Basic HTML Version
611
nowhere determines the specific mode in which the effect is to be produced. Jesus did not
prescribe a certain mode of baptism. He evidently did not attach as much importance to it as
the Baptists do. Neither do the Biblical examples of baptism stress any particular mode. There is
not a single case in which we are explicitly told just how baptism was administered. The
Baptists assert, however, that the Lord did command baptism by immersion, and that all those
who administer it in a different way are acting in open disobedience to His authority. To prove
their assertion, they appeal to the words bapto and baptizo, which are used in Scripture for “to
baptize.” The second word seems to be an intensive or frequentative form of the first, though
in general usage the distinction does not always hold. Bapto is frequently used in the Old
Testament, but occurs in the New Testament only four times, namely, in Luke 16:24; John
13:26; Rev. 19:13, and in these cases does not refer to Christian baptism. Baptists were very
confident at one time that this verb means only “to dip”; but many of them have changed their
mind since Carson, one of their greatest authorities, came to the conclusion that it also has a
secondary meaning, namely, “to dye,” so that it came to mean “to dye by dipping,” and even,
“to dye in any manner,” in which case it ceased to be expressive of mode.[Carson, Baptism in its
Mode and Subjects, pp. 44 ff.] The question further arose, whether baptizo, which is used 76
times, and which is the word employed by the Lord in the words of the institution, was derived
from bapto in its primary or in its secondary meaning. And Dr. Carson answers that it is derived
from bapto in the sense of “to dip.” Says he: “Bapto, the root, I have shown to possess two
meanings, and two only, ‘to dip’ and ‘to dye.’ Baptizo, I have asserted, has but one signification.
It has been founded on the primary meaning of the root, and has never admitted the
secondary.... My position is, that it always signifies to dip; never expressing anything but
mode.”[Op. cit., p. 55.] The Baptists must maintain this, if they want to prove that the Lord
commanded baptism by immersion.
But the facts, as they appear in both classical and New Testament Greek, do not warrant this
position. Even Dr. Gale, who was perhaps the most learned author who sought to maintain it,
felt constrained by the facts to modify it. Wilson in his splendid work on Infant Baptism, which
is partly a reply to the work of Dr. Carson, quotes Gale as saying: “The word baptizo perhaps
does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing’s being
in that condition, no matter how it comes to be so, whether it is put into the water, or the
water comes over it; though, indeed, to put into the water is the most natural way and the
most common, and is, therefore, usually and pretty constantly, but it may be not necessarily,
implied.”[p. 97.] Wilson shows conclusively that, according to Greek usage, baptism is effected
in various ways. Says he: “Let the baptizing element encompass its object, and in the case of
liquids, whether this relative state has been produced by immersion, effusion, overwhelming,
or in any other mode, Greek usage recognizes it as a valid baptism.” He further goes on to show
in detail that it is impossible to maintain the position that the word baptizo always signifies