Biblical evidence that "baptizo" means less than full immersion?

timmopussycat · #1 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 09:36 PM

Hello all

I have been told that there are biblical examples of the use of this word (baptizo) to mean something less than full immersion. Does anybody know where I might find a list of such uses?

Thank you

Poimen · #2 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 09:40 PM

This issue has been hashed out in several threads.

Baptizo - Immersion vs. Sprinkling
Baptizo doesn't mean immerse?
Immersion?

Semper Fidelis · #3 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 09:53 PM

Dr. John Church on the Old Testament use of the term from Why Baptize By Sprinkling

Quote:

The Old Testament Background of the Subject

Sometime ago I announced that I would speak on the theme we are dealing with in this book. There was a good man in the city where I was holding the meeting, and when he heard my announcement he remarked to a friend of mine that he did not see how I could prove my point unless I went back to the Old Testament for my proof. I feel that the point can be proven from the New Testament alone. However, we need to see that it is perfectly logical for us to begin a discussion of this subject from the standpoint of the Old Testament teaching. The New Testament springs out of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. They supplement each other. We can never fully understand the Bible teaching on the subject of baptism, and many other subjects, unless we do go back to the Old Testament to begin.

When John the Baptist came and began to baptize the people he did it in accordance with the teaching of the Old Testament and in fulfillment of it. The scribes and Pharisees recognized this fact. They asked him, “If thou art not that prophet nor the Messiah then why do you baptize?” They had a perfect right to ask that question for there were some Old Testament prophecies that told of the time when people would be baptized in large numbers. In fact, baptism was no new thing to the Jews. If it had been then the scribes and Pharisees would have offered strong objection to it, because they were sticklers for things being done according to the law. If John had done something that was contrary to the law and the prophets, then they would have objected. However, we do not find them offering any objection to his baptism. Neither did they object to the mode that he used. The reason they did not object was because they were perfectly familiar with the matter of baptism. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews tells us that they had divers baptisms, Hebrews 9:10. The English has it “divers washings,” but the Greek gives it “divers baptisms.” In fact every proselyte that came into the Jewish Church was baptized. In the writings that existed before and at the time of Christ, we find a number of references to the matter of baptism. In the book of Judith (that is one of the Apocryphal books which was written in the 400 year period between the closing of the Old Testament and the coming of Christ), we find the record of how Judith went out and baptized herself every day for a number of days at the horse trough, in order to deceive a king. The writer of this book calls it baptism and it was done by sprinkling. We also find that Josephus, a great Jewish historian, who lived about the same time as Christ, used the word baptize in his writings, and he plainly tells us that it was done by sprinkling. I merely mention these two instances in order to point out to you that the matter of baptism was no new thing to the Jews at the time of Christ. They were perfectly familiar with the practice and looked upon it as a part of their religion. We need to keep this truth in mind if we are to have any clear understanding of the subject. John did not start something new. If he had he would have gotten into plenty of trouble with the Jews of that day.

Now, with this thought in mind, I would like to call your attention to two Old Testament prophecies that seem to shed some light on this subject. In the book of Isaiah 52:15, we find these words, “So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him;” etc. I would suggest that you begin at the thirteenth verse of this chapter and read clear on through the fifty-third chapter. As you read this passage please keep in mind the fact that when the Bible was first written it was not divided into verses and chapters. That has been done at a more recent time, and, of course, the people who did it did not claim to be divinely inspired in their work. Now as you read this passage ask yourself the question, Who is the writer speaking of in this passage? There is but one answer to this question and that is Christ. The prophet is speaking by inspiration of the coming Christ and tells about his suffering and death. All Bible scholars are agreed on this. In fact the writers of the New Testament clearly verify this in the fact that they quote this passage and apply it to Christ. It was this portion that the eunuch was reading when Philip joined him in his chariot, and we are told that he began at this passage and preached Christ unto him. There can be no question but that Isaiah is speaking of Christ. Now please go back and notice what he says Christ will do when he comes. He says, “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” The Hebrew word that is translated “sprinkle” in this place is the word “Nazah,” and is used 24 times in the Old Testament, and every time it is translated into the English word “sprinkle”. So you see we have here a clear cut prophecy that when Jesus does come he will sprinkle many nations. It does not say that he will immerse them, but it does say that he will sprinkle them.

Now turn in your Bible to the book of Ezekiel 36:25 and you will find this prophecy, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” Here we have another clear-cut prophecy of the time when God shall begin to deal with his people, and we are plainly told that he will sprinkle clean water upon them and they shall be clean. In the days of Moses the people had water sprinkled upon them for cleansing. In Isaiah we are told that when Christ comes he will sprinkle many nations, and now in Ezekiel we are told of the time when God will sprinkle clean water upon his people to cleanse them. In this I think we must see that there is at least some scripture for the practice of sprinkling people with water.

As we continue this study on the subject of baptism we will have occasion to come back again to the Old Testament for evidence on this question, but in the very beginning of the study we wanted to point out to you that the whole subject gets its start in the Old Testament. The practice of baptism was no new thing to the Jews in the days of Jesus and John the Baptist. In fact, when Jesus came to John for baptism and John hesitated to comply with his request, Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so that we fulfill all righteousness.” In other words, they were fulfilling the Old Testament instruction. Jesus said, “I come not to destroy but to fulfill the law. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall pass out of the word until all has been fulfilled.” God had given certain instructions to his people, and Jesus and John were doing what the Old Testament prescribed. If this had not been true then there would have been strong objection to the whole thing on the part of the scribes and Pharisees. However, we do not find them offering any protest. The very fact that they were silent on the matter is proof that it was the thing that was expected to be done, and that it was done according to the law.

A careful study of the Bible will reveal that the writer of Hebrews was right when he spoke of divers (or many) baptisms. In the time of Christ the Jews were already in the habit of baptizing their hands, pots, pans, tables, couches and themselves many times each day. In Mark 7:4 we are told, “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (the Greek is baptisontai, or baptizing) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” We also find a reference to the customs that prevailed in the days of Jesus in the gospel of Luke 11:38, “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he (Jesus) had not first washed (the Greek is ebaptisthm or baptized) before dinner.” These two references from the gospels clearly indicate that the Jews were familiar with baptism, and that they practiced it many times in their daily life and conduct. So you see that this is not some new practice that John the Baptist started, but it was a carrying out of what was already a common practice among the Jews of that day. The word baptism had already taken on a very definite meaning in the mind of the Jews at the time of Christ.

DavidGGraves · #4 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 02:19 PM

Tim,

I actually uncovered evidence that baptizw means less than immersion in George Beasley-Murray's book defending credo-baptism.

Second the use comes from the LXX translation of the Hebrew word טבל (dip) in Leviticus 4:6 inter alia with the cognate baptw. The priests are commanded to dip their finger in the palm of their hand. It stretches credulity to argue that one must (can?) immerse one's finger in the palm of his hand. I as, a credo-baptist, find much wisdom in the Didache's instructions that immersion is preferable but not required as a form Scripturally.

Joshua · #5 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 02:22 PM

I'm not sure, but doesn't Fred Malone have a "rebuttal" of sorts for the assertions made by Dr. Jay Adams' little tract on the mode of baptism? I have read neither of them, BTW.

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 03:31 PM

in Scripture the people who were fully immersed died. Peter calls the Noah narrative a baptism. The irony is that those who weren't immersed lived!

Kevin · #7 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

in Scripture the people who were fully immersed died. Peter calls the Noah narrative a baptism. The irony is that those who weren't immersed lived!

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

in Scripture the people who were fully immersed died. Peter calls the Noah narrative a baptism. The irony is that those who weren't immersed lived!

Yes, it's a bit like those who were baptized under Moses (1 Cor. 10). The Egyptians were immersed, but not baptized; Israel was baptized, but not immersed.

Ivanhoe · #9 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 03:58 PM

I was reading Acts today where Phillip baptized the Ethiopian. it says that both went down into the water. That would suggest that the Ethiopian was immersed. But strictly speaking, given the force of the language, Phillip must be immersed as well! That doesn't rebut credo, to be sure, but I would like to see more consistency on ministers' parts.

Daniel Ritchie · #10 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I was reading Acts today where Phillip baptized the Ethiopian. it says that both went down into the water. That would suggest that the Ethiopian was immersed. But strictly speaking, given the force of the language, Phillip must be immersed as well! That doesn't rebut credo, to be sure, but I would like to see more consistency on ministers' parts.

How many deserts do you know that have baptismal pools in them?