance marred more than any (other) man's, and his form more than (that of) the sons of men. Thus will he cause many nations to jump up (in astonishment); at him will kings shut their mouths," etc.

Dr. Clarke says, "I retain the common rendering, though I am by no means satisfied with it." He notices several authors who are equally dissatisfied with it, and finally says, the "Septuagint seems to give the best sense of any to the place." He quotes a very judicious comment of Secker, in which he says, Yaz-zeh, frequent in the law, means only to sprinkle; but the water sprinkled is the accusative case; the thing on which has al or el. Thaumasontai makes the best apodosis." Dr. Clarke also quotes a criticism of Dr. Jubb, who renders it, "So shall many nations look on him with admiration; kings shall stop their mouths," etc.

This criticism, or rendering of Dr. Jubb, as well as others noticed, preserves the general idea very well, which seems to have been the only aim of the authors. But it is not a close rendering, as it gives the active form, which the original is not. Thaumasontai, which is used in the Septuagint, and which Dr. Clark says gives the best sense, is the passive voice, and, of course, more nearly corresponds to the original than does our version. The original is the causative form; therefore the rendering of Gesenius (and Leser, so far as the form is concerned) is not only preferable, but necessary or unavoidable. To translate it "he shall sprinkle," is to change it from its grammatical form, the causative, and give it the first or simple active form. And it also destroys the harmony of the construction by ignoring the parallelism, so beautifully wrought into the original. The rendering quoted from Dr. Jubb, while it preserves the parallelism and gives the true general idea of the verb, is yet open to this further objection, that it gives the active (kal) plural, ("they shall admire"), whereas the Hebrew original is the causative (hiphil) singular, ("he shall cause them,") etc. Now if we endeavor to preserve the idea of the common version, and give it the causative singular form, we will at once perceive the incongruity of the rendering. The text should certainly not be rendered sprinkle.

BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT—SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATIONS—INSTANCES.

Once more we let Prof. Stuart speak, as he professes to settle the whole question on a principle which he considers most decisive proof against confining our practice to immersion, according to the word baptizo. He refers it to the spirit of the gospel, as follows:—

"Whenever an enlightened Christian wishes to make the inquiry, what is essential to his religion, should he not instinctively open his Bible at John 4, and there read thus: 'Believe me the hour cometh, when ye shall, neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. . . . The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

It seems strange indeed that such a man as Prof. Stuart could find any warrant in this text for departing from the plain, literal reading of the divine record. The principle here stated covers all worship and all duty. This is freely admitted. But we read also, "Thy word is truth." Therefore John 4 is only perverted when, under pretense of worshiping God in spirit and in truth, we set aside his word, which is truth, and which is the only true measure of religious duty. With as good reason the Romanist might quote John 4 to justify the worship of images contrary to the express declaration of the word of God. The Friend (Quaker) quotes this to set aside the precept of baptism altogether, and his conclusion is certainly as just as that of Prof. S., and of all those who press it into the service of changing this ordinance of our Saviour. If we can set aside one duty under pretense of worshiping in spirit, we may others, and our worship becomes a mere matter of choice or will worship. However much we might regard the intention of Prof. Stuart, we are compelled to condemn his reasoning, which, if accepted, would turn our religion into antinomian sentimentalism.