What is baptism? I have been taught in church growing up that the Greek word baptize means immerse or dip. The doctrine of baptism by immersion seems to be based solely on the very meaning of the word.

A long time ago, in an Internet discussion, I came across someone who did not believe that baptizo in Greek necessarily meant to immerse. The meaning of this word, of course, is the basis of the belief that baptism must be by immersion. There is a reference to coming up out of the water but pictures and films have had pictures of Christ in the water with John pouring water over His head, so that phrase doesnt prove 100% immersion. One could be in the water up to His waist.

This fellow who believed that baptism did not always mean immersion showed the following verse as evidence:

Mark 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

The word for washing here is the word for baptize. Let me present the Greek for those of you who can read it:

Mark 7:4 kai ap agoras ean mee baptisoontai * ouk esthiousin. Kai alla polla estin ha parelabon kratein, baptismous poteerioon kai xestoon kai chalkioon kai klinoon.*

I did some research on my own. I wanted to determine if baptizo, as used in scripture, always does refer to immersion:

Luke 11:38 And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

The word for washed here is identified as baptize in the Strongs. Here is the Greek, again in transliteration:

Luke 11:38 Ho de Farisaios idoon ethaumasen hoti ou prooton ebaptisthee pro tou aristou.

From what Ive read, washing in the middle east was done by pouring water. That was considered to be cleaner. If you wash your dirty hands in the bowl, your hands are wet with dirty water. If you pour the water, then the dirt flows down into the bowl. That was the reasoning I read in a book about customs and manners in Bible lands.

Anotehr question is, when it says here that Jesus did not baptize Himself when he ate, was it refering to washing His endire mody, or just His hands?

Another verse on the subject of washing indicates that the Jews washed their hands when they ate.

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

This verse does not use the word for baptize but it demonstrates that it was the custom to wash ones hand before one ate.

A friend of mine is a lay-missionary to Israel at a RM Messianic synagogue. He told me what he thought about this verse, coming from the standpoint of one who studied Jewish studies. It was the practice for Jews to give mikvahs for certain things. He described the mikveh as a ritualistic bath. In the Law, we read about bathing for ritual purity. There were some Jews at that time who would baptize, or give a mikvah to, Gentile converts to Judaism. If could be that baptism is related to the Old Testament commands for ritual bathing. The law describes washing ones entire body with water, and being unclean until even. There is more than one way to get completely wet. One can splash, dip, dunk.

I looked up the reference to baptism is the Didache where it lists the preferences for baptism. If possible in running water (compare to the idea of pouring being cleaner than washing in a bowl), if not possible in still water, if not possible pour, if not possible sprinkle. Pouring and sprinkling were allowed as exceptions when there was not enough water, according to this document. I noticed that the document did not identify pouring or sprinkling as baptism at least not in the translation I was reading.

Another factor Im considering is that Ive heard or read that the Greek Orthodox baptize by immersing three times. (Maybe someone could verify this for me.) The Greek Orthodox have spoken Greek since the first century, though the language has evolved over time. If the word meant immerse then it would make sense that they would immerse. )The Greeks also prostrate in their meetings. The word most often translated worship in the New Testament refers to the physical action of bowing down. Some of the actions of Greek speaking Christians may reflect the Greek meanings of words.)

Ive read that some early Anabaptists who taught that child baptism was not valid would be baptized by pouring as adults.

Does anyone have any strong evidence that baptizo was used to refer only to complete immersion in first century Greek? Or is this assumption taken for granted without real proof?

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Answers

Link.....

I don't know any other way to say this except bluntly.....there is not a reputable Greek scholar (of any religious persuasion) who does not acknowledge that the word means "to plunge, dip, or immerse."

Ask the Greek Orthodox church what it means! They even immerse infants.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges that baptism in the early church was always by immersion.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Connie....

How is it someone can write so much and say so little??

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

The Didache simply confirms the age old truth that mankind's tendency is to depart from the clear word of God.

The majority of the N.T. was written to combat false teachings in the churches. Paul had only been gone from the Galatians a mere two years and he had to write to them and tell them how amazed he was that they had been "betwitched" by the teachings of the Judaisers.

Therefore, departure from the faith in the the mid-second century is not surprising.

Benjamin brings up a good point by pointing out that earlier in church history.....pouring (and later sprinkling) were allowed "for extreme cases." Interestingly, however, all of those were expected to be baptized the proper way (by immersion) as soon as it was possible. Until then, they were almost considered "second class Christians."

Just like in the abortion issue of the U.S.,however, what was done simply for the exceptions, soon became the rule. Pouring and sprinkling became the norm.

My reference to the Greek orthodox church had to do with the word "Greek." They know what the word "baptism" means....and it has nothing to do with tradition.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Romans 6 tells us that we are "buried" with our Lord in baptism... when I die I want to be completely buried, not just have a little dirt poured or sprinkled over me!

And I know that some will say this is "spiritual" baptism and not water baptiam... I don't have time for that now... remember that Eph.4 tells us there is 1 baptism.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

The wword picture Paul uses in Romancs 6 certainly fits with total immersion. But if you are sharing that idea with someone who does not believe in full immersion, it would probably not be conclusive evidence to him. The passage says buried by baptism into his death, not buried by baptism into water. The picture makes a lot of sense when we consider complete immersion, but Romans 6 doesn't prove that 'baptizo' MEANS immersion. That is what I am looking for for evidence. What evidence did the early RM people like the Cambells use to support this assertion?

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

I am not trying to change anyone's view of baptism, but the following has alot of good information whether one believes baptism is a requirement for salvation or not. This author is from the Netherlands and Australia, so his mode of expression is different than ours. This conversation took place back on May 20, 2000:

Shabbat Shalom Connie, I had a quick look at the website you showed me, but since it had not much to say to me I did not look at it very closely. I am very busy with answering questions, writing articles and study. So I do not have much time to read any site or book or whatever, which does not directly aid me in those tasks. I myself, like you, believe that baptism is not required for salvation as far as it is concerned with water baptism. Water baptism is a step of obedience in which we show our spiritual baptism, which is required to be a Child of Yahuweh. I was baptised as a Baby but in my mid forties I was really baptised by immersing. I will be 70 this year and remember nothing of the first baptism but the real one I don't forget. In chapter 7 of my book I write about baptism. Here follows an extract: *********************************** Then shall His perfect plan, have come to a perfect conclusion. There are many people who reckon that Eph.1:13, humanly speaking, would be too easy. They think that there must be more to it . So they have invented many additional requirements that should be needed to be a true Saint.

One of these requirements is that one has to be baptized with water. To help you, by forming your own opinion about baptizing, I would like to pay some attention to the word, baptize.

Like so many words of the old languages, this Greek word BAPTIZO has lost some of its original meaning. This word in its original meaning was developed from the Phoenician language. They used the word to indicate the fabrication of purple. This was done as follows. In a basin, they made a substance whereof a peculiar snail was the main ingredient. They called this substance purple. Not purple dye, just purple. They baptized a pure woolen cloth in the purple. When the cloth was taken out, saturated with purple, the cloth was called purple. It was not called a purple dyed cloth, no its name was purple. The material had by baptizing taken on the name and color of the substance. The original meaning of baptize can be explained as: "Exposing something to something else, by which the characteristics and appearance are absorbed from the one into the other." In the days of the Messiah the word was used by the Greeks, to show the process of putting onions in vinegar to obtain sour onions. It was also used in the form of BAPTISMOS, to indicate ceremonial washing and in the form BABTO, as dipping in something. We therefore, have to keep in mind that the word translated baptize, not always means sticking something under water. We have to look at the context to find out the meaning of the word, like we have to do with many old words that have different meanings. If we keep this in mind we will have no trouble to find the correct application in our NT. Just to give an example in Mark 10:38 comparing it with Luke 12:50, Yeshua does not speak about immersing in a liquid. He used it in the form of 'exposing to', like the onion was exposed to, and had to undergo, the vinegar in baptism. We could say that Yeshua said: "Would you like to be exposed to and undergo, the things I have to be exposed to and have to undergo?" I would suggest you read first the following Bible passages; Rom.6:1- 5, 1Cor.10:2 and 12:12-13, Gal.3:27 In all these Scriptures baptize is used as a form of integration. Becoming united you could say, like the cloth is united with the purple and the onion with the vinegar.

We can see a similarity in the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Like the cloth absorbs the purple and the onion the vinegar, so we absorb the Holy Spirit, which is Yahweh's activity. We take thereby over His characteristics. The more we are exposed to the Holy Spirit, the more we take over His characteristics. This is the way we have to grow towards Yahweh, till one day we are full grown, 1John.3:2.

The ceremonial washing was wide spread among the world religions in the days of John the Baptist. It was therefore seen as a normal thing when John started to baptize. This baptizing, which was merely an immersion in water, had a different meaning. It was a washing, by which the people gave a testimony that they were stained by sin and needed cleansing. When we read about the baptism of Yeshua the Messiah in Matt.3:13-17 and compare this with the explanation of John in John 1:31-33. We could conclude that the water baptism of Yeshua, and also of His followers, is a symbolic testimony of having been baptized by the Holy Spirit. According to Acts 1:5, the baptism in water by John, has been superseded by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Following the example of Yeshua, we should witness about our baptism in the Holy Spirit, by undergoing the water baptism. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, makes it clear that Mark 16:16 talks about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This text is used by people to put forth the doctrine that one has to have had a water baptism to be saved. This does not agree with other parts of the Bible. Let's take the example of the criminal on the stake next to Yeshua, Luke 23:39-43. He did not receive water baptism but he was saved. However, Mark 16:16 was valid in his case as well. The moment he repented, he was baptized with the Holy Spirit according to Eph.1:13. Furthermore, Yeshua the Messiah does not mention water baptism as a requirement for salvation in texts such as; John 3:3, 3:36, 6:47, 11:25-26. Another text about Baptism is Mark 16:16. We can put this one together with Matt.28:19. We have to take careful notice of this text. It does not say: " In the name of, the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Spirit" It says: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The three, share the same name and that is "Yahweh" (Yah ou eh). In these texts we can interpret the word Baptize as integration. We can say that the meaning of this text not explicitly means water baptism. It means, to amalgamate the believer with the unity Yahweh. The believer should then testify about his amalgamation with Yahweh, by water baptism. This, to show his integration with Yahweh and the fact that His sins are washed away. Compare this with Acts 10:47-48. Note that Peter does not say: "in the name Jesus The Messiah" No, the Greek says: "The name belonging to Jesus the Messiah." In the original Hebrew/Aramaic (here, Peter did not speak in Greek) it would have been: "shemo yeshua hamashiach", This could be translated as, "the name belonging to Yeshua the Messiah." What did this name mean? That's right: "Shall deliver the deliverer of you" Note also that the copyist did not put in, the Christ, but just Christ as if it was a name.

The name belonging to Yeshua the Messiah is, was and shall be, Yahweh. To sum up we could say: "Those sealed by Yahweh with the Holy Spirit (Eph.1:13), do not need water baptism to be saved. However, it appears from practice that the Holy Spirit keeps urging the converted, to witness about their spiritual baptism by undergoing the water baptism. Thereby giving a testimony of their conversion." This testimony can only be given, personally by someone who is aware what has happened and can affirm that he or she, now again belongs to Yahweh. It is impossible for babies or little children, to do this. That for the NT Church, baptism has replaced circumcision, is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It is a result of the replacement doctrine based on circular reasoning. Both have a total different purpose. Circumcision is done as a mark of belonging to Israel. Baptism, is giving evidence of ones Spiritual rebirth. There are various groups of people, who come up with all sort of things they say are needed to become part of the Saints. Or to suggest that you can be part of a higher group of Saints if you meet specific criteria. The Bible is very clear about it, you don't need it! You need Eph.1:13 and after that you need to grow closer to Yahweh, though study and prayer. Jan Kapteyn Website Captain's Table http://home-3.worldonline.nl/~jckapten or: http://www.afmp.nl/~jkapteyn

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

From what I understand, the early church baptized in baptistries fed by running ("living") water. I don't remember where I read this, but it had pictures of an ancient baptistry where the water would flow through it.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Danny,

The Greek Orthodox do a lot of things they do because they consdier these traditions to be church canon. So if the otehr generations of Greek Orthodox believers immersed, they immerse as well. The Roman Catholics may admit that early baptism was by immersion. But does this mean that the Greek word for baptizo exclusively meant immerson in the first centuyry.

What I am concerned about is the scriptural references.

Does the 'baptizing' of tabels refer to immsering tables or merely washing them? When the Pharisees were surprised that Jesus did not wash before He ate, did they expect Him to completely immerse Himself? Are the meanings of the word in these scriptures rightly translated as 'wash?'

The Didache is a pretty early document, and it allows for immersing, pouring, and sprinking (with the latter two in extreme cases.)

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Link,

I re-post from above from Mr. Kapteyn, who is a Greek expert:

The original meaning of baptize can be explained as: "Exposing something to something else, by which the characteristics and appearance are absorbed from the one into the other." In the days of the Messiah the word was used by the Greeks, to show the process of putting onions in vinegar to obtain sour onions. It was also used in the form of BAPTISMOS, to indicate ceremonial washing and in the form BABTO, as dipping in something. We therefore, have to keep in mind that the word translated baptize, not always means sticking something under water. We have to look at the context to find out the meaning of the word, like we have to do with many old words that have different meanings. If we keep this in mind we will have no trouble to find the correct application in our NT. Just to give an example in Mark 10:38 comparing it with Luke 12:50, Yeshua does not speak about immersing in a liquid. He used it in the form of 'exposing to', like the onion was exposed to, and had to undergo, the vinegar in baptism. We could say that Yeshua said: "Would you like to be exposed to and undergo, the things I have to be exposed to and have to undergo?" I would suggest you read first the following Bible passages; Rom.6:1- 5, 1Cor.10:2 and 12:12-13, Gal.3:27 In all these Scriptures baptize is used as a form of integration. Becoming united you could say, like the cloth is united with the purple and the onion with the vinegar.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Aren't onions usually picked by immersion, rather than sprinking?

Around here some of the onions they pickle are very small, and they pickled them by immersion more or less.

I think they are adult red onions, rather than baby onions, btw.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Link,

I have always been a firm immersionist (even before I was a Chrisitian, because one of my mother's forbears baptized Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist Church in America), but because there is so much controversy over baptism, I've been trying to find out as much as I can about it.

Apparently the Greek word 'en' can be translated 'in' or 'with'. I should think that, instead of trying to maintain a tradition, all of us would like to find out what the Scriptures actually say and mean.

Also, Mr Kapteyn is giving a more full explanation of how 'baptizo' was actually practiced.

What he says hasn't changed what I believe about it; it justs fills out my understanding of it.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Keep in mind that the word was not yet a primarily religious word, but was mainly a secular word, used of all kinds of things. I have read that it was even used of ships sinking -- in a sea battle, the forces on one side "baptised" (a certain number) of the enemy ships.

As for the objection about Jesus not "baptising" himself before he ate, the context clearly shows that they were not talking about Jesus taking a full bath -- by any means! So it is ridiculous to suggest that this verse precludes the use of immersion as a method. They were talking about "baptising" his hands only, which is certainly easily accomplished.

As for the "exceptions" given in some 2nd and 3rd century writings for when there was not enough water or in cases of extreme illness, etc., they remained just that -- exceptions -- for an awfully long time. In the Roman Catholic church sprinkling was not in general use until the 13th century, and formal substitution of pouring or sprinkling for immersion did not take place until the Council of Trent in the 1500s! For at least 100 years prior to 1643, the Church of England, the Presbyterian Church, and Independent (Congregational) Churches had all practiced immersion. In 1643 the Westminster Assembly voted 24 to 24 on the question of accepting sprinkling in place of immersion. The Chairman, Bishop Lightfoot, cast the deciding vote in favour of sprinkling!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Benjamin,

that is an interesting piece of history. Did these groups immerse infants? Was this a practice that caught on in England some time after the Reformation began? the reason I ask is becasue some of the radical Reformation groups, i read, called Anabaptists, rebaptized by pouring. If Calvinists nearby were using immersion, would they all have used pouring.

Even the RCC admits that baptism can be done by immersion. I don't think any major group says that immersion is not a valid form of baptism. The issue is whether or not 'baptizo,' as a physical action can refer to washing by pouring or sprinkling, and not just to immersion. I don't think the Pharisees thought Christ should take a bath. Yet they said that Jesus had not 'baptized Himself' before He ate- possibly refering to washing his hands. Hand washing may have been done by pouring. I don't know for sure. I just read something about middle eastern culture in general which said they washed hands by pouring. Someone with more technical knowledge may be able to inform me about this. There is probably something in the Talmud about how to wash up ritualistically for dinner.

In the two passages I mentioned, do you believe 'baptism' refers to immersion? Did the Pharisees immerse tabels or wash them? Were the Pharisees expecting Jesus to immerse Himself, or to wash His hands only by immersion?

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

In Shakespeare's Henry V, as the French are obviously losing the Battle of Agincourt, they send a sortie behind the English lines where they loot and destroy what they can in the English camp and kill the boys who have been looking after things there. The Welsh officer Fluellen is greatly upset by this and says the following lines:

Fluellen: "Kill the poys [boys] and the luggage! 'tis expressly against the law of arms: 'tis as arrant a piece of knavery, mark you now, as can be offert: In your conscience now, is it not?"

Since luggage cannot be killed, what he obviously means by his first sentence is, "Kill the boys and destroy the luggage!"

This use of a single verb followed by two (or more) objects, even though the second, technically, requires a different verb, is not uncommon in either literature or common speach. Sometimes, as in Shakespeare, presumably, it is done intentionally for effect; at other times it is just a matter of carelessness on the part of the speaker/writer.

There is even a special word for it, though it has been so long since I studied this that I'm not sure if I have the correct one. I think it may be "zeugma". Does anyone happen to know for sure? Link? Do you?

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2000

Going back to the original question. We must keep in mind another part of the Greek Work for Baptism. There are enough Gk Lexicons that spell out clearly the meaning for those willing to listen. IN my studies I have learned that it is not simply "To dip, plunge or immerse" But more completely in syntex calrries the Idea "To dip, plunge or immerse for a purpose" Context Generally determines the purpose. Note I said generally. One case might be "because God commanded it." Another might be "For the forgiveness of Sins", Etc. and so on. Just some more thoughts to clarify.Keep studying, Bro. Jack.

-- Anonymous, September 07, 2000

When I do the dishes (a chore I loathe!), I fill a sink with soapy water and put the dishes in it. So I really don't see that there is any big difference between washing and immersing. You can do one to do the other, they are not exclusive terms.

-- Anonymous, September 07, 2000

Here in Indonesia, they usually have just one sink, so they don't fill it up with water. They have a plastic bowl with dish washing liquid mixed with soap. They dip the sponge in the liquid, and then wash the plates with the sponge. They rinse each vessel adn utinsel individually with running water.

Jack, about baptizo generally being with apurpose specified- I can think of two examples that don't have a prupose included. Baptizing tables and Jesus not 'baptizing' before the meal- the two mentioned above. The definitions for the lexicons theoretically come from examining the uses of the word in context. The lexicon definition doesn't prove that that was the meaning.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2000

Linc. Sorry Link, I dont follow your logic and see what or where Baptizing of tables or Baptizing before a meal comes into the equation in relation to scripture. What scripture were you referring to? Bro. Jack Be patient with me, God is not done yet.

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2000

Sorry if I was unclear

The passages refering to these two words for baptism are in the original 'question' post above at the beginning of this thread.

Neither one of these two passages mention baptism for a purpose. A purpose for 'baptizo' may be listed in some passages, but at least these two, which I thought of off the top of my head, don't seem to list the purpose. I don't think listing a purpose is a grammatical feature of 'baptizo.'

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2000

Linc. In my first posted response, I think I said "generally" refers to the purpose. Like Acts 2:38. The purpose may be stated in different fashions, because so much is imvolved in and with Baptism. It may be relating to a command of God, or something else. If the original, initial useof the word relates to "Dye" then the purpose would adhere in the meaning of the word from the speaker and more than likely carry the same meaning (purpose) to the hearer. What do you think? Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, September 13, 2000

Bump

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001