Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rachel,Fair enough. I will have to do some more digging on this one. I would assume, though, that since the dictionaries reference other applications of the word besides the Scriptural one, that there are evidences of the word's usage elsewhere that contribute to the conclusion.
So am I understanding correctly that the view that sprinkling is the proper mode of baptism doesn't really have anything (foundationally) to do with water? That baptism is seen as a symbol of the sprinkling of the blood?
If that is the case, then I think I can understand that. I still disagree with it, as I think a different interpretation to be a more accurate comparison of shadow to substance. But I can understand where it comes from. I will do some further study on Hebrews, because I think I'm still not understanding why the premise is that the water represents the blood.
-----Added 6/10/2009 at 12:05:53 EST-----
According to Vine, baptizo: "primarily a frequentative form of bapto, to dip, was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions. It is used in the NT in Luke 11:38 of washing oneself...." (I removed the parentheticals with the specific references for Plutarchus and Plato.)
Actually, I had considered this, and it is further evidence for immersion or pouring. The law that dealt with food and drink and "baptisms" was what? The Levitical laws regarding cleanness, particularly as relates to the physical body. (That is, it was symbolic of spiritual cleanness, but it was food and drink and physical "baptisms" - physical things.) And what were those regulations? What to eat and what not to eat. What to drink and what not to drink. And when to wash. Not sprinkle, wash. As previously noted, it is not possible to wash something with water without getting it thoroughly wet. One may wash ones hands, for instance, by dipping them into a basin, or by pouring water over them. But one does not wash one's hands by sprinkling a tiny bit of water on them. Calling those OT regulations - which the OT refers to as "wash"ings - "baptisms" seems to me to even more strongly suggest that to "baptize" is to "wash" - that is, to immerse in water or to pour water over.
Joh 1:19-28 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. (25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (26) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (27) He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (28) These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
What was John doing that made them think he was the Messiah? Baptizing. But how, and why would that make them think of the Messiah?
Isa 52:13-15 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. (14) As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (15) So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
I have a different question for you: Do you not find it strange that although the writers of the NT had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?
Are you sure about that word? I can't find it in the GNT, BDAG, or LSJ.
This is a well known statement. What surprises me is that Calvin is trotted out so frequently as though his statement was intended to provide support for immersion practice.For what it is worth ....
"Yet the word baptize means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church_ John Calvin, Inst. IV.15.19
This is a well known statement. What surprises me is that Calvin is trotted out so frequently as though his statement was intended to provide support for immersion practice.For what it is worth ....
"Yet the word baptize means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church_ John Calvin, Inst. IV.15.19
It was as well know in Calvin's day as it is today that the Greek-Orthodox "swoosh" their infants three times bodily through a font or trough. I'm not sure if they've drenched adults recently.
I know this for an iron-clad fact: the descriptions of the elaborate rites and nude adult immersion-baptisms that have come down to us from the ancient church were neither attractive to Calvin (when seeking to purify the church's worship according to Scripture), nor are those ancient practices sought after by today's baptists.
Bob,
It's possible that you didn't see that my question was simply Rachel's question, with the terms switched out.
Her point was that "rhantizo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be sprinkled for the remission of sins," etc.
My rejoinder: "enkataduo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be immersed for the remission of sins," etc.
If you tell me "But that's exactly what they did said, according to Calvin," I will have to say "I think Calvin would oppose your appropriation of his language in such a case, as much as I would."
Calvin is certainly acknowledging a denotative definition of the term, but not a connotative definition--that much is obvious from the context (and his practice). And he acknowledges baptismal-immersion can be found in the ancient church--but he doesn't say it is defined and delimited as such in Scripture.
Peace.
i have a different question for you: do you not find it strange that although the writers of the nt had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?
are you sure about that word? I can't find it in the gnt, bdag, or lsj.