CHAPTER II. DIP AND SPRINKLE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Inasmuch as the advocates of sprinkling endeavor to bring the Old Testament to their aid, by citing to those passages which state that water or blood was required to be sprinkled on certain things, it may be of use, certainly it will be of interest, to inquire whether the language of the Old Testament is definite in its distinctions between the two actions; whether immersion and sprinkling are so separated that one cannot, in its language, be mistaken for the other. We affirm that the order to sprinkle the blood on the mercy-seat would not have been obeyed if the priest had immersed the mercy-seat in blood. It was no mere chance by which the apostle spoke of the blood of rhantismos, instead of the blood of baptismos; for the former, or sprinkling of blood, was required and practiced, but the latter, baptism of blood, was unknown to the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament, except in such cases as Leviticus 4:6, where the priest was required to dip his finger in blood, and sprinkle the blood before the vail. But here the two actions are clearly and necessarily distinct. So, also, it is no mere chance, but by evident design, that the rite of baptismos is so often and so definitely enjoined in the gospel, while that of rhantismos is never mentioned. But to the Old Testament terms.TOB 26.1

[original illegible]	Tah-val.	Common Version.	Septuagint.
Gen.	37:31	dipped.	emolunan.
Ex.	12:22	dip.	bapsantes.
Lev.	4:6	dip.	bapsei.
	17	dip.	bapsei.
	9:9	dipped.	ebapse.
	14:6	dip.	bapsei.
	16	dip.	bapsei.
	51	dip.	bapsei.
Num.	19:18	dip.	bapsei.
Deut.	33:24	dip.	bapsei.
Josh.	3:15	dipped.	ebaphesan.
Ruth	2:14	dip.	bapseis.
1 Bam.	14:27	dipped.	ebapsen.
2 Kin.	5:14	dipped.	ebaptisato.
	8:15	dipped.	ebapsen.
Job	9:31	plunge.	ebapsas.

This embraces the entire use of the Hebrew word tah-val in all its forms. In the first instance, emolunan is used in the Septuagint, which, in the New Testament, is rendered defile. This does not conflict with the meaning of the terms, as it (Joseph’s coat) might be defiled with the blood by being dipped in it. And so our version renders it. And no objection can be raised in that bapto is used instead of baptizo; for they both proceed from the same monosyllabic root, and the first meaning of bapto is to dip, or immerse, and baptizo has no other meaning.TOB 27.1

This last statement has been contradicted by some authors, who have endeavored to make baptizo carry the two definitions of bapto, namely, to dip, or immerse, and to dye. The method of the last of these meanings of bapto indicates its relation to and derivation from the first meaning, as it was common to dye by dipping. Dr. Carson has very clearly proved that baptizo does not take this second meaning of bapto, but, for obvious reasons, we prefer to quote the conclusions of Prof. Stuart on this point. In examining the inquiry “whether bapto and baptizo are really synonymous, as they have often been asserted to be,” Prof. Stuart says:—TOB 27.2

“Let us now inquire whether, in actual usage, baptizo has a different meaning from bapto. In particular, is it distinguished from bapto by the writers of the New Testament?TOB 28.1

“The answer to these questions will be fully developed in the sequel. I have already intimated that baptizo is distinguished from bapto in its meaning. I now add, that it is not, like this latter word, used to designate the idea of coloring or dyeing; while in some other respects, it seems, in classical use, to be nearly or quite synonymous with bapto. In the New Testament, however, there is one other marked distinction between the use of these verbs. Baptizo and its derivatives are exclusively employed when the rite of baptism is to be designated in any form whatever; and in this case bapto seems to be purposely, as well as habitually, excluded.”TOB 28.2

And in another paragraph he says:—TOB 28.3

“The idea of plunging or immersing is common to both the words bapto and baptizo, while that of dyeing or coloring belongs only to bapto.”TOB 28.4

This is worthy of the most careful consideration. Not only is every word which signifies pour or sprinkle excluded from the texts in the New Testament which speak of the rite of baptism, but a word which signifies dip or immerse, in common with baptizo, is also excluded because it has another meaning also; and a word is chosen to designate the ordinance which has the signification of immerse, and that only. Such is the remarkable precision of the Greek language used by our Saviour to designate the duty of his followers in this rite. The foregoing table plainly shows that the idea of sprinkling is not contained in the Hebrew word tah-val.TOB 28.5

There has much ado been made over the use of bapto in Daniel 4 and 5, rendered in our version, “wet with the dew of heaven.” But it is admitted by all that bapto has acquired, or secondary, meanings, which baptizo has not. And inasmuch as baptizo is always used for the ordinance, from which, as Prof. Stuart remarks, bapto is carefully excluded, we cannot see that the opponents of immersion gain anything at all on this scripture. It is scarcely an outpost of the citadel of baptism, which stands solely on the use of the word baptizo. This is the only case, however, in all the Scriptures in which even bapto carries any other signification than that of dip.TOB 29.1

Dip is once derived, in the Old Testament from the Hebrew [original illegible], mah-hhatz, which occurs fourteen times, and is rendered wound, seven times; smite, three times; pierce, twice; strike, once; and dip, once; viz., in Psalm 68:23, where the Septuagint has baphe (bapto). Its use in the latter text is peculiar, though it may stand related to its signification, as pierce does to smite. This is the entire use of the word dip in the Old Testament.TOB 29.2

Sprinkle is from two words only in the Old Testament, namely, nah-zah and zah-rak. The first is quite uniformly rendered both in the English and Greek, as will be seen by the following table:—TOB 29.3

[original illegible]	Tah-val.	Common Version.	Septuagint.
Ex.	29:21	sprinkle.	rhaneis.
Lev.	4:6	sprinkle.	prosrhanei.
	17	sprinkle.	rhanei.
	5:9	sprinkle.	rhanei.
	6:27	sprinkled.	epirrhantisthe.
	27	sprinkled.	rhantisthe.
	8:11	sprinkled.	errhanen.
	30	sprinkled.	proserrhanen.
	14:7	sprinkle.	perirrhanei.
	16	sprinkle.	rhanei.
	27	sprinkle.	rhanei.
	51	sprinkle.	perirrhanei.
	16:14	sprinkle.	rhanei.
	14	sprinkle.	rhanei.
	15	sprinkle.	rhanei.
	19	sprinkle.	rhanei.
Num.	8:7	sprinkle.	perirrhaneis.
	19:4	sprinkle.	rhanei.
	18	sprinkle.	perirrhanei.
	19	sprinkle.	perirrhanei.
	21	sprinkleth.	perirrhainon.
2 Kin.	9:33	sprinkled.	errhantisthe.
Isa.	52:15	sprinkle.	thaumasontai.
	63:3	sprinkled.	kategagon.

Here we find the same definiteness, and nearly the same uniformity, of rendering. In all the instances except the last two, the Septuagint uses the same word, or different forms of the same root, while the English has the same word throughout. As the idea of sprinkling is not found in tah-val, so the idea of immersion is not found in nah-zah.TOB 30.1

The Hebrew word zah-rak occurs thirty-four times, as follows:—TOB 31.1

[original illegible]	Tah-val.	Common Version.	Septuagint.
Exodus	9:8	sprinkle.	pasato.
	10	sprinkled.	epasen.
	24:6	sprinkled.	prosechee.
	8	sprinkled.	kateskedase.
	29:16	sprinkle.	proscheeis.
	20	sprinkle.	(wanting.)
Lev.	1:5	sprinkle.	proscheousi.
	11	sprinkle.	proscheousin.
	24:6	sprinkle.	proscheousin.
	8	sprinkle.	proscheousin.
	13	sprinkle.	proscheousin.
	7:2	sprinkle.	proscheei.
	14	sprinkleth.	proscheonti.
	8:19	sprinkled.	prosechee.
	9:12	sprinkled.	prosecheen.
	18	sprinkled.	prosechee.
	17:6	sprinkle.	proscheei.
Num.	18:17	sprinkle.	proscheeis.
	19:13	sprinkled.	perierrhantisthe.
	20	sprinkled.	perierrhantisthe.
2 Kin.	16:13	sprinkled.	prosechee.
	15	sprinkle.	ekcheeis.
2 Chron.	29:22	sprinkled.	prosechean.
	22	sprinkled.	prosechean.
	22	sprinkled.	periecheon.
	30:16	sprinkled.	edechonto.
	34:4	strowed.	errhipsen.
	35:11	sprinkled.	prosechean.
Job	2:12	sprinkled.	katapassamenoi.
Isa.	28:25	scatter.	speirei.
Eze.	10:2	scatter.	diaskorpison.
	36:25	sprinkle.	rhano.
	43:18	sprinkle.	proscheein.
Hos.	7:9	here and there—mar. sprinkled.	exçnthçsan.

This word is somewhat more variously rendered, both in the English and in the Septuagint; but the same idea obtains throughout. Its signification, to scatter, hence, to sprinkle, admits of a variety of renderings; but in this, as in nah-zah, the idea of dipping or immersing is not found.TOB 32.1

We think nothing more is required to show that the language of the Scriptures admits of no such ambiguity as to put baptizo for rhantizo, or immerse for sprinkle. In Leviticus 4:6, we find both dip and sprinkle used, and it is easy to see that they cannot be interchanged.TOB 32.2

There are two texts in the Old Testament which have been greatly misapprehended, and from which unwarrantable inferences have been drawn. Ezekiel 36:25, reads thus:—TOB 32.3

“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.”TOB 32.4

On this, Dr. Scott remarks:—TOB 32.5

“In allusion to the divers washings and sprinklings of the ritual law, the Lord promised to sprinkle clean water upon his people, and to make them clean from all their filthiness and idols.” This reference is correct, as may be seen by examining a few passages. In Numbers 8:7, they were commanded to “sprinkle water of purifying” upon the unclean. In chap. 19:18, it is commanded that, if any one touch the dead body of a man, he shall be unclean; “and a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave.”TOB 32.6

This was for what is denominated “ceremonial uncleanness,” having no relation to moral defilement. Paul refers to it in Hebrews 9:13: “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.” It was not as an ablution to cleanse from filth, but it was figurative, ceremonial, and typical; and the gospel fact which it prefigured is stated by the apostle thus: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Verse 14. And for this reason Paul speaks of “the blood of sprinkling,” and “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” Hebrews 12:24; 10:22.TOB 33.1

Thus it is seen that these sprinklings of the ritual law, to which reference is made in Ezekiel 36:25, have no relation to any New Testament ordinance; they looked to a different object. And while that object is so definitely stated, there can be no excuse for the error of applying them to baptism in order to give countenance to sprinkling for that ordinance. The sprinkling of the conscience by the blood of Christ is declared to be their antitype, and a gospel duty is as clearly shown in connection therewith: “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” Hebrews 10:22.TOB 33.2

Isaiah 52:15, has been the ground of much speculation and the source of some very erroneous conclusions. Even Dr. Clarke, who approves the rendering of the Septuagint, which is quite different from our common version, asks, in brackets, “[Does not sprinkling the nations refer to the conversion and baptism of the Gentiles?]” Scott, who lets the translation stand, much more appropriately refers it to the blood of sprinkling, the same as Ezekiel 36:25; to the sacrifice of Christ, to which so plain reference is made in the context. But the translation cannot be defended.TOB 33.3

It should be understood that there are different forms or species of every Hebrew verb; and some of these have significations peculiar to themselves, which do not belong to any other species of the same word. Gesenius gives two definitions to that form of nah-zah here used: 1. To cause to leap for joy, to exult, to make rejoice. 2. To sprinkle, e. g., water, blood, also oil, with upon or towards. He accordingly renders this text, “So shall he cause many nations to rejoice in himself.”TOB 34.1

The Septuagint has thaumasontai from thaumazo, to wonder, marvel, or to admire. This very well preserves the idea of the original, and carries out the parallelism of the composition. “As many were astonished at thee, ... so shall he cause many to wonder or admire.” And this parallel Gesenius notices and approves, thus: “Gr., Syr., Vulg., Luth., Eng., ‘So shall he sprinkle many nations,’ see no. 2., i. e., my servant the Messiah shall make expiation for them; but this accords less with the parallel verb shah-mam.” Shah-mam is the verb used in verse 14, and means, to be astonished.TOB 34.2

A translation of the Old Testament by Isaac Leser, a Jew, gives this text as follows:—TOB 34.3

“Just as many were astonished at thee, so greatly was his countenance marred more than any (other) man’s, and his form more than (that of) the sons of men. Thus will he cause many nations to jump up (in astonishment); at him will kings shut their mouths,” etc.TOB 34.4

Dr. Clarke says, “I retain the common rendering, though I am by no means satisfied with it.” He notices several authors who are equally dissatisfied with it, and finally says the “Septuagint seems to give the best sense of any to the place.” He quotes a very judicious comment of Seeker, in which he says, “Yaz-zeh, frequent in the law, means only to sprinkle; but the water sprinkled is the accusative case: the thing on which has al or el. Thaumasontai makes the best apodosis.” Dr. Clarke also quotes a criticism of Dr. Jubb, who renders it, “So shall many nations look on him with admiration; kings shall stop their mouths,” etc.TOB 35.1

This criticism, as well as some others noticed, preserves the general idea very well, which seems to have been the aim of the authors; but it is not a close rendering, as it gives the active form, whereas thaumasontai is the passive voice, which most nearly corresponds to the Hebrew; for this has the causative form. And this shows that the rendering given by Gesenius is not only preferable, but necessary or unavoidable. To translate it, he shall sprinkle, is to change its grammatical form, the causative, and to give it in the first or simple active form; and it also destroys the harmony of the construction by ignoring the parallelism so beautifully shown in the original. The rendering last quoted, from Dr. Jubb, is open to this further objection, that it gives the active (kal) plural, (they shall admire), whereas the Hebrew is the causative (hiphil), singular, (he shall cause them to, etc.), though it preserves the general idea of the verb. We are willing to submit, on this evidence, that the text should not be rendered sprinkle.TOB 35.2