Quote:
Originally Posted by jpechin  Hi, guys,
Just browsing about, I found an interesting tidbit on Baptizo - Greek Lexicon, included with a lexical entry for the Greek word baptizo:
to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
to overwhelm
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.
From what I understand, the large use of this koine Greek word was in immersion, as stated above.
Also, most Christological images we have of baptism (e.g., buried and resurrected with Him) involve a 'covering' or 'immersing', not a sprinkling.
Also, the tradition of the mikvah is worth considering, if tradition is brought to bear at all.
HOWEVER, I'll not make jokes about paedobaptism. I understand the evidence from the scriptures - I simply don't agree with it as it is applied to the new covenantal paradigm.
(battery running low - I'll have to come back tomorrow) |
Hay:
Thanks for your input. However, most of your arguments have been anticipated in the Original Post. Some of which are worthy to go over again.
You point out "buried with him in baptism," as illustrative of what Baptism is all about. The problem with using this as a proof-text for submersion into water becomes apparent when you consider the "burial" of Jesus.
Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and placed in a tomb or sepulchre. How does plunging a person in water correspond at all with the "burial" of Jesus?
In modern times we think of "burial" the way Submersionists think of it - plunging someone into a hole in the ground. But, there is nothing in the gospels that even hints that this is how Jesus was "buried." The Submersionists view is a modern-day "interpretation" of the Scriptures that has no bearing on how Christ was "buried." The picture of "submersion" does not fit the reality of what happened to Christ.
Rev. Buchanan made an excellent point on another thread that addresses the "burial" argument well:
Quote:
Definitely, baptism is symbolic of cleansing: i.e the washing of regeneration, Tit 3:5, for example.
I would make this one adjustment to the other point: baptism is not only symbolical of "burial with Christ" but also with "Christ put on" (like clothing), Gal.3:27; and "drinking the Spirit" 1 Cor.12:13.
The doctrine in view in all these "identifications" is that of Union with Christ. Paul's use of the burial metaphor is due to its connection to what follows, namely the resurrection. For us to be united to Christ, we are in the first place united to his Death to Sin, so that we might be "raised to newness of life" in Christ (the Firstborn from the Dead, Col 1:18). Note once again, the emphasis on union. Baptism is symbolic of the beginning of our Christian identification, the beginning or our union with Christ.
|
And here,
Quote:
|
My point was, and continues to be, that for the immersionist to "lock in" on the Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 texts--as if those two texts TAUGHT a mode by dint of an alleged "picture"--the same thing would have to be said concerning "wearing" and "drinking". Does the rite of baptism depict putting on clothes? Does it depict drinking? Why should we assume, then, that "burial" confirms some sort of picture? But clearly it must be symbolical of them all, and all at once.
|
I am glad to see that you are tentative about the "tradition" concerning the Mikvah. It does not apply for several reasons:
1) Circumcision was the Sign of the Everlasting Covenant that was given to Abraham, Gen. 17:13.
2) The ceremonial washings known as the "Mikvah" came under the Mosaic dispensation of which Jeremiah tells us passed away under the New Covenant, Jer. 31:32. Paul points out that it was the Levitical law that has been abolished in the New Covenant not the Moral Law, Heb. 8:7-10:18.
3) The Hebrew word for these ceremonial washings is
rawchats (Strongs 7364) and is translated in the LXX as
louo (Strongs 3068) which is the literal translation, "to bathe." These were not considered "baptisms."
What now do you have left? Various definitions of the word "baptism" from pagan sources? Hmmmmm.
Grace and Peace,
-CH