Paedo-Baptism Answers Mark 7:4 and Baptism and the translation of κλίνη

[The Original Secession]

I recently heard an argument around the usage of βαπτισμός against those who hold to Baptism by immersion from Mark 7:4. The KJV/AV states that: "as the washing( βαπτισμοὺς which is of course the accusative masculine plural form of βαπτισμός) of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables." The AV translates the last word of the verse tables- which is the Genitive plural form of κλίνη. The lexical gloss of κλίνη is typically: bier, couch or even bed or matt. I can't find anywhere suggesting tables.

The argument advanced was in Mark 7:4 βαπτισμός is used and the reference to tables indicates that likely it meant simply washing- by pouring or sprinkling due the impracticality of submerging a table. At first, I thought this was ground breaking until I looked at the Greek. I doubt they were emerging biers, or couches- though couches there were basically cushioned platforms. It seems likely κλίνη is referring to couches, or mats not biers or beds.

​

Anyone have thoughts on this argument?

Also the thread title should read:

Mark 7:4, Baptism, and the translation of κλίνη- sorry I made a typo and don't know how to edit once posted!​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It's an example of baptism meaning "ritual washing" (which is not mode-specific). Heb.9:10 is another text where context argues for mode in keeping with the OT texts referenced in proximity, i.e. not immersion.

An immersionist absolutist will simply arrive at solutions regardless of practicality or context. Others more reasonable will allow, while declining to regard Christian baptism as negotiable re mode (ordinarily).

In other words, Mk.7:4 has a certain use for undercutting or weakening a flawed linguistic argument. Just recognize it isn't going to carry before it all opposition to modes of Christian baptism other than immersion for them so wedded to the concept.

 

[Pomopu]

Do "immersionist absolutists" exist in 2024? There just seems abundant Biblical data to the contrary.

 

[MW]

Rev. Buchanan has rightly pointed out that appeal to the text is negative. The aim is to show that mode is not essential to the concept of baptism. Washing with water is primary.

The use of "table" is to suggest a place of eating, which the word "couch" or "bed" does not convey to us. However one chooses to translate it these objects are considered to be too large to plunge beneath water. And yet I have seen immersionists try to argue the opposite. It is the type of argument that must be taken together with others.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Also, Peter calls the flood a baptism. Paul calls crossing the Red Sea a baptism. The people who were saved felt the sprinkle. The people who died were submerged. (Sort of tongue in cheek on this )

 

[Corey Powell]

Do "immersionist absolutists" exist in 2024? There just seems abundant Biblical data to the contrary.

most or all of the Baptist churches in my city won't allow anyone to the table unless they are baptized by immersion specifically. At SBTS it is specifically taught that non-immersion baptism isn't baptism at all, just getting wet. so yes, it is alive and well.

 

[Northern Crofter]

most or all of the Baptist churches in my city won't allow anyone to the table unless they are baptized by immersion specifically. At SBTS it is specifically taught that non-immersion baptism isn't baptism at all, just getting wet. so yes, it is alive and well.

Yes, the LBCF is very clear: "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance." (29.4)

 

[Pomopu]

Yes, the LBCF is very clear: "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance." (29.4)

Oh wow, I never knew that. Thank you.

 

[erickinho1bra]

Do we have any extra-biblical sources that support the idea that baptizo does not have to be immersion?

 

[MW]

Do we have any extra-biblical sources that support the idea that baptizo does not have to be immersion?

Dale's Patristic Baptism details the various usages and includes examples where it could not refer to immersion.

There are texts which explicitly state immersion is not necessary for baptism, e.g. Didache is explicit: "But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do we have any extra-biblical sources that support the idea that baptizo does not have to be immersion?

In the Apocryphal book "Judith," 12:7, the heroine who has been taken into the camp of the enemy capain and his soldiers, and dwells for a time among them. "Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should not stay her: thus she abode in the camp three days, and went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia, [and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp.] καὶ ἐβαπτίζετο ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἐπὶ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος

It is not plausible that this woman immersed herself in the fountain, in the dark, especially as she made efforts to clean up and maintain her dignity.

 

[Phil D.]

Dale's Patristic Baptism details the various usages and includes examples where it could not refer to immersion.

If I may be indulged to ask a few questions (to which in keeping with this forum's restrictions I will not reply here). Do you agree with Dale's categorical conclusion that, "the Greek word [baptizō] is devoid of all power to inform us as to the form or the character of the act by which any “baptism” is effected?" And if not, what are the implications for his methodology and often singular translation of classical and patristic sources? Also, can you provide one or two examples where you believe it is particularly clear that baptizō has no reference, direct or indirect, to immersion? Thank you.

 

[erickinho1bra]

If I may be indulged to ask a few questions (to which in keeping with this forum's restrictions I will not reply here). Do you agree with Dale's categorical conclusion that, "the Greek word [baptizō] is devoid of all power to inform us as to the form or the character of the act by which any “baptism” is effected?" And if not, what are the implications for his methodology and often singular translation of classical and patristic sources? Also, can you provide one or two examples where you believe it is particularly clear that baptizō has no reference, direct or indirect, to immersion? Thank you.

"But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash (ἐβαπτίσθη, ebaptisthe) before the meal." (Luke 11:38, cf. Matthew 15:2 where the Pharisees specifically are talking about hand washing and not full body immersion in a bath prior to a meal)

"They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings (βαπτισμοῖς, baptismois)—external regulations applying until the time of the new order." (Hebrews 9:10) This one refers to Old Testament purification rites, many of which involved sprinkling or pouring, such as the sprinkling of blood and water for purification (e.g. Numbers 8:7).

Those are reference I gathered on the word baptizō, but if you're asking for accounts in which a person is involved in the sacrament of baptism in a way that cannot possibly be immersion, I can't think of any.

 

[Phil D.]

"But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash (ἐβαπτίσθη, ebaptisthe) before the meal." (Luke 11:38, cf. Matthew 15:2 where the Pharisees specifically are talking about hand washing and not full body immersion in a bath prior to a meal)

"They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings (βαπτισμοῖς, baptismois)—external regulations applying until the time of the new order." (Hebrews 9:10) This one refers to Old Testament purification rites, many of which involved sprinkling or pouring, such as the sprinkling of blood and water for purification (e.g. Numbers 8:7).

Those are reference I gathered on the word baptizō, but if you're asking for accounts in which a person is involved in the sacrament of baptism in a way that cannot possibly be immersion, I can't think of any.

I will reply in another thread, although probably not today (a bit awkward, but necessary unless the originator of the thread indicates they want it moved to a different forum).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash (ἐβαπτίσθη, ebaptisthe) before the meal." (Luke 11:38, cf. Matthew 15:2 where the Pharisees specifically are talking about hand washing and not full body immersion in a bath prior to a meal)

"They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings (βαπτισμοῖς, baptismois)—external regulations applying until the time of the new order." (Hebrews 9:10) This one refers to Old Testament purification rites, many of which involved sprinkling or pouring, such as the sprinkling of blood and water for purification (e.g. Numbers 8:7).

Those are reference I gathered on the word baptizō, but if you're asking for accounts in which a person is involved in the sacrament of baptism in a way that cannot possibly be immersion, I can't think of any.

If immersion must be had, a path to it will be found. This is an iron law.

If there is some better word, or any known alternative in classic or koine Gk language, by which a "ritual washing of any mode" (i.e. not participating in a root falkacy) is named instead of baptizo, may we please have it? We're basally told this can't be a thing, because baptizo may not be regarded abstractly, but only in modal harmony (actually unison) with its root meaning.

 

[Phil D.]

If immersion must be had, a path to it will be found. This is an iron law.

If there is some better word, or any known alternative in classic or koine Gk language, by which a "ritual washing of any mode" (i.e. not participating in a root falkacy) is named instead of baptizo, may we please have it? We're basally told this can't be a thing, because baptizo may not be regarded abstractly, but only in modal harmony (actually unison) with its root meaning.

I'll reply later in another thread...

 

[MW]

If I may be indulged to ask a few questions (to which in keeping with this forum's restrictions I will not reply here). Do you agree with Dale's categorical conclusion that, "the Greek word [baptizō] is devoid of all power to inform us as to the form or the character of the act by which any “baptism” is effected?"

Yes; this is just what I would expect after seeing the same wide range of usage in the New Testament itself.

 

[Phil D.]

Yes; this is just what I would expect after seeing the same wide range of usage in the New Testament itself.

OK thank you, not much to discuss then..!