baptism by immersion

[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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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,

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]

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.