Basic HTML Version
604
IV. Christian Baptism
A. ANALOGIES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
1. IN THE GENTILE WORLD.
Baptism was not something absolutely new in the days of Jesus.
The Egyptians, the Persians, and the Hindus, all had their religious purifications. These were
even more prominent in the Greek and Roman religions. Sometimes they took the form of a
bath in the sea, and sometimes they were effected by sprinkling. Tertullian says that in some
cases the idea of a new birth was connected with these lustrations. Many present day scholars
hold that Christian baptism, especially as it was taught by Paul, owes its origin to similar rites in
the mystery religions, but such a derivation does not even have appearance in its favor. While
the initiatory rite in the mystery religions does involve a recognition of the deity in question,
there is no trace of a baptism into the name of some god. Nor is there any evidence that the
influence of the divine pneuma, rather prominent in the mystery religions, was ever connected
with the rite of lustration. Moreover, the ideas of death and resurrection, which Paul associated
with baptism, do not fit in with the mystery ritual at all. And, finally, the form of the
taurobolium, which is supposed to be the most striking analogy that can be cited, is so foreign
to the New Testament rite as to make the idea of the derivation of the latter from the former
seem utterly ridiculous. These heathen purifications have very little in common, even in their
external form, with our Christian baptism. Moreover, it is a well established fact that the
mystery religions did not make their appearance in the Roman Empire before the days of Paul.
2. AMONG THE JEWS.
The Jews had many ceremonial purifications and washings, but these had
no sacramental character, and therefore were no signs and seals of the covenant. The so-called
baptism of proselytes bore a greater resemblance to Christian baptism. When Gentiles were
incorporated in Israel, they were circumcized and, at least in later times, also baptized. It has
long been a debatable question, whether this custom was in vogue before the destruction of
Jerusalem, but Schuerer has shown conclusively by quotations from the Mishna that it was.
According to the Jewish authorities quoted by Wall in his History of Infant Baptism, this baptism
had to be administered in the presence of two or three witnesses. Children of parents who
received this baptism, if born before the rite was administered, were also baptized, at the
request of the father as long as they were not of age (the boys thirteen and the girls twelve),
but if they were of age, only at their own request. Children who were born after the baptism of
the parent or parents, were accounted as clean and therefore did not need baptism. It seems,
however, that this baptism was also merely a sort of ceremonial washing, somewhat in line
with the other purifications. It is sometimes said that the baptism of John was derived from this
baptism of proselytes, but it is quite clear that this was not the case. Whatever historical
relation there may have existed between the two, it is quite evident that the baptism of John