N.T. Baptisms; Love/Hate of Neighbor; Organ Donations

In this article, continuing our study of the mode of baptism, we wish to look at the baptisms of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) and of Jesus (Matt. 3 and Mk. 1). These are usually taken to be the clearest examples in Scripture of baptism by immersion.

The baptism of the Eunuch. It is usually assumed that the words “down into the water” and “up out of the water” describe the actual baptism of the Eunuch and therefore also the fact that he was immersed (Acts 8:38, 39). There are two problems with this.

(1) The prepositions used, “into” (eis in Greek) and “out of” (ek) do not imply immersion at all. Indeed, they do not necessarily imply that anyone was even in the water!

The word translated “into” (eis) is translated in the NT in many different ways including “at” (20 times), “in” (131), “into” (571) “to” (282), “toward” (32), “unto” (208) - this can be checked with a good concordance. The word translated “out of” (ek) is also translated very differently: “from” (182), “up from” (2), “out of” (131).

Substituting these different translations in the two verses will immediately show what a difference that makes (we beg our readers to do so). The point is, though, that these words are not describing the baptism at all, but what took place just before and after it.

(2) Further proof that these prepositions are not describing the baptism is easily found in the text, since they are applied both to the Eunuch and to Philip! If they are describing an immersion baptism then Philip was also baptized by immersion. He also “went down into” and “came up out of.” Either they describe the baptism by immersion of both or they describe no baptism at all.

The baptism of Christ. Here again there are several considerations.

(1) The argument about the words used applies here also. In Mark the same Greek words are used as in Acts 8. In Matthew 3:16 a different preposition is used, the Greek word apo. This word is translated “from” 372 times and “out of” only 27 times.

(2) There is a further consideration, however, in the story of Jesus’ baptism. It may not be overlooked that He was baptized at 30 years of age (Lk. 3:23), by a priest (John was such - Lk. 1:5, 13), with water, and that he said at the time of His baptism, “thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15).

That He fulfilled “all righteousness” by His baptism can only refer to the fact that He fulfilled the demands of the law. What law? The law for the consecration of a priest. A priest was not consecrated until he was 30 years old (Num. 4:3, 47). At that time he was consecrated by another priest (Ex. 29:9; Num. 25:13) and was consecrated by sprinkling with water (Num. 8:6-7).

In fulfilling the law, therefore, Christ could not have been baptized in any other way than by sprinkling. Else He would have been breaking it, not fulfilling it. Christ’s baptism is not proof that immersion is the proper mode of baptism but exactly the opposite. We plead with those who believe otherwise to consider this carefully. At least they ought to cease accusing us of following Romish superstition and not Scripture. Rev. Ron Hanko

Love and Hate of Our Neighbor (2)

Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them my enemies. Psalm 139: 21, 22.

In the last issue, we began our discussion of an important question submitted by one of our readers. It reads as follows: "When asked what is the greatest commandment, the Lord said, 'Love the Lord your God . . . ,' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' This being the case, and neighbor meaning anyone who is in need and crosses our path, how can David say what he does in Psalm 139: 21, 22, and Jesus say that we are to hate even our family members?"

In that issue I called the attention of our readers to a quote by Herman Hoeksema in which he explains what Scripture means by "love," and how we are to love our enemies. It would be well if you would pick up the last issue and read again what he said.

I also called attention to how Psalm 139:21, 22 itself explains what it means by "hate," and how that idea is found elsewhere in Scripture, notably James 4:4.

* * * *

One more aspect to this question must be discussed for us to understand it well.

You will recall that Herman Hoeksema called attention to the fact that in our love for our enemies, we are particularly obligated to show them the way of salvation, call them to repentance and faith in Christ, and seek the eternal welfare of their souls. That is that love is really all about. We are to feed them when they are hungry -- but always in the name of Christ. We are to cloth them when they are in rags -- but in the name of Him Who loved us. And to provide for their earthly needs in the name of Christ is to seek their eternal well-being. It is no love on our part to give a man something to eat while refraining from calling him to belief in Christ in Whom alone is salvation.

* * * *

This necessary testimony which the believer must make and by which he demonstrates his love for his neighbor is what we sometimes call "witnessing." Love for the neighbor comes to expression in the Christian witness of the believer.

God calls us to such witnessing. He calls us to speak to others of the salvation He has given us in Christ and of the riches of His grace and mercy through faith in Christ.

But -- and here is the important point -- God uses that witnessing in the same way that He uses the preaching of the Word. Just as the gospel is a means of saving the elect, but also hardening the wicked, so is Christian witnessing the power both to save and to harden.

The result of the Christian's witness is, therefore, of two kinds.

God is pleased, if the object of our love is an elect, to use our witness to bring such a one into the church and to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But God may also use that same witness to harden the one who hears our witness and is the object of our love.

If the former is true, that is, if God is pleased to save such a one, then our love becomes a bond of fellowship and is enjoyed between us to the fullest. Love is then a "two-way street": we love our fellow saint, and our fellow saints love us.

But the opposite can happen. Any child of God knows that it can happen and has experienced it in his own life. He may witness to someone, and call that person to repentance and faith. But if that object of our witness is not a child of God, that person will reject our witness.

But, because our witness in fact hardens the one to whom we witness, he will become increasingly hostile and hateful. The result will be that he will pour out his hatred against God upon us and refuse not only to receive our witness any more, but also refuse our help of material things. He will say something like: "Keep your food, if all you are going to do is preach to me. I don't want to hear it any more" -- and this probably accompanied by some curse words.

And so, loving our neighbor, as we are called to do, becomes increasingly difficult and finally impossible. The wicked man himself will refuse to have anything to do with us and will, if possible, persecute us. He will mock our witness, refuse our help, curse our testimony concerning Christ, and show his contempt for all that is holy.

And so we will be brought, in quite a natural way, to the point where we must say with David what he said in Psalm 139. We will be grieved that the wicked rise up against God. We will not only count them increasingly our enemies, but the very nature of the effect of our witness will make them our enemies.

God wills it this way. God works to accomplish His purpose -- also through the witness of the saints.

And it is well that we notice too that our witness, the stronger and more faithful it is, will surely bring persecution. Prof. H. Hanko

Organ Donations

Following on from the two articles in recent issues regarding artificial life support, we have received two further questions relating to organ donation.

One reader asks: "I would be interested to know your views on blood transfusion (as the Bible has plenty to say about blood) and organ donation. If our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, should we donate bits of them to other people? I believe scientists have even taken things a bit further than this by successfully transferring parts of animals into human. This may enable us to save lives, but is it right to do so?"

The other writes, "Perhaps another question you could deal with is whether there are any spiritual and biblical issues raised by organ donation and transplantation. Are there any fundamental objections?" He goes on to mention the fact that in some countries dead bodies belong to the state, so that the state "can help itself to whatever organs it needs, irrespective of the convictions of the deceased or the wishes of the family." He mentions, too, the trend toward using organs from living donors, rather than "cadaver donors" and after speaking of the risk of life in some cases to the donor, asks: "The giving of a kidney for one's child or spouse may be an act of selfless, sacrificial love, but does it not constitute abuse of our bodies, which for a believer is the temple of God (I Cor. 6)?"

These are exceedingly difficult and complex questions to answer. For example, the position that blood transfusions are wrong (as held by the Jehovah's Witnesses) can involve one in legal difficulties when the life of a child is at stake and the parents refuse blood transfusions that could save the life of the child.

Generally speaking, we would not forbid either transfusions or organ donations, since we are reluctant to lay down rules of conduct where Scripture does not, even though we have quite strong opinions on these matters for ourselves. One reason we are reluctant to lay down rules is that it forces us into the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems clear, to us at least, that there is no essential difference between blood transfusions and organ donations, so that if organ donations are wrong then so are blood transfusions.

This, however, is not an answer from principle and does not settle the question. The important thing is that Scripture does not directly forbid such things. Even then, however, there are certain important principles that every Christian should keep in mind when facing decisions on these matters.

These principles are (1) we, with our bodies, are uniquely created by God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7); (2) as a result, they belong to God and not to us; (3) this is especially true for the Christian who also belongs to God, both body and soul, by purchase, through the blood of Jesus (I Cor. 6:20); (4) closely related to this, our bodies in particular are the temples of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19); and (5) we expect that our bodies will also be raised in the last day, though they will be changed and made like Christ's body (I Cor. 15:35-38).

While not willing to make rules about organ transplants, especially for others, or to judge others in these matters, it is difficult for us, in light of these principles, to see that we have the right to dispose of parts of our bodies, either dead or living, as we see fit and as though they belong to us. At very least, decisions about such matters as these ought not be made by us without remembering and taking account of these principles.

Rev. Ronald Hanko

(to be continued)

We will gladly add to our mailing list. These bulletins are sent out both by e-mail and by regular mail. If you wish to add names of others, please send them to us.

Loveland Protestant Reformed Church

New Testament Baptisms

Organ Donations