Before getting into a broader discussion of Christian baptism I want to talk about what the word baptism means from a first century perspective. I know this topic can be an emotionally charged one so I hope you read my thoughts here realizing they are said as humbly and as biblically as I know how to say them.
Transliteration:
There are several words in the English New Testament that aren’t translated. Instead, translators chose to transliterate them. That means they spell the word in English like it sounds in Greek rather than translate it to its English equivalent. These words include: Amen (English – truly), apostle (English – one who is sent), angel (English – a messenger, sometimes human and sometimes non-human), blaspheme (English – to speak evil of or revile), satan (English – one who opposes), Baptism (English – to immerse) and several more.
That begs the question, why would a translator get to a word and decide not to translate it and instead just spell it in English? There can be many reasons for this. In some instances the word had already come into the receptor language (in this case English) so that even though the Greek was retained through transliteration, people already knew what the word meant (satan, for instance). In the case of baptism the best explanation I can find is that translating it “to immerse” had political and religious ramifications in the days of the early English translations. They avoided raising those issues by retaining the Greek baptizo. In other words, when the religious practice of the day is pouring and sprinkling it has less ramifications to transliterate the word into “baptism” than it does to actually translate it “immerse.” If they had put immerse in every instance of baptizo (verb) or baptismos (noun) in the New Testament they ran the risk of people questioning their current religious practice and they feared what might result. That, at least, is the take that many people have on why baptism was not translated. I am trying to find a legitimate reference who says that is the case but cannot come up with it. I have looked at Ferguson’s new book on baptism but he doesn’t cover transliteration as he is more interested in the practice itself rather than what English translators did with it 1500 years later.
Translation & Meaning:
Baptizo primarily means to immerse. It can also be translated: to dip, wash, or plunge (BDAG, 164). In all instances the result is full immersion. In Everett Ferguson’s recent tome on baptism, Baptism in the early church, he spends over 10 pages citing extra biblical examples of the Greek use of baptizo. Here is his conclusion,
“Baptizo meant to dip, usually through submerging, but it also meant to overwhelm and so could be used whether the object was placed in an element (which was more common) or was overwhelmed by it (often in the metaphorical usages)…Pouring and sprinkling were distinct actions that were represented by different verbs and this usage too continued in Christian sources. When the latter speak of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit or the sprinkling of blood, they do not use baptize for these actions.” (Ferguson, 59)
It is really a shame translators muddied up the water (pun intended) on this word and made it just as easy today to understand it as something that it did not originate as in the early church. So it is completely accurate to read baptism as “immerse” when reading the New Testament because immerse is more specific to the actual practice of the early church and the original meaning of the word itself. This is also why the Restoration movement has pushed for full immersion, water baptism. That is actually a redundant way to say it…it is saying we do the immersion, immersion.
I welcome anyone who has counter points to the immersion conclusion to express their thoughts here and engage in loving dialog on that issue.
32 Responses
I have heard it said (but I do not have documentation) that King James instructed the translators to retain baptize and its cognates instead of translating them because he did not want to encourage the more radical reformers. Of course, English translations earlier than the King James Version had previously followed the same practice, as do nearly all more modern translations. It is interesting that even the Latin Vulgate transliterates baptism. I believe Jerome made this translation at about the same time that baptismal practice was changing (in the West, it never did in the East) from immersion to pouring or sprinkling.
Jerry
I will do a little more looking to see if anyone cites anything on this much repeated but much less often cited take on the matter. Interesting on the Vulgate. I hadn’t thought of that.
The preface to the original KJV says something about this. (are we going to arouse the KJV-only folks again)
OK, here it is:
Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full…
Grace and peace,
Tim
Earlier English translations were already using the word “baptism,” pre-dating the KJV
It’s obvious in the scriptures that people were immersed and not sprinkles, starting with Jesus. Being baptized in not a painful or hard thing, but for some reason, people think it is. Jesus said to do it, but for some reason, even that is not enough. They don’t want to go down into the water and have their past sins washed away for some reason. They want to do it their way.They sprinkle their babies who do not know or understand the gospel and that way they get it out of the way when the child is young. The child grows up not really knowing the truth about how to be saved.
In the Bible, people heard the gospel, they believed it, then they were baptized, Thanks for sharing. Connie
https://7thandvine.wordpress.com/
Thanks Connie…we have a pension for taking simple things and making them more complicated than they really are. It is very, very simple if you just take it at face value.
Not only that, but the symbolism of immersion for baptism as a burial with Jesus is powerful. Sprinkling nor pouring have the same dramatic impact.
Jerry
I don’t see why there can’t be divers means (within bounds) for Christian immersion. Of course we are being immersed into Christ, and while that should mean that we are immersed under water, why can’t it be sprinkling or pouring? Were not the Israelites baptized into Moses and the cloud and the sea? Was this only the adults?
What I find strange in all talks about this baptism is our inability to attenuate our preoccupation with our modern notions of an individual that must know what salvation means before any act is efficacious… Our eyes fall from what God is doing and what it really means to go from one realm to another.
Mokus, I am going to reflect on that in the next post. I welcome your comments. I would ask you, though, how there would be divers means of immersion. Immersion means to fully submerge. So how else would you do it other than to plunge (another suitable translation of baptizo) someone under water? Once you say it is immersion you are saying it is not pouring or sprinkling be the very definition of the words themselves.
To your last point, if I baptized a non-believing adult would they be saved? Are you saying people don’t even have to know what is going on at all for God to work through it? I don’t believe we have to have a perfect understanding of baptism for God to work in it and through it. I have learned much about baptism since I was baptized years ago. I do think people need to have faith.
Matt, Thanks for the good questions.
Though we often wish it were not so, words rarely have one sense. And we use language this way all the time. If you tell someone that you’re going to ‘run down to the store’, people aren’t surprised when they see you in a car. I doubt many think that ‘run’ would somehow exclude ‘driving’. Beyond this, I’m not sure we’re straight on what the reference is in Christian baptism. Read Paul’s analogy in 1 Cor. 10:2—what is the reference to immersion here? What is the focus of being immersed?
“To your last point, if I baptized a non-believing adult would they be saved?” I don’t know, what happens when we baptize someone with severe mentally disabilities? Otherwise, what we often call ‘non-believers’ are really believers in something else—and so of course they are not saved when we through them into water. Of course we must believe and have faith—the question is what constitutes belief and faith.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it is correct to say that since we don’t have perfect knowledge, therefore no knowledge is acceptable. This is absolutely false. I just don’t see the how the order of when we come to a knowledge of the gospel and when we are baptized—depending on life circumstances—makes a necessary difference in the efficacy of this grace (gift) that the church has been commissioned to dispense.
The early church had numerous debates over doctrine—think of all the Christological disputes and the fights over Gnosticism. But can anyone name a dispute over the mode of baptism? I can’t.
Mokus, thanks for your thoughtful response. Let me share a few thoughts and see what you think. I appreciate the dialog.
“Though we often wish it were not so, words rarely have one sense. And we use language this way all the time. If you tell someone that you’re going to ‘run down to the store’, people aren’t surprised when they see you in a car. I doubt many think that ‘run’ would somehow exclude ‘driving’. Beyond this, I’m not sure we’re straight on what the reference is in Christian baptism. Read Paul’s analogy in 1 Cor. 10:2—what is the reference to immersion here? What is the focus of being immersed?”
– No one doubts that meanings change over time. “Gay” no longer means what it used to, for instance. There are so many examples. Baptism has come to mean immerse, sprinkle or pour. But if you do a study of Greek, its usage in the New Testament and in contemporary Koine Greek literature baptism comes down to a range of meanings that include: dip, plunge, immerse (in the physical/literal sense) or overwhelm (in the metaphorical sense). When the apostles baptized people they didn’t do it metaphorically. Now read 1 Cor 10:2 in light of the range of meanings for baptizo and you will see that there is no problem here. Also, read 1 Cor 10:2 in light of pouring or sprinkling and see if it makes any more or less sense than it would if you read it as they were immersed/overwhelmed, etc in the sea and in the cloud. Also, you can do a word search and try to cherry pick the most loosely connected verse you can find in the NT to make the point saying maybe immersion isn’t it but to do so you have to pass over dozens of obvious examples where immersion was practiced. We have to be fair about that. Not saying you are being unfair, I am just saying that we can’t just pass over all the verses that don’t prove our point, especially when they vastly outnumber the verses that we think support our argument. I would go so far as to say there are zero verses in the NT that support sprinkling or pouring. Are those practices sinful? Who knows. Are they biblical? No.
“To your last point, if I baptized a non-believing adult would they be saved?” I don’t know, what happens when we baptize someone with severe mentally disabilities? Otherwise, what we often call ‘non-believers’ are really believers in something else—and so of course they are not saved when we through them into water. Of course we must believe and have faith—the question is what constitutes belief and faith.
– I don’t think it is a fair analogy to go from unbelief to what happens with someone with mental disabilities who does want to follow God. Apples and oranges there.
“Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it is correct to say that since we don’t have perfect knowledge, therefore no knowledge is acceptable. This is absolutely false. I just don’t see the how the order of when we come to a knowledge of the gospel and when we are baptized—depending on life circumstances—makes a necessary difference in the efficacy of this grace (gift) that the church has been commissioned to dispense.
– I agree with your first point there entirely. I think we, in Churches of Christ, have adopted a very strict order of things and I don’t know that God really sees it that way. Some verses say we are saved when we believe (Eph 1:13). Other talk about baptism saving us (1 Peter 3:21). I don’t think we need to rip it all apart and miss the point that God is looking for us to respond in all the ways he mentions and not just look for the bare minimum passing grade of faith…that is probably not a good way to say it…I don’t want to imply works based salvation. But sometimes I talk with people who act like they want to figure out the bare minimum they need to do to respond and I don’t think that is what God is looking for when it comes to faith.
“The early church had numerous debates over doctrine—think of all the Christological disputes and the fights over Gnosticism. But can anyone name a dispute over the mode of baptism? I can’t.”
– Is it possible that they had no doctrinal disputes over baptism in the early/first century church because they had a uniform practice of immersion? That is historically accurate, by the way. Also, when they said baptize, in their language, they were saying immerse, plunge, dip or overwhelm. The very word excludes pour or sprinkle. So they didn’t even have a debate on this because of the very meaning of the word.
Sorry for such a lengthy response…I know it is a lot to consider. I appreciate your patience and kind response.
To your comments on some verses say you need to believe some say you need to be baptized. you cant take them out of context and need to look at them as a whole…. the whole bible.
God shows us ALWAYS that there is ONE way in which He wants things done.There isn’t one example where He gave them a couple ways and let them choose.
” For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” Acts 20:27
salvation comes through
Belief
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
Good confession
” Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” 1 John 4:15
Repentance
” No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Luke 13:5
Baptism by immersion
“ Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21
One HAS to understand and obey all of them to receive Gods grace of salvation.
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38,41
In this verse it says them all first you have to believe the gospel in order to confess Christ as your Lord and if you confess Him surely you want to repent of your old life and because of that you want to be baptized to have your sins forgiven.
I wish our English translations would translate these words rather than transliterate. If that was the case, it just might change the way Western Christianity reads the BIble.
Unfortunately, none of the translation committees have asked me to join them in their efforts :).
I am currently in a conversation on this topic and the article was of great interest. Thanks Matt!
I must say though that the idea of baptism in all its forms is less about water and more about dedication and commitment. We as followers of Christ need to lose our lives to gain life. We must immerse ourselves in our faith and as was said not be minimalist. Full and total surrender to Gods will not our own will. John stated he was here to baptize with water but that another would baptize with Fire/Holy spirit. So immersing oneself is fundamentally sound but not just for baptism it does not stop there. Maybe the sprinkling and pouring, came about because of those areas where water was not accessable or prevalent. I would disapprove of the fact that those wishing to commit to Christ would be excluded because there was not enough water for them to be immersed. Or that God would put a barrier of water in place to keep those seeking his love from being dedicated. Baptism is an outward sign of commitment to belonging to the family of God and should never be a sticking point as to who God loves or who loves God. Just my view!
Thanks for the comment Douglas. I wish you well in your studies!
How much of a commitment are we asking someone to make if we lower the barrier for him? Go with him and find enough water to immerse him. We are not superstitious. Do we think someone will suffer God’s wrath in the meantime if water is not at hand? The unique circumstances in which we each come to acknowledge Jesus are not unknown to Him. The effort or sacrifice, though salvation is not by works, to go out of our way to satisfy His command is our faith in action.
I find it interesting to see how Satan is working here. It seems to me that many have missed the main point (not all). I realize the topic is immersion vs. sprinkling/pouring but I think what many here are missing is “WHY” is there a problem concerning the “mode” of baptism?
What I’m about to say will surely ruffle some feathers but here’s where the real problem starts and with whom. It starts with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) instituting the apostate practice of “infant baptism” back in the 4th century. I don’t have the time and space wont allow me to go into detail here but research into the subject of “infant baptism” will show that it was not only started but pushed so hard by the RCC that people lost their lives because of it. The term “Ana-Baptist” is a real clue to the destruction caused by the RCC over confusion of doctrine leading to the confusion of mode. From the beginning of time, starting in the Garden of Eden Satan has been hard at work causing confusion with God’s words resulting in people misunderstanding not only God’s words but God Himself.
The literal meaning of “baptizo” used as a verb is to physically immerse something or someone. So obviously metaphorically if someone was to fully immerse themselves into something, the context of the use of the word is important. God’s Word, all throughout, Old and New Testament alike, constantly encourage a “Full Immersion” into God, His Love and so forth (with all your heart). So to start with, the first problem arises when infants are involved since no infant has any understanding of anything. Baptizing infants isn’t taught in the Word of God, baptizing infants can’t be found in the Word of God, and baptizing infants doesn’t coincide with the Word of God. Which is “WHERE” the confusion starts.
And history shows that it was the RCC that started infant baptism making the RCC responsible for the error, confusion and deaths caused by a gross misrepresentation of God’s Words. The term “Ana-Baptist” means “re-baptizer”. This term was coined by the RCC in reference to the people that followed the Bible’s instructions, wait, let me re-phrase that, JESUS’ instructions of repenting and being baptized so when people found out what the Word of God REALLY said instead of what the RCC said it said, they repented of themselves and their sins and got baptized which caused quite a problem since many were already baptized as infants. Hence the derogatory name Ana-Baptist.
History also shows that the cause of this stems from scholars attempts at translating the ancient letters of the early church fathers (Paul, Peter, John etc.) into the languages of the common folk instead of the apostate Latin Vulgate. The RCC maintained that only the RCC priests were smart enough to interpret the Word of God and fought vehemently the translation of the early church fathers letters into the languages of the common folk which is what the Spanish Inquisitions were all about. The RCC going about “inquiring” who had these translations and confiscating them accompanied with much bloodshed and killing. And just as a quick note of reference the RCC is responsible for other lies being propagated such as Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Mary-idolatry, Prayers to the dead and other things that will never be found in God’s Word except by stretching and contortion.
I highly suggest anybody reading this google these terms first before responding. “Jeromes Latin Vulgate” “Anabaptist” “infant Baptism” “Men who translated the New Testament” “William Tyndale” “Myles Coverdale” “John Huss” especially “John Wycliffe” . And after you google at least 3-5 sites on each of these, preferably 8-10, google the “Spanish Inquisitions” last and you should be able to see the problems the RCC has caused down through the centuries since Christ’s resurrection and even now.
conclusion: The confusion regarding the mode of baptism starts with the RCC’s false teachings of “infant baptism”. And all because of the fact that, as Jesus put it, “Men love darkness rather than light”
‘Baptism’ was used in the Wycliffe Bible in 1382. Tyndale, Coverdale, and the men who gave us our truest English Scriptures, used ‘baptism.’ No big deal.
As the age of baptism creeps ever lower in the cofC to the point where the dunkee needs a snorkel while standing in the baptistry, is there much difference in that and infant baptism?
Secondly, why should someone have to hear how sinful (s)he is at age 10 and is hell-bound only to be baptized to get out of hell? To me this borders on the doctrine of original sin.
For quite some time I have tried to have the discussion on when a child ends being a child. When we baptize an 8 yr old, I have issues! One of our sons wanted to be baptized at 14, and I suggested he wait a while till there was some more serious thought behind the desire. People though I was Satan himself with that idea. However, it was not their son, but ours, and we knew him better then those who were NOT his parents.
BDAG says that the first definition is: ① wash ceremonially for purpose of purification, wash, purify, of a broad range of repeated ritual washing rooted in Israelite tradition
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 164.
Hello Michael! Can you elaborate on what point you are driving at? Or are you adding the info for us to consider? I love BDAG, BTW.
Scriptural support infant Baptism is wide and deep. First, we must look to how Jesus treated little children. Christ loved little children and scolded His disciples when they rebuked the children who were trying to come to Him. Instead He asked that the children be brought to Him and said that unless one had the faith of a little child, that they would not get into heaven—Mark 10:13-16; Matthew 18:3.
The fact that we have to have the faith of a little child proves that a little child is capable of having faith. Further, this faith is the work of God and therefore does not depend upon the capabilities of the child to understand or intellectualize it—Psalm 71:5-6; 22:9; 8:2)
Romans 9:10-16: Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It [Faith] does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
Christ also said that anyone who receives one little child in His name receives Christ Himself (Matthew 18:1-6, 10)—the same type of standard that He uses at the last Judgment to identify the believer (Matthew 25:31-40). Then He issues a stern warning to anyone who causes a little one who believes in Christ to sin (Mathew 18:6; Mark 9:42).
This becomes even stronger when one considers that in Luke 18:15-17, a parallel account of Mark 10:13-16, Christ uses the Greek word brephos (Strongs Number NT:1025; an infant, properly, unborn, literally or figuratively) referring to the children that belong to kingdom of God. This same word is used in Luke 1:41, 44 for an unborn child and later in Luke 2:12, 16 to refer to the infant Jesus.
Likewise, John the Baptist leapt in faith in his mother’s womb upon the entrance of Mary pregnant with the infant Jesus (Luke 1:15, 41). So, John, as a yet unborn child still in his mother’s womb, was able to have faith.
Faith does not contain knowledge nor is there any necessity to have knowledge to have faith, but rather is a gift of God. If it were not so, then those who are in a coma, have Alzheimer’s disease, are developmentally disabled or even while asleep would not have faith. In Mark 10:15 we are even warned not to let reason get in the way of faith (see also II Timothy 3:7).
So, Baptism is God’s means of extending grace to children [and others] who are incapable of understanding otherwise what the Word of God says and thus come to faith by hearing (Titus 3:5; John 3:5; I Peter 3:21). This, then, gives fresh meaning to the concept that we become children of God through faith (Galatians 3:26-27).
To summarize, we are under a command to baptize “all nations” which does not limit age (Matthew 28:19-20). All are conceived in sin and in need of salvation through faith in Christ (Psalm 51:5).
Children are specifically included as recipients of the benefits of Baptism (Acts 2:38-39). [The word “children” in this passage in Greek is teknon NT 5043 from the base of GSN5098; a child (as produced). It always means children and is not meant to mean generations.]
Therefore, we baptize infants with His promise of salvation (Romans 6:3). It is one Baptism of water & Word (Ephesians 4:5) through which the infant receives the promised Spirit in all fullness (Acts 2:38-39) which results in rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).
This Baptism is by one Spirit given to drink into one body in Christ (I Corinthians 12:13). All of the blessings that Baptism offers to the adult are then also offered to our children (Acts 2:38-39), so even babies can, through the washing of water and Spirit, have faith created in their hearts to receive those blessings (John 3:5) and free them from the condemnation of their sinful nature.
Faith is pistis – it is allegiance and trust. Babies cannot do that. There are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible or for 200 years of early church history. When Jesus had the little children come to him they were not, at that time, participants in ceremonial washings in the mikvah. I think you are off base here without biblical precedent to support the practice. And that is what everyone thought for 200 years. You are welcome to disagree, as you do…the real issue, though, is that those kids grow up thinking they were baptized when they were not baptized in a biblical sense.
One of the better reviews on Baptism in the New Testament was written by Beasley-Murray – until he decided to add more value to his particular religious group then to Scripture…
His book is very helpful!
@Matt, have you found any early English translations that use “immerse” rather than “baptize”? I understand portions of Scripture were first translated into English as early as the 7th century, but haven’t yet found any copies of these translations. Would love to find an English translation that uses “immerse.”
Not early English but Alexander Campbell did in his Living Oracles.
What is even worse than translators misleading people by transliterating a word is that they completely ignore the Greek word “Ekklesia” and form a new word church that is not even found in the Greek text. “Ekklesia” means a called out assembly and never means some kind of an invisible, universal religious group. “Ekklesia” used over 100 times in the New Testament is always a local assembly. Could be the gathering of Christians or a city gathering but always a local gathering.
I am reading arguments that stat that the New Testament was written in the common Greek of the day – Koine Greek – in which the word “baptizo” can also refer to “pouring.” None of the discussion/arguments that I have read suggesting it is only “immersion” address this. Moreover, artistic depictions of baptism from the 3rd century found in Rome show “pouring.” This would suggest that either baptism had always been practiced with pouring or the early church departed from immersion relatively soon after Paul’s death.
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
I don’t believe that argument holds water. Get it?
It doesn’t mean pour. I am more interested in first century practice than 3rd century.
Hope that helps!