Chapter LXXIII: Section LXXI: Paul’s Doctrine of this Baptism

Paul, in one brief sentence gives a comprehensive view of the manner and results of this Baptism. “After that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs, according to the hope of eternal life.”—Titus iii, 4-7.

Here, an amendment is proposed, in the fifth verse, so as to read,—“the _laver_ (_loutrou_) of regeneration. Bishop Ellicott declares this rendering to be “indisputable.”[88] Other expositors favor it, and the Committees of revision of the New Testament have honored it by inserting the word, in the margin of the Revised Version, here, and in Eph. v, 26. A rendering thus importunate and intrusive, necessitates a critical examination. The first point to be noticed is that the word, laver, is ambiguous; and in the sense which is assumed in its insertion in the text, is without warrant in the Greek language or customs. “We know very little of the baths of the Athenians during the republican period; for the account of Lucian, in his Hippias, relates to baths constructed after the Roman model. On ancient vases, on which persons are represented bathing, we never find any thing corresponding to a modern bath, in which persons can stand or sit; but there is always a round or oval basin (_loutēr_ or _loutērion_), resting on a stand, by the side of which those who are bathing are represented standing undressed and washing themselves, as seen in the following wood-cut, taken from Sir. W. Hamilton’s vases.”[89] The vessels used by the Greeks in bathing were, (1) the _asaminthos_, in which, sometimes, the bather sat, while the water was poured over him, as we have seen in the bath of Ulysses; (2) the _loutēr_, the _laver_, a vessel neither in size nor proportions adapted to the purposes of immersion, nor ever so employed, but designed and used as a containing vessel for the water; (3) the pitcher or dipper (_arutaina_), with which water was taken from the laver, and poured over the bather. There was no bath tub, nor provision of any kind for immersion. The mode of bathing appears in the story, in Theophrastus, of one who entered the bathroom (_balaneion_), and not being promptly waited on, dipping the ladle, (_arutaina_), poured it over his own person, and declared himself bathed, “no thanks to you.”[90]

Footnote 88:

Ellicott’s Commentary, on Eph. v, 26. On the mode of baptism,
circumstances detract greatly from the authority of divines of the
English church. The doctrine of that body on the prerogative of the
church to ordain rites and ceremonies has a double effect. On the one
hand, it takes away the motive to a thorough study of the Scriptural
evidence on the subject. On the other, it induces a sense of
satisfaction in admitting that the apostolic mode of baptism was by
immersion, and then pointing to the contrary form now in use, as an
illustration of the exercise of the church’s authority over the
matter. When to this is added the veneration cherished for “the
primitive church” of the third and fourth centuries, in which
immersion had gained extensive footing, and the recognition of that
form in the rubric for baptism, hereafter quoted (below, p. 354), we
will be justified in looking farther before accepting, as conclusive,
the judgment, however pronounced, of divines of that church.

Footnote 89:

Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, _article_,
“Balneæ.” The engravings referred to, will be found on pages 200, 207,
above.

Footnote 90:

Βάψας ἀρύταιναν, αὐτος ἑαυτον καταχέασθαι, καὶ ειπεν ὃτι λέλουται.
Theophrastus, Char. 16 (9).

The word _loutron_ was used, (1) for the _water_ of the bath. In Athenæus, the question is asked, why _hot springs_ (_therma loutra_), appearing out of the ground, are by all declared sacred to Hercules, if warm bathing was an unmanly luxury, as some asserted.[91] To the same point, in Aristophanes, the question occurs,—“Where did you ever see cold Heracleian _baths_ (_loutra_)?”[92] In Sophocles, Œdipus directs his daughters “to bring a _bath_ (_loutra_) of running waters.”[93] Homer represents the curly headed Hecameda heating a warm _bath_ (_loetra_).[94] And Euripides describes Antigone pleading to be allowed “to pour _waters_ (_loutra_) over the corpse” of Polynices;[95] that is, to bathe it for burial. In this use of the word, together with the mode of bathing by the pouring of successive dippers, or waters, over the person, is explained the fact that the word is very rarely found in the singular number, and in Homer, the oldest of the classics, never; although in its plural form (_loetra_, contract, _loutra_), it frequently occurs in his poems. This fact is very strongly against the supposition that the word contained any allusion to the bathing vessel, which would demand the singular number.

Footnote 91:

Athenæus, Deipnosoph. xii, 6 (512).

Footnote 92:

Aristophanes, Nub. 1051.

Footnote 93:

Ἡνώγει ῥυτῶν ὑδάτων ἐνεγκεῖν λουτρὰ. Soph., Œd. Col. 1598.

Footnote 94:

Εἰσόκε θερμὰ λοετρὰ ἐϋπλόκαμος Ἑκαμήδη θερμήνη.—Iliad xiv, 6.

Footnote 95:

Σὺ δ’ ἀλλὰ νεκρῷ λουτρὰ περιβαλεῖν μ’ ἕα.—Eurip., Phoen. 1667.

The word designated (2.) the _washing_ which was accomplished by the water. In the comedies of Aristophanes, the women in revolt, warn the men who threaten to assail them,—“If you happen to have soap, we will give you _a bath_ (_loutron_);” which they do, by dashing buckets of water over them. Thereupon, the men run to the police, complaining,—“Do you not know what a _washing_ (_loutron_) these have washed us, just now, and that in our clothes, and without soap?”[96] The idiomatic expression here (“to wash a washing”), indicates how very close is the relation between the verb _louo_, to wash, and its derivative, _loutron_, a washing. The one expresses the action, or doing; the other, the thing done. The same idiom presents itself in Antigone’s account of the obsequies of her slain brother Polynices. “Washing it a pure washing (_lousantes agnon loutron_),” they gathered leaves, and burned “the poor remains.”[97]

Footnote 96:

Οὐκ οἶσθα λουτρὸν οἷον αἵδ’ ἡμᾶς ἕλουσαν ἄρτι.—Aristophanes, Lysist.
377, 469.

Footnote 97:

Sophocles, Antigone, 1201.

As bathing was performed by the outpouring of water on the person, the word was thence used (3.) to designate libations, performed by a like outpouring of water, in honor of gods or heroes. Thus, Agamemnon having been murdered at the instigation of his wife Clytemnestra, Orestes pours (_loutra_) _libations_ at his father’s tomb;[98] and Electra dissuades her sister Chrysothemis from fulfilling her mother’s commission, to offer (_loutra_) _libations_ at the same place, as a means of averting coming vengeance.[99]

Footnote 98:

Πατρὸς χέοντες λουτρά. Sophocles. Elect. 84.

Footnote 99:

Οὐδε λουτρὰ προσφέρειν πατρί. Ib. 434.

The word designates (4.) a bathing place. Plutarch describes Alexander as speaking of “having washed off the sweat of battle (_loutrō_) _with the bath_ of Darius.”[100] In such passages, the controlling idea is not a supposed bathing vessel, but the cleansing water of the bath; as is here indicated by the form of the participle “(_apolousamenoi_), having washed off;” and by the instrumental dative “(_loutrō_), _with the bath_;” which show that, whatever the construction of the bathing place of Darius, the Greek mode was present in the mind of Alexander. The idea of _loutron_ is further illustrated by its compounds. At Athens, before a marriage, the bride was bathed with water brought from the fountain of Callirhoe, by a young girl, who was hence called (_hē loutrophoros_), “the bath-water carrier.” So, the fee for the privilege of the bath, was, _epiloutron_,—_for the bath_.

Footnote 100:

Ἰῶμεν, ἀπολουσάμενοι τόν ἀπο τῆς μαχῆς ἱδρώτα τῷ Δαρειοῦ λουτρῷ.
Plutarch, Alexand. 20.

The voice of the classics is clearly against the rendering in question. The fact that the Greeks are entirely silent as to a washing by immersion, or any vessel for the purpose,—the distinct name of _loutēr_ given to the only vessel that contained water,—the bathing performed by pouring,—the use of _loutron_ to express such bathing, and to designate the water itself, where there was no vessel, and libations, in which there was water poured out, but no laver, nor bathing,—the primitive and peculiar employment of the word in the plural number,—and the derivatives formed from it, all inure to the one conclusion. At least, in classic Greek, _loutron_ does not mean, a _laver_, but _water_ for washing, and the _washing_ accomplished by it; and that, with intimate reference to its affusion on the person.

Nor does the Hellenistic Greek utter a different testimony. In the Song of Songs, it is said,—“Thy teeth are like a flock, shorn, which came up _from the washing_ (_apo tou loutrou_).” So reads the Septuagint. From Ecclesiasticus (above, p. 169) we have the proverb, “He that is baptized from the dead, and again toucheth the dead, what availeth his _washing_ (_loutrō_)?” Here, cleansing by the sprinkled water of separation is called _loutron_, a washing. So Philo (above, p. 175) describes the purifying rites, the _washings_ (_loutra_) and the sprinklings, of the Jews. Josephus says of the two springs of Machærus, near the Dead Sea, the one hot, and the other cold, that “when mingled together they make a most pleasant _bath_ (_loutron_).”[101] And Paul, himself, writes that Christ gave himself for the church, “that he might cleanse it, purifying it with _the washing_ (_tō loutrō_) of water.” Here the new version must either make nonsense of the passage, or do violence to the Greek. Either it must read, “purifying it _with_ the laver,” that is, with the bath tub, not the washing; or, “_in_ the laver,” a rendering forbidden by the instrumental dative (_tō loutrō_.)

Footnote 101:

Jewish War. VII, vi, 3.

On the other hand, in more than a dozen places,—wherever the lavers of the tabernacle and the temple are mentioned, the Septuagint is _loutēr_,—the same word, in the same sense in which it was used by the Greeks to designate the containing vessel. In a word, neither in the classics, nor in Hellenistic Greek, is _loutron_ ever found in the sense of a laver, or bathing vessel. Or, if it is so used, the Lexicons ignore it; Stephanus, in his great Thesaurus, knows nothing of it; and the advocates of that rendering do not adduce it. And were such example found, it would be wholly insignificant as to the interpretation of Paul, in presence of all these facts.

If now, we ask for the evidence in favor of the new version, the answer presents two points,—_first_, that certain versions of the New Testament,—the Vulgate, Claromontanus, Syriac, and Gothic,—have so translated _loutron_; and _second_, that in accordance with Greek usage, the termination, _on_ (loutr_on_), justifies the assumption that the word designates an instrumental object. As to the first consideration,—it may be asserted with confidence that we are as fully possessed of the means of determining the question as were the unknown authors of those versions; and the growing prevalence at that time, of a ritualistic spirit in the church, and the consequent introduction of the form of immersion, sufficiently account for the rendering, apart from any critical considerations. Respecting the termination, _on_, the number of examples in which it is found in words that designate instrumental objects is too few to establish a rule. But were it accepted as decisive, the whole weight of its authority is against, instead of being in favor of the proposed amendment. A laver, and especially a Greek laver, is no instrument of bathing. Perhaps the _arutaina_, the dipper, might be so called. But the _water_ and the _washing_, each are instrumental causes of _the cleansing_, the salvation; of which, in the text, the apostle says,—“he saved us (_dia loutrō_) _by means of the washing_.” Nor do the classics ignore this relation. Plato (above, p. 181) asks concerning “the _washings_ (_loutra_) and sprinklings,”—“Are they not effectual to one end, to render a man pure, both as to body and soul?”

In the text, _loutron_ means, the washing, but with intimate reference to the water as the means,—a sense which we have just seen illustrated from the classics. Strictly, the regeneration is the washing, of which the water is the instrument. The figure thus used, the apostle immediately explains. “The washing of regeneration, even the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” As water is the instrument of washing, so the Spirit shed down by Jesus Christ is the instrument of that spiritual work which is indicated alike by the two identical words, regeneration, and renewing. Paul then proceeds with the pronoun “which,”—equally appropriate, in the construction of the original, to the water (_loutrou_), or to the Holy Spirit, as its antecedent; and, in fact, referring to both, as identified in one,—“which water, even the Spirit, he shed on us abundantly (_dia_) by the hand of Jesus Christ.” Orestes speaks of himself and companions “(_cheontes loutra_) pouring water” of libation at the tomb. So Paul speaks of “(_loutrou hon execheen_) the water of cleansing which He shed forth on us.” In the latter case, the prefix, _ex_, emphasizes the source of the outpouring, but otherwise the conception and action of the two passages is the same. By the hand of his Son, God the Father from on high sheds his Spirit, and baptizes us with his renewing power. Thereby united to the Lord Jesus, we are thus invested with his righteousness, and so, says the text, “are justified by his grace.” And since by the same union we share his relation as Son;—“if sons, then heirs,” “according to the hope of eternal life.”

This baptism of the Spirit is the theme of frequent discussion in Paul’s writings. He particularly dwells on it as being the instrumental cause of that intimate unity which exists in the body of Christ, and of equality in privilege among all the members, Jews and Gentiles. “As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many are one body, so also is Christ. For, by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink one Spirit.... Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”—1 Cor. xii, 12-14, 27. Here, the figure of baptism is followed up by the expression, “have been all made to drink one Spirit;”—literally, “have been all watered with one Spirit.” The preposition, (_eis_) “_into_ one Spirit,” is rejected by the critical editors as spurious; and the verb (_potizo_) means, to _apply_ water, either externally or internally,—to water, to cause to drink. Compare in the same epistle, 1 Cor. iii, 2, “I have _fed you_ (_epotisa_) with milk;” and 6-8,—“Apollos _watered_ (_epotisen_).”

The same point is set forth in another epistle—“Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit; even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ.... That we henceforth be no more children, ... but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love.”—Eph. iv, 3-16.

That the “one baptism” here spoken of is that wherein, “by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body,” is manifest from the connection and the analogy of the other passages here presented above and below. To suppose it to be water baptism, would be to make the apostle exclude that spiritual and real baptism of which water baptism is the shadow, and to which, in all his writings, he constantly gives so much importance as the means of the union which he here discusses.

In another place, the apostle represents this baptism as merging all other relations in the one tie of identity with Christ. “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”—Gal. iii, 27-29. Here, again, it is clear that the baptism spoken of is that of the Spirit. The oneness with Christ, thus complete by this baptism, Paul uses as a powerful argument of the duty of his people to be dead to the world that crucified him, dead to sin and all the works of the old man, and alive only to God. (Rom. vi, 3-6; Col. ii, 9-11.) These passages will receive special consideration hereafter.

The unity of conception which pervades these Scriptures is manifest, and makes it evident that they all contemplate one and the same baptism, that in which by one Spirit all Christ’s people are baptized into one body, the spiritual body of Christ.

Touching the nature of this baptism, the following are the chief particulars:

1. The entrance of the Spirit shed down by Jesus is regeneration, or the new birth. It is the imparting of new life to the soul,—the introduction of a principle of grace, “the new man,” which, like its source, the eternal Spirit, is immortal and supreme wherever it exists; and which, sustained and nourished by the indwelling Spirit, will grow and expand until it gains full and exclusive possession of all the faculties and powers, making the soul its seat, the body its temple, and the members its instruments.

2. Coincident with this is the death of the old man, the destruction of the controlling principle and power of evil in the soul. Hitherto, it reigned supreme. But now, slain; and, cast out, it remains, a “body of death” in the members; offensive in its corruption, and by its loathsomeness acting as a stimulus to the opposing principle of grace. (Rom. vii, 24.)

3. The result is, that whereas, formerly, the sinful affections “did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death,” “now, being made free from sin and become servants to God,” his people have “their fruit unto holiness.”—Rom. vii, 5; vi, 22.

4. The Spirit thus given is not a transient influence; but is within the believer, a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life;—a well, from which it is his privilege at all times to drink of that one Spirit. Thereby, “to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ;” so that we “grow up into him in all things which is the Head, even Christ.”—Eph. iv, 7, 15. Thus grace is nourished, in preparation for glory.

5. While such are the effects of this baptism on the spiritual condition of the redeemed, equally important are its influences on their external relations. The first is their justification. United to the Lord Jesus, as members of his body, the consequence is that their sins are laid to the charge of their Head, and satisfaction for them credited to the blood of his cross. On the other hand, his righteousness is recognized as theirs, and in it they stand, not only pardoned, but justified; approved, and entitled to the inheritance of glory. They are “accepted _in_ the Beloved; _in_ whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace.”—Eph. i, 6, 7.

6. Another result is their reception to the relation and privileges of children of God. Born of the Spirit,—born of God, they are thus by inheritance children. Members of Christ,—the first-born, the eternal Son,—they share in his relation, and are in him sons; and if sons then heirs;—heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.

7. The final result is the resurrection unto glory. “If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”—Rom. viii, 11.

Such is the one baptism, of which all ritual baptisms are mere shadowy symbols,—the baptism which Paul proclaims,—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv, 5), a baptism, one and alone from its very nature, as dispensed by the one only Mediator, in the bestowal of that one Spirit, which belongs to and is therefore imparted by him alone. Thus have we the perfect antitype of the baptisms of the Old Testament,—the administrator, Jesus the great High Priest; the element, that living water, the Holy Spirit; the mode, his outpouring upon us from heaven; the effect, washing to the corrupt,—life to the dead. By this means, does our Baptizer bestow on his people all grace for the present time, and the resurrection and glory in the end.