|
Ruin, Destruction JUDAIC BAPTISM 1. For he,
himself, would overmerse (over-baptize) the city. [(Conant’s translation) “And that it did not become him,
either to fly from enemies, or to abandon friends; nor to leap off, as from a
ship overtaken by a storm, into which he had entered in fair weather; that he
would himself OVER-WHELM (BAPTIZE) the city, as no one would longer dare to
make resistance to the enemy, when he was gone through whom their courage was
sustained. ex. 97, pp 48-9. Josephus, Jewish War, III. ch.
7, 15.] P 76 Judaic
Baptism; Baptism of the city of 2. Who,
independently of the sedition, afterwards mersed
(baptized) the city. [(Conant’s translation) “Who, even apart from the
sedition, afterwards WHELMED (BAPTIZED) the city. Josephus, Jewish War, IV, ch. 3, 3.] P 78 Judaic
Baptism; During the war between the Jews and the Romans certain robber chiefs
with their bands sought refuge in Let us now look at
the passage itself. In doing this we are struck with the simplicity and
straightforwardness of the statement. Nothing could be more naked of all
figurative picturing, unless it be found in the
naked word baptizo. Baptist writers have long enough assumed the power
of “the word to find them water in a desert.” They must give some evidence of
its power to flood JUDAIC BAPTISM [(Conant’s translation) “And after the calamity of Cestius, many of the distinguished Jews swam away, as
when a ship is BEING SUBMERGED (BAPTIZED), from the city. ex. 23, p 11.
Josephus, Jewish War, II, ch. 20, 1.] P 72 Judaic Baptism; 1. Many of the distinguished Jews, as from a ship
being mersed, swam away from the city...The
condition of the city at this time is represented...as most hopeless and
likened to a ship on the point of being swallowed up in the sea. The
comparison thus instituted between the condition of the city being ruined and
the condition of the city being swallowed up leads to the use of a word (“to
swim away”) expressive of method of escape, well adapted to one member of the
comparison, a ship, but not appropriate, in its form of movement, to the
other, a city. “To swim” is not limited to application to movement through
water, - “She swam across the room.” But such smooth, gliding movement is not
adapted to express the movement with which men fly from impending ruin. Are
we then to understand the writer, by use of this term and by the comparison
with a ship, to intend that his readers should conceive of ...Now, when the
terms “swim away,” “fly away,” “run away,” each denoting originally a definite
form of movement...are applied to the flight of citizens from an imperilled city, shall we insist on the definite movement
of each, or merge them in the idea, to escape, which is common to all? To
“swim away” from a ship indicates the use of the last means for safety; to
“swim away” from a city suggests, not the modal use of arms and legs, but
resort to extreme means for getting away. So “to fly away,” “to run away”
(speak of escape.) In the passage
before us the mersion has nothing to do, directly,
with the city. The figure centers in the destruction common to ship and city
with the anxiety of sailors in the one case, and of the citizens in the
other, to escape being involved in that destruction; it does not reach either
to the nature or means of the destruction. The figure does not involve the
city in any water envelopment. The ship perishes, the city perishes. Ruin and
the escape from ruin begin and end “the figure.” The figure involves a
destructive mersion, and therefore has nothing in
common with a dipping. P 74 Judaic
Baptism [(Conant’s translation) “This as a final blast,
OVER-WHELMED (BAPTIZED) the tempest-tossed youths. ex. 96, p 48. Josephus,
Jewish War, I, ch. 27, 1.] 2. This as a last
storm, overmersed the tempest-beaten young men. These
young men were the sons of Herod, whom he had long threatened with death,
under the idea that they were plotting against him...”as a last storm,” they
lost their lives. This passage presents what is rare, a
distinct and well-sustained picture figure, with mersion
as a leading element. (These) sons of Herod...became, after their mother’s
death, objects of suspicion, accusations and plottings,
with a view to compass their destruction. Josephus indicates this condition
of things when he speaks of them as tempest-tossed and weather-beaten. They
suffered from these influences, but lived. Salome effected their destruction.
These facts suggest a resemblance to a ship which has weathered many storms,
but at last goes down under one of resistless power. The points of comparison
are plain: 1. The young men and the ship and her crew. 2. Various evil
machinations and frequent storms. 3. Salome’s accusation and the final storm.
4. Death and baptism. What demands attention here, as bearing upon our
inquiry is: 1. The absence of all show of comparison between any act on the one hand and on the other. 2. The same lack of
comparison between any condition on the one side and condition of envelopment
on the other...There is no comparison between the direct means causing the
death of these young men, whatever it was, and the direct means causing the
destruction of the ship, which was envelopment by water; but the comparison
is between the indirect means, namely, Salome’s accusation and the final
storm. Thus, envelopment is left out of view, and its result - remediless
destruction - is brought into the foreground. As used in this passage, baptizo
speaks directly of destruction. “This accusation caused these suffering
young men to perish, as a final storm causes a weather-beaten ship to
perish.” The quo modo of perishing, in the one case
or the other, however well they may be understood, are not in comparison.
Figurative use of words often lights up resplendently their literal use. We
are here distinctly taught that baptizo may be used to express
directly the result of mersion (destruction) ... P 70 Judaic Baptism [(Conant’s translation) “As I also account a pilot most
cowardly, who, through dread of a storm, before the blast came, voluntarily
SUBMERGED (BAPTIZED) the vessel. ex. 18, p 9. Josephus, Jewish War, III, ch. 8, 5.] 3. As, also, I
esteem a pilot most cowardly, who, fearing a storm, should voluntarily merse his ship before the tempest came. This is part of
an argument by Josephus against suicide in times of impending peril. He says
that self-murder to avoid peril is not manlike, but cowardly, as the action
of a pilot who should sink his ship for fear of a storm. As to the particular
form of act by which the vessel was to be brought to the bottom of the sea,
the Orator gives us no information, any more than he informs us by what form
of act the suicide was to kill himself. To kill expresses a very definite
result to be accomplished, but does not throw one ray of light on a thousand
definite acts equally competent to reach that
result. To merse expresses a very definite result
to be effected; but it is dumb with silence as to the form of act by which it
may be accomplished. We must then, remain forever in ignorance whether this
pilot was to baptize his ship by running her against a rock, by carrying too
much sail, by turning her broadside to the rising wave, by unshipping her
rudder, by scuttling her, or in whatever other conceivable method the end
could be accomplished. Certain is it, we appeal in vain to baptizo to
instruct us on this point...This comparison by Josephus of a suicide to this mersing pilot may help us to understand some other cases
of mersion. The points of comparison pair off thus:
self-murderer and pilot; life and ship; suffering and tempest; death and mersion. Does anyone doubt that the point of accord in
the first pair is that of control wielded by the suicide over life and by the
pilot over his ship; in the second pair the stakes are at issue; in the third
pair the sources of dread; and in the fourth pair, what? a
likeness between death and dipping? between death
and enveloping water? or between destruction of
“life”...and the destruction of the “ship”...? Will anyone in his sober
senses think of bringing into view the means to these ends, a sword in the one
case, a watery envelopment in the other? Is not the comparison wholly
exclusive of such things and exhausted by the naked idea of destruction,
caused in the one case by a sword and in the other by encompassing waters,
and agreeing in nothing but their power of destruction? If this be so, then
we may find in other cases that “mersion” stands
neither for envelopment nor definite act, but as a representative of
destruction. Certainly this ship-mersion was a
baptism for influence. Classic Baptism 16. By which
the city would, immediately, have been mersed
(baptized.) [(Conant’s translation) “He did indeed exhort the body
of bakers to be more just, but did not think it expedient to employ forcible
measures, fearing a general desertion; whereby the city would immediately
have been WHELMED (BAPTIZED), as a ship when seamen have abandoned it. ex.
89, p 44. Libanius, Life of himself.] P 300 Classic
Baptism; Two mersions are here distinctly stated.
The one of a city and the other of a ship. The one by the desertion of
food-makers, the other by the desertion of the navigators. Mersion in the one case is said to be just as certain as
in the other. That the one mersion is like the
other is a folly not stated. That the one mersion
is likened to the other, as a dipping, or plunging, or sinking in water is a
crude conceit nowhere intimated. There is a point in which the two widely
different mersions are like; not a likeness dimly
seen through the haze of figure, but an absolute likeness...certain ruin.
A city abandoned by its food-producers will be ruined by tumult and famine. A
ship abandoned by its navigators will be ruined by winds and waves. The
nature of the baptism in the one case and in the other is indicated by its
proximate cause. It would be difficult to find a clearer proof passage of the
existence of the secondary meaning contended for. Agreements and differences
are best seen when the objects involved can be placed side by side. This is
done here. And we find that the baptism of an abandoned city,
and the baptism of an abandoned ship have nothing in common, save the
being subject to controlling influences issuing in destruction. This is
the point of likeness stated by Libanius. It is the
true, only and all-sufficient point of contact between the primary and secondary
meaning. All attempts to trace resemblances between dippings,
plungings, and sinkings
in water, is as unprofitable as ploughing the sand.
Bread-makers would baptized the city (by deserting
it). 18. Would be mersed (baptized) by a small addition. [(Conant’s translation) “But he who bears with
difficulty what he is now bearing, would be WHELMED (BAPTIZED) by a slight
addition. ex. 101, p 50. Libanius, Epistle 310 to Siderius.] P 301 Classic
Baptism; Where is the person here spoken of? On the land or in the water?
What are the things which he is already bearing? Blocks of granite, or masses
of pig-iron? If he is...swimming in the water and bearing a hundred weight, a small addition may put him under the water. But
if he is on the land, and his burden consists of intellectual or moral
responsibilities and solicitudes, then, a very large addition will not
transport him to a flood, or merse him under its
surface however much it might exercise a controlling influence over
him. No comparison is instituted with an overburdened vessel, but the
statement has the most absolute limitations to the man and his circumstances.
It is their influence...determined by their nature which is spoken of. A
“small addition” may change his condition. |