The Second London Confession on Baptism (Part 3): The Proper Administration of Christian Baptism

By Robert P. Martin

Robert P. Martin, Ph.D. is Pastor of Emmanuel Reformed Baptist Church, Seattle, Washington and Editor of Reformed Baptist Theological Review.

In the preceding studies in this series, we focused on issues of great moment to the church and to individual believers. There is no question that the significance and proper subjects of baptism eclipse our present topic in importance. And yet, the proper administration of Christian baptism is a matter of divine revelation, and as such bears on the question of God’s will and honor in his church:

The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (2nd LCF 29.3). 

Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance (2nd LCF 29.4).

The teaching of paragraph three is that baptism is to be done in water, and that the baptism of a proper subject is to be administered “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

First, consider that baptism is to be administered using the element of water. This is the only point relating to baptism on which there is no debate. Other substances were used for other religious ceremonies, e.g., anointing was done with oil, some purifications were done with salt, but baptism has always been in water. The reason for this is plain-this is the model set out in the New Testament. As John the Baptist said, “I baptize you in water” (Matt. 3:11; cf., Luke 3:16). On this point, John’s baptism did not differ from the Jews’ baptisms that preceded him or New Covenant baptism that followed him. Part of baptism’s symbolism is that, being administered on condition of confession and repentance of sin, it signifies cleansing from sin.[1] By natural association and by tradition water was suited to symbolize this aspect of baptism’s meaning.[2] The amount of water to be used, of course, is the subject of our Confession’s next paragraph (29.4).

Second, consider that the Confession says that baptism is to be administered “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This formula, of course, is taken from the Great Commission. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). But what is the meaning of these words, and especially, what is the significance of the preposition εἰς, translated “into” in the ASV (i.e., “into the name of”)?[3] We take the last part of the question first.

The New Testament uses the preposition εἰς in most places where the believer’s relation to Christ symbolized in baptism is addressed.[4] In addition to Matt. 28:19, we find “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16; 19:5), “baptized into Christ Jesus. .. baptized into his death” (Rom. 6:3; cf., 6:4, “baptism into death”), and “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Paul also used the expressions “baptized into the name of Paul” (1 Cor. 1:13), “baptized into my own name” (1 Cor. 1:15), “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2), and “baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, he asked John’s disciples, “Into what were you baptized?” They replied, “Into John’s baptism” (Acts 19:3). But in these places, what does εἰς imply, if anything?

Consider first those places where baptism is said to be “in the name of” (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα κτλ., Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:16; 19:5; 1 Cor. 1:13, 15). A. T. Robertson, referring to the “original static use” of εἰς, notes that at Matt. 28:19, it has the same meaning as ἐν, so that “the notion of sphere is the true one”; however, he does not elaborate further.[5] In his Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, commenting again on Matt. 28:19, Robertson points to the supposed parallel use of “in the name of” in the LXX “for power or authority,” i.e., to express the idea of “by the power and authority of” the person whose name is used.[6] However, the LXX never translates the equivalent Hebrew expression בְּם (“in the name of,” i.e., by the authority of) by εἰς τὸ ὄνομα,7 but (where a preposition is used), only by ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι,[8] ἐν ὀνόματι,[9] ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι,[10] and ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματός.[11] The linguistic parallel that Robertson suggests simply does not exist. Robertson also directs us to his comments elsewhere in the same work: “For the use of eis with onoma in the sense here employed, not meaning into, see Mt 10:41f, ” where he takes “in the name of a prophet” (εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου), “in the name of a righteous man” (εἰς ὄνομα δικαίου), and “in the name of a disciple” (εἰς ὄνομα μαθητοῦ) to mean “because he is a prophet, righteous man, disciple.” This is doubtless the correct interpretation of these expressions (which express an accusative of cause and not a locative of sphere);[12] but again, there is no exact parallel between εἰς τὸ ὄνομα and εἰς ὄνομα. In fact, in the LXX, εἰς ὄνομα translates םÛלְ, which roughly means “for a memorial.”[13] But that is not the meaning in those places where Christian baptism is “in the name of,” nor does the translation “because of” fit the bill. Matthew 10:41–42 sheds no real light on our question.

Other writers take εἰς τὸ ὄνομα as expressing an adverbial accusative of reference, i.e., “with respect to” the name of.[14] Opinion, however, differs as to the precise point of reference. At Matt. 28:19, Bruce suggests “as [with reference to] confessing the name which embodies the essence of the Christian creed.”[15] Broadus says that baptism εἰς τὸ ὄνομα means “with reference to the name, as that to which the ceremony is restricted.”[16] Beasley-Murray, also commenting on Matt. 28:19, says that it conveys “the idea of appropriation, dedication, submission, belonging.”[17] Similarly, Lange says that “the combined signification of εἰς [at Matt. 28:19] may be partially explained by with reference to; more distinctly however, in the name of: that is, upon the ground of this name, in the might of this name, as dedicated to this name, or for this name.”[18] Thayer (citing Matt. 28:19 as one example) says that “by a usage chiefly Hebraistic the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is roused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name,. .. βαπτίζειν τινα εἰς ὄνομα τίνος, by baptism to bind anyone to recognize and publicly acknowledge the dignity and authority of one.”[19] Commenting on 1 Cor. 1:13, Godet says:

To be baptized in the name of. .. signifies: to be plunged in water while engaging henceforth to belong to Him in whose name the external rite is performed. In the name there is summed up all that is revealed regarding him who bears it, consequently all the titles of his legitimate authority. Baptism is therefore a taking possession of the baptized on the part of the person whose name is invoked over him.[20]

The idea that εἰς τὸ ὄνομα expresses the static idea of reference is possibly correct, and (as seen in the examples above) leaves interpreters much latitude in exposition. Some writers, however, insist (in its use with βαπτίζω) on the more common dynamic use of εἰς with verbs of motion (in this case not physical motion but ethical or religious direction) that denotes entrance into.[21] Cremer, for example, says that εἰς denotes “the relation into which the baptized were placed.”[22] Hendriksen, commenting on Matt. 28:19, also takes this view, saying that “being baptized into the name of” means “being brought into vital relationship with.”[23] Carson says that εἰς at Matt. 28:19 “strongly suggests a coming-into-relationship-with or a coming-under-the lordship-of. .. . [baptism] is a sign both of entrance into Messiah’s covenant community and of pledged submission to his lordship.”[24] Similarly, John J. Owen affirms that baptism “into the name of” is “the symbol of an introduction into the covenant of grace, a putting on of Jesus Christ, a profession of subjection, in a new and special sense, to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of being God’s peculiar property, and of entire devotion to his service.”[25]

If the idea represented in these writers is correct, we must express it carefully, lest we come to an unbiblical view of the efficacy of (especially infant) baptism. Broadus rightly says, “If we take this obvious sense ‘into,’ the question will arise whether the ceremony actually brings the person into the name, into Christ, into Paul, Moses, etc., or whether it only represents, symbolizes, the relation thus indicated.”[26] We can see Broadus’s concern, e.g., in the case of Alford, who, commenting on Matt. 28:19, says, “It [εἰς translated as into] imports, not only a subjective recognition hereafter of the child of the truth implied in τὸ ὄνομα κ.τ.λ., but an objective admission into the covenant of Redemption-a putting on of Christ.”[27] As we proceed with exploring the idea of “baptism into,” it is with the understanding that baptism symbolizes, but does not objectively introduce the baptized into, a relationship with Christ.

Much may be learned by examining the “in the name of” texts; however, the picture is especially interesting when we consider the class of texts in which baptism is simply said to be “into.” Consider, for example, Gal. 3:27. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε) did put on Christ.” Here again the question is the proper translation of εἰς. Consistent with his view of its meaning at Matt. 28:19, Broadus suggests that we should “render baptize εἰς everywhere by unto,” i.e., “baptized unto Christ, with distinct and exclusive reference to him.”[28] This certainly is possible, but again it leaves a broad range of interpretation in a place where Paul seems to be speaking precisely.

In Gal. 3:26–28, Paul expresses the relation of believers to baptism in this way: “For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus (ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ).[29] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν) did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus (ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησου).” Those who “were baptized into Christ” are the same as those who are “sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Having believed in Christ as the object of their faith, God having conferred sonship on them when they believed, they were baptized into Christ and united together in one body in Christ Jesus. The prepositions ἐν and εἰς here differ in their meanings, unless we are prepared to say that Paul here uses them indiscriminately. On the one hand, ἐν conveys the idea of sphere, i.e., faith is “in Christ Jesus.”[30] But εἰς implies incorporation or entrance into, i.e., believers “in Christ” are baptized “into Christ”-and there, joined together in union with their Saviour, they are all sons of God and “one” body “in (ἐν, i.e., within the sphere of) Christ Jesus.”[31]

The phrase “baptized into Christ” brings into view the idea of incorporation into Christ or being joined to Christ. In other words, baptism symbolizes the believer’s union with Christ. In baptism, converts make symbolic public testimony that by faith in Christ they are joined to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. This is precisely how Paul uses the image of baptism in Romans 6, where he says, “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into (εἰς) Christ Jesus were baptized into (εἰς) his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into (εἰς) death, that just as Christ was raised from (ἐκ) the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together (σύμφυτος) in the likeness (ὁμοίωμα) of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection” (6:3–5).[32] Commenting on this passage, John Murray says:

The appeal is to their knowledge of the identification involved in baptism.. .. Baptism “into Christ Jesus” means baptism into union with Christ.. .. Hence baptism into Christ signifies simply union with him and participation of all the privileges which he as Christ Jesus embodies.. .. union with him in all that he is and in all phases of his work as the Mediator.[33]

The word σύμφυτος (“united with”) underscores that baptism represents union with Christ. Some suggest that it invokes either a biological or an horticultural imagery, i.e., “grown together”[34] or “engrafted.”[35] Vaughan, taking a different approach, suggests the meaning: “If we have become connate with (have acquired a union of nature with, having been born into union with) the likeness of His death.”[36] However construed, as Murray says, σύμφυτος is “used to express our union with Christ in his death and resurrection. .. No term could more adequately convey the intimacy of the union involved.”[37] Or, as he says elsewhere, “It is beyond dispute that the leading thought of the apostle here [Rom. 6:2–6] is that of union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.”[38]

The word ὁμοίωμα (also used at 6:5) means “a figure, image, likeness, representation.”[39] Moo is reluctant to associate this word in any way with the reference to baptism at 6:3–4, saying that “the movement of Paul’s thought in this passage is away from baptism.”[40] But how far can one move in a single verse? At 6:5, has Paul now completely abandoned the imagery of baptism? The answer is no. As Hendriksen says, “The close connection between verses 3, 4 and verse 5 is indicated by the word For [γὰρ].”[41]

Murray restricts Paul’s use of ὁμοίωμα here to a “Spiritual and mystical” analogy with Christ’s historical death and resurrection:

Likeness is not identity. The apostle is not dealing here with our physical death and resurrection; he is dealing with our death to sin and our resurrection to Spiritual life. .. Hence it is necessary to introduce the principle of analogy. Our union with Christ in his death and resurrection must not be bereft of its intimacy, but with equal jealousy it must be interpreted in terms of Spiritual and mystical relationship.[42]

This point is well-taken, however, it does not depend on the presence of the term ὁμοίωμα. The purpose of this term is not to introduce a connection not already present in the text but to remind us of a point already made. Paul twice has appealed to the believer’s mystical and spiritual connection (symbolized in baptism) to Christ’s death. To be “baptized into Christ Jesus” is to be “baptized into his death” (6:3). “We were buried with him through baptism into death” (6:4). And implied by union with Christ in his death and burial is union with him in his resurrection (6:4–5). Baptism does not create the believer’s union with Christ, for it has no efficacy in itself; but it does represent this union by a visible ordinance that images its chief features (i.e., the believer’s participation in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection). Now, it will not do to relate the word ὁμοίωμα only to union with Christ apart from the idea of the imaging of that union in baptism. That requires ignoring the context. The believer is joined to Christ in the historical fact of his death, burial, and resurrection, not just to a “Spiritual and mystical relationship” (a likeness) that arises by virtue of that union. While we agree with Prof. Murray that we should reckon ourselves as presently in union with Christ in the “Spiritual and mystical” way that he describes,[43] we must also recognize that the word ὁμοίωμα, which means “a figure, image, likeness, representation,”[44] picks up the point already made that baptism images the believer’s union with Christ (i.e., images both the believer’s historical union with Christ and the mystical relationship that arises from it).

Baptism is a symbolic rite that chiefly represents (i.e., proclaims in a visible figure) the believer’s union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. As Robertson says, “Baptism is a picture of the past and of the present and a prophecy of the future, the matchless preacher of the new life in Christ.”[45] On this point, Prof. Murray heartily agrees:

[The] administration of baptism, in addition to the proclamation of the gospel, is one way in which God declares and certifies to us the truth of the gospel. The dispensing of baptism even in the presence of unbelievers has, therefore, a teaching and witnessing ministry and brings vividly to the attention of those who are without Christ our sinful condition, the provision of the gospel, and the high privilege of union with Christ. Both sacraments [baptism and the Lord’s Supper] may be said to have this efficacy in bringing home to the ungodly what the gospel is. They should always be dispensed in connection with the preaching of the Word and in such coordination they serve to enforce the gospel.[46]

For this to be so, of course, there must be a correlation between the sign and the thing signified, i.e., the ordinance must convey in a visible way the truth symbolized. Geerhardus Vos says, “A symbol is in its religious significance something that profoundly portrays a certain fact or principle or relationship of a spiritual nature in a visible form.”[47] If this is not the case, if there is no analogy (no visibly discernible correlation) between the thing done and the truth proclaimed, the thing done (in this case, baptism) cannot be a “preacher” (as Robertson styles it). Prof. Murray acknowledges this when he says:

God condescends to our weakness. He not only unites His people to Christ but He also advertises that great truth by an ordinance which portrays visibly to our senses the reality of this grace. It is a testimony which God has been pleased to give to us so that we may the better understand the high privilege of union with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the purpose of baptism as a sign.[48]

Since this is the case, a point on which surely we must agree, the question of mode comes into view. While we will take up this question in greater detail below, we must recognize even now that the mode of baptism is the only visible component of the ordinance and that, since this is the case, it must correspond in its symbolism to the truth signified-which, as far as Rom. 6:3–5 is concerned, is union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.

What we’ve seen also sheds light on Paul’s expressions “baptized into the name of Paul” and “baptized into my own name” (1 Cor. 1:13, 15) and “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2). To be “baptized into the name of Paul” means to be joined to him by faith, to confess to be his disciple, and to expect to participate with him in whatever union with him brings. To be “baptized into Moses” likewise implies union with Moses as the mediator of the Old Covenant.[49]

Returning now to our Confession’s statement that baptism is to be “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” we can say that baptism “in” or “into” the name of a person symbolizes union with that person. “Baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” signifies union with Christ, “baptized into the name of Paul” signifies union with Paul, “baptized into Moses” signifies union with Moses. Thus, being baptized “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” signifies union not only with Christ but with each person of the Trinity through Christ. As A. A. Hodge rightly says, baptism is:

a covenanting ordinance whereby the recipient recognizes and pledges his allegiance to God in that character and in those relations in which he has revealed himself to us in the Scriptures. The formula of baptism, therefore, is a summary statement of the whole Scripture doctrine of the Triune Jehovah as he has chosen to reveal himself to us, and in all those relations which the several Persons of the Trinity graciously sustain in the scheme of redemption to the believer.[50]

Our Confession follows the translation of the KJV, then the common version, saying “in (instead of into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This does not mean that our Baptist forefathers (or the Westminster divines) were unaware of the import of the preposition εἰς found in the texts just examined, for they cite Gal. 3:27, where Paul speaks of being “baptized into (εἰς) Christ,” in support of the assertion that baptism is to the party baptized “a sign. .. of his being engrafted into him” (2nd LCF 29.1; cf., WC 28.1).

Does our Confession insist on the use of this Trinitarian formula as necessary to the proper administration of baptism? We will ask the same question below regarding immersion when we come to the words “due administration” (29.4). Various explanations (none of them very satisfying) have been offered for the presence in Acts of the formula “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38), “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16; 19:5), and “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (10:48).[51] Broadus’s counsel at this point has much to commend it:

It is very natural that Christians should everywhere employ in baptizing this phrase, ‘unto (into, in) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ and we see no reason for departing from it. But it is of doubtful propriety to call this a law, and to insist that baptism would not be “valid” without the use of this particular phrase. For it must be remembered that baptize is nowhere else in the New Test. associated with this particular expression. In Acts and the Epistles we find only ‘the Lord Jesus,’ or ‘Jesus Christ,’ or simply ‘Christ.’ We may well enough understand that this is a compendious expression, which touches the main point or peculiarity of the great Christian purification. We could not wisely infer from that usage that it is improper or undesirable to employ the full expression given by Matt., but we are bound to understand that it is not indispensable. There would be nothing gained in practice in using one of the shorter phrases given in Acts and Paul, but there is something gained in just conception if we abstain from regarding the expression in Matt. as having the character of a law, about which we should then have to suppose that Luke and Paul had been strangely negligent.[52]

Consider also that our Confession drops from the Westminster Confession the words “by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto” (WC 28.2). Before passing on to the next paragraph of our Confession’s statement concerning the administration of baptism, it may be appropriate to try to understand this omission.

The explanation may be as simple as our Baptist forefathers’ regarding this as redundant in view of 28.2, which reads, “These holy appointments [baptism and the Lord’s Supper] are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.” This statement differs markedly from the Westminster Confession (and Savoy Declaration) and from the First London Baptist Confession of 1644. The Westminster reads, “There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained” (27.4). The First London Baptist Confession says of Baptism (there is no article on the Lord’s Table), “The persons designed by Christ to dispense this ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching disciple, it being no where tied to a particular Church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered disciples.”[53] In other words, the Westminster says that only ordained ministers of the Word may administer the ordinances, while the First London seems to permit all disciples to administer them, so long as they are capable also of preaching the gospel. Our Confession is less specific than either of these, saying, “These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.”

Why did the framers of our Confession state the matter in the way they did? On the one hand, they seem to avoiding a clericalism that would restrict the administration of the ordinances to ordained ministers of the Word. On the other hand, they seem uncomfortable with the idea that there is no restriction to be observed in the matter of the parties administering sacred rites. Therefore, though they do not go as far as the Westminster divines and restrict the administration of the ordinances to ordained ministers of the Word, they make the general restriction that “these holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called.”

What is meant by this language is not altogether clear, yet it appears that their point of difference with the Westminster Confession has to do with the meaning of the phrase “minister of the Word lawfully ordained.” In The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government, published also by the Westminster Assembly, a distinction is made between pastors (and teachers or doctors), who are ministers of the Word or ministers of the gospel, who have “power of administration of the sacraments” and “other church-governors” (i.e., ruling elders), who “are to join with the minister in the government of the church,” but concerning which nothing is said about the administration of the sacraments. Our Confession makes no distinction between teaching elders (ministers of the Word) and ruling elders, and therefore stays away from the Westminster phrase “minister of the Word lawfully ordained” when noting those authorized to dispense the ordinances. By choosing the language “those only who are qualified and thereunto called,” our Confession seems to broaden the Westminster’s perspective to include all elders, including those commonly called “ruling elders.”

The question that naturally arises is whether this is biblical or whether our Confession is too restrictive at this point. Cited are Matt. 28:19 and 1 Cor. 4:1. The first text says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This commission was given to the Apostles, as to those first called of Christ to the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:4), and who (with Christ and the prophets) formed the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). This commission did not cease with the passing of the Apostles, but continues with the church founded on them “even to the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20); therefore, it now continues in the church with those who, like the Apostles, are “qualified and called” to the ministry of the Word and occupy the ruling office in the church. These, according to the second text cited, are “ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). And in that role, elders have authority and responsibility not only concerning the ministry of the Word but also concerning those ordinances of the church which are the symbolic preaching of the Word. A. A. Hodge says:

This is not said in the interest of any priestly theory of the ministry, as if there were any grace or grace-conferring virtue transmitted by ordination in succession from the apostles to the person ordained. But since the church is an organized society, under laws executed by regularly appointed officers, it is evident that ordinances-which are badges of Church membership, the gates of the fold, the instruments of discipline, and seals of the covenant formed by the great Head of the Church with his living members-can properly be administered only by the highest legal officers of the Church, those who are commissioned as ambassadors for Christ to treat in his name with men.[54]

The position that our Confession takes, limiting the administration of ordinances to elders, i.e., to those “qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ” is correct in ordinary circumstances. As ordinances of the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are to be administered before the gathered assembly by those called to the ministry of the Word and rule in God’s house.[55]

The example of the Ethiopian eunuch is an extraordinary case in which baptism did not take place before an assembled congregation. And yet we do not overturn a norm because of an exception that is argued against it. For example, we may not argue from the case of the thief on the cross that Christian baptism is optional. Likewise, we must not argue from the case of the Ethiopian eunuch that private baptism is warranted under ordinary circumstances. Philip was a minister of the Word, used of God in the founding of the church at Samaria, likely an elder in that congregation, certainly an evangelist (Acts 21:8); in other words, as to office, he was authorized to baptize. And sent by an angel of the Lord to intercept the eunuch on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, he was on an extraordinary mission that apparently warranted his administering baptism in an extraordinary way, i.e., not before the assembled church but in that remote setting. And yet this incident does not overturn the norm, but is only a rare exception to it in an extraordinary circumstance. Under ordinary circumstances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as befitting ordinances of the church, are to be administered by the elders of the church before the assembled church:

Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance (2nd LCF 29.4).

The view represented by this statement is the occasion of much controversy. By contrast, the Westminster Confession says, “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person” (28.3). Our Presbyterian and other non-immersionist brethren do not deny that immersion is a valid mode of baptism; however, they insist that sprinkling or pouring also is appropriate. Typical is Hodge’s comment: “According to our view, the essential matter is the water, and the application of the water in the name of the Trinity.”56 In another work, he says, “No advocate of sprinkling can, in consistency with his own fundamental principles or with historical usages of the Christian Church, outlaw immersion.”[57] Baptists welcome this concession.

What is the “due” administration of this ordinance? Waldron says, “The Confession does not assert that someone baptized by another mode is not baptized. Immersion is necessary only to the ‘due’ administration.

This may mean its ‘proper, fitting, or suitable’ administration.”[58] Is our Confession teaching that immersion is a better mode than sprinkling or pouring but that it is not essential? I don’t think that this is what our Confession’s authors meant by “due.” As used here, “due” means “lawful.”[59] As Dr. Waldron continues, he seems to acknowledge this: “The authors clearly believed that detailed obedience to God’s commandments is important and that such obedience involves baptism by immersion.”[60] This, of course, raises the question whether mode is merely circumstantial or actually essential to the lawful administration of the ordinance.

If the non-immersionist position is correct, mode is completely circumstantial. As Hodge says, “the essential matter is the water, and the application of the water in the name of the Trinity.”[61] But did our Baptist forefathers agree? Compared to the authors of the Westminster Confession, few works now are in print from the pens of the men who framed our Confession; nevertheless documents showing the views of Baptists in succeeding generations are not lacking on this subject. The most celebrated of the signatories of our Confession is Benjamin Keach, pastor at Horselydown, Southwark, London. Writing in his Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible, Keach says that “the administration of this great ordinance by sprinkling. .. is disorderly, and should be rectified.. .. If the laws of the great unerring Sovereign of all things ought to be observed without variation, unless it be by his express direction: then we are to conform exactly to his order, in this part of the evangelical law, and to practise it no otherwise than he has prescribed, because it was once so delivered to the saints.”[62] In the next century, John Gill, Keach’s successor in the same congregation, says:

Custom, and the common use of writing in this controversy, have so far prevailed, that for the most part immersion is usually called the mode of baptism; whereas it is properly baptism itself; to say that immersion or dipping is the mode of baptism, is the same thing as to say, that dipping is the mode of dipping; for as Sir John Floyer observes, “Immersion is no circumstance, but the very act of baptism, used by our Saviour and his disciples, in the institution of baptism.” And Calvin expressly says, “The word baptizing signifies to plunge; and it is certain, that the rite of plunging was used by the ancient churches.” And as for sprinkling, that cannot, with any propriety, be called a mode of baptism; for it would be just such good sense as to say, sprinkling is the mode of dipping, since baptism and dipping are the same; hence the learned Selden, who in the former part of his life, might have seen infants dipped in fonts, but lived to see immersion much disused, had reason to say, “In England, of late years, I ever thought the parson baptized his own fingers rather than the child,” because he dipped the one, and sprinkled the other.[63]

In the next century, Gill’s successor in London, C. H. Spurgeon, says in his autobiography:

Baptism is the mark of distinction between the Church and the world. It very beautifully sets forth the death of the baptized person to the world. Professedly, he is no longer of the world; he is buried to it, and he rises again to a new life. No symbol could be more significant. In the immersion of a believer, there seems to me to be a wondrous setting forth of the burial of the Christian to all the world in the burial of Christ Jesus.[64]

Writing also in the Nineteenth Century, William Cathcart, in his The Baptist Encyclopaedia, says:

The form of a ceremony is essential to its existence. A ceremony teaches truth, not by direct statements, but by material symbols; and if the figures are changed you alter their teaching.. .. A ceremonial ordinance teaches by form, and if you change the form you mar or destroy the instruction. In the Scriptures baptism is immersion in water. The mode is fixed for all time. No authority out of heaven can change it. One Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Any change in the ceremonial institution destroys it.. .. when immersion is not conferred in baptism the candidate for the rite is not baptized.[65]

Other prominent Baptists could be referenced,[66] but these citations hopefully suffice to show that historically those who framed and held to our Confession believed that the mode of baptism is essential and not merely circumstantial to the “due” administration of the ordinance. It is my judgment that when the framers used the word “due,” they meant “lawful.”

In the end of the day, it doesn’t matter as much that our Confession’s doctrine (i.e., immersion only) has a pedigree traceable through our denomination’s most prominent spokesmen as that it has biblical warrant. That most Baptists practice baptism by immersion and will not accept as valid baptism by sprinkling or pouring (requiring those who’ve undergone such rites, even as adults, to be immersed before being admitted to church membership) is a fact of long standing. That we have biblical warrant to require this is another matter. Historically, this repeatedly has been a contested point between Baptists and non-immersionists.

The question of biblical warrant must be resolved on exegetical grounds. The question ultimately goes to the meaning of the word βαπτίζω and its cognates βάπτω, βάπτισμα, and βαπτισμός. Non-immersionists argue that these words don’t always mean “immerse” or “immersion” and that, since this is the case, it is wrong to insist that immersion is necessary to the due administration of Christian baptism.

There’s an element of truth in what they say, but we must examine carefully their argument lest we come to the same wrong conclusion.

Let’s begin with βάπτω, the primitive root of the other terms (used 18 times in the LXX and 3 times in the NT). In some places this verb means “to dip” into a liquid without the total immersion of the object dipped. This is how it is used, e.g., in the LXX at Exod. 12:22; Lev. 4:6, 17; 9:9; 14:6, 16, 51; [67] Num. 19:18; Ruth 2:14; and in the New Testament at John 13:26. The word, however, seems to have the meaning “immerse” at Lev. 11:32 and Job 9:31. This also may be the case at Deut. 33:24; Josh. 3:15 (cf., 3:8); 1 Sam. 14:27; 2 Kings 8:15; Psa. 68(67):22(24); Luke 16:24; and Rev. 19:13-although the meaning in these places is uncertain (i.e., whether “immerse” or only “dip” without completely immersing). βάπτω is also used of Nebuchadnezzar’s being “wet” with (i.e., as wet as if he had been dipped or immersed in) the dew of heaven (Dan. 4:30[TH]; 5:21[TH]).[68]

Non-immersionists press the use of βάπτω in those places where the meaning “immerse” isn’t required or where it seemingly is excluded, and they urge us to follow them in the conclusion that Christian baptism therefore may be rightly administered in ways other than total immersion. But their argument is flawed by several facts. First, βάπτω is never used in the Bible to refer to Christian baptism. Its meaning therefore is not determinative in addressing the issue of the biblical mode of baptism. Second, if we judge that βάπτω has a significant place in the discussion of the mode of Christian baptism, it lends its support to the immersionist position, for the primary meaning “to dip” in certain contexts can be extended to include the idea of complete immersion, whereas the ideas of “sprinkling” or “pouring” are foreign to the primary meaning of the word and, in fact, βάπτω is not used to convey either of these meanings.[69]

βαπτίζω is the verb used in the New Testament to denote the action of baptizing. Though derived from βάπτω as its primitive root, this does not mean that βαπτίζω has precisely the same meaning. Though generally related to the roots from which they are derived by a common idea, derivatives often have very specialized meanings. For example, the verb κοιμάω, which means “to sleep” or “to fall asleep,” derives from the verb κεῖμαι, which means “to lie” or “to recline.” The idea of reclining is the common idea between these verbs, but κοιμάω has a specialized meaning. While κεῖμαι (“to recline”) does not necessarily include the idea of sleeping, its derivative κοιμάω (in its primary meaning) refers to a special kind of reclining, meaning “to sleep.” This is also the case with βάπτω and βαπτίζω. The root βάπτω has the primary meaning “to dip,” which may or may not include the idea of immersion (depending on the context in which it is used). The derivative βαπτίζω (in its primary meaning) shares the common idea of “to dip,” but usually in the specialized meaning of “to immerse.” This is generally recognized, even by non-immersionists. Calvin, e.g., says:

Whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water-these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.[70]

John Parkhurst, in his A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, says that βαπτίζω has the primary meaning “to dip, immerse, or plunge in water.”[71] Edward Robinson, in his A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, gives the primary meaning as “to dip, to sink, to immerse.”[72] E. W. Bullinger, in his A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament, says that βαπτίζω means “to immerse for a religious purpose,” that “by baptism therefore we must understand an immersion.”[73] Hermann Cremer, in his Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, says that βαπτίζω means “to immerse, to submerge” and observes that “the peculiar N.T. and Christian use of the word to denote immersion, submersion for a religious purpose = to baptize.”[74] Joseph Henry Thayer, in his A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, says that the proper or primary meaning of βαπτίζω is “to dip repeatedly, to immerge [to plunge into or immerse], submerge” and then says, “In the N.T. it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ’s command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion (see βάπτισμα, 3), viz. an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of Messiah’s kingdom.”[75] Albrecht Oepke, in his article on baptism in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, says that βαπτίζω “occurs in the sense of ‘to immerse’ (trans.) from the time of Hippocrates, in Plato, and esp. in later writers” and that in the New Testament it is used only “infrequently of Jewish washings.”[76] Arndt and Gingrich, in their A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, give the primary meaning of βαπτίζω as “dip, immerse.”[77] As far as I know, all of these men were non-immersionists in practice, yet they readily acknowledge the primary meaning of βαπτίζω.

Another class of non-immersionists reluctantly agree. For example, James Bannerman, while affirming at one place in his The Church of Christ that everywhere in the New Testamentβαπτίζω should be translated as “to purify,”[78] when speaking of the crux interpretatum at Rom. 6:3–5, says:

There are two things which seem plainly enough to be included in this remarkable statement. In the first place, the immersion in water of the persons of those who are baptized is set forth as their burial with Christ in His grave because of sin; and their being raised again out of the water is their resurrection with Christ in His rising again from the dead because of their justification. Their death with Christ was their bearing the penalty of sin, and their resurrection with Christ was their being freed from it, or justified. And in the second place, their burial in water, when dying with Christ, was the washing away of the corruptness of the old man beneath the water; and their coming forth from the water in the image of His resurrection was their leaving behind them the old man with his sins, and emerging into newness of life. Their immersion beneath the water, and their emerging again, were the putting off the corruption of nature and rising again into holiness, or their sanctification.[79]

A. A. Hodge acknowledges the meaning of βαπτίζω in its primary and derivative meanings, saying, “Its classical meaning was, (1) dip, submerge, sink; (2) to wet thoroughly; (3) to pour upon, to drench; (4) to overwhelm”-though, arguing that the classical and biblical usage of words in some cases differ, he says that “the New Testament writings are a revelation of new ideas and relations, and hence the words and phrases through which these new thoughts are conveyed must be greatly modified in respect to their former etymological sense and heathen usage, and ‘for the full depth and compass of meaning belonging to them in their new application we must look to the New Testament itself, comparing one passage with another, and viewing the language used in the light of the great things which it brings to our apprehension.’”[80] This, of course, is true; however, the proof is still lacking that βαπτίζω means one thing in classical usage and something else in the Bible.

Other non-immersionist sources could be cited to show that the primary meaning of βαπτίζω is “to immerse”(indeed, one is hard-pressed to find a serious lexicographer or theologian who will deny this), but these examples are sufficient to make the point. Though writing as a Baptist, G. R. Beasley-Murray is correct when he says, “Despite assertions to the contrary, it seems that baptidzo, both in Jewish and Christian contexts, normally meant ‘immerse’, and that even when it became a technical term for baptism, the thought of immersion remains.”[81]

Now, that βαπτίζω has secondary (even metaphorical) meanings in some places (cf., e.g., Isa. 21:4; Luke 12:50) does not overturn the fact that its primary meaning is “to immerse.” Preference should be given to this primary meaning unless other factors require us to understand the word in a secondary or metaphorical sense. Such is the case, e.g., at 2 Kings 5:14, where the meaning “immerse” is to be preferred over any secondary or metaphorical meaning. Leprous Naaman is urged to plunge himself seven times in the Jordan. We cannot imagine that he did this in any way other than by total immersion. Likewise, when we come to the New Testament use of this word to refer to Christian baptism, preference should be given to the primary sense of “immerse,” unless there is a pressing reason (which there is not) to turn to a secondary or metaphorical meaning.

Even in those places where a secondary or metaphorical meaning is warranted, in most cases the idea of immersion is not far out of view. For example, at Isa. 21:4 the LXX translators speak of transgression “overwhelming” someone, as though they were immersed in it. At Luke 12:50, Jesus speaks of his coming suffering as “a baptism to be baptized with,” i.e., as an immersion into suffering to be immersed in, saying “and how distressed I am till it is accomplished” (cf., Mark 10:38–39). βαπτίζω was used frequently in secular Greek to refer to the sinking of ships or to the drowning of persons-in each case, the ship or person was fatally sunk (immersed) in water.[82] The association of this term with the idea of perishing in water doubtless was quite strong; but it is this very association that well suited the term to denote Christian baptism, for baptism in part symbolizes (in the submergence of the candidate in water) a death, i.e., a perishing with Christ.

Concerning the nouns used in the New Testament, βαπτισμός (like βάπτω) is not used of Christian baptism explicitly,[83] although at Heb. 6:2, the phrase “the doctrine of baptisms” (βαπτισμῶν, pl.) likely refers to Christian teaching about the various ceremonial washings of the Jews and their relation to Christian baptism. The noun βάπτισμα is the term used in the New Testament to refer to baptism and it, like βαπτίζω, has the primary meaning of “immersion.”[84] So much is this the case that Luther, e.g., says that in Latin it should be translated mersio (“immersion”):

which means to plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it. And although in many places it is the custom no longer to thrust and plunge children into the font of baptism, but only to pour the baptismal water upon them out of the font, nevertheless the former is what should be done.. .. This usage is also demanded by the significance of baptism, for baptism signifies that the old man and the sinful birth of flesh and blood are to be wholly drowned by the grace of God.[85]

Luther, of course, points us to an argument for immersion which (added to the linguistic data) settles the question of the proper mode of Christian baptism. If, as we’ve argued above, Cathcart is correct in his assessment of the relation between the form of baptism and its meaning (i.e., that to alter the form is to cease to convey the proper meaning), then the mode of baptism that figuratively represents the significance of baptism must be presumed to be the correct one. And if Murray is correct that “union with Christ is the governing idea,” that “baptism signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection,” that “it is this that is central, and it is this notion that appears more explicitly and pervasively than any other. Hence our view of baptism must be governed by this concept”[86] -then immersion (the mode of baptism that alone signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection) is the only proper mode of administering the ordinance. When we examined the witness of the New Testament, we saw that union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection is the leading idea symbolized by baptism.

As Prof. Murray rightly says, this is the plain meaning of Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27–28; Col. 2:11–12.[87] And since this is the case, we also must say that immersion is the correct mode, since immersion alone symbolizes baptism in its main significance. As Cathcart says, “In immersion a man is covered over as if he were in his grave; there can be no breathing, except for a second, as if the man were dead; he rises up out of the water as if he were ascending from the grave. Immersion shows all this. Do sprinkling and pouring cover over a man as if he were buried? or stop his breathing as if he were dead? or raise him up as if he were coming out of a grave?”[88] Or as Keach so quaintly puts it, “When one is buried, he ought to be covered all over with earth, else it is no burial.” So, “when one is Baptized, he ought to be covered all over with water, or else it is no Baptism.. .. One may with as much reason be said to be Buried, when clay or earth is thrown upon his head only; as to be Baptized, when water is poured upon his head or face: and if the one be no burying, it is as certain the other is no Baptism.”[89]

Notes

1. On this, cf., Acts 22:16. The inward cleansing from sin symbolized in baptism is also the point of 1 Pet. 3:21. See Robert Leighton, Commentary on First Peter (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1981), 371; Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (reprint ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977), s.v., βαπτίζω. Our Confession is silent on this aspect of baptism’s meaning, as is the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, although in the Westminster Assembly’s The Directory for the Publick Worship of God we find the statement that “baptizing. .. signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ.” At 2nd LCF 29.1, Acts 22:16 (βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου) is cited in support of the language “of remission of sins,” as is Rev. 1:5 (Byz, λούω) in support of the Larger Catechism Q. 165’s “of remission of sins by his blood.” The authors of both confessions apparently regarded “remission of sin” as including also “cleansing from sin.” The symbolism of baptism concerning cleansing from sins therefore is implicit if not explicit in our Confession and in the Westminster Standards. With this, compare the emphasis on cleansing from sin in the Heidelberg Catechism, Qs. 69–73.
2. Hodge says, “No other religious symbol is so natural and obvious, and none has been so universally practiced. Its usage is distinctly traced among the disciples of Zoroaster, the Brahmen, the Egyptians, Greek, and Romans, and especially the Jews.. .. The religious washing of the body with water lay, therefore, ready to the use of John the Baptist, and the disciples of our Lord.” A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), 603.
3. The other major English versions translate εἰς here as “in.” Our versions vary in translating εἰς in the places where it is used with βαπτίζω. ASV translates it uniformly as “into,” except at 1 Cor. 10:2, where it reads “unto” (the marginal note, however, reads “Gr. into” and the other English versions agree). ASV and NIV read “into” at Acts 8:16; 19:5; 1 Cor. 1:13, 15, but the other versions read “in” in these places. At Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; and 1 Cor. 12:13, all the versions read “into.” The same is true at Rom. 6:4, where εἰς is used with βάπτισμα.
4. The exceptions are at Acts 10:48, where the preposition ἐν is used, in the expression “baptized in the name of the Lord,” and at Acts 2:38, where the mss vary, with B and D reading ἐν, while א and Byz read ἐπί. The preposition ἐν is also used where the subject is baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf., Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; Acts 11:16). These texts should make us cautious about dogmatism about the significance of εἰς in the places cited above. See John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, in An American Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), 594–96. Longenecker speaks of “the synonymous use” of these prepositions when used of Christian baptism. Richard N. Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 9:494. Robertson and Plummer, however, argue that εἰς τὸ ὄνομα is “the strongest of the three expressions: the εἰς (Matt. xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 16, xix. 5) is stronger than ἐπί (Acts ii. 38, v.l.) or ἐν (Acts x. 48).” Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, in The International Critical Commentary (reprint ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 13.
5. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, Broadman Press, 1934), 592.
6. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament (in BibleWorks 5.0).
7. Which occurs only at 2 Macc. 8:4.
8. Cf., 1 Sam. 25:9; Jer. 29(36):23; Zech. 10:12.
9. Cf., 1 Sam. 17:45; 20:42; 2 Sam. 6:18; 1 Kings 18:32; 22:16; 2 Kings 2:24; 1 Chron. 16:2; 21:19; 2 Chron. 18:15; Ezra 5:1; Psa. 118:26; 128:8; Mic. 4:5.
10. Cf., Deut. 18:5, 19, 20, 22; 21:5; 1 Sam. 25:5; 1 Kings 21:8; 1 Chron. 23:13; 2 Chron. 33:18; Isa. 50:10; Jer. 11:21; 14:14, 15; 20:9; 23:25; 26(33):16; 29(36):9; Zech 13:3.
11. Cf., Esth. 8:8.
12. Cf., Matt. 12:41, εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα ᾿Ιωνᾶ. Lenski tries to make a case (in confessed agreement with Robertson) for the locative of sphere at Matt. 10:41–42 and 28:19, saying that “baptism takes place in the sphere of the revelation of the Triune God,” but his reasoning is unconvincing. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943), 421–23, 1175. Better is Alford at 10:41–42. “εἰς ὄνομα,. .. because he is: i.e., ‘for the love of Christ, whose prophet he is.’” Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 1:112. See also A. B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 1:168; D.A. Carson, Matthew, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 8:259.
13. 1 Chron. 22:5; Isa. 55:13; cf., 1 Macc. 13:29; 3 Macc. 2:9.
14. See, e.g., William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), s.v., βαπτίζω, although Arndt and Gingrich qualify this with reference to Gal. 3:27 and Rom. 6:3a, where the versions universally use “into.” “To be baptized εἰς Χρ. is for Paul a sharing in Christ’s death.” In other words, in those places, union with Christ is the point.
15. A. B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 1:340.
16. John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, in An American Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), 594.
17. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977), 90.
18. John Peter Lange, The Gospel According to Matthew, in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, trans. and ed. Philip Schaff (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), 558.
19. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (reprint ed., Wheaton, IL: Evangel Publishing Company, 1974), s.v., ὄνομα.
20. Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1985), 81.
21. Interestingly, Robertson acknowledges that the translation “into” is “the resultant idea of the accusative case with verbs of motion,” yet fails to see that βαπτίζω with εἰς implies ethical or religious motion on the part of the person baptized. He also acknowledges that “the metaphorical uses do not differ in principle.” A. T. Robertson, Grammar, 591,593.
22. Cremer, s.v., βαπτίζω.
23. William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew, in New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 1000.
24. Carson, 8:597. Similarly, commenting on 1 Cor. 1:13, Robertson and Plummer say that εἰς τὸ ὄνομα “implies entrance into fellowship and allegiance, such as exists between the Redeemer and the redeemed.” Robertson and Plummer, 13. Commenting on Acts 8:16, Alexander says that the expression “into the name” means “into union with him [Christ], and subjection to him, as their Sovereign and their Saviour.” J. A. Alexander, Acts of the Apostles (reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), 1:332. See also his remarks on Acts 8:12 and especially 19:5, where he asserts that the main idea expressed is “that of initiation, union, and incorporation” (2:188).
25. John J. Owen, A Commentary, Critical, Expository, and Practical, on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1870), 413. Tasker says that baptism “into” signifies passing into the possession of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, in The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1981), 275.
26. A. B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 594.
27. Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 1:307.
28. John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, in An American Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), 594–95.
29. When the object of faith is a person, this is expressed in a variety of ways. In a few places a simple genitive (cf., Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16, 20; 3:22; Philip. 3:9) or dative (cf., Acts 18:8; 1 John 3:23) is used. The preposition ἐν is also used in a few places (cf., John 3:15; 2 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:26; Eph. 1:13, 15; Col. 1:4; Philem. 6; 1 Tim. 1:14; 3:13; 2 Tim. 1:13; 3:15), as is ἐπὶ (cf., Matt. 27:42; Luke 24:25; Acts 11:17; 16:31; 22:19; Rom. 4:5, 24; 9:33; 10:11; 1 Tim. 1:16; 1 Pet. 2:6). Most prevalent is the use of εἰς (cf., Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; John 1:12; 2:11, 23; 3:16, 18, 36; 4:39; 6:29, 35, 40; 7:5, 31, 38, 39, 48; 8:30; 9:35, 36; 10:42; 11:25, 26, 45, 48; 12:11, 36, 37, 42, 44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:9; Acts 10:43; 14:23; 19:4; 20:21; Rom. 10:14; Gal. 2:16; Philip. 1:29; Col. 2:5; 1 John 5:10, 13). Ellicott argues that each of these uses has a distinct meaning, with ἐν implying also “the idea of union with” and εἰς implying “union with, apparently, of a fuller and more mystical nature. .., with probably some accessory idea of moral motion, mental direction toward.” Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1868), 37. On the application of this distinction to Gal. 2:16, he says, “the prep. [εἰς] retains its proper force, and marks not the mere direction of the belief (or object toward which), but the more strictly theological ideas of union and incorporation with” [i.e., a believing into Christ]. Charles J. Ellicott, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1867), 39. At some places this is difficult if not impossible to see (cf., John 3:16 in view of 3:15; 12:36; 14:1; Gal. 2:16 in view of 3:33, 36); nonetheless, in some places there may be some merit in Ellicott’s suggestion. See also Eadie’s remarks on Gal. 2:16 and 3:27. John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869), 167–68, 285–86. If, of course, Gal. 2:16 speaks of believing “into Christ” (as Ellicott and Eadie suggest), then the idea that baptism itself is the means of union with Christ (i.e., that union with Christ takes place when believers are baptized) is greatly undermined. On Ellicott and Eadie’s view, the practical implication of Gal. 2:16 is that incorporation “into Christ,” i.e., union with him, takes place when men and women believe on Christ.
30. Lightfoot separates ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησου from διὰ τῆς πίστεως, arguing that it is “thrown to the end of the sentence so as to form in a manner a distinct proposition.” J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Andover: Warren F. Draper, Publisher, 1891), 262. But, if ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησου goes with υἱοὶ θεοῦ, it is oddly positioned. As Eadie observes, “this construction is against the natural order of the words.” Eadie, 284–85.
31. Having been “baptized into one body” (εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, 1 Cor. 12:13), Jews and Greeks, etc. are “one in Christ Jesus” (εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, Gal. 3:28).
32. The εἰς-ἐκ contrast here powerfully underscores the relation of the mode of baptism and the meaning of baptism. We should also point out here that immersion alone does justice to the references to baptism in Matt. 3:6 (“baptized [ἐν] in the Jordan,” cf., Mark 1:5), Matt. 3:16 (“came up from [ἀπὸ] the water), Mark 1:9–10 (“into [εἰς] the Jordan” and “out of [ἐκ] the water”), Acts 8:38–39 (“into [εἰς] the water” and “out of [ἐκ] the water”), and John 3:22–23 (“because there was much water there”).
33. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975), 1:214.
34. James D. G. Dunn, Romans, in Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988), 316.
35. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 222–24. Godet says, “This adjective, therefore, denotes the organic union in virtue of which one being shares the life, growth, and phases of existence belonging to another; so it is that the existence, prosperity, and decay of the branch are bound up with the state of the stem. Hence we have ventured to translate it: to be made one and the same plant with Him.” F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1883), 1:412.
36. C. J. Vaughan, ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (reprint ed., London: Macmillan and Co., 1893), 120.
37. Murray, Romans, 1:218.
38. Murray, Christian Baptism (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977), 30.
39. Thayer, s.v., ὁμοίωμα. The genitive τῆς ἀναστάσεως (agreeing with τοῦ θανάτου) implies that τῷ ὁμοιώματι is to be taken with both nouns, so that “in the likeness of his resurrection,” though partly supplied by the translators, is faithful to Paul’s grammar.
40. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 369. Moo also argues against an allusion to the mode of baptism in Rom. 6:3–4. Ibid., 361. Are these points related? Paedobaptist commentators generally see no reference to mode in these verses. See, e.g., Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 194-95; W. G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (reprint ed., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978), 151; Murray, Romans, 1:215, cf., Christian Baptism, 29-33; William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, in New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 1:196-97.
41. Ibid., 1:197.
42. Murray, Romans, 1:218.
43. See Murray’s helpful remarks on 6:11. Romans, 1:225–26.
44. And in come cases the likeness of a religious belief represented by a visible image, cf., Rom. 1:23.
45. Robertson, Word Pictures, in loc.
46. Murray, Christian Baptism, 86.
47. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1948), 144.
48. Murray, Christian Baptism, 87. Italics his.
49. Murray argues that the expression “baptized into Moses” cannot be interpreted in terms of immersion, since this baptism is said to be “in the cloud and in the sea.” Christian Baptism, 25–26. But this is not the case. Granted that some of the points that he makes are valid (e.g., that the Israelites did not get wet), there is more to be said. Paul invokes not just the imagery of baptism but also that of the Lord’s Supper (cf., 10:3–4). His point is to warn against presumption. Some in Corinth believed that their Christian liberty extended to continued attendance at licentious banquets held in pagan temples. They saw no incompatibility in drinking both “the cup of the Lord” and “the cup of demons” or in being “joined to the Lord” and “being joined to a [temple] harlot.” And they presumed that they were safely insulated from falling under God’s wrath because they possessed knowledge and partook of the sacraments. Paul’s response is to warn them against assuming that their privileges secure their ultimate salvation, regardless of their behavior or character. He says that self-control is necessary even for an apostle (9:25–27). And he urges them to consider that the Israelites’ knowledge of God and sacramental privileges had given them no immunity from judgment (10:1–11). Paul warns the Corinthians-beware of thinking that just because you have knowledge of God, have been baptized, and partake of the Lord’s Table, that you may do as you please. “Let him who thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall.” Instead of presumption, watch carefully lest you also fall into sin. If God did not spare Israel, if he will not spare an apostle, then he will not spare you, your knowledge and sacramental privileges notwithstanding. Now, in this context, when Paul uses imagery to picture Israel’s sacramental privileges, he chooses images patterned after the two Christian sacraments observed by the Corinthians. In much the same way that the Old Testament prophets used Old Covenant imagery to speak to Old Covenant people about New Covenant realities (cf., e.g., Isa. 65:20 and Zech. 6:12–13, in which the future kingdom is portrayed as an extending and glorifying and idealizing of the Old Covenant theocracy), so Paul here uses New Covenant imagery to speak to New Covenant people about Old Covenant realities. And even as the New Testament shows us how far to press the Old Covenant imagery, so the Old Testament shows us in this case how far to press Paul’s use of New Covenant imagery. We are not meant to press totally Paul’s Lord’s Supper imagery in terms of mode, as is evident from the fact that he describes the Israelites’ experience (i.e., of their “Lord’s Supper”) in these terms: “[They] all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Their “bread” was manna and their “cup” was water from a rock, not ordinary bread and wine (as in the Lord’s Supper of the New Covenant). Paul obviously does not mean for us to descend from the larger analogy of the Lord’s Supper to a minute examination of the details. Likewise, in using the imagery of Christian baptism to portray the privileges of the Israelites in the Exodus and in their wilderness wanderings, he does not mean for us to descend from the larger analogy to a minute examination of the details. His point in projecting baptismal imagery backward on the Exodus generation is simply to say (1) that just as baptism symbolizes death to sin’s bondage (Rom. 6:1–12), so the Exodus from Egypt (by means of passing through the sea) symbolized death to Egypt’s (and sin’s) bondage; and (2) that just as baptism symbolizes resurrection to newness of life under Christ’s guidance, so the presence of the cloud to guide the Israelites through the wilderness symbolized their obligation to walk in newness of life under Jehovah’s guidance. The sea and the cloud correspond to the water in baptism only in the sense that they represent analogous privileges and obligations. As to whether we are meant to press the idea of immersion in this place, we cannot say; but the prepositions used, ὑπό (“under”), διά (“through”), ἐν (“in”), and εἰς (“into), are incompatible with any other mode.
50. Outlines of Theology, 605–606.
51. Not surprisingly, Unitarians have pressed these texts into service to argue against the doctrine of the Trinity, but that is to make them serve an idea with which the New Testament has no sympathy. See, e.g., Lucius R. Paige, Matthew, Mark, vol. 1 in A Commentary on the New Testament (Boston: Benjamin B. Mussey, 1853), 334–35.
52. Broadus, 595.
53. In later editions, the word “preaching” is omitted and the words “being men able to preach the Gospel” are added at the end of the article. “Church, officer” is also changed to “church-officer.”
54. The Confession of Faith, 335.
55. The Westminster Confession at this point also cites 1 Cor. 11:20, in which Paul assumes that the Lord’s Supper is taking place in the assembled church. This assumption evidently is based on what he had received from Christ and previously delivered to the church concerning this ordinance (cf., 11:23).
56. Ibid., 340.
57. Outlines of Theology, 615.
58. Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press. 1989), 357.
59. At 26.5, the “due performance” of public worship is that which God “requireth.” At 26.7, in saying that God has given to local churches “all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he hath instituted for them to observe,” this is qualified with the words “with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.” In these instances, what is “due” is what is “right” and what is “required” by God according to divine command. At other places in the Confession, the word “due” has other meanings (cf., 2.2, 8.4, 11.3, 19.6, where “due” means “owed,” 1.7, 20.3, 22.8, 26.10, where it means “proper” or “fitting,” and 3.6, 11.4, 18.4, where it means “appointed”), but these meanings are not determinative at 29.4, which again speaks of the “due” or lawful performance of public worship.
60. Ibid., 358.
61. The Confession of Faith, 340.
62. Benjamin Keach, Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1972), 631–32.
63. John Gill, Body of Divinity (reprint ed., Atlanta: Turner Lassetter, 1965), 910–11. His references are to John Floyer’s Essay to Restore the Dipping of Infants in Baptism, 44; John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.19; John Selden’s Works, 6, col. 2008.
64. Charles H. Spurgeon, C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography (reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), 1:147.
65. William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopaedia (Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1881), s.v., Baptism, The Scriptural Mode of.
66. Cf., e.g., J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology and Church Order (reprint ed., Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), 2:35; J. M. Pendleton, Christian Doctrines: A Compendium of Theology (reprint ed., Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1944), 342; among Baptists not holding to the 2ndLCF, but agreeing on this point, cf., Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (reprint ed., Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1985), 933, 939; W. T. Conner, Christian Doctrine (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1937), 280.
67. Murray argues concerning Lev. 14:6 and 14:51, “It is also worthy of note that in these two instances the live bird was to be baptised into the blood (εἰς τὸ αἷμα) of the slain bird. Hence even “baptism into” (βάπτω εἰς) does not mean to immerse, and the preposition ‘into’ does not add any force to the argument that βάπτω means to immerse.” Christian Baptism, 11. Italics his. In his comments on Rom. 6:4, Prof. Murray castigates Lightfoot for a “rather lame” argument in support of immersion that is “without any cogency.” Romans, 1:215. He is guilty of the same mistake in this case. Baptists do not assert that βάπτω means to immerse. We concur that it means to dip, which in some contexts means immersion (Murray acknowledges this at Lev. 11:32 and Job 9:31, cf., Ibid., 10, 14), but it does not mean this in Lev. 14:6 and 14:51. βάπτω εἰς means “dip into” in the same way that βαπτίζω εἰς means “immerse into.” In both cases the preposition retains its proper force. Since βάπτω (with or without εἰς) is never used in the Bible of Christian baptism, Murray’s point is pointless.
68. Again, Prof. Murray shows here something of a castigating spirit, saying that the idea suggested above (i.e., “as wet as if he had been dipped or immersed in the dew of heaven”) “would require the most arbitrary and unnatural twisting of the terms and amount to unreason in the lowest degree.” Christian Baptism, 14.
69. The only possible exception to this statement is the few examples from non-biblical literature where βάπτω refers to dying or coloring or staining cloth (partially) or hair. But in these cases, the meaning is plainly by extension from the more common use to refer to total dying or coloring by dipping. In addition to the biblical data, see the many examples of βάπτω in non-biblical Greek writings, cited by Dagg, 2:23–27. The ideas of sprinkling and pouring are conveyed by the use of other words (e.g., ῥαίνω, προσραίνω, περιρραίνω, ῥαντίζω, ἐπιρραντίζω, περιρραντίζω, πάσσω, καταπάσσω, προσχέω, κατασκεδάννυμι, ἐκχέω, ἐπιχέω, καταχέω, σπένδω, χρίω).
70. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 4.15.19. Italics mine.
71. John Parkhurst, A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament (London: W. Faden. n.d.), s.v., βαπτίζω.
72. Edward Robinson, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1880), s.v., βαπτίζω. Robinson, while acknowledging that “in Greek writers. .. from Plato onwards, βαπτίζω is every where to sink, to immerse, to overwhelm, either wholly or partially,” says that “in reference to the rite of baptism, it would seem to have expressed not always simply immersion, but the more general idea of ablution of affusion.” His basis for saying this supposedly rests chiefly on two points: (1) that the term βαπτίζω is used in some texts of the ceremonial washings of the Jews and (2) that the numerous baptisms recorded in Acts 2:41 and 4:4 cannot be by immersion, since “there lies a difficulty, apparently insuperable, in the scarcity of water.” On the first point, at only three places is this the case, Ecclus. 34:25, Mark. 7:3–4, and Luke 11:38, which cases only show that βαπτίζω was used by the Jews to denote lesser rites than full baptism, but that only by an extension of meaning from the primary sense. On the second point, the numerous converts at Pentecost, etc. only present a problem if we insist that they do. On the number and dimensions of the public pools in Jerusalem, see Dagg, 2:60–65. The possibility of a sizeable private pool owned by a Christian of wealth and high social rank, such as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, is also to be considered.
73. E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament (reprint ed., London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, 1974), s.v., “Baptize.”
74. Cremer, s.v., βαπτίζω.
75. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (reprint ed., Wheaton, IL: Evangel Publishing Company, 1974), s.v., βαπτίζω.
76. Albrecht Oepke, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1964), s.v., βάπτω, βαπτίζω.
77. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), s.v., βαπτίζω.
78. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (reprint ed., London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), 2:121–27.
79. Ibid., 2:47-48. Bannerman is anxious to say, however, that “in this passage the Apostle must be held as referring to the Baptism of a believer.” Ibid., 2:47. At another place in the same work, Bannerman makes a similar point with reference to the efficacy of baptism, saying, “The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants.. .. It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule.” Ibid., 2:108-109. Murray criticizes Bannerman at both these places. Murray, Christian Baptism, 32, 88-89.
80. Outlines of Theology, 609–610. Hodge does not identify the writer that he quotes.
81. G. R. Beasley-Murray, βαπτίζω, in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 1:144.
82. See Dagg, 2:27–28.
83. The presence of βαπτισμός at Col. 2:12 is disputed, with א*, A, and Byz reading βάπτισμα.
84. See Parkhurst, s.v., βάπτισμα. In the entry for βάπτισμα, for which he gives the primary meaning “immersion, submersion,” Thayer says, “of Christian baptism; this, according to the view of the apostles, is a rite of sacred immersion, commanded by Christ.” As with βαπτίζω, so the testimony for the meaning of βάπτισμα could be easily multiplied.
85. Martin Luther, Treatise on Baptism, in Works, 1:56, cited by Hugh T. Kerr, A Compend of Luther’s Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943), 167.
86. Murray, Christian Baptism, 6, 8. A. A. Hodge says that “baptism is a simple and single command to wash with water, in order to symbolize the purification wrought by the Holy Ghost” and thus argues that sprinkling or pouring best symbolizes this fact. The Confession of Faith, 340. But this is at odds with his own Confession of Faith, which, when, addressing the subject of the significance of baptism, makes no explicit mention of this as baptism’s meaning (cf., WC 28.1). Prof. Murray rightly warns against the position that Hodge takes, saying, “We are liable to be misled by the nature of the ordinance, as one of washing with water, into thinking that the basic import is that of purification. However important that element is and even though it is included in the import of baptism, it does not appear to be the most central or basic element.” Christian Baptism, 6. On this point we heartily agree with Prof. Murray, and so does our Confession of Faith in its statement concerning the significance of baptism (cf., 2ndLCF 29.1). Union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection stands at the forefront of this statement, followed by a statement concerning the blessing of remission of sins which is the believer’s by virtue of union with Christ in his death, and a statement concerning the commitment to live and walk in newness of life which the believer makes by virtue of his union with Christ in his resurrection. That mode of baptism that best signifies union with Christ in his death and resurrection is correct. Only immersion fits the bill.
87. Ibid., 6.
88. Cathcart, s.v., “Baptism, The Scriptural Mode of.”
89. Benjamin Keach, Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1972), 631.