There is one other remark suggested by this pas- sage. The turning point in the discussion between Baptists and Paedobaptists, so far as the mode of bap- tism is concerned, is, whether it is in its essential nature an immersion, or a washing. If the former, then there is but one mode in which it can be adminis- tered. If the latter, it may be administered in any mode by which washing can be effected, either by sprinkling, affusion, or immersion. In the passage before us, it is said to be a “ washing with water.”
The principal exegetical difficulty in this verse is the explanation of the words ἐν ῥήματι, by the word. “Ῥῆμω is used not only for any particular dictum, whe- ther command, promise, or prophecy, but also for the word of God collectively, and that either with or with- out the article; Rom. 10, 8.17. Eph. 6,17. These words may be connected, as is commonly done, with the preceding clause, ‘washing of water.’ The idea then is that this washing with water is connected with the word. It is not an ordinary ablution, but one con- nected with the word of God. This is considered a description of baptism, which is by that connection distinguished from all other washings. By the word may then be understood either, the formula of baptism, or the promise of remission of sins and regeneration of which baptism is the sign and seal, and which is the special object of faith to the recipient of the sacra- ment. Luther’s translation is, “ Durch das Wasserbad im Wort;” according to the saying of Augustine, which he often quotes, accedit verbum ad elementum et
CHAP. Vv. Vs. 26. 27. 3827
jit sacramentum. To this interpretation it is objected, first, that if ῥῆμα be made to mean any thing more than the word of God in general, whether the command to baptize, or the promise, or the formula of baptism, it must have the article. It should be, with the word. But the article is wanting in the Greek. Secondly, the obscurity of the expression, “washing of water with the word,” or, “baptism with the word.” Third- ly, that in order to justify the connection in question, the passage should read, τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος τῷ, or, τοῦ ἐν ῥήματι. Had Paul thus written there would, indeed, be no question as to the connection intended, but the exceptions to the rule requiring the connecting article in such cases, are very numerous in Paul’s writings. Still its absence is certainly in favour of seeking another construction, if such can be found. Others connect the words ἐν ῥήματι with καθαρίσας, and make them explanatory of the preceding clause, ‘Having purified it by the washing of water, i. e. having purified it by the word.’ But this is certainly unnatural, first because καθαρίσας has in τῷ λουτρῷ, «tX., its limitation; and secondly, because the phrase “washing with water,” needs no explanation. The third method of explanation is to connect the words with ἁγιάσῃ, ‘Christ cleansed his church, by the word, hay- ing purified it with the washing of water. The sense is thus good. In John 17,17, our Lord prays, “ Sanc- tify them by thy truth ;” and every where in Scripture the word of God is represented as the great means of sanctification. This interpretation is adopted by many