David Henkel
(1795-1831) was a Lutheran pastor and theologian who served in various
positions in the southern United States. He wrote a series of articles in
response to a critic of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (Joseph Moore).
One such text that was debated was John 3 (see my blog post Baptism,
Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7). Here is Moore’s argument
attempting to downplay the meaning of “water” to something merely symbolic:
Mr. M. says, p. 30. The same observations
will apply to the prophecy of Ezekiel, where the Lord says; “Then will I
sprinkle clean water upon you, & you shall be clean; from all your
filthiness & from your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart, also will I
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.’ Ezek.
XXXVI 25, 26. Water in this place must be used figuratively, as a sign, or
emblem of the grace of God, by which it is purged from an evil conscience,
cleansed from all the filthiness of sin, and from all its idols: (or a renewed
heart,) and a new spirit, (or, a new principle, of love to God, and good will
to men) is given and put within us; the stony heart also is taken away,--that
bard, obdurate, disobedient heart, is taken away, and a heart of flesh, (or
soft, humble, teachable, and obedient heart,) is given in its lace.—This certainly
must be the true meaning of that scripture. (David Henkel, On Baptism and Justification [American Lutheran Classics volume 10;
Ithaca, N.Y.: Just and Sinner, 2019], 90-91)
Here is
Henkel’s response:
That my opponent says, water in this place
must be used figuratively, as a sign, or emblem of the grace of God, and that
the sprinkling with clean water must be figurative, or significant, of the
sprinkling the heart with the spirit of God, he has arbitrarily asserted; but
has not proved it; unless we take his ipse
dixit for evidence. I do not deny, that there are many figurative
expressions in the scriptures; but when a man asserts, that a passage is figurative,
he ought to prove it; either, by other texts, or the context, or by the rules
of sacred criticism. Some expositors are very expert, when a passage of scripture
is in their way, to turn it into a metaphor, without any authority; although,
it should be at the expense of all the rules of language. According to this
rule of exposition, the most important truths may be explained away, and the
scriptures turned into ridicule; as for instance, when it reads; “thou shalt
not commit adultery;” “thou shalt not steal,” I might by the same art say, this
only has a reference to metaphorical adultery and theft; and that therefore, no
real adultery, and theft are prohibited. In this way our present fanatics impose
on the people, and lead them into error. The plainest evidence, they
arbitrarily force into a figure; and then persuade many of the laity, that
because there are some metaphorical expressions in the scriptures, that they
have the liberty, without any evidence to make everything figurative, that
thwarts their preconceived opinion: To construe, the water spoken of in this
text, to mean an emblem of the spirit, is contrary to the rules of language. I
shall quote it here again:--“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you
shall be clean; from all your filthiness and fro your idols will I cleanse you.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I
will take away the stony heart of out of your flesh, and I will give you an
heart of flesh.” Now, if the water in this passage is to signify, the
sprinkling of the heart, with the spirit; why then is it added, “a new heart also
will I give you and a new spirit?” If this gloss be true, then the text should read:
“then will I sprinkle, that is I will sprinkle the spirit upon you, and you
shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I
cleanse you. A new heart I also I will give you, and a new spirit.” Thus the
water, would be made to mean the same as spirit, which would be the same, as
saying, that they should be sprinkled with the spirit, and also a new spirit
should be given. What an unreasonable tautology! What need was there, to
present the spirit under the figure of water, and then immediately mention the
spirit literally? Are there two spirits: the one to be represented under the
figure of water, and the other the spirit literally? Or, did the prophet, like
a silly man, in the same text repeat one thing twice, only by different
expressions? If this text is to make any correct meaning, water, must mean
water; and spirit, spirit. As this text is a prediction of something under the
new testament dispensation, the water and the spirit, must allude to some
institution, that consists of the same, which is no other than baptism. (Ibid.,
91-92)