# The Mode of Baptism -- a brief question from Pastor Peter Edwards



## biblelighthouse (Jan 9, 2006)

I like this:



> A CASE submitted to the consideration of baptists.
> 
> Before I enter on the Mode of Baptism, I would take the liberty of proposing to my Baptist friends a plain case; not so much a case of conscience as a case of criticism. That on which this case is founded is as follows: it is well known that under the present dispensation there are two instituted ordinances; the one in Scripture is expressed by the term _deipnon_, a upper, the other by _baptisma_, baptism. The proper and obvious meaning of _deipnon_ is a feast or a common meal, Mark vi. 21; John xxi. 22; the proper meaning of _baptisma_ is said to be the immersion of the whole body. The case then is this:
> 
> If, because the proper meaning of the term _baptisma_, baptism, is the immersion of the whole body, a person, who is not immersed, cannot be said to have been baptized, since nothing short of immersion amounts to the full import of the word baptism;"”if this be true, I should be glad to know whether as _deipnon_, a supper, properly means a feast or common meal, a person who, in the use of that ordinance, takes only a piece of bread a half an inch square, and drinks a tablespoonfull of wine, which is neither a feast nor a common meal, and so does not come up to the proper meaning of the word, can be said to have received the Lord´s Supper?



From: "Candid reasons for renouncing the principles of anti-paedobaptism" -- by Pastor Peter Edwards


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 9, 2006)

I guess it would depend on whether someone was hungry or not. Paul does chide those who partake the meal in an unworthy way. 




> 1Co 11:21-22 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.



I suppose if you came to the Lord's supper and you had a love feast no one would think it was a bad thing. But the purpose of what is being done is very specific. If you don't want to attend for the purpose of remembrance and you want to get your belly filled I guess you should go home. That is unless the space in your gut has been considered by those willing to supply the meal. It usually isn't considered because the Purpose takes precedent.

This isn't suppose to be a common meal even though the word is a common word that is used to describe it. There is symbolic meaning that is defined here as there is in Baptism. I think this is a mute argument for arguments sake. In Baptisms symbolism burial is a place you are put into. In partaking the Lord's supper we are to remember Christ. I also believe it is symbolic in that our food is Christ. Our life sustaining factor is Jesus. He said I am the bread of life.

I did a word study on Baptism. It does mean what they say. But I also know the word was used in the Septuagint concerning pouring water on walls and such.

The Baptism issue isn't about mode with me as much as who is considered to be a New Covenant Member. And I have discussed that enough for all of you to know my position.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 9, 2006)

I would call this an "open the door" argument. It might get a conversation started about the limitations of lexical arguments, or compel an admission that words alone without context (or lexicons, or etymology alone) cannot establish meaning, only actual usage.

For my part, I don't grant the argument that _baptizo_ *means* "to immerse" or "to submerge" in the first place. No more than I would grant that the word "drive" means " to push" or "to impel" when we use the term to describe sitting behind the steering wheel of a moving vehicle.

Thread on "meaning of baptizo":
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6485#pid75413


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I like this:
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think this can be a serious idea from Pastor Edwards. If all we had for information on the Lord's Supper was 1Corinthians, then it might perhaps have some force, but surely we follow the command and practice of our Lord as given to us in the Gospels? No other food is mentioned there save bread and wine. The fact that the Corinthians seemed to have celebrated the Lord's Supper at a 'love feast' or whatever is noted by Paul, but hardly commended. It need not therefore be our practice.

With baptism, we must look not only at the meaning of the word, which seems to me to be conclusive in any case, but also at the practice. John baptizes where there is *'Plenty of water'*; the Lord Jesus comes *'Up out of the water.'* The Ethiopean eunuch says, *'Look, here is water!'* when he must have had enough with him for a sprinkling. He and Philip go, *'down into the water'* and *'come up out of the water.'* Taken individually, it's possible to haggle about these things; taken together, the evidence seems a bit heavy.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 9, 2006)

Period.


----------



## Preach (Jan 9, 2006)

Gabe, I couldn't read the title of the book. What is the title? and where can I find it. Thanks.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 9, 2006)

That is one of the J.W. Dale volumes, the last word on baptizo. It is basically a survey of the whole corpus of (extant, as of the late 18th century) ancient Greek literature, up through the patristic age. I believe it really is exhaustive. No single volume, be it credo or paedo, old or modern, even comes close. The reprint was a P&R joint venture, I believe.

_Classic Baptism_
_Judaic Baptism_ and _Johannic Baptism_ (I think these are seperate volumes, because these 5 vols were reprinted as 4, ot the best of my recollection)
(pictured) _Christic Baptism_ and _Patristic Baptism,_ 2 vols in one.

My quote (other thread) comes out of the _Classic Baptism_ vol.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



I am standing in 6 inches of water. (a stream, lake, ocean) 
_I come up out of the water._ That is, I walk up on to dry earth.

If I'm not really baptized because my forehead didn't go under.....then I think you've missed the boat on what baptism is.

I think there is a good parallel here on the quantities of supper and water. A hearty Amen, Sir


----------



## non dignus (Jan 9, 2006)

> " John baptizes where there is *'Plenty of water'*;



The water wasn't stagnant. It was free of mosquito larvae.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 9, 2006)

It's interesting how selective we are in drawing inferences to favor our position. There are no explicit accounts of total immersion yet credos see a mandate from inferences such as the above. There are no explicit accounts of infant baptism yet paedos see a mandate from household baptisms. 

The fact is paedos are comfortable with adult baptism by immersion. Why aren't credos comfortable with infant baptism by sprinkling?

"Let the little children come to me for of such is the kingdom of heaven."


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> With baptism, we must look not only at the meaning of the word, which seems to me to be conclusive in any case, but also at the practice. John baptizes where there is *'Plenty of water'*; the Lord Jesus comes *'Up out of the water.'* The Ethiopean eunuch says, *'Look, here is water!'* when he must have had enough with him for a sprinkling. He and Philip go, *'down into the water'* and *'come up out of the water.'* Taken individually, it's possible to haggle about these things; taken together, the evidence seems a bit heavy.




The Greek language does not agree with you, Martin:



> Whoever is acquainted with the indeterminate sense of the prepositions _en, eis*, ek,_ and _apo,_ on which this proof must depend, will be very sensible of this.
> 
> These occur in the following Scriptures: Matt. iii. 6. "œThey were baptized of him, _en to Iordanee_, in Jordan;""”_en_ means not only "œin," but "œnigh, near, at, by," &c. Acts viii. 38. "œThey went down both, _eis to hudor_, into the water;" but _eis_, besides "œinto," often means "œtowards, near," &c. Matt. iii. 16. "œAnd Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway, _apo tou hudatos_, out of the water." Acts viii. 39. "œAnd when they were come up, _ek tou hudatos_, out of the water;""”_apo_ and _ek_ very often signify "œfrom."
> 
> ...



From: "Candid reasons for renouncing the principles of anti-paedobaptism" -- by Pastor Peter Edwards






[Edited on 1-10-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 10, 2006)

There's a whole pile of special pleading going on here. That Greek prepositions can have several meanings is well known, but every student of the language knows that the *primary* meaning of _en_ is 'in' and the *primary* meaning of _eis_ is 'into.' However, the meaning must be decided by the context. But the context is _baptizo_, and any Greek lexicon will tell you that the almost invariable meaning of _baptizo_ is to 'dip', 'plunge' or 'immerse.' When you join the verb and the preposition together, the meaning is really rather plain.

*What reason do you have, except party sentiment, to decide that in these cases the usage of these words is not the primary one, but a special one?* By the same logic you might decide that because the word 'God' is applied once or twice in the Bible to a man (Psalm 82 ), therefore the texts that refer to the divinity of our Lord prove Him only to have been a man.

Lest I should be accused of partizanship, I append a comment by the paedo-baptist Presbyterian, George Campbell in his commentary on Matthew, on Matt 3:11. *'I indeed baptize you with water......, but He who is coming after me...........will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire'* (NKJV).


> _"In water"¦"¦in the Holy Spirit."_ Vulgate, _In aqua"¦"¦in spiritu Sancto._ Thus also the Syriac and other ancient versions"¦"¦"¦.I am sorry to observe that the Popish translators from the Vulgate have shewn greater veneration for the style of that version than the generality of Protestant translators have shewn for that of the original. For in this the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled to render _en to Iordana_ in the 6th verse, _in Jordan_, though nothing can be plainer than that, if there be any incongruity in the expression _in water_, this, _in Jordan_ must be equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition "˜in´ could not be avoided there without adopting a circumlocution and saying, _with the water of Jordan_, which would have made their deviation from the text too glaring.
> 
> The word _Baptizein_, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies _to dip, to plunge, to immerse,_ and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, _tingere_, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is, _en hudati, en to Iordane. _ But I should not lay much stress on the preposition _en_, which"¦..may denote "˜with´ as well as "˜in´, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly the baptized are said _anabainein,_ "˜to arise, emerge, or ascend,' v16, _apo tou hudatos, _ and Acts 8:39, _ek tou hudatos, _ "˜from out of the water.´ Let it be observed further, that the verbs _raino_ and _rantizo_, used in Scripture for "˜sprinkling,´ are never construed in this manner. *´I will sprinkle you with clear water,* says God, (Ezek 36:25 ), or as it runs in the English translation literally from the Hebrew, *´I will sprinkle clean water upon you*, is in the Septuagint, _Rano ep´humas katharon hudor, _ and not (as _baptizo_ is always construed), _Rano humas en katharo hudati. _ See also Exod 29:21; Lev 6:27, 16:14. Had _Baptizo_ been here employed in the sense of _raino_, "˜I sprinkle,´ (which as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical) the expression would doubtless have been, _Ego men baptizo ep´humas hudor, _ agreeably to the examples referred to.
> 
> When therefore the Greek word _baptizo_ is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. *It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgements to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer.* The true partisan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit, by that of the party.



If Campbell is not a sufficiently illustrious witness, both Luther and Calvin also stated that the original mode of baptism was immersion. I think _Refbaptdude_ actually posted the quotes on another thread.

Finally, I believe that baptism by immersion has been the invariable practice of the Greek churches down the ages. Surely they might be expected to know the meaning of their own language? 

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> *What special reason do you have, except party sentiment, to decide that in these cases the usage of these words is not the normal one, but a special one?* By the same logic you might decide that because the word 'God' is applied once or twice in the Bible to a man, therefore the texts that refer to the divinity of our Lord prove Him only to have been a man.



Martin, 

The point of that quotation was not to *prove* one way or the other. Rather, the point was to demonstrate that the Greek prepositions can be translated more than one way, and that *either* the immersionist *or* the affusionist can be comfortable with the texts in question. In other words, the texts in question _do not prove either way._

Now, if you agree with me that those texts do not prove either way, then we can move on further. You asked what reasons we have, Biblically, to accept affusion rather than immersion. There are plenty of good reasons, but they are found elsewhere in Scripture, in other passages.

If you want to know some of these Scriptural reasons, then read Dr. Kenneth Gentry's affusion article, or read "Why Baptize By Sprinkling" by Dr. John R. Church, or "The Mode of Baptism" by Jay Adams, or read some of my affusion articles. Or, read the book by Pastor Peter Edwards which I recommended . . . it has a good section on the Biblical mode of baptism.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 10, 2006)

Joseph,
I was 'christened' into the Church of England as a baby, and in my ignorance and superstition had all three of my children served in the same manner. Please do not imagine that I changed my whole understanding of this matter without a little bit of study.


> Now, if you agree with me that those texts do not prove either way, then we can move on further.


I don't agree, as I would hope might be clear to you from my post. But I don't believe that mode is of the _first_ importance (though we should seek to follow our Lord's commands as closely as possible), and had you not posted on the matter, I should not have done so.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I don't agree, as I would hope might be clear to you from my post.



Thus, you contradict yourself. As you yourself said:



> That Greek prepositions can have several meanings is well known . . .



Therefore, it is *not* possible to *prove* immersion/affusion from the texts you provided. 

Your argument has been found wanting, according to your very own words.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 11, 2006)

Just read the whole of the post, Joseph. Thanks!

Martin


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > Whoever is acquainted with the indeterminate sense of the prepositions _en, eis*, ek,_ and _apo,_ on which this proof must depend, will be very sensible of this.
> ...



The translators of the Authorised Version, who I am sure were all very accomplished Greek scholars (and most of them, as far as I know, paedobaptists) surely knew what they were doing when they translated the words in question "in", "into", "out of", etc.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> The translators of the Authorised Version, who I am sure were all very accomplished Greek scholars (and most of them, as far as I know, paedobaptists) surely knew what they were doing when they translated the words in question "in", "into", "out of", etc.



Nobody translates perfectly. In fact, I do not think that the KJV is the best English translation we have. There are a number of questionable translations in the KJV.

In any case, even if the "in", "into", "out of", etc. are correct, it still proves nothing. As has been pointed out by others, I walk down "into" water 6-inches deep, get baptized by sprinkling/pouring, and immersion STILL hasn't happened.

Martin is just simply fighting an uphill battle by using the texts he used to argue for immersion. The Greek pronouns do not require the specific translation they received. But even if they receive such translation, they still prove nothing for the immersionist side.

And finally, even if immersion could somehow be proved from Scripture (which it cannot be in _any_ case), that still would be no argument against infant baptism. As I believe Martin pointed out, the Eastern Orthodox church believes in immersion/dipping. Nevertheless, they still believe in infant baptism.

So, not only are the immersionists fighting an uphill battle, they are fighting it for nothing. Even if they could win, it would still be worthless as an argument against paedobaptism.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 11, 2006)

Another parallel to total immersion:

If we don't drink the last drop of wine in the cup, was it a successful endeavor? If we don't get completely 'dunked', was it a successful endeavor?


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> [And finally, even if immersion could somehow be proved from Scripture (which it cannot be in _any_ case), that still would be no argument against infant baptism. As I believe Martin pointed out, the Eastern Orthodox church believes in immersion/dipping. Nevertheless, they still believe in infant baptism.



True, the question of mode is distinct from the question of the subjects of baptism. Both adults and infants are physically capable of being immersed for baptism, and both adults and infants are of course physically capable of being sprinkled.



> So, not only are the immersionists fighting an uphill battle, they are fighting it for nothing. Even if they could win, it would still be worthless as an argument against paedobaptism.



Well, brother Gleason, you are the one who started this thread about immersion, are you not?  No one here has claimed that proving immersion would prove the argument against paedobaptism, so far as I can see. They are indeed separate questions.

But that does not make the question of mode of no import (though I agree it is not of first importance).

I agree with what others have said. We are not basing our observance of the sacraments on isolated individual words, but those individual words within the context of the Scripture surrounding them. 

Those who believe in immersion see strong textual evidence in the entire narrative descriptions of baptisms in the Bible that baptisms were by immersion. The Lord's Supper, on the other hand, as instituted in the Gospels, clearly involved a shared cup of wine and pieces of a broken loaf of bread, not an entire feast. It would be nearly impossible to make the case from the relevant verses within their contexts that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper involved an entire meal. While it is certainly not impossible to come to the conclusion, based on the relevant verses in their contexts, that baptisms were by immersion, as even Calvin and Luther concluded.

Why Pastor Edwards thought that taking the words for "baptism" and "supper" completely out of their contexts and looking at them in isolation made for a useful comparison, I am not sure, but it does not seem a valid argument to me.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> Those who believe in immersion see strong textual evidence in the entire narrative descriptions of baptisms in the Bible that baptisms were by immersion.



Their "evidence" comes not from "strong textual evidence", but merely from their own personal presuppositions. There is not any strong textual evidence for immersion, whatsoever.

Have you read this or this?


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> ...



I have not yet read them, but would enjoy doing so when I have the opportunity. It is a quite valuable thing, at the least, to understand the reasons why a great many brethren in the Lord come to different conclusions on the same Biblical texts.

My point here is not to argue over whether the immersion view is correct, however. (That is why I phrased the sentence "Those who believe in immersion see . . ." I am well aware that a majority of paodobaptists see no such thing). My point is only that, at the least, the immersion view is much more amenable and compatible with the Biblical text (even if it is not the only possible reading) than a view that the Lord's Supper was a full feast would be. Even if one could only arrive at the immersion view by presuppositions, I do not believe there is anything in the immersion view which would _contradict_ the Scriptural account. Whereas any supposed view that the Lord's Supper was meant to describe an entire feast _would_ contradict what is written in the Gospels.

And so Pastor Edward's comparison of these two issues is in no way a convincing argument against immersion.

Yes, the fullest meaning of the Greek word used for supper would be a full meal . . . and yet the context makes clear that what was instituted at the Lord's Supper was not a full meal, but a symbolic partaking of pieces of bread and a cup of wine. Nothing difficult about that.

If the fullest meaning of the Greek word used for baptism is indeed an immersion (and I am not getting into that debate, but since Pastor Edwards has granted it for the sake of his argument, we can rightly take it for granted for the sake of our rebuttal), however, we do not find the same result as noted above with the Lord's Supper . . . the Biblical context does not prove clearly that the baptisms were _not_ immersions (at least not clearly enough to convince John Calvin).

And so whatever the arguments for or against immersion may be on other grounds, the particular argument posted by Pastor Edwards is just not valid.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 11, 2006)

Whenever word studies are done, oftentimes the study is done inductively. Certain texts are studied that appear to be part of the overall study itself, but others are excluded. For example, studying mode of baptism leads us to study "baptizo" and its derrivatives and roots. But even though we might do a study on derrivtives and roots and verses about "mode", we often leave out ideas and implications that could surround how the words are used in other contexts never considered. For example, if we study "baptism", then we should also the baptism of the Holy Spirit and see how that applies, and how the word is used in that context.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Whenever word studies are done, oftentimes the study is done inductively. Certain texts are studied that appear to be part of the overall study itself, but others are excluded. For example, studying mode of baptism leads us to study "baptizo" and its derrivatives and roots. But even though we might do a study on derrivtives and roots and verses about "mode", we often leave out ideas and implications that could surround how the words are used in other contexts never considered. For example, if we study "baptism", then we should also the baptism of the Holy Spirit and see how that applies, and how the word is used in that context.






Excellent point, Dr. McMahon.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit was via pouring, not immersion. And this important fact from Scripture should have a heavy bearing on our views concerning water baptism.

Thank you for that post, Matt!


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 11, 2006)

Joseph wrote,


> Excellent point, Dr. McMahon.
> 
> The baptism of the Holy Spirit was via pouring, not immersion. And this important fact from Scripture should have a heavy bearing on our views concerning water baptism.
> 
> Thank you for that post, Matt!


You and Matthew may be satisfied with a sprinkling of the Holy Spirit, but I'm not! I'm with Peter: *'Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head!'* (John 13:9 ). 

The Lord replies, *'He who is bathed* ('immersed')* needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.'*

The word for 'bathed' is _louo_, which in Scripture invariably means 'to wash or bathe the whole body.' When only a part of the body is washed (by immersion or otherwise), the word, _nipto_ is used (cf. Matt 6:17; 15:2 ).

Since the Lord Jesus is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, it is clear that those who are thus baptized are immersed (_louo_). The fact that the Spirit comes down from above is not relevant. You can be immersed from above as well as from below.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> You can be immersed from above as well as from below.





Just redefine "immerse" so that it means basically the same thing as "pour" and *poof* . . . we are in agreement!




The dictionary says "immersion" involves "submerging" . . . and have you _ever_ heard of someone being submerged without going down into something?


Let's go back to Scripture:



> And it shall come to pass afterward That I will *pour out My Spirit* on all flesh (Joel 2:28)





> And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will *pour out of My Spirit* on all flesh (Acts 2:17)



What part of "pour" don't you understand?


The bottom line here is at least twofold:

1) The element (Spirit/water) is applied to the person, not the other way around. The Spirit was poured out onto God's people. God's people weren't pushed down into it.

2) Joel and Peter both said that the Spirit was poured out on us. Don't go redefining "immerse" so that you can pretend it really means "pour". That type of tactic is pretty transparent, and doesn't help your case.





[Edited on 1-12-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...



The most obvious example of immersion coming from above is the death of the wicked in Noah's day. They were certainly submerged, but the water came from above (Gen 7:12 ). The difference is, of course that they didn't come up again!

I thnk it was probably this that the Lord Jesus was thinking of when He said, *'But I have a baptism to be baptized with....'* (Liuke 12:50 ). God's wrath was poured out upon Him until it overwhelmed Him and He could say with the Psalmist, *'Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterfalls; all Your waves and billows have gone over Me'* (Psalm 42:7 ). A waterfall comes down from above, but its waters have gone over the head of the Psalmist.

Part of the symbolism of Biblical Christian baptism is the association with Christ in His sufferings and death, but of course our rising out of the water wonderfully portrays that unlike the men of Noah's day, we rise to new life in Christ (Rom 6:4 ).

Pastor Edward's thinking in these matters seems, from the extracts you have posted, to be extremely superficial. Joseph, you have a fine mind and the Holy Spirit to guide you. Don't let your thinking sink to his level. There are actually better protagonists for infant baptism than he.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Greg (Jan 12, 2006)

delete (double post)

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by Greg]


----------



## Greg (Jan 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate/i]
> I'm with Peter: *'Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head!'* (John 13:9 ).
> _


_

What was the Lord's response to Peter here?_


----------



## non dignus (Jan 12, 2006)

Paul says, "We are buried with him in baptism."

Is the imagery one of washing a corpse before entombing it?


----------

