# baptism by immersion



## rookie

I was having a conversation with my Team Lead at work today, and she was mentioning that sometimes, when you read, and study hermeneutics (I doubt it since she listens to TD Jakes a lot), that she studied baptism, and there is no proof that every baptism was by complete immersion .

She was mentioning that the jailor, when he and his family believed, that they might have been baptized by the water that was left in the basin that was used to wash their feet. Which would indicating a dumping of the water on their heads.

Now from my understanding, Christ wasn't just dumped somewhere and partly covered in death, he was completely buried. As well as Jonah, and the list goes on.

What say ye brethren? I know what it is symbolically, but what about Greek with context?


----------



## JoannaV

rookie said:


> She was mentioning that the jailor, when he and his family believed, that they might have been baptized by the water that was left in the basin that was used to wash their feet.



Sounds fun.


----------



## rookie

JoannaV said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was mentioning that the jailor, when he and his family believed, that they might have been baptized by the water that was left in the basin that was used to wash their feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds fun.
Click to expand...


More like dirty and gross.....


----------



## nicnap

What about Mark 7:4? καὶ ἀπ' ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν -- the καὶ κλινῶν "and couches" is not found in most modern translations, but is supported and should have a higher rating. So, did they immerse their couches? Further, as a point of theology, the inclusion of "dining couches" should serve to draw attention to the fact that a Jewish "baptism" of such items was a purification rite observed by sprinkling (not by immersing) the item to be purified.

---
Sorry, should have included translation of Mark: and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they baptize (wash) themselves; and there are many other things which they have received to hold fast (observe), such as the baptism (washing) of cups and pitchers and copper pots and couches.


----------



## toddpedlar

> Jesus was placed in a tomb, not immersed in dirt. Further, if baptize always means immerse, then what to make of 1 Cor 10:2?
> 
> 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;*2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
> 
> It was not the Children of Israel who were immersed, but the Egyptians, but it says the Children of Israel were the ones "all baptized."



This one is a good one, yes - and one should also look at Mark 7:4. (Nick beat me to it) Unless we are to envision whole couches immersed in gigantic pools, it should be clear that baptizo doesn't require immersion. There is also ample patristic evidence that the Jewish baptisms that were regularly performed, were performed ON couches - that these ceremonial washings for purification (which can't be separated from the practice of the early church it seems to me) were called by the same name, and symbolized much the same thing.


----------



## bug

> Jesus was placed in a tomb, not immersed in dirt. Further, if baptize always means immerse, then what to make of 1 Cor 10:2?
> 
> 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;*2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
> 
> It was not the Children of Israel who were immersed, but the Egyptians, but it says the Children of Israel were the ones "all baptized."



Yet they were not sprinkled or poured either where they, it seems to be that you are taking an idiomatic use of a term to refute it's plain sense meaning. According to T J Conant (The meaning and use of Baptizein, Wakeman Trust) all the greek words for baptism used in classical greek literature always and exclusively mean immerse. Now he might be biased and/ or wrong I don't know. But then we have such passages as Mark 1:9 where Jesus Christ is being baptized into (eis) the Jordan. This is the aorist passive of the verb Baptizo andf the one recieving the action is Jesus, not the water. It would be highly unlikely for such a contrustion to imply pouring or sprinkling unless
the writer meant to imply that Jesus was being pouring or spinkled into the water would it not?

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------




toddpedlar said:


> Jesus was placed in a tomb, not immersed in dirt. Further, if baptize always means immerse, then what to make of 1 Cor 10:2?
> 
> 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;*2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
> 
> It was not the Children of Israel who were immersed, but the Egyptians, but it says the Children of Israel were the ones "all baptized."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one is a good one, yes - and one should also look at Mark 7:4. (Nick beat me to it) Unless we are to envision whole couches immersed in gigantic pools, it should be clear that baptizo doesn't require immersion.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't like to build a case for anything on a questionable reading. "Kai klinon" is missing from some important witnesses. The question of why it is missing from those witnesses needs to be answered, as the NET notes suggest one reason might be that the scribes thought to idea of baptising tables/ couches so odd they assumed it must be a mistake and so removed it. Now of course that is pure supposition, but then so is your claim that tables/ couches could not be immersed. 



> There is also ample patristic evidence that the Jewish baptisms that were regularly performed, were performed ON couches - that these ceremonial washings for purification (which can't be separated from the practice of the early church it seems to me) were called by the same name, and symbolized much the same thing.



Such as?


----------



## nicnap

bug said:


> I wouldn't like to build a case for anything on a questionable reading. "Kai klinon" is missing from some important witnesses. The question of why it is missing from those witnesses needs to be answered, as the NET notes suggest one reason might be that the scribes thought to idea of baptising tables/ couches so odd they assumed it must be a mistake and so removed it. Now of course that is pure supposition, but then so is your claim that tables/ couches could not be immersed.



So, would it be more likely that a scribe would have added couches? - foolish. It is not a questionable reading. The evidence points to "and couches" being included; there are some who do not care for it, but without grounds. Secondly, so you suppose that they would come from market; each bathe, wash their pots and immerse their couches? Stretching a bit, aren't we?


----------



## Andres

How about Acts 2:37-41, specifically verse 41? Did Peter take the time to completely immerse 3000 people?



> 37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.


----------



## Herald

Andres said:


> How about Acts 2:37-41, specifically verse 41? Did Peter take the time to completely immerse 3000 people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Click to expand...


There is always the possibility that Peter was not alone in administering baptism. Even sprinkling or pouring would have taken quite a while. This text is silent on mode. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## VictorBravo

A good old-fashioned mode of baptism thread is at home in the Baptism forum. I've moved the thread.


----------



## VictorBravo

> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they were not sprinkled or poured either where they, it seems to be that you are taking an idiomatic use of a term to refute it's plain sense meaning. According to T J Conant (The meaning and use of Baptizein, Wakeman Trust) all the greek words for baptism used in classical greek literature always and exclusively mean immerse.
> 
> 
> 
> The passage does not say that the Children of Israel didn't get sprinkled. Paul says they were baptized (under the cloud . . . through the sea). He said it. Not me. I know who were immersed, though, and t'weren't the Israelites.  Nevertherless, such is _neither_ here nor there, since it doesn't change the meaning of _baptizo_ in my referenced passage. The inspired Apostle calls whatever happened to the children of Israel _baptism_, and I'm happy with that against all extra-biblical Greek literature, because I believe we define Scriptural words from their context within _Scripture_.
Click to expand...


I don't like to enter mode debates, but I've always had a bit of trouble with this argument. It seems sort of facile. Yes, of course, the Egyptians were totally immersed and the Israelites were not.

But, still, they passed through the waters. The waters were piled high around them and they were beneath the tops of the waves. Like Jonah, they passed through what would be certain death but for the work of God. I've always thought the burial imagery was fairly hinted at in both the crossing of the Red Sea and Jonah's time of helplessness inside the fish.


----------



## jwithnell

I've seen where baptism, being a covenant sign, holds out both a blessing and a curse -- a solemn warning to those baptized to live as covenant believers and a warning to those who would break the covenant. God's people where safely brought across the Red Sea while the covenant breakers were demolished by the same means. The point is more of covenant inclusion rather than a comment on the mode of baptism.


----------



## Trish Collins Hicks

Doesn't that verse 1 corinthian mean being baptized with the holy spirit being under the cloud


----------



## Brother John

Ray you might enjoy this read it was a very clarifying book for me on the subject (and its free online).

Immersion proved to be not a ... - William Alexander McKay - Google Books


----------



## VictorBravo

> Then you'd make a good "immersion only" paedobaptist, Dear Friend, since they all passed through.



Heh, except I'd never use that passage to support immersion either. Just that it doesn't negate it.


----------



## VictorBravo

Blev3rd said:


> Ray you might enjoy this read it was a very clarifying book for me on the subject (and its free online).
> 
> Immersion proved to be not a ... - William Alexander McKay - Google Books



I've read it. I'm glad to have an online copy so I can look at it again.

The title is a bit off-putting to a Baptist, but that probably goes with the era. One thing I can't figure out is why it has a nice engraved picture of Jesus being baptized right at the beginning of the book. I'm thinking confessional subscription was at least a little loose in the author's day.


----------



## VictorBravo

> Surely, I jest (mostly), Friend. But you're always invited.



Thanks, Josh. I'm aware of your understanding and view; and am glad for the friendship.

But I have to get back to work. Sermon prep and trial prep are the order for the rest of this day.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am plowing through Baptism in the Early Church. From what I am reading so far dipping is mostly equated with the terms. This book discusses the uses of the word in all kinds of literature from all sorts of authors. It is very illuminating. I highly recommend it. 

Amazon.com: Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (9780802827487): Everett Ferguson: Books

This is an overly thorough book.

Reading chapter 3, 'Words from the Bapt- Root in Classical and Hellenistic Greek', was a very interesting read as it pulled from many various sources of literature such as medical writings and play writes. It spoke of how it was used literally and metaphorically in the various writings. You can read portions of the book at the link below.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA58&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Pilgrim

John, 

Thanks for posting the link. I have a reprint of _Immersion and Immersionists_ by the American Presbyterian Press. However, it doesn't include the appendix. The original title page is reproduced, and it doesn't indicate what edition it is. So it may have been a reprint of the first edition. I also just noticed that on the title page on the version I have the name is spelled MACKAY whereas it's McKay on the fourth edition. 

Vic, 

The only other information I was able to glean about Pastor McKay a few years ago was that he was a temperance advocate. Right or wrong, that's probably enough evidence for many to place him in the New School category.


----------



## Phil D.

> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they were not sprinkled or poured either where they, it seems to be that you are taking an idiomatic use of a term to refute it's plain sense meaning. According to T J Conant (The meaning and use of Baptizein, Wakeman Trust) all the greek words for baptism used in classical greek literature always and exclusively mean immerse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The passage does not say that the Children of Israel didn't get sprinkled. Paul says they were baptized (under the cloud . . . through the sea). He said it. Not me. I know who were immersed, though, and t'weren't the Israelites.  Nevertherless, such is _neither_ here nor there, since it doesn't change the meaning of _baptizo_ in my referenced passage. The inspired Apostle calls whatever happened to the children of Israel _baptism_, and I'm happy with that against all extra-biblical Greek literature, because I believe we define Scriptural words from their context within _Scripture_.
Click to expand...



I agree with Jonathan. 

I would submit that on a strictly linguistic level there is no apparent reason not to preserve the normal meaning of _baptizo_ in 1 Corinthians 10:2, especially in light of the descriptive terms that are directly linked to it (e.g. “*passed through the sea*” - which is of course derived from the original account in Exodus 14 where phrases like “*the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea*” and “*the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left*” are used). While being baptized “*into Moses*” certainly has an essential spiritual/ecclesial aspect to it (cf. Exodus 14:31; 1 Corinthians 10:3b–4), the historical understanding has been that a generalized state of being “surrounded” by water is almost certainly a practical point of comparison in Paul’s chosen terminology. The immediately paired phrase “*in* [_en_] *the cloud and* [_en_] *in *the sea” is semantically supportive of such a reading.

If one accepts the conventional view that Paul’s reference to “baptism” here serves partly in an analogous capacity—especially with respect to its literary formulation—then an appropriate point of inquiry is to try and determine what the Egyptians, in relation to how water baptism is portrayed in the New Testament, most reasonably represents in this passage. The seemingly obvious association in such regard would be that the Egyptians were the Israelites’ slave masters (representative of sin and the world), from whom deliverance was desperately needed. That this was indeed one of God’s chief purposes in orchestrating the Exodus is frequently emphasized throughout the Old Testament. For instance—and just shortly after the historical Red Sea crossing—the Ten Commandments were premised with the statement, “*I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery*.” (Exodus 20:2; cf. Exodus 13:3, 14; Deuteronomy 6:12, 7:8, et al) 

Direct complimentary support for this interpretation is found elsewhere in Paul’s writings about baptism, where he so poignantly connected being “*baptized*” with the “*death*...[of]...*the body of sin*” to which God’s people were formerly “*enslaved*” (Romans 6:3–7). Importantly, this thought sequence occurs in a passage that has historically (indeed, until rather recently, nearly universally) been understood as alluding both to the ancient practice and the symbolical design of baptism by immersion. The fact that the Old Testament alludes to Israel’s Red Sea experience in the exultation that, “*You* [God] *will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea*” (Micah 7:19b; cf. 6:4, 7:15), also neatly dovetails with this comprehension. 

With all this in mind, even the sometimes triumphantly made point that it was the Egyptians who received the ultimate “immersion” in this baptismal event becomes wonderfully meaningful, and makes perfect theological sense. Indeed, this specific typological association used to be enthusiastically championed by many Reformed leaders, including Calvin, Bullinger, Diodati, Ursinus, Gataker, Turretin and Witsius. (What’s happened that’s changed this so radically?!)

The most direct biblical evidence offered by proponents of the relatively recent theory that Paul was alluding to a literal sprinkling or pouring that occurred during the sea crossing, is a lyrical account of the exodus given in Psalms 77, specifically verse 17, which reads, “*The clouds poured out water, the skies sent out a sound.*” However, this proposition is inconsistent with the psalmist’s indication that the event he had in view included a violent storm which emanated from “[natural] *clouds*” (Hebrew _abot_ [common plural]), while Paul’s point is clearly that the Israelites were baptized “*in the *[supernatural] *cloud*” (Greek _nephele_ [singular]; cf. Exodus 13:21f [_anan_—“cloud” singular], 14:19f). And to really be consistent, those who might relish pointing out that it was the Egyptians who were ultimately immersed in the Red Sea must surely acknowledge that this pouring out of water was part of the larger judgment program which was visited on that very same party.

Similarly, if one holds out the literalistic notion that the Israelites were physically sprinkled by their interaction with the sea itself, then it would stand to reason that the surrounding terrain would have been wetted by the same natural process—which is contrary to the explicit statement that the people traversed the sea on dry ground. It is also counter-intuitive to Moses’ wonderment at how the sea had been miraculously “*congealed*” (Hebrew qapha—solidify; stiffen), in Exodus 15:8.

It is important to remember that the second NT context where all agree the term “baptism” is used figuratively—namely with respect to the incomprehensibly intense tribulation of Jesus’ Passion (Mark 10:37–40; Luke 12:50)—will bear no other meaning than the classical sense of being “immersed in,” “plunged into,” or “surrounded by” the overwhelming sufferings which He had to endure. In fact, Jesus himself gave this interpretation using other words in a parallel account when He said, “‘*My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow* [_perilupos_—a compound adjective derived from _peri_—encompass; surround—and _lupē_—sorrow; grief] *to the point of death.*’” (Matthew 26:38)

Still, writings on this topic produced since the 19th century seem to more or less fall out along sectarian lines, with non-immersionists usually insisting there can be no practical relationship between immersion in NT baptism and the typological baptism in 1 Corinthians 10, and immersionists defending the traditional understanding that there is. 




> Then you'd make a good "immersion only" paedobaptist, Dear Friend, since they all passed through.




I’ve seen this basic argument increasingly advanced in paedobaptist writings. However, I find it difficult from a covenantal perspective to see how the term “baptism” in 1 Corinthians 10 can be compared to NT water baptism in such a directly sacramental way, since the OT corollary to water baptism is always said to be the rite of circumcision. So in the proposed a scheme of things, the Red Sea experience would have to be seen as constituting a “second” baptism of sorts, which would be contra the principles outlined in WCF 27.5 and 28:7. Therefore, the historical symbolic-literary interpretation outlined above seems much more tenable to me.




nicnap said:


> What about Mark 7:4? καὶ ἀπ' ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν -- the καὶ κλινῶν "and couches" is not found in most modern translations, but is supported and should have a higher rating. So, did they immerse their couches? Further, as a point of theology, the inclusion of "dining couches" should serve to draw attention to the fact that a Jewish "baptism" of such items was a purification rite observed by sprinkling (not by immersing) the item to be purified.




This modern incredulity is the result of an anachronistic reading of the text. The _baptismous_ of cups, pots and copper/brass vessels in Mark 7:4 is undoubtedly connected to the command in Leviticus 11:32 (cf. Leviticus 6:28; Numbers 31:20–23) that when such items became contaminated they were to be cleansed by putting them “*into water* [_bo_—come/go; put » _b-mayim_—in water <> LXX: _bapsesetai_ (_bapto_) _eis hydor_].” 

Leviticus 15:3–4 and 19–20 also shows that there were circumstances in which beds and sitting implements could likewise be rendered ceremonially unclean. While the remedial process for restoring these articles to a usable state isn’t specified there, the unanimous Jewish interpretation (based on a deductive hermeneutic process called _middot_) was that they were to undergo the same remedial procedure prescribed for other inanimate objects, namely the previously mentioned immersion in water. The Mishnah—as well as the archeological discovery of numerous of the immersion pools it directly references in this connection—makes clear that such was indeed the practice in Second Temple Judaism. Here are two relevant instructions from the Mishnah (as paraphrased by Maimonides; re. Miqvaot 7.7f; Kelim 19.1f, et al):

Any object fit for use as a couch or seat, even though it is clean for hallowed things, still in whatever concerns the rite of purification, counts as something which a man with flux has pressed against, unless it is immersed especially for the rite of purification.

...If an object is made of jointed work, having its boards and beams bound together, such as a bed or the like, and it becomes unclean and needs immersion for heave offering, the whole of it may be immersed forthwith while still bound together. But if it is for hallowed things, it must first be unbound and wiped, lest there be anything that interposes, and then it must be immersed and afterward rebound. (H. Danby, _The Code of Maimonides; Book Ten_, 136, 297)​

Regardless of whatever qualms one may have with the traditional Jewish handling of this matter (it is termed a pervasive “tradition” by Mark), simply in terms of word usage it is evident that _baptismous_ once again retains its normal meaning even in the perhaps unexpected context of Mark 7:4.


----------



## Phil D.

Pilgrim said:


> The only other information I was able to glean about Pastor McKay a few years ago was that he was a temperance advocate. Right or wrong, that's probably enough evidence for many to place him in the New School category.



That is interesting. I know that James Dale was also an activist in the temperance movement. I've sometimes wondered how he was able to without censure propagate his blatantly anti-confessional position that using the verbal formulary "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in baptism is a non-biblical practice. Perhaps this connection provides a clue.


----------



## MW

It seems to me to be an example of question-begging when a participant in a discussion repeatedly refers to the "normal meaning" and "classical sense" of a word while the meaning of the word itself is the issue being debated.


----------



## Phil D.

armourbearer said:


> It seems to me to be an example of question-begging when a participant in a discussion repeatedly refers to the "normal meaning" and "classical sense" of a word while the meaning of the word itself is the issue being debated.


 
By "normal meaning" I am simply referring to the primary meaning that virtually all Greek lexicons, whether classical or biblio-centric, have consistanty ascribed the word. Nor can these references be thought biased, since they are rarely created by immersionist scholars. It can also be said that such learned Reformed men as Calvin, Beza, Casaubon, Gomarus, Turretin and Witsius readily and unreservedely affirmed this conclusion. As such, I guess I fail to see how asserting the consensus position is begging a serious question. Is it not a cardinal rule of historical-grammatical interpretation to preserve the primary meaning of words unless the context clearly forbids it?


----------



## MW

Phil D. said:


> Is it not a cardinal rule of historical-grammatical interpretation to preserve the primary meaning of words unless the context clearly forbids it?



In this well-worn area of discussion the primary meaning of the word is the thing to be demonstrated, not merely asserted.


----------



## Phil D.

armourbearer said:


> In this well-worn area of discussion the primary meaning of the word is the thing to be demonstrated, not merely asserted.



My arguments were indeed an attempt to demonstrate from various sources and historical vantage points that there is no compelling reason to depart from the historical consensus as to the word's primary meaning in the texts that were put in question. So taken as a whole, I don't think it is a fair or accurate characterization to say that my comments were mere assertion.


----------



## MW

Phil D. said:


> My arguments were indeed an attempt to demonstrate from various sources and historical vantage points that there is no compelling reason to depart from the historical consensus as to the word's primary meaning in the texts that were put in question. So taken as a whole, I don't think it is a fair or accurate characterization to say that my comments were mere assertion.



It is "the word's primary meaning" which requires demonstration; so this defence of your argumentation merely repeats the assertion as to "the word's primary meaning." I have read a few of the authors you have quoted, not merely in sentences drawn from their writings, but in the context of reading their work from beginning to end, and I am sure that they say more than you have represented them as saying. I can distinctly remember Witsius, to name but one, giving specific examples where the meaning of the word is "to wash," and where the mode is sometimes accomplished by means of pouring or sprinkling. You have represented him as concurring in your view. I believe this is a misrepresentation. We should take care in the way we handle sources and be clear in the manner in which we construct arguments and present evidence.


----------



## Phil D.

armourbearer said:


> It is "the word's primary meaning" which requires demonstration; so this defence of your argumentation merely repeats the assertion as to "the word's primary meaning."



By this I would have to assume that you believe Greek lexicons have arrived at their conclusions by insufficient or perhaps even illegitimate means. Might you give a specific example of how you believe the meaning of words can better be proven, rather than by the extensive surveying and cross-referencing of primary sources that lexicons rely on?



armourbearer said:


> I can distinctly remember Witsius, to name but one, giving specific examples where the meaning of the word is "to wash," and where the mode is sometimes accomplished by means of pouring or sprinkling.



That is certainly true. I have never said otherwise, The single scriptural example Witsius offered for that more generalized meaning was Luke 11:38. Yet he did specifically say that the "native" and "proper" meaning of _baptizein_ is "to plunge or dip" (_mergere, tingere_).



armourbearer said:


> You have represented him as concurring in your view. I believe this is a misrepresentation.



I respectfully disagree. Given the information just cited, I believe my claiming him as support for the consensus lexical view of what the primary meaning of_ baptizo_ is, is in fact an accurate representation.



armourbearer said:


> We should take care in the way we handle sources and be clear in the manner in which we construct arguments and present evidence.



Agreed.


----------



## MW

Phil D. said:


> By this I would have to assume that you believe Greek lexicons have arrived at their conclusions by insufficient or perhaps even illegitimate means.



I think you have arrived at your conclusions by illegitimate means, and that is enough to give me pause before I trust your ability to fairly represent the lexicons.

If I look up the dictionary definition of a word I will find a number of different meanings supported by a variety of contexts. It would be naive to quote one of those meanings as if it were the only meaning of the word. The onus would be upon me to discover which particular meaning obtains in a specific context in which the word is used. To speak of "the word's primary meaning" when the specific context of a religious ceremony is being discussed would demonstrate a basic ignorance of the way lexicons and dictionaries are supposed to be used.



Phil D. said:


> That is certainly true. I have never said otherwise, The single scriptural example Witsius offered for that more generalized meaning was Luke 11:38. Yet he did specifically say that the "native" and "proper" meaning of _baptizein_ is "to plunge or dip" (_mergere, tingere_).



It is what you haven't said that has created the false impression. The author says (a) and qualifies (b); you represent him as saying (a) and omit his qualification. You have misrepresented what he has said.


----------



## Phil D.

armourbearer said:


> If I look up the dictionary definition of a word I will find a number of different meanings supported by a variety of contexts. It would be naive to quote one of those meanings as if it were the only meaning of the word. The onus would be upon me to discover which particular meaning obtains in a specific context in which the word is used.



Again, my original post was an attempt to make my case based on the semantic and historical contexts of the passages that had been put into question. You also seem to insinuate that I am using "primary" in the sense of "only." I assure you I am not. In simplest terms, I mean it with respect to the definition that lexicons generally give first within their listings of possible meanings. It is my understanding that these leading definitions are given such a position precisely because they are considered to be the most common (or "primary") meaning of that word, and that this is the proper starting point to use when attempting to exegete that word within a given passage. I also take Witsius' (and others') use of the term "proper" in this context to, among other things, essentially reflect this reckoning. For example, Turretin used the same two terms as Witsius in saying, "It is agreed by all that one should never depart from the proper and native signification of words, except for the weightiest and most urgent reasons.” So if they then further stated their agreement that the proper and native meaning of baptizo is indeed to plunge or dip, how is it not appropriate to say that they agreed with the primary definition that lexicons consistently ascribe that word? I of course recognize that if a given context clearly demands that a meaning different from the leading one be applied to a particular word, as sometimes is indeed the case, then we need to consider other associated or further nuanced meanings until the most suitable one becomes evident. In that regard, my original argument was that there are apparently no such contextual factors that would lead one to think that baptizo doesn't retain its "normal" (or, leading, or primary - meant in the sense just explained) meaning in some particular passages which others had brought into question. 



armourbearer said:


> It is what you haven't said that has created the false impression. The author says (a) and qualifies (b); you represent him as saying (a) and omit his qualification. You have misrepresented what he has said.



I'm genuinely sorry that you have taken things this way. But I still have to respectfully disagree with the charge. I never made any claim or suggestion beyond the fact that these men were in agreement with something that they specifically said they were. I don't agree that it is incumbent to list everything that an author may have said related to a subject (which in this case would have to be several pages long) when they have not been represented as holding a cited point exclusively (which I did not at all do). If such were indeed the standard, then many, many posts here on the PB would have to be considered misrepresentative in nature. False impressions can also be self-created by wrongly reading more into a particular statement than was reasonably intended or demanded.

Looking back through the thread, I must also say that I am a bit chagrined that I was singled out for a perceived instance of question-begging. There are many posts that merely use bullet statements and talking points with respect to what is in dispute, and as such are surely much more question-begging than the relatively in-depth explanation that I offered in attempting to substantiate my position. While this doesn't seem very objective to me, I also realize that people are well within their rights to comment on whatever portion of a thread they may like.


----------



## Phil D.

Rev. Winzer,

While in simple honesty I must maintain the bare substance of what I have said in our conversation (although I do wish I had just left certain things unsaid), I think I have had a foot over the line with regard to the way I have said things. I have been unnecessarily rude and borderline disrespectful. Please accept my apology for this. 

And while I know you think I have misrepresented some things, please accept my word that I have not willfully withheld anything that I thought was necessary given the scope of what I was trying to get at, or which would misrepresent my sources or mislead any readers. Nor would I ever do so. I actually try to be very conscientiousness in this regard, although I realize that I undoubtedly fall short on many occasions.

Although this may seem a bit out of place here, I also want you to know that I always find the vast majority of your posts to be exceptionally insightful, and even when I may disagree at some points, I find them helpfully thought-provoking. There is no doubt that you are both my intellectual and spiritual superior.

Once again, please forgive me for my rudeness and disrespectful tone. Given the frequency with which I find myself falling short in this area, I am ruefully beginning to wonder if I am the guy specifically in mind in the discussion of Matt. 18:21 and 22. By God's sanctifying grace I hope to more and more become the man of 2 Pet. 3:18.

Sincerely,


----------



## MW

Dear Mr. Derksen,

I didn't find anything in your posts offensive in the slightest, and if I have made you feel that you were being picked out for special criticism I apologise to you. I appreciate the effort you have put into your posts and I even go along to a certain extent with your argument. I accept that "immersion" is a lexical definition of the word and I have no difficulty in believing that it could have been practised in the first century.

The problem I find with your presentation (that is, with the material being presented, not with you personally) is that it claims too much and excludes the possibility of cross-examination. If we agree that words derive meaning from context it is not going to help discussion on the meaning of a word if one participant in the discussion claims exclusive rights to its "primary meaning." I acknowledge that you have sought to explain your conclusions by reference to the context; but if you would be so kind as to look back over your presentation you will see that in most instances you appeal to this idea of "primary meaning" to substantiate your point. It certainly is question-begging.

On Witsuis, I can appreciate what you are trying to do, but, as stated, I think you are obliged to indicate what must be conceded in a discussion on this point, and that is that he and others allowed other meanings for contextual reasons.

I really can't understand your zeal for this particular issue but it is your prerogative to pursue it. May I suggest, though, that you take a little time to consider two points which apply to the subject.

First, I see nowhere in the New Testament where the mode of immersion is ever mentioned in connection with baptism. I acknowledge that the word "baptism" might carry the meaning of "immerse," and it is quite possible that the meaning could have been so well understood that there was no need to describe the mode. It is rather odd, however, that not even an incidental allusion is made to it. Those who tell us the word "supper" means a "meal," and usually an "evening meal," at least have accompanying descriptions to that effect to support their claims. There is nothing of this nature with respect to "immersion." So even if the word "baptise" could be shown to mean "immerse," and even if we allow that "immersion" could well have been practised, the fact is that the New Testament itself makes nothing of it. Further to this point, the fact that "supper" naturally means "meal" is no bar to understanding it in its elemental nature as it is connected with the sacrament of the Lord's supper because we acknowledge that words take on their own connotations in relation to religious ceremonies.

Secondly, where the word baptism is used in a ceremonial context in the New Testament it cannot be doubted that the focal point of the word is on "washing," not "immersing." In the Lord's supper the focal point is upon "eating and drinking," and this gives flexibility to the word "supper" with respect to sacramental elements. There is no reason for insisting that the words "baptism" and "supper" must possess some primary meaning which bears on the mode of their administration when it is understood that the words have been transported, like the sacraments themselves, from a common to a sacred use.

Blessings!


----------



## Peairtach

VictorBravo said:


> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they were not sprinkled or poured either where they, it seems to be that you are taking an idiomatic use of a term to refute it's plain sense meaning. According to T J Conant (The meaning and use of Baptizein, Wakeman Trust) all the greek words for baptism used in classical greek literature always and exclusively mean immerse.
> 
> 
> 
> The passage does not say that the Children of Israel didn't get sprinkled. Paul says they were baptized (under the cloud . . . through the sea). He said it. Not me. I know who were immersed, though, and t'weren't the Israelites.  Nevertherless, such is _neither_ here nor there, since it doesn't change the meaning of _baptizo_ in my referenced passage. The inspired Apostle calls whatever happened to the children of Israel _baptism_, and I'm happy with that against all extra-biblical Greek literature, because I believe we define Scriptural words from their context within _Scripture_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like to enter mode debates, but I've always had a bit of trouble with this argument. It seems sort of facile. Yes, of course, the Egyptians were totally immersed and the Israelites were not.
> 
> But, still, they passed through the waters. The waters were piled high around them and they were beneath the tops of the waves. Like Jonah, they passed through what would be certain death but for the work of God. I've always thought the burial imagery was fairly hinted at in both the crossing of the Red Sea and Jonah's time of helplessness inside the fish.
Click to expand...


Presbyterians have no trouble with this, because we believe that baptism was either carried out by standing or sitting in the water with the water being sprinkled or poured over one, as per normal bathing, or by simple sprinkling or pouring.

The former mode would correspond to the OT cases of the Ark in the Flood and the Israelites passing through the Red Sea, and Presbyterians aren't opposed to this type of immersion, and would be quite happy to do it if they had the facilities to do it, and if it reduced divisions in the Church and encouraged baptists to become covenantal baptists i.e. paedobaptists.

They just don't see it as _the_ necessary mode.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> In this well-worn area of discussion the primary meaning of the word is the thing to be demonstrated, not merely asserted.


 In fairness, the blade cuts both ways. It should not be anymore legitimate for an argument to be launched contrary to the widely-accepted definition of the word, unless evidence is presented that might lead to that conclusion. I think Phil has provided an ample amount of research, here and in other threads, from a wide variety of respectable sources to demonstrate his point. If one remains unconvinced, let him present contrary evidence of substantial weight.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this well-worn area of discussion the primary meaning of the word is the thing to be demonstrated, not merely asserted.
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, the blade cuts both ways. It should not be anymore legitimate for an argument to be launched contrary to the widely-accepted definition of the word, unless evidence is presented that might lead to that conclusion. I think Phil has provided an ample amount of research, here and in other threads, from a wide variety of respectable sources to demonstrate his point. If one remains unconvinced, let him present contrary evidence of substantial weight.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand the basic hermeneutical point that Matthew was making. The "argument" that Matthew was making was a hermeneutical one and, consequently, good hermeneutics always "cuts both ways". I don't know if you listen to James White or read his blog but check out the recent debate he's had with a Oneness Pentecostal on how lexicons can be abused. Proper exegesis does not end with determining the "primary" meaning of a word. It _begins_ at syntax and then one works from syntax to the context of the sentence, paragraph, book, and the Bible as a whole. Then one places exegesis into the larger aspect of hermeneutics where systemization occurs and this informs exegesis and the process refines understanding. The problem with many of these interactions is that people have not been trained in how to read documents and assume that a dictionary or lexicon can solve what amounts to a deeper hermeneutical issue.

As an example of the problem, let's look at the word _logos_. Shall we take the primary meaning that the Greeks or Hebrews would have taken if they heard the term?


> The Greek background of the term. As a Greek philosophical term, logos referred to the “world-soul,” that is, the soul of the universe. This was an all-pervading principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense, all things came from it; in another sense, people derived their wisdom from it. These concepts are at least as old as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (6th century B.C.), who wrote that the logos is “always existent” and “all things happen through this logos.” In later Hellenistic thought these concepts persisted but were modified somewhat. Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher of the early first century, frequently mentioned the logos (it appears over 1,400 times in his writings), but he was concerned with his Platonic distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world of ideas. The Stoics, another group of Hellenistic philosophers, developed the concept of logos. They abandoned Plato’s heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (closer to Heraclitus) that the universe is pervaded by logos, the eternal Reason. The Stoics, convinced of the ultimate rationality of the universe, used the term logos to express this conviction. For them it was the “force” that originated, permeated, and directed all things. It was the supreme governing principle of the universe. But the Stoics did not think of the logos as personal, nor did they understand it as one would understand God (i.e., as a person to be worshiped). In fact, they did not even think of a single logos, but of logoi spermati koi (“seminal Reasons”), the forces responsible for the creative cycles in nature. Later Stoics considered the logos to be the “world-soul” in a pantheistic sense.
> Thus John was using a term that would be widely recognized in Hellenistic circles. But the average person would not know its precise significance, any more than most people today would precisely understand terms like “relativity” or “space-time continuum.” But it would clearly mean something very important.
> 
> The Jewish background of the term. Recently more attention has been given to Jewish sources as a background for John’s use of logos in his gospel prologue. First, there is the Old Testament to consider. The words of John 1:1 (“In the beginning”) inevitably recall Genesis 1:1. But the use of logos in John 1:1 also suggests Genesis 1:3 (“and God said”) as well as Psalm 33:6 (“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made”). There is also the near personalization of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22–31. In many places the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, first oral and later written) substitute Memra (“word”) as an intermediary for God. For example, in Exodus 19:17, “And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God” (NASB). The Palestinian Targum reads, “to meet the Word of God.” Targum Jonathan uses this expression some 320 times. Some say this is not significant because Memra does not refer to a being distinct from God. It is just a way of referring to God Himself. But this is the point; people familiar with the Targums were familiar with Memra as a designation for God. John did not use the term logos the way the Targums used Memra, but to those familiar with the Targums, logos would have aroused similar associations, with which John would be in agreement.
> 
> The use of the term in the prologue to John’s gospel. Why did John choose to call Jesus the Logos in the prologue to his gospel, and what did he mean by it? As to why the term was used, the answer probably lies with John’s audience. John gave no explanation of the Logos, apparently assuming his readers would understand the idea. Greek readers would probably think he was referring to the rational principle that guided the universe and would be shocked to find that this Logos had become not only personalized but incarnate (John 1:14). Jewish readers would be more prepared for some sort of personalized preexistent Wisdom, but they too would be amazed at the idea of incarnation. John presented Jesus as the true Logos as preparation for his own presentation of Jesus as the Son of God. After John 1:14, John never again used the absolute, specific, unrelated term logos. After this the Greek word is always modified or clarified by the context, and does not occur again in the gospel to refer to Jesus as the Logos. There is no need for this since in 1:14 the Word is now incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, and from this point on He is called Jesus. In other words, Jesus and the Logos are identical; the Logos is the preexistent Christ.
> 
> 
> Zuck, R. B. (1994). A Biblical Theology of the New Testament (electronic ed.) (190–191). Chicago: Moody Press.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't think you understand the basic hermeneutical point that Matthew was making. The "argument" that Matthew was making was a hermeneutical one and, consequently, good hermeneutics always "cuts both ways". I don't know if you listen to James White or read his blog but check out the recent debate he's had with a Oneness Pentecostal on how lexicons can be abused. Proper exegesis does not end with determining the "primary" meaning of a word. It begins at syntax and then one works from syntax to the context of the sentence, paragraph, book, and the Bible as a whole. Then one places exegesis into the larger aspect of hermeneutics where systemization occurs and this informs exegesis and the process refines understanding. The problem with many of these interactions is that people have not been trained in how to read documents and assume that a dictionary or lexicon can solve what amounts to a deeper hermeneutical issue.



Thanks for this. Your point is well noted. I may be off on this, but in my reading of Rev. Winzer, he was no less coming to a conclusion on the matter by refusing to concede to Phil's survey of his research on the issue - a breadth of knowledge which I personally find impressive. You are right that the primary meaning does not take captive every instance that the word shows up, but this does not mean that there is NO primary meaning. I'm not entirely sure on this, but I think lexicographers deduce the concept of a primary meaning by collating all instances of the word's use and boiling it down to an essence. We are not talking about exegesis here, merely linguistics. There are such things as semantic domains, spheres of meaning concentrically moving away from a centre. The spheres of meaning are not totally equal to one another, they proceed from a central core meaning. And I think the scholarship has amply concluded that baptizo has something to do with immersion into water.

This does not mean that it COULD NOT mean other things, like washing or sprinkling, but it is up to those who challenge the primary meaning to argue convincingly why it should be read that way in a given context. I found Rev. Winzer too quickly dismissive of the scholarship because of 1) the suspicion of misrepresentation, and 2) because he was unconvinced that scholarship had not succeeded in demonstrating the meaning of a word. Offering counter evidence would be the proper way forward in this discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It was pretty obvious to me that Matthew's point is a hermeneutical point and one trained in basic hermeneutics can see this without having to import hidden agendas that violate the 9th Commandment. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Grimmson

steadfast7 said:


> I found Rev. Winzer too quickly dismissive of the scholarship because of 1) the suspicion of misrepresentation, and 2) because he was unconvinced that scholarship had not succeeded in demonstrating the meaning of a word. Offering counter evidence would be the proper way forward in this discussion.


Yeah Dennis, I think you’re right that there is an a priori at work going on here with Matthew, so that βαπτίζω cannot normally mean to immerse or dip; especially in scripture and the patristic fathers. This is not however to accuse Matthew of purposely violating the ninth commandment. I am also in agreement that Phil Derksen did a decent job in several threads in defending to the usual usage and meaning of βαπτίζω, which should not be confused with the meaning and usage of ῥαντίζω.


----------



## steadfast7

I certainly hope I didn't come across as accusing Rev. Winzer of violating the 9th commandment - if so, I deeply apologize. I was merely echoing his opinion on one of Phil's point, saying,


armourbearer said:


> I believe this is a misrepresentation.


 The gentlemen have been very cordial, which is great to see. I simply think we could move further if more positive evidence were offered instead of dismissive comments.


----------



## MW

Trying to keep track of various comments is virtually impossible when people fail to present what is said in the context in which it is said. One moment they reflect on the lexical part of the discussion and the next moment they flick to the question of misrepresentation, which did in fact pertain to the citation of authors such as Witsius relative to the lexical issue, not to the lexical issue itself.

The issue with "primary meaning," should one desire to carefully observe what was written, is that the gentleman to whom I responded had appealed to "primary meaning" in numerous instances in order to settle the contextual point. In other words, the argument in each instance made itself dependent on the primary meaning in order to substantiate the point, when the issue of primary meaning is that which the discussion is seeking to establish.

I have no desire in the slightest to discourage research and discussion on the question. I am more than happy to concede the word means "immerse" in every instance in which it is used in the NT, if that is where the evidence points. I don't think it materially alters the discussion because, as noted, the words "baptism" and "supper" are used in the context of a larger theology of sacraments, and do not require anything other than an elemental use; and this holds good regardless of the lexical meaning of the terms. If "baptism" can be proven to mean "immerse," it is of no consequence to me simply because I don't regard the NT as ever making anything of it. My only concern is to see that the evidence is established according to sound methodology and argumentation.

For the record, I simply don't believe one can rid oneself of prior intellectual commitments when examining a specific subject. The tools by which the subject is examined are the intellectual tools which one has learned. So the charge of commencing a priori is simply ignorant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Which, again, proves my point. Matthew is demonstrating an understanding of hermeneutical principles, which is lost on those who need to do more reading on hermeneutics. I would suggest you both pick up a book on Hermeneutics so you can understand how syntax plays into a larger discipline of understanding.

BTW, the ninth commandment violation I was referring to is the charge that Matthew's a priori commitment to a doctrine is causing him to reject the primary meaning of a word out of hand. Of course, it's hard to see that one is charging someone fallaciously when one is ignorant of basic hermeneutics.

Some recommended resources:

Amazon.com: Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (9780310279518): Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Moisés Silva: Books
Amazon.com: New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors(3rd Edition) (9780664223168): Gordon D. Fee: Books
Amazon.com: The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (9780830828265): Grant R. Osborne: Books


----------



## Pilgrim

Another Reformed book on the meaning and mode of baptism is Rowland S. Ward's Baptism in Scripture and History.


----------



## Iconoclast

nicnap said:


> What about Mark 7:4? καὶ ἀπ' ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν -- the καὶ κλινῶν "and couches" is not found in most modern translations, but is supported and should have a higher rating. So, did they immerse their couches? Further, as a point of theology, the inclusion of "dining couches" should serve to draw attention to the fact that a Jewish "baptism" of such items was a purification rite observed by sprinkling (not by immersing) the item to be purified.
> 
> ---
> Sorry, should have included translation of Mark: and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they baptize (wash) themselves; and there are many other things which they have received to hold fast (observe), such as the baptism (washing) of cups and pitchers and copper pots and couches.



I have read that these"couches"...were not like those we find today at Ikea,or the local furniture store, but were indeed mats that were indeed immersed when they needed to be cleaned.......just saying....

Joshua......1cor 10...refers to their identification unto Moses......going through the waters of death...{your immersed egyptians}
Vic has touched on this earlier.....water was death to those not rightly related to it.....

Jesus mentions a baptism ;
Luke 12:50
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
This baptism did not involve water......
To try and squeeze drops of water into 1 cor 10...saying they were sprinkled with a mist...from the water or clouds is most fanciful.

The water speaks more of death in each case......believers only come through it In saving Union in Jesus Christ.


----------

