A Bible History of Baptism

Section XLVIII. —Washing the Hands before Meals

It appears to have been a custom, enjoined by tradition and observed by all the Jews, always to wash the hands ritually before eating. The origin and meaning of the tradition may probably be inferred from a few Scriptural facts. (1.) Flesh was used for sacrifice, before it was given to man for food. Compare Gen. i, 29; iv, 4; viii, 20; ix, 3. It was thus transferred from the altar to the table. (2.) One essential idea in the Levitical system as to sacrifice, was communion of Israel with God at his table. Of this, the passover was but one among many illustrations which the books of Moses contain. (Deut. xii, 17, 18, 27, etc.) (3.) Hence, all eating of flesh was treated as sacrificial in its nature, and, therefore, the prohibition of blood – a prohibition perpetuated in the church by the apostles. (Gen. ix, 4; Lev. xvii, 3-14; Deut. xii, 20-27; Acts xv, 20, 29.67) If, to these facts be added the rule which required the priests to wash themselves before entering upon their official duties, one of which was the eating of the sacrificial flesh in the holy place, and the words of the Psalmist, – “I will wash mine hands in innocency, so will I compass thine altar, O Lord” (Psa. xxvi, 6), we will have the probable foundation of the ritualistic structure.

As to the mode of these washings, the rules given in the ritual law are very significant. But two cases in which the washing of the hands was required are there found. One of these is the washing of the hands of the elders in expiation of a concealed murder. (Deut. xxi, 3-9.) Here the circumstances render it certain that the water was poured on the hands. The other is mentioned in Lev. xv, 11, where the English, “rinsed,” represents the Hebrew, shātaph, to dash, or pour on with violence. If the Jews imitated the Levical rites they did not immerse their hands. Mark throws but little light upon the mode of the Pharisaic washing. In the expression, “except they wash their hands oft,” the last word of the original (pugmē, – “oft”), probably had a technical meaning, by which the mode was designated. But if such was the case, that meaning has been lost. By some writers, it is interpreted, “to the elbows,” “to the wrist,” “with closed fist,” etc. But all this is mere conjecture, as is the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, that it denoted a certain form of the affusion of water upon the hands.

The account of the marriage feast affords ground for surer deductions. There were set six water pots of stone, holding two or three firkins apiece. Whatever were the rites referred to by Mark, under the two designations of “washing the hands,” and “baptism,” it was necessary that sufficient water should be provided for all occasions of both kinds which were likely to occur, in the large concourse of wedding guests, of whom Christ and the apostles were but a small proportion. For, whilst the guests, generally, were expected, of course, to make use of the ordinary rite, by washing their hands, there might be numbers who had incurred such exposure as to require the appointed baptism. What, then, are the indications as to the nature of the rites thus provided for?

The capacity of the water-pots, according to the most probable estimate, was not more than ten gallons each. The highest supposition sets them at about eighteen. They were, therefore, altogether too small to have been used as bath-tubs, for the immersion of the guests. The possibility, therefore, of such a necessity, did not enter into the calculations of those who provided for the occasion. Were the waterpots, then, used for immersing the hands? The customs of the east, then and to this day, – the fact that Jesus and his disciples evidently appear as but a small proportion of the guests, – and the quantity of wine miraculously made by Jesus for their supply, unite to certify that the great body of the community of Cana was present at the feast. The first suggestion, therefore, that presents itself is, that the supposed process must soon have rendered the water disgusting, from its use in the manner supposed, by a succession of persons. Another and conclusive fact is the use made by our Savior of these waterpots. The feast had been some time in progress, so that the guests had “well drunk,” before the exhausting of the wine. All had been purified, and the pots, appropriated to that use, stood with the remaining water, as thus left. When, Jesus said to the servants, – “Fill the waterpots with water,” “they filled them to the brim,” and immediately carried the wine to the governor of the feast. The servants were ignorant of the purpose of Jesus, and, as the narrative shows, simply did as they were directed. There was no emptying of foul water. There was no cleansing of the waterpots. There is no consciousness, manifested in the narrative, of occasion for it. Nor was there time. It was in the midst of the feast; and the wine was already exhausted, although the ruler of the feast and the guests were unaware of it. (V. 9.) The account of the transaction was written by John, an eye-witness, for the information of cotemporaries who were familiar with the rites of purifying, whatever they were. And had they been performed in the water, in any way, an explanation was necessary, or the inference became inevitable that the vessels were used just as they stood. In these circumstances, is it to be imagined that the waterpots already contained the washings of the guests; or even that they were emptied of these and then appropriated as recepticles of the wine, which was immediately served to the very persons who had just washed in them? Clearly, the facts compel the conclusion that “the purifyings of the Jews,” here provided for were not done in the waterpots, but with water taken from them, and poured or sprinkled on the guests.

This conclusion is confirmed by the explicit testimony of the rabbins. Rabbi Akiva was a doctor of the law of the most eminent reputation, his disciples being numbered by thousands. He was president of the sanhedrim, less than one hundred years after the death of Christ. Being made prisoner by the Romans, upon the suppression of the insurrection of Bar Kokeba, of which he was an active promoter, he was thrown into prison awaiting execution. When food was brought to him, the jailer thinking the supply of water too liberal, poured the greater part on the ground. The rabbi although famishing of thirst, directed what remained to be poured upon his hands, saying, “It is better to die with thirst than to transgress the traditions of the elders.”

Section XLIX. —Baptism upon return from Market

Another point in Mark’s statement is, that, “When they come from the market, except they baptize, they eat not.” Here, it would seem that Mark means something different and more important than the ordinary washing of the hands, to which he has just before referred. It is an additional statement, of other rites employed on special occasions. The word, agora, which is translated “the market,” has a much more extensive signification than the English word. Its primary meaning is, a concourse, an assembly, of any kind. And while it was used among others, to designate the assemblies for traffic, and hence the places of such assemblies, it is not, in the text, to be understood in that limited sense; but as comprehensive of all promiscuous assemblages of the people, in which a person was liable unwittingly to come in contact with the unclean. It was upon occasion of our Savior’s coming from such an assembly, that the Pharisee of whom Luke informs us was surprised that he had not first baptized before dinner. He had been preaching in the midst of a multitude “gathered thick together” (Luke xi, 29), when he received and accepted the invitation to dine. He had thus been exposed to a contact which the Pharisees would have carefully avoided, as liable to involve them, unaware, in the extremest defilement, and to render necessary special rites of purifying. This was undoubtedly the cause of the surprise of the Pharisee at the conduct of Jesus.

As to the mode of the baptism here referred to, the gospels are silent. In favor of the supposition that it was immersion, there is nothing whatever in the Scriptures. It rests wholly upon the assumption that that is the meaning of baptizo. The circumstances all very strongly favor the conclusion, that as the major defilements of the Mosaic law were all purged by sprinkling, so this, the major defilement of Pharisaic tradition was cleansed in a kindred way. Among the indications in favor of this conclusion are, the fact that the provision made for purifying at the marriage feast excludes the idea of immersion; – the entire silence of the Scriptures as to any facilities for that purpose; – the incongruity of the supposition to the circumstances of Jesus, in the act of sitting down at the Pharisee’s table; – the absence from the narrative of any allusion to means provided by the Pharisee for the performance, in that mode, of a rite by him so highly esteemed, and for which special provision was necessary; – and the improbability of such a form gaining prevalence among “the Pharisees and all the Jews,” involving, of necessity, both expense and labor, to an intolerable extent. If, on the contrary, as we may reasonably suppose, the house of the Pharisee was provided with appliances, “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews,” they would consist of water pots set at the door, as at the marriage feast, out of which the guests, as they entered, could take water for pouring on their hands, or baptizing their persons by sprinkling, without inconvenience or delay.

We have formerly seen that the self-washings of the Mosaic law, – in which alone its advocates have ever pretended that immersion may be found in the Old Testament, – were of continual recurrence in every family. We find in the time of Christ the rites supplemented by those now in question, which were of even more frequent occasion. If they were performed by self-washing, by affusion, or by sprinkling, such provision of vessels as thus indicated was all-sufficient. But if they were immersions of the person, the almost daily necessities of every family would have required not only an extraordinary supply of water, but a capacious bath tub in every house. Without such a vessel and supply, at home, immersion of the person, with the frequency required, was not merely improbable; it was impossible. But such arrangements would have involved an amount of expense and of labor which no people could endure.

If we open the Scriptures to inquire what is their testimony on this point, on which, if the system of immersion was in operation, some hints could not fail to appear, we find that the one only statement or allusion is contained in the account of the six water pots at the marriage feast. They were set “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews.” This expression, alike in itself, and in the attendant circumstances, as already considered, is exclusive of the supposition that any purifying rite was observed among the Jews, for which the water pots were not a sufficient provision. In short, all the evidence concurs to determine that “the purifying of the Jews,” however performed, was not by immersion of the person.

Section L. —A Various Reading

There is a various reading, in the Greek manuscripts, which is full of meaning with reference to our present inquiry. Whilst many manuscripts, including the Alexandrian, which is referred to the fifth century, read baptisōntai, – “except they baptize they eat not,” (Mark vii, 4); the two oldest and of the highest authority, the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both dating from the fourth century, and with them numbers of a later date, read, rantisōntai, “except they sprinkle they eat not.” The presumption is very strong in favor of rantisōntai being the true reading. Its bearing on the logical connection of Mark’s statement is worthy of note. According to it, he describes three classes of rites. He specifies, first, self-washings of the hands, as always used before dinner; second, certain sprinklings, resorted to upon supposition of more serious defilements; and third, baptisms of pots and cups, etc., the modes of purifying, for which, prescribed in the law, were various. The relation of these purifyings to those appointed by Moses is apparent. They coincide with the self-washings, the sprinklings, and the purifying of things prescribed by him. The various readings here involve considerations of great importance. As before stated, rantisōntai is the reading of the two oldest and most highly esteemed manuscripts, dating back to within about two hundred and fifty years of the death of the apostle John. These manuscripts are recognized by critical scholars as being so far independent of each other that their various readings indicate the gradual divergence which would progress from copy to copy through several generations of manuscripts; so that the reading on which they unite must have originated, if not with the evangelist, at least very soon after the first publication of his gospel. On the other hand, the reading, baptisōntai, first found in the Alexandrian codex, of the fifth century, appears in the great majority of extant manuscripts. We may confidently conclude that there must have been earlier copies of high authority in which this reading was found. It thus appears that at a time but little if any removed from the age of the apostles, these two readings existed side by side in the received copies of the gospel.

This fact is the more significant in view of the jealous care with which the purity of the New Testament text was guarded. So long as the last of the apostles survived, his inspired authority was an available resort on all questions of controversy, arising in the churches. (2 Cor. xi, 28; 3 John 9, 10.) During this period, the importance of an absolutely pure text of the writings of the apostles and evangelists was not fully appreciated. The work of transcription was left to the zeal of private individuals, who were often wanting in the necessary qualifications; whilst there was no system of responsible revision. It was probably during this period, closing about fifty years after the death of the apostle John, that the most important variations and errors crept in. About that time, the importance of a pure text, as an authoritative standard of appeal on questions of controversy, began to be felt; and, thereafter, great vigilance was exercised by the officers of the church in securing correct copies. The transcriptions were made from the best and most accurate manuscripts. And when a copy was made, it appears to have been subjected to a critical revision, after having been first collated usually by the scribe himself, with the copy from which it was taken, for the purpose of correcting any clerical errors, that might have occurred in the transcription. The manuscript was then handed over to “the corrector,” whose business it was to revise the text by a comparison with other available manuscripts. In this office the services of the most learned and able men in the church were employed; and it was not until sanctioned by such revision that a manuscript was accepted as an authentic copy. Beside the process here described, the ancient manuscripts abound in changes made by subsequent critics. The codex Sinaiticus exhibits alterations “by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being cotemporaneous with the first writer; far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth.”68

In view of the diligence of the criticism thus systematically exercised, the fact is very remarkable that the two readings, baptisōntai, and rantisōntai should have been transmitted side by side, and traceable back nearly to the apostolic age. And it is further remarkable, that no one of the ten successive critics whose revisions are traceable on the codex Sinaiticus has corrected the place in question so as to read baptisōntai, although it is certain that reading did extensively prevail. Nor is the variation alluded to in the writings of the fathers. It is immaterial to the present argument which is the true reading. If it was rantisōntai, the language of Mark explains the meaning of Luke. What the Pharisee expected was that Jesus should have baptized himself by sprinkling. And, whichever is the true reading, this fact is patent that at an age so early as to be undistinguishable from that of the apostles and evangelists, so intimate was the relation between sprinkling and baptism that the one word was inadvertently substituted for the other, in transcription; and the alteration received by the ablest men in the church, without question or protest, then or afterward, or the betrayal even of a consciousness of change; despite the watchfulness of a criticism systematic in its exercise and jealous for the purity of the text. If the primitive church understood baptism to mean immersion, if the rite was administered in that, as the only Scriptural mode, the occurrence of the case here presented would have been plainly impossible. It could only happen where the two words were identified as designating the same rite. How easily the words might be confounded will appear by a comparison of them as written in the primitive Greek, known as uncials, or capital letters: —

ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩΝΤΑΙ.

ΡΑΝΤΙΖΩΝΤΑΙ

Were the first and third letters dimly written, or blurred, the one word might readily be taken for the other.

Section LI. —Baptisms of Utensils and Furniture

Another point in Mark’s statement is the baptisms of cups and pots, brasen vessels and tables. It is unnecessary to insist upon the argument which is deducible from the practical impossibility of the immersion of these things; nor to notice the theories which have been devised to overcome the difficulties which it interposes to the Baptist mode. The reader who has followed the course of this history will recognize, in the Levitical ordinances respecting the purifyings of things, the source whence was derived the hint of these supererogatory rites. And a comparison of the various Mosaic regulations on the subject will satisfy the candid reader that the list here given is not designed to be exhaustive, but an exemplification merely of the observances in question. This is further evident from the fact that the enumeration, as made by the Lord Jesus (v. 8), was of pots and cups, only; which Mark in his subsequent account amplifies by the other additional examples. Respecting them, the ritual of Moses provided modes of purifying varied both with respect to the nature of the things to be cleansed, and the character of the defilements; as we have formerly seen. We may well suppose that the scribes did not fail to imitate every form of the legal purifyings, in their additions to the law of God. It is not only possible, but very probable that some of these inventions were in the form of immersion. For, as we have formerly seen, that was one of the forms appointed in the law, for the purifying of things. But the evangelist speaks, not of one, but of various rites; which he designates by the plural and generic name of (baptismous), – baptisms. The word thus selected is the very same which is used by Paul as the comprehensive designation of the purifying rites of the Mosaic law, – the “divers baptisms,” imposed at Sinai. The conclusion is therefore irresistible, that whilst Paul used the word in a generic sense, as comprehending the various forms of legal purification, among which the immersion of person is not to be found, Mark uses it in a like generic sense as comprehensive of the various forms for the purifying of things, among which immersion may have been one, although, if such was the fact, the proof is yet to be produced.

The result of our examination is, that among the Pharisaic rites, no trace of the immersion of the person is to be found.

Part IX.

JOHN’s$1BAPTISM