Expert: Hoyt Roberson - 11/24/2008

Question
QUESTION: In Hebrews 9 the inspired author describes the various acts of sprinkling found in the old testament, and I'm sure still practiced in his own day, with the Greek word for baptisms. Why if an inspired author of the Bible equates sprinkling with  baptism does the Church of Christ not do the same?

ANSWER: Hi Doug!

The import of the discussion in Hebrews 9 is not the form of cleansing, but the blood that is necessary to do the cleansing. The argument is essentially, "we know that blood is necessary for cleansing, and if the blood of bulls and goats could do some good, certainly the blood of Messiah can do much more." The argument in chapter 9 has more to do with the blood that's required than whether it's sprinkled, poured, or used to submerge a person.

Churches of Christ understand baptism to be immersion since the word transliterated as baptism essentially means to dip, to plunge, to submerge, or to be overwhelmed, as if washing it. Therefore, the argument is that Christian baptism was originally done in such a mode rather than sprinkling or pouring.

To support this view, Churches of Christ will appeal to the fact that, wherever the amount of water used is mentioned, there always seems to be sufficient water for immersion. The stories of the Ethiopian Eunuch and John's baptizing in the Jordon are two examples. In the Eunuch story, we are told that both Peter and the Eunuch went down into the water and therefore, there must have been sufficient water volume to make that possible.

The use in verse 10 of baptismos does not argue against immersion, but actually buttresses it. Translated as "washing" almost consistently among English versions of Hebrews, the word supports the idea of ablution or washing rather than sprinkling or pouring.

However, I'm getting off the point of your question. Suffice it to say that Hebrews 9 is not speaking of the form, but of the blood that is required to cleanse various items, including people. Further, the argument of the blood supports the writer's argument that the Jesus "era" is more sufficient, more compelling, more effective than what had gone before. These are the major points of chapter 9; sprinkling or immersion is not.

If any of that doesn't make sense, please let me know.

Have a great weekend!

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi Hoyt,

 Thanks for getting back to me.
 In the first and last paragraph you seem to be saying that you believe that I think the point of Hebrews 9 is a discussion of a mode of baptism, maybe even Christian baptism. Let me first off assure you that I understand that the author is teaching his audience the difference between the temporary nature of Old Testament washings with blood and ashes and the once-and-for-all nature of the perfect sacrifice that our Lord made on the cross.
 In your second paragraph you're touching on the subject of my question. The idea behind how I will wrap up this paragraph never really came together for me before I sat down a few minutes ago to write you a response. I've heard that definition of baptism before, dip, plunge, submerge.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say that comes almost directly out of some classical Greek lexicon or dictionary. I can cite all kinds of problems with using classical Greek lexicons to define the meaning of Greek words in the New Testament. One problem is that the NT wasn't written in classical Greek. It was written in common Greek. The difference might be compared to the difference between the Queen's proper use of the English language and my American English. Was the lexicon written at about the same time as the books of the NT? The use of words can change completely in a short time. A few short years ago the word gay was defined very, very differently than it is today. The point I am getting at is this. Why turn to questionable Greek dictionaries to define the use of a Greek word like baptismos in the NT when the very word of God defines its use in numerous places. One of those being the very distinct and easily understood association of baptismos to acts of sprinkling in Hebrews 9.
 If some translations translate baptismos in Hebrews 9 as    washings, doesn't their use of that very broad English word only make my argument for me? The sprinkling of water in a shower is no less of a washing than the immersion in a large tub. Am I not correct?
 I'd love to share with you some of my thoughts about the circumstances around the baptisms of Jesus and the Ethiopian Eunuch but time doesn't allow.
 Thank you your patience with me as I get out some of these thoughts on a subject that has become very important in my life.  
 I look forward to hearing back from you when your schedule allows.  

Answer
Hi Doug,

There are two responses I could give you; I'll give you both. The first is the standard Church of Christ response, which is essentially the one I provided in my first response. You are correct that words tend to change meanings over time. So, it may be that we now consider taking a shower to be washing, but that isn't what the ancients considered to be washing - I haven't seen any evidence that the ancients used showers. Since we are trying to figure out what they meant when they used the term baptism, we need to stay with their frames of reference.

It is true today that many denominations use sprinkling or pouring as either a primary or secondary form of baptism. However, when we compare what the ancients understood baptismo to mean, and add to that the various depictions of the action we have in Scripture (e.g., lots of water), and Paul's assumption of his readers having been baptized and using it to illustrate the death and burial of Jesus, we have some pretty good evidence of what the term meant.

Those points would form the basis for a Church of Christ response to your question.

My view is a bit different, or perhaps an extension of the understanding of baptism. I have come to this view precisely because of your observation that words change over time. Baptism is no different, as you have suggested. Over time, both sprinkling and pouring have come to be accepted as appropriate forms of baptism. One such denomination is the Roman Catholic church. It is apparent to me that Roman Catholics in the pews belief their sprinkling to be the baptism of Scripture. Therefore, a ninety year old Roman Catholic woman who has been sprinkled as a child, believes she has met the expectation of Scripture - she believes she has been baptized.

Because I believe that God looks more on the heart and intentions than He does any specific behavior, I believe He will treat our ninety year old as if she were baptized appropriately even if the mode is not the action spoken of in Scripture.

Given the preponderance of the Biblical information, I believe that Churches of Christ more correctly understand the mode of baptism than many other folks. However, I differ from the "standard" Church of Christ view in that I believe folks who have been sprinkled or poured upon are acceptable in the eyes of God.

This dichotomy illustrates the need to practice what we know, but allow others to practice as they know. That view has not traditionally been the view of Churches of Christ but I cannot find any other approach that is in keeping with the love and grace of our God.

Does that help?