Baptism

by Steve Atkerson
Nearly every church baptizes its converts, either by pouring, dipping or sprinkling. Caution is often given not to be divisive over the issue of the correct mode of baptism; what does it really matter anyway, as long as those involved are sincere?

The Greek behind our English word "baptize" is baptizo. According to Joseph Thayer, Unitarian Greek professor at Harvard, this word was used outside the Bible to refer to sunken ships. G.R. Beasley-Murray, in his article on baptism in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Colin Brown, editor), stated that in Classical Greek it meant "to cause to perish (as by drowning a man . . .)." The second edition of Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines baptizo as "dip, immerse" and points out that even in non-Christian literature it meant "plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm." J. D. G. Dunn, lecturer in New Testament at the University of Durham, wrote in the New Bible Dictionary (J. D. Douglas, editor) that New Testament baptism was "probably by immersion." Even Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, in giving the Greek root for "baptize," defines baptizein as "to dip." Those proficient in Koine Greek are fairly well agreed that baptizo means "immerse," though some then argue that the exact mode is insignificant (it is the meaning that counts, they say).

Why do you suppose it is the case that those who translated the Bible from Greek into English have, since the sixteenth century, chosen to transliterate baptizo rather than to translate it? It is a fact that "baptize" remains an untranslated word in our English Bibles even to this day. Since the word means "immerse," why not translate it as such? It has been said that the translators of the seventeenth century were not free to render baptizo as "immerse" because the state church that "authorized" their efforts (i.e. the Anglican church) practiced sprinkling. Not wanting to upset the governing authorities, and yet not wanting to translate Scripture incorrectly, they simply did neither and instead transliterated baptizo. Why, 400 years later, do modern translators persist in doing this? Could it be that they do it so as not to upset potential readers or to threaten popularity? What church which believes in sprinkling or pouring would subscribe to an English translation that read "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . ." (Mt 28:18)?

Some argue that immersion is inconvenient, embarrassing or impractical, and that it is the thought that really counts anyway. But suppose you were to ask to see a picture of my wife, Sandra, and I in turn showed you a picture of Lassie or a sailboat. You might well exclaim, "What? That's not your wife!" To which I would reply, "No, but it's the thought that counts!" Of course the thought really does count, but then so does obedience! There are specific terms for "sprinkle" (rantizo) and "pour" (ekcheo), but those were not the words Jesus chose to use in Mt 28:18. He used the word baptizo. Since the Lord Jesus told us specifically to "immerse" people, why would we want to do it any other way? Indeed, what authority have we to change it?

Notice in Mk 1:9-10 that Jesus and John were not just "by" the Jordan, but were down "in" (eis) it. Then, after being submerged, Jesus came up "out of" (ek) the water. All this would have been unnecessary if full immersion were not the mode used here. Similarly, according to Jn 3:23, why was John baptizing at Aenon near Salim? Because it was such a lovely place? Because it was conveniently close to the synagogue? Neither of these. The text says it was "because there was plenty of water." It doesn't take much water to sprinkle; the entire populace of Atlanta could be sprinkled with a wash tub full of water. John's method of baptism was by immersion, and that takes "plenty" of water.

According to Acts 8:36-39, Philip and the Eunuch "went down" (katebesan) "into" (eis) the water and after the baptism "came up" (anebesan) "out of" (ek) the water. J. L. Dagg commented that "the style in which [Philip] traveled forbids the supposition that he had no drinking vessel, in which a sufficient quantity of water might have been brought into the chariot to wet the hand of the administrator. But, if they chose not to perform the rite in the chariot, there was certainly no need for both of them to go into the water, if the mere wetting of Philip's hand was sufficient" (Manual of Church Order, 36). It appears that when it came to baptism, the eunuch was all wet!

Liddel and Scott pointed out in their Greek Lexicon that baptizo means "to dip repeatedly, to dip under." That this is the obvious meaning is seen in the fact that immersion has always been the practice of the Greek church, even to the present day. Immersion even prevailed in the Latin church until near the time of the reformation. It is true that pouring was allowed in cases of sickness or extreme danger, but all such cases were manifestly regarded as exceptions to the common practice of immersion, and were considered to be second best.

King David was quite sincere in wishing to please God when he had the ark carried toward Jerusalem on an ox-cart (2 Sam 6:1-5); but because he neglected to follow God's previous instructions to carry it on poles (Ex 25:12-14; 1 Chr 15:13-15), tragedy resulted (2 Sam 6:6-7). David was sincerely wrong. Though one must not be divisive over the correct mode of baptism, it nevertheless is critical that we genuinely understand God's instructions. Sincerity is indeed important, but it is also important to be sincerely correct.