An evaluation of
Could It Be Three? Investigating Baptism by Triune Immersion
Authored by Timothy Mark Hodge
and
an investigation of
by
Jerry Boone
Note: Greek characters can be viewed with WP Greek Century font or normal text (Time New Roman) Basic Greek font. Greek Text: THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Fourth Revised, Corrected Edition, 1994Edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research
A Brief EVALUATION OF HODGE’S Paper:
1.1. Hodge, p. 11ff, in his Theological Argument:
Triune is one baptism not three.
Hodge states, in addressing the criticism that triune baptism is “three baptisms … (but) … Christ did not die three times.” that those who hold to triune baptism “never even suggest that three actions represent Christ’s death three times.”
Ø Question: What then does baptism represent? Does not
Ø Question: Again, does not
Ø Comment: According to scripture, we must consider baptism as representing Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Consequently whatever is done (whatever mode is practiced), it must reflect a single death, a single burial and a single resurrection.
Ø Question: If triune immersion does not represent “three deaths, burials, resurrections” then what does it represent?
Historical Testimony to Triune Baptism?
Hodge states that there is apparently historical testimony that indicates triune baptism relates to the three days Jesus was in the tomb.
Ø Comment: This I would like to investigate further. On the surface this would seem a bit of a stretch…but one would need to look at the historical documents to verify this claim. Nonetheless, this would seem like a weak argument for triune baptism.
Ø Question: Did Jesus go into the tomb, then out, then back in, then out, and yet back in a third time? The idea that triune baptism relates to Jesus’ three days in the tomb is weak.
Ø Comment: There is much in church practice that is aberrant over the centuries, beginning with the first century. Practice (orthopraxy), however, must always be consistent with systematic theology (orthodoxy). And orthodoxy would greatly restrict one from adopting a view of triune baptism based on Jesus’ body being three days in the tomb. The focus of Jesus’ three days in the tomb was not the number of days, but the fact of being dead.
Ø Comment: This argument is not only weak, but is intellectually very unsatisfying.
Triune Baptism Reflects Who God Is.
Indicates triune baptism “paints a beautiful picture of who God is” He further states that “This Christian rite is one event, and as such it depicts the unity of the Godhead.”
Ø Comment: To this I would agree … one baptism conducted in a way that reflects the unique nature of the Trinity showing three distinct persons (wills, emotions, etc.), with three distinct roles (the planner & sender, the submitter and the empowerer), who all operate functionally as one: unity in nature, and one in essence, mind, purpose, etc.
Ø Comment: To the end that triune baptism illustrates and reflects the Trinity, we would have to agree that triune baptism is an acceptable mode, but not an exclusive mode. We would further agree that if this is what is being meant by triune baptism, it truly is a good picture of what a believer is being baptized into…namely the Trinity consisting of three persons in one.
Reinforces Triune Baptism is One Baptism
Hodge states that when a person enters the waters of baptism, he does not leave the waters during the three immersions, thus indicating that it is truly one baptism. Consequently, “we have not three separate baptisms, but three baptisms in one. Three baptisms in one, and one baptism in three. This is the principle of the Trinity.”
Ø Comment: To this I would have to agree, if that is the meaning you put on the entrance into the waters, and consider the whole event as one baptism.
Ø Comment: Here the author himself appears to be hedging on his idea of triune baptism, indicating it is “truly one baptism.”
Ø Concern: However, an argument could be made that when a person enters the water, but has not yet been fully immersed, he has not yet been “really baptized.” Thus standing in the water is not the same as being immersed “into” or submerged “under” the water. I would doubt that Jesus would have considered Himself baptized by John by just “standing in the
o Comment: Although I would agree we don’t know that Jesus was fully immersed as we practice today. However I think it is safe to say whether He was immersed, or whether John took water from the Jordan and poured it over Him (like sprinkling), just ‘standing in the Jordan’ did not constitute the full baptism for Jesus.
Hodge makes a note that
Ø Comment: It is not a minor thing that Jesus, in His direction (really ‘command’) to His followers makes very specific and detailed reference to the three persons of the Trinity. As we will see later, when we unpack this further below, this concept is strongly emphasized by the Greek construction. The question remains, however, is this strong reference to the Trinity to be reflected in the actual “mode” in three immersions? Or, does a single baptism “into” this “thrice emphasized Trinity” suffice as a mode? Further, to what does the emphasis on the three persons of the Trinity refer? To the mode of baptism? Or, as we shall see later, to the singular name of the Godhead?
1.2. Hodge Develops His Greek Grammar Argument:
Hodge continues his argument by appealing to Greek grammar in his second argument.
Ø Clearly, it is undeniable that all three persons of the Godhead are pointed to in this passage. But does this instruct us regarding the mode? Or something else? As we shall see below, we believe it instructs us concerning something else—namely the name of God.
Ø Hodge states: the argument for “three actions … (comes) … from the construction of the text itself.” To do this, he appeals to the fact that there are “missing” words in the Greek (ellipsis) that must be supplied by the English to effect a true representation of the original meaning in Greek.
It is true; Grammarians identify ellipsis as the omission of words which require words to be supplemented to provide the full force of the meaning.
Ø Hodge then states, “In order to obtain the accurate meaning of the text, the words in the Greek text must be studied in order to find out what words they demand in the translation.”[1]
To this we would agree. However, we would add that more than just the words are necessary. The syntax of the words in relation to each other is also required so that proper emphasis and focus is given to the proper words. If the syntax is not properly determined, errors due to misplaced focus can appear without the Greek scholar being aware of them.
Hodge’s use of Genitive Case for support in question
Ø Hodge continues, “To begin with, the words for “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” are in what is called the “genitive case.””[2]
This is true.
However, Hodge makes an error when he takes the direction that the genitive is somehow limiting as to extent—the number of names. If Jesus wanted to emphasize the “extent” of the names into which new converts were to be baptized, He would have used the accusative case. Instead, He uses the genitive case. See 9.1.1.1.4 Genitive, especially 6 and 7.
Whereas the accusative limits as to extent, the genitive limits as to kind.
So in this context, the Greek construction is emphasizing what “kind” of name, not the “extent” of the names (i.e., three names).
The genitive case is also the case of possession. Possession indicating “ownership”.
Hodge supplies “missing articles” – but they already exist
Ø Hodge continues, “Words in the genitive case necessitate the preposition “of” before each word, which is why most English translations read the way they do.”[3]
The English translation of a genitive must supply the “of”, if it is not supplied in the Greek text. The word(s) “of” are supplied to show possession or ownership, if the article is not supplied in the Greek.
In this Greek text, however, the words “Father”, and “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” are articular, that is, the “του̃” IS supplied antecedent to each one. As most Grammarians will note, and as we shall show later, the article makes an enormous difference in meaning in the text. See 9.1.1.4 ARTICLE for more explanation of the basic grammatical rules relating to the article.
It is a puzzle why Hodge implies that these words (the three του̃ s) are elliptical and need to be supplied. They are clearly supplied in the Greek text.
Hodge attempts to use an undefined rule, similar to Granville-Sharp rule
Ø Hodge then continues indicating that the elliptical construction applies to the word “baptizing” and he supplies a “missing baptism” antecedent to each of the proper articular names of the Trinity.
Here Hodge uses an unstated rule, which appears to be the Granville Sharp rule. See 9.1.1.4.4.1 Regular Uses of the Article: with a particular object. for a fuller discussion of the Granville Sharp rule. The Granville Sharp rule applies to multiple nouns separated by καὶ, the first noun being articulate (i.e., having the article). The rule says that the following nouns all apply to the same person. This rule, however, does not apply here, since the three persons are all distinct and different (i.e., not the same). Further, the article IS supplied before each of the nouns.
Hodge’s misplaced focus on persons instead of name
Ø Hodge then provides his translation as follows:
“When the ellipses is supplied, according the principles of language, the formula so expressed will be: “Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and (Baptizing them into the name) of the Son, and (Baptizing them into the name of) the Holy Ghost [or Spirit]”[4]
We do not believe this interpretation is correct. As will be shown later, the object of “baptizing” is “the Name”, not the three persons. The indication of three persons is used to limit the name to which the writer is referring. Further, grammar shows that the indication of three names all in the genitive limit “the Name” to the “kind” of name, and not the “extent” of the names. In other words, the genitive is used to explain what Name it is to which the writer is referring, NOT the number of names (i.e., three names).
Ø Hodge continues,
“It must be remembered that supplying the ellipsis does not mean that the inspired text has been added to, as the Greek readers already understood the meaning. It is only when we try to translate into a different language that we encounter difficulties.”[5]
To this we would agree in principle. However, as noted above, there are other considerations besides “ellipsis” that govern the interpretation here, the genitive case only being one.
Hodge unnecessarily appeals to early Church Fathers
Ø Hodge further states:
“The fact that the Greek readers in the early Church understood the three-fold teaching of this text is made evident when their early writings are studied.”[6]
Hodge appeals to the early Church writings, which, according to him, support the triune immersion thinking.
Not having access to the writings of the early Church fathers, made it difficult to verify this. However, this would only be necessary if the interpretation of the present text were in more doubt. As will be shown later below, we believe the interpretation of the present text is not in doubt, and consequently there is no need for clarification by the early Church fathers.
Hodge uses incorrect questions to support his argument
Ø Next, Hodge appeals further to the genitive case asking the following questions of the text:
“To get at the meaning we have only to ask, “The Son’s what?” The question naturally answers itself, “The Son’s name.” Then what is to be done in the son’s name? The answer is equally plain, “baptizing them in the Son’s name.”[7]
But do these questions lead to the interpretation of three immersions?
Correct grammar would start by asking the question, “Into what are we to be baptizing?” And the answer according to Greek grammar would be, “Into the Name.” The object of “baptizing” is “the Name” not the three persons. The inclusion of the three persons just shows what “kind” of name we are talking about. It’s not Moses’ name. It’s not John the Baptist’s name. It’s (as we shall see later) the Name owned by both the Father, and the Son and also the Holy Spirit. It’s ONE Name. It just so happens that the Trinity (all three persons) share equally in ownership of that single Name.
Hodge appeals to an incorrect analogical argument
Ø Finally, Hodge appeals to a logical argument (analogy):
“If I should tell [a] boy to dip my pencil into the water, and into the milk, and into the wine, he could not possibly obey the command short of dipping the pencil three time—once into each sustance.”[8]
This is not a compelling argument or analogy. The three substances—water, milk and wine—all miss the point. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three individual “different” substances. Even though they are three individual persons, they share ownership of ‘one Name’ and it’s the ‘one Name’ that the grammar is focusing on, not the individual three persons.
A similar comment could be made about the second analogy about writing a name into the book of Matthew, and of Mark, and of Luke. Again the three books are ‘different’ books, and the analogy to ‘the Name’ does not apply. The Name, again, is a single Name, owned by three different persons. But the grammar calls for emphasis on the single Name, not the three persons.
Summary conclusions on Hodge’s arguments
Ø In conclusion, we do not agree with Hodge’s concluding statement:
“If they are honest, those who understand grammatical constructions and the Greek language of the New Testament readily acknowledge the validity of this grammatical argument that gives significant support to the practice of Triune Immersion. For the requirements demanded by the text to be properly met, there seems to be no other way than by three distinct actions of immersion.”[9]
Ø We believe correct grammar not only does not support triune immersion, but also clarifies the focus of baptism to be ‘into the Name’ rather than ‘into three persons.’
Ø The genitive of the three persons clarifies what ‘kind of Name’ into which the writer believes these new converts need to be baptized.
Ø The writer wants the reader to clearly understand that baptism is into “the single Name”, of which all three persons of the Trinity share ownership.
Ø We are compelled to disagree with Hodge that the proper grammatical rules of the Greek text “demand” the triune immersion interpretation.
There are clearly elements of grammar that Hodge overlooks in his development of the text that put in doubt his interpretation—improper use of ‘ellipses’; improper application of the genitive case; improper application of the object of the participle baptizing, being among the elements Hodge overlooks.
Grammar, in fact, calls for the focus of the participle ‘baptizing’ to be on the substantive ‘the Name’.
The force of the genitive of the three names following (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) is on describing what ‘kind’ of name that is—namely the name owned by the Father, and owned by the Son and also owned by the Holy Spirit.
Ø We do not find that the implication of three baptisms into three distinct persons satisfies correct grammatical construction, as will be shown more fully below.
No comments:
Post a Comment