26.03.2013 Views

W. B. Godbey - Enter His Rest

W. B. Godbey - Enter His Rest

W. B. Godbey - Enter His Rest

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

I hope you are already dead to your notions and ideas, which are frequently erroneous because of wrong<br />

teaching; what people say is nothing; what God says will judge you and me in the last day.<br />

Second. “Was not Jesus Himself immersed in the river Jordan?” Let Him answer. Matthew, Mark and Luke all<br />

tell us about the trouble He got into with the scribes and Pharisees when He came into the holy campus, (E. V.,<br />

temple), and drove out those animals which they had there to sell to the people for sacrifices, much to the<br />

desecration and pollution of that sacred place. Then they demanded of Him <strong>His</strong> authority for exercising the<br />

privileges which belonged only to the high priest. You will find if you will read all of these three records, that<br />

He referred them to the baptism of John for <strong>His</strong> authority, showing plainly that he was thereby inducted into the<br />

office of high priest. Now if you know how the high priest was anointed you know how John baptized Jesus. I<br />

know you remember this item in the Old Testament, where it, says that Moses poured the oil on the head of<br />

Aaron.<br />

Consequently we know that John poured the water on the head of Jesus. This all of the ancient statuary<br />

corroborates, which, without an exception, represents Jesus standing and John pouring the water on <strong>His</strong> head.<br />

Third. King James' Translation was made by forty-seven scholarly members of the Anglican Church, who had<br />

been baptized by triune immersion, which came into use as early as the third century and had not passed out<br />

when the translation took place in 1611. Therefore that translation constantly leans to immersion, because it was<br />

the mind of the translators, therefore it has given currency to a popular superstition in favor of immersion. Many<br />

people think it says our Savior went down into the water. It does say He came up out of the water, which is<br />

simply a wrong translation, and if you will look in the Revised or any other translation, you will find it<br />

corrected, simply reading, “He came up from the water,” only implying that He was at it and not in it.<br />

Fourth. Let us hear the testimony of John himself. He tells us how he baptized Jesus and all the balance. John<br />

was the brightest and the best preacher of the Gospel the world had ever seen. Besides, this is not simply the<br />

word of the blessed Baptist but the infallible Word of God. Matthew 3:11, “I indeed baptize you with water unto<br />

repentance ... But He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire.” Here he tells us all how he baptized the<br />

people. You know he uses the same word baptize to tell us that he did with water what Jesus was going to do<br />

with the Holy Ghost and fire. You know that on the day of Pentecost, when Jesus baptized the disciples in<br />

fulfillment of this prophecy of John, He poured on them <strong>His</strong> Spirit and fire fell on them. If you will let the Lord<br />

save you from all your prejudices and superstitions, so you can take John at his word and believe him without a<br />

doubt, you will know once and forever that John did to the people with water the very thing that Jesus did with<br />

the Holy Ghost and fire. Yes, but, you say, why then did he baptize them in the river? That does not change the<br />

question of the action he performed. If they were standing in the river waist deep it is certain that John poured<br />

the water on them, because he says so, and we know his word is true. All of that statement “in the river,” was<br />

simply put down there by King James' translators, who had received the triune immersion and had it in mind.<br />

All the statements in the original are merely local, and perfectly correctly translated, “in the river” or “at the<br />

Jordan,” just as we say Cincinnati is on the Ohio River, and not in it.<br />

I have been to the Jordan three times and given special attention to the very place where John held his meetings<br />

and Israel crossed over. The last time I was there, pursuant to their request, I immersed the three “Texas boys” in<br />

the Jordan. We four and our guide and escort hunted in vain for a good place, and of course took the best we<br />

could get. It was so muddy, as it always is, that we could not see an inch below the surface, and our guide,<br />

Shukrey <strong>His</strong>hmeh, born in Jerusalem and educated for a guide, who has been escorting travelers all over that<br />

country for the last twenty years, feeling his responsibility in case that some of us should get drowned, did his<br />

best to dissuade the young men, telling them that he had seen men drowned right there. But they, fearless of the<br />

water, as they are splendid swimmers, somewhat condoled his fears by relieving him of all responsibility, and<br />

assuming it themselves, as a guide is responsible for his people, like a railroad company.<br />

Finally we selected the best place we could get, and I waded down in black mud nearly to my knees, and<br />

endeavored to find a foothold. Our guide said the river was about fifteen feet deep. As I could not find any<br />

bench on the bank, and it was so steep, I had both my guide and our armed escort come in and hold me, lest my<br />

feet should slide and I be drowned. The current is so swift and the river has so much fall that a man cannot stand<br />

in it; besides it is so deep that it would be over the head of the tallest giant on the globe. So I cheerfully and

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!