# "Baptizo"



## jbergsing (Jun 4, 2007)

*I didn't know where to post this so I hope I'm guessing correctly.*​ 
With my pending decision to become members of the (PCA) church we've been attending and having our children baptized, I was writing down some thoughts on the subject to prepare for the (probably heated) discussion I know is coming from my in-laws. I'm trying to find the english translation for "baptizo". The few I've found only talk about immersion.

Anyone know of any good online sources out there?


----------



## dannyhyde (Jun 4, 2007)

From _Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children_ (Grandville: Reformed Fellowship, 2006), 62–63.

But doesn’t the Greek word for “baptize” (_baptiz?_) mean “to dip,” or, “to immerse?” It is true that the ancient Greek root speaks of “dipping.” There are ancient Greek writers that spoke of sunken ships and drowned sailors as being “baptized.” Yet the use of the Greek word baptizein (“to baptize”) was used by the Jews for “to purify” and “to cleanse.” This is why Hebrews 9:10 speaks about the “various washings” (literally, “baptisms”) of the Old Testament, as found, for example, in Exodus (19:14, 24:8), Leviticus (8:6, 30, 14:4-7, 16, 49-53, 16:19), and Numbers (8:5-7, 19:18, 19). As well, notice how this word is also used in Mark 7:3-4 and Luke 11:38 for the “washing” (“baptizing”) of hands.

*Two Quick Questions*
To summarize, let us think about two questions. First, if immersion is necessary for a baptism to be valid, as it is said Romans 6 and Colossians 2 teach, then why isn’t putting on a new pair of clothes after coming out of the water necessary? After all, Paul says in Galatians 3:27, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Christ here is thought of as a garment enveloping the believer and symbolizing his new spiritual existence. This metaphor comes from the Old Testament where changing clothes represents an inward and spiritual change (cf. Isa. 61:10; Zech. 3:3f.). Furthermore, in Romans 6 Paul does not only speak of being united with Christ’s burial and resurrection, but also his crucifixion” (Rom. 6:6). How is this signified in immersion? The point being that baptism signifies so much more than just merely our burial and resurrection with Christ and that to only look at two of the images in Romans and Colossians is arbitrary. 

Shouldn’t we be consistent and follow all that these texts supposedly say?
Second, if the mode of immersion is necessary for baptism, then why not for the other New Covenant sacrament, the Lord’s Supper? After all, Jesus instituted his Supper at Passover (Matthew 26:17). Shouldn’t we, then, partake of this meal once a year on the Passover? He institutes it at night (Matthew 26:20). This would mean the end of our “first Sunday morning of every month” practice of communion. Jesus gave his disciples holy communion while reclining at a table (Matthew 26:20). Should we get rid of pews? It was celebrated in an upper room (Mark 14:15). So do our church’s need to be at least two stories tall? Jesus shared with his disciples a common cup (Matthew 26:27). Is this the end of individual plastic cups? As well, Jesus and his disciples most likely drank wine and ate the unleavened bread of the Passover.

These are important parallels to ponder so that we do not become overly divisive about the precise form of partaking of the sacraments. What is important is what they signify about Christ and his relationship to us and our relationship to his body, the Church.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 4, 2007)

Charles Hodge: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.vi.vii.html


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 4, 2007)

What was the "mode" of baptism at Pentecost? (Acts 2:33)

If God is so insistent that baptizo be seen as immersion, because that's what the word means, then why is our Spirit baptism repeatedly referred to as a _pouring_?


----------



## Herald (Jun 4, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> What was the "mode" of baptism at Pentecost? (Acts 2:33)
> 
> If God is so insistent that baptizo be seen as immersion, because that's what the word means, then why is our Spirit baptism repeatedly referred to as a _pouring_?



 

Rich - the word for "pour(ed)" (Acts 2:17, 18, 33) is ἑκχέω (ekcheo). While it means to pour out, the expressed meaning is to bestow. Mode is not inferred nor intended in the usage of this word within Acts 2.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 4, 2007)

Romans 5:5


----------



## Davidius (Jun 4, 2007)

"sprinkle the nations"


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 5, 2007)

baptiðzw, baptizo

John,

I know it is not an online resource, but I highly recommend a book, _The Baptism Debate_, by Leonard J. Coppes ThD, a former Baptist minister, now OPC. Perhaps you might prevail on him to send you a copy of his book gratis if funds are tight: [email protected] / http://www.denverprovidence.org/html/about.html#Pastor.

Bill, you said,



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - the word for "pour(ed)" (Acts 2:17, 18, 33) is ????? (ekcheo). While it means to pour out, the expressed meaning is to bestow. Mode is not inferred nor intended in the usage of this word within Acts 2.



Where that NT quote comes from, Joel 2:28 [in Hebrew mss it is 3:1], the Hebrew word translated “pour”, shaphak, \wpva, means just that, “I will pour” or “spill out.” _This_ is where we _must_ go for the meaning of “pour” in Acts 2:17, 18, and 33. And in the source prophecy the meaning is pour forth or spill out, not bestow.

The historical-grammatical method requires we not only understand the language, but the historical context. For the Jews cleansing came through pouring and sprinkling. To be immersed – even to bathe – in standing water would not cleanse, as the dirt would remain on the top of the water. Cleansing was done ritually, as when Moses sprinkled the people and tabernacle with blood, the which sprinkling by water is a figure of: Ezekiel 36:25-27,

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all 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. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.​
This is a picture of New Testament “washing of regeneration” and “renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5), the New Testament sign and seal of pouring or sprinkling aptly signifying this pouring forth of the Spirit. Thus the mode of sprinkling is understood to be in accord with the reality.

The Jews well knew the ministrations of purification by sprinkling and pouring; dunking they knew not. How were the multitudes (_thousands!_) baptized at Pentecost and afterwards? By the familiar purification of sprinkling/pouring in the name of Jesus Christ; there were plenty of water in Jerusalem for _that_, but not for dunking, which would have been alien to them as well.

The circumcision of Jesus Christ is through union with Him in death and resurrection – “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh” (Colossians 2:11). _Putting off the body?_ By death. In Christ. And just how is that done? “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of [or faith in] the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” (2:12) The actual NT circumcision is union with Christ in death and resurrection, the sign of which is sprinkling/pouring in His name. 

Not in some “watery grave” being dunked and coming out of the water, which some allege Romans 6:3-5 speaks of, as we remain in Christ, not come back out of Him as coming out of water would signify. Now I reckon such baptisms by immersion surely valid (this was the mode of my own baptism at age 26), for water is water, but in fidelity to the Biblical way sprinkling is correct. John so sprinkled at the Jordan – this ritual of purification the Jews would have recognized and honored, but the novelty of a dunking not! _Moses_ sprinkled (baptized) by dipping a finger, and sometimes a hyssop branch, and sprinkling the people and the tabernacle (Hebrews 9:19 ff.; Leviticus 14:4 ff.; 4:6 ff.; Exodus 24:8; 12:22; cf. Psalm 51:7), and I would say John’s mode of “baptism” was sprinkling with a hyssop branch dipped in the water, although Dr. Coppes thinks it was by actual pouring from a vessel of some sort, and he is a far better scholar of this than I.

As the children of Abraham were circumcised according to command (Genesis 17:9-14), making them members of the community under the covenant of grace, so we put the sign and seal of NT circumcision on our children – ourselves being of the seed of Abraham by virtue of our faith (Galatians 3:29) – and _our_ seed members of the community in which God lives and rejoices with His people.

Congratulations, John, in setting yourself to bring this blessing upon your children. It is God that worketh in you…

Steve


----------



## blhowes (Jun 5, 2007)

Memory fails me, but a few years ago there was a thread about baptizo in which somebody mentioned the name of somebody that had done very extensive work investigating the usage of the word baptizo in ancient Greek literature. His conclusions about its meaning were different from how many baptists understand it. Anybody remember who I'm talking about that did this research?

In the process of looking for it, I came across the thread called Baptism = Immersion? which may be of interest.


----------



## reformedman (Jun 5, 2007)

With respect to the posts that spoke on immersion and dipping, I have two thoughts to ponder that are not easily seen in scripture.
The first is the eunuch. If you are going on a very long travel through a desert or any long trip for that matter, what is the first thing you make sure you have with you? ofcourse water.
When Philip evangelized the eunuch, the eunuch responded what is preventing me from being baptized? Look! THERE IS WATER and he was pointing to a small pond or lake or river. He didn't grab some water from the back, he walked 'OVER THERE' a distance is what it seems to me.

The other point I have is when John the baptist was baptizing, I don't remember the verse right now, this is a quick post because I'm at work right now, but if you look carefully, you can see that the expression says, that (I think it was Jesus), came out of the water. In other words, it was not on the shoreline or the edge of the water, He went fully into the water, it seems to me, atleast if not more, waist level.

This, as I said before, are things that I noticed, but are not clearly seen so please people, no torches, just a simple refute to my assertion will suffice.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 5, 2007)

Yes, as R. Scott Clark mentioned in the link you provided, it was the 4 vols by R. W. Dale, _Judaic Baptism; Classic Baptism; Johannic Baptism;_ and, _Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism_.

But for a _concise_ and _vigorous_ case as regards mode and paedo, reviewing all the words and incidents (including the Ethiopian) in the Scripture, see the Coppes book I recommended.

I knew a Reformed Baptist pastor once, Greg Nichols, and in a sermon he said, "Don't try to take my doctrine away from me, I'm like a bulldog with a bone in its mouth!" These baptists are tough characters. And when one converts to paedo, watch out!


----------



## blhowes (Jun 5, 2007)

reformedman said:


> The other point I have is when John the baptist was baptizing, I don't remember the verse right now, this is a quick post because I'm at work right now, but if you look carefully, you can see that the expression says, that (I think it was Jesus), came out of the water. In other words, it was not on the shoreline or the edge of the water, He went fully into the water, it seems to me, atleast if not more, waist level.


I've heard a similar line of reasoning used with this passage about them coming out of the water is:

Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 
Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. 

The rebuttal, though (in my opinion, as a baptist), makes sense. If we say that this passage proves immersion because the eunuch went down into the water and then came up out of the water, then we as baptists need to modify how we do baptisms to better align with the passage. It says both went in and both came out, so it seems we'd need to have both the pastor and the person being baptized go under water.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 5, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Yes, as R. Scott Clark mentioned in the link you provided, it was the 4 vols by R. W. Dale, _Judaic Baptism; Classic Baptism; Johannic Baptism;_ and, _Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism_.


Yes, that's the one. Thanks.


----------



## jbergsing (Jun 5, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I know it is not an online resource, but I highly recommend a book, _The Baptism Debate_, by Leonard J. Coppes ThD, a former Baptist minister, now OPC. Perhaps you might prevail on him to send you a copy of his book gratis if funds are tight: [email protected] / http://www.denverprovidence.org/html/about.html#Pastor.


Thank you, Sir! I sent him an email and am waiting for a reply.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 5, 2007)

John:

_William the Baptist_, a great resource on this subject is available here

I also summarized the main points in this thread


----------



## refbaptdude (Jun 5, 2007)

*Presbyterian*
John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15) 


*Lutheran*
Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word." 

Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).


----------



## reformedman (Jun 5, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I've heard a similar line of reasoning used with this passage about them coming out of the water is:
> 
> Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
> Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
> ...



True and there is no problem, you see, they both go to the water area, but the scripture does not show that *both* went under. I think you might have missed my point, let me reiterate. If it were a sprinkling over his head or shoulders or anything, he would only have to go with Philip up to the shoreline, he wouldn't have to go *into* the body of the water. You see, it seems he went far into the water and so it seems it is not for sprinkling. Half or more of his clothes are now soaking wet, so I would imagine as Calvin and Luther affirmed it, they were fully immersed.

Wether Philip baptized himself at the same time, is interesting to consider but because one person is baptizing the other (a verb being acted upon by another), it seems to indicate that Philip would not be going through the whole process but was only there to act upon someone else.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 5, 2007)

Jay Adams' _Meaning and Mode of Baptism_ is a good inexpensive resource.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2007)

Here is my point of bringing up the "mode" of Spirit baptism.

1. I think many focus on the meaning of the word baptizo to mean immerse.
2. At the same time, many (as Steve points out) ignore the Jewish context of baptizo in reference to washings. As pointed out in another thread a while back, the word is used of a woman in the Apocrypha who is bathing in view of a garrison of soldiers. Jews cleansed themselves not by getting in pools and immersing themselves.
3. Finally, even if one wants to ignore the Jewish context of the terminology, it is indisputable that every time the nature of our baptism in the Spirit is spoken of throughout the New Testament, it is spoken of as an _outpouring_ or a _sprinkling_.

You see, some want to insist that the very meaning of the word militates that the Sacrament be seen as requiring immersion and yet they ignore all the Scriptural data that use sprinkle and pouring when the Sacrament is spoken of. I find that very procrustean to ignore this material.


----------

