Baptism and communion

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Understanding that the word means immersion

Not true. Baptism minimally defined: 1) water applied to the human body 2) the word Baptizó is used.

The word in the NT "Baptizó" (βαπτίζω) has a narrow and wide sense of the meaning in the NT.

Baptists normally use the narrow sense of the term Baptizó as "immersion" so the human body is immersed totally under water. The wider sense of the term Baptizó when water is applied to the human body means "to wash" normally by sprinkling or pouring. And it is from this wide meaning of the term, paedobaptists use the modes of sprinkling and pouring as a mode of baptism.

This is where the confusion exists. Credobaptists use the narrow meaning and Paedobaptists use the wide meaning.

The Biblical Argument for wide meaning of the word Baptizó as meaning "to wash"

The Biblical Texts for the wide meaning of "Baptizó" (βαπτίζω).

• Luke 11:37-38 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash (ἐβαπτίσθη) before the meal.
• Mark 7:1-4 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash (βαπτίσωνται).

In these two texts we see a different meaning of Baptizó other than "immersion." The NT gives latitude for both meanings of the word Baptizó....contextually when water is applied to the human body.

Here we see both in Luke 11 and especially Mark 7 Baptizó as a part of the ceremonial law of hand washing as 7:2 specifically states: "his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed."

Contextually, in Luke 11 the Pharisee wasn't expecting to Jesus to take a bath before eating a meal. Nor in Mark 7, were Pharisees expecting Jesus' disciples to take a bath after handling food coming from the market. If the narrow meaning of the word Baptizó were used here, it would imply every person had immerse his entire body in water before every meal.

The NT mode of washing (water applied to the human body) using Baptizó would be sprinkling or pouring. We have no examples from the NT of washing in which full body immersion occurs.

​

Luke 11 and Mark 7 demonstrates the NT usage βαπτίζω no longer has the exclusive semantic range of only immersion. Rather βαπτίζω has a wider meaning which incorporates “to wash” as its NT common usage when water is applied to the human body whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling.

But your idea that he did not move from the standing position is ludicrous.

Non-immersionists have no problem reading the plain and natural text of Acts 9 and conclude Paul indeed was baptized in a standing position as we take the wide meaning of the term. And we have no problem using sprinkling or pouring as a mode of valid baptismal administration. The NT semantic range of the word βαπτίζω allows it.

This argument for the wide meaning of from Acts 9 has been used hundreds of times here at CF and probably articulated better than myself elsewhere.

 

[Doug Brents]

Not true. Baptism minimally defined: 1) water applied to the human body 2) the word Baptizó is used.

The word in the NT "Baptizó" (βαπτίζω) has a narrow and wide sense of the meaning in the NT.

Baptists normally use the narrow sense of the term Baptizó as "immersion" so the human body is immersed totally under water. The wider sense of the term Baptizó when water is applied to the human body means "to wash" normally by sprinkling or pouring. And it is from this wide meaning of the term, paedobaptists use the modes of sprinkling and pouring as a mode of baptism.

This is where the confusion exists. Credobaptists use the narrow meaning and Paedobaptists use the wide meaning.

The Biblical Argument for wide meaning of the word Baptizó as meaning "to wash"

The Biblical Texts for the wide meaning of "Baptizó" (βαπτίζω).

• Luke 11:37-38 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash (ἐβαπτίσθη) before the meal.
• Mark 7:1-4 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash (βαπτίσωνται).

In these two texts we see a different meaning of Baptizó other than "immersion." The NT gives latitude for both meanings of the word Baptizó....contextually when water is applied to the human body.

Here we see both in Luke 11 and especially Mark 7 Baptizó as a part of the ceremonial law of hand washing as 7:2 specifically states: "his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed."

Contextually, in Luke 11 the Pharisee wasn't expecting to Jesus to take a bath before eating a meal. Nor in Mark 7, were Pharisees expecting Jesus' disciples to take a bath after handling food coming from the market. If the narrow meaning of the word Baptizó were used here, it would imply every person had immerse his entire body in water before every meal.

The NT mode of washing (water applied to the human body) using Baptizó would be sprinkling or pouring. We have no examples from the NT of washing in which full body immersion occurs.

​

​

Luke 11 and Mark 7 demonstrates the NT usage βαπτίζω no longer has the exclusive semantic range of only immersion. Rather βαπτίζω has a wider meaning which incorporates “to wash” as its NT common usage when water is applied to the human body whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling.

In both of these cases, it is the hands that are immersed into water (thus baptizing them), as a form of ceremonial washing. These passages are not talking of baptizing (immersing) the whole person, only his hands. Baptism for salvation involves the immersion of the whole person, not just his hands, feet, or head, and not just wetting the hair, forehead, or sprinkling a little water over the person.

Non-immersionists have no problem reading the plain and natural text of Acts 9 and conclude Paul indeed was baptized in a standing position as we take the wide meaning of the term. And we have no problem using sprinkling or pouring as a mode of valid baptismal administration. The NT semantic range of the word βαπτίζω allows it.

This argument for the wide meaning of from Acts 9 has been used hundreds of times here at CF and probably articulated better than myself elsewhere.

You are honestly the very first person I have ever heard make this argument anywhere. It is ridiculous in the extreme, and not worth my time to respond to further.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In both of these cases, it is the hands that are immersed into water (thus baptizing them), as a form of ceremonial washing. These passages are not talking of baptizing (immersing) the whole person, only his hands. Baptism for salvation involves the immersion of the whole person, not just his hands, feet, or head, and not just wetting the hair, forehead, or sprinkling a little water over the person.

Any Bible Dictionary will state one of the definitions of βαπτίζω is to wash.

St. Paul provides some strong evidence evidence for deviating from Baptizó as narrowly defined as immersion. Paul’s uses of the word “wash” as a synonym for Baptizó in:

• Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.
• I Cor. 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
• Eph. 5:25-26 just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
• Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

it is the hands that are immersed into water (thus baptizing them)

That's a stretch. If I were to interview any Baptist minister and asked him, "If I immersed my hands in the dunking tank, would that count as a valid baptism?" Of course it wouldn't.

There is no such thing as a partial immersion according to the Baptists. As you said yourself....

Baptism for salvation involves the immersion of the whole person, not just his hands, feet, or head, and not just wetting the hair, forehead, or sprinkling a little water over the person.

We use the same saying today as back in NT times: Go wash your hands....by sprinking or pouring of water. We don't say....Go take a bath.

No major modern translation of the Bible from Greek to English translates Luke 11:38 or Mark 7:4 as immerse. None. It is translated as "wash" because the NT allows the semantic range of βαπτίζω to include it. But don't take my word for it....check out Bible dictionaries or commentaries on these verses. They can explain it much better than I can.

 

[Doug Brents]

Any Bible Dictionary will state one of the definitions of βαπτίζω is to wash.

St. Paul provides some strong evidence evidence for deviating from Baptizó as narrowly defined as immersion. Paul’s uses of the word “wash” as a synonym for Baptizó in:

• Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.
• I Cor. 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
• Eph. 5:25-26 just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
• Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Who on Earth is St. Paul? I know who Paul is in Scripture, but I don't know who "St. Paul" is.

What did the Law of Moses command to be done with things to make them ceremonially clean? They were to be dipped, immersed, "washed", in water. Sometimes it had to be running water, but usually it could be a pool, tub, or cistern. That is one reason that the huge bath was built in Solomon's Temple. This is the source of the tradition of immersing hands in a bowl of water before eating, and the source from which the Jews started "baptisms", which Jesus adopted (it was His plan all along) into New Testament baptism. Baptism is by immersion, because that is what the word means. Yes, it can be used in the sense of "washed", but not in the sense of removing dirt (as 1 Pet 3:21 says).

That's a stretch. If I were to interview any Baptist minister and asked him, "If I immersed my hands in the dunking tank, would that count as a valid baptism?" Of course it wouldn't.

Read the passages you referenced about "washing hands". They do not refer to washing the whole body, but only washing the hands. Thus, it is only the hands that were "baptized" (immersed) in the context of those passages.

ps. I don't care what "baptist ministers" think, care, or feel. What matters is what the Scripture says, and what Scripture means.

No major modern translation of the Bible from Greek to English translates Luke 11:38 or Mark 7:4 as immerse. None. It is translated as "wash" because the NT allows the semantic range of βαπτίζω to include it. But don't take my word for it....check out Bible dictionaries or commentaries on these verses. They can explain it much better than I can.

That is because the translators of the KJV transliterated the Greek baptizo/baptizma into the English baptism. "Baptism" did not exist as an English word until this time. It was a created word that they could define any way they wanted to, to disguise their unBiblical practice of sprinkling and pouring. If the translators had been honest with God's Word, they would have translated it "immersed/immersion/etc., and we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

That is because the translators of the KJV transliterated the Greek baptizo/baptizma into the English baptism. "Baptism" did not exist as an English word until this time. It was a created word that they could define any way they wanted to, to disguise their unBiblical practice of sprinkling and pouring. If the translators had been honest with God's Word, they would have translated it "immersed/immersion/etc., and we would not be having this discussion.

A semantic field, also known as a lexical field or semantic domain, refers to a group of words or expressions that are related in meaning. These words or expressions typically share a common theme or topic and are used to express different aspects or nuances of that theme or topic. For example, the semantic field of “colors” includes words such as red, blue, green, yellow, etc. These words are all related in meaning, as they describe different hues and shades that we perceive visually.

Baptism defined minimally: 1) water applied to the human body 2) the word Baptizó is used.

• The semantic field in the NT for "to immerse" is Baptizó. I don't know enough Greek to determine whether there are other words in the NT are synonyms for Baptizó.
• The semantic field for "to wash"are plunó, niptóm, λούω and Baptizó.

In Mark 7:1-5, niptóm (twice used in vs 2. & vs. 3) and Baptizó (twice used in vs. 4) as synonyms for washing.

In Luke 11:38 just Baptizó is used for ritual or ceremonial washing. In both Luke and Mark, Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees for imposing the Mosaic Law of ceremonial washing (Baptizó) which was only mandated OT priests to observe, not the general Jewish populous. In Luke’s case, Jesus was not criticized because he didn’t take a bath, as immersion would imply; He was condemned because He didn’t do the ceremonial hand washing the OT priests did.

Within the NT, Baptizó is a word within both semantic fields of "to wash" and "to immerse." A Bible dictionary will confirm this.

If the translators had been honest with God's Word, they would have translated it "immersed/immersion/etc., and we would not be having this discussion.

That's a pretty bold statement. Do you mean that all the historical bible translators of the KJV, RSV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV plus the whole of the United Bible Society got the translation wrong?

 

[Doug Brents]

That's a pretty bold statement. Do you mean that all the historical bible translators of the KJV, RSV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV plus the whole of the United Bible Society got the translation wrong?

The English word "baptize" did not exist until it was transliterated out of Greek by the translators of the KJV. Until then, the words "baptizo/baptizma" were understood to mean immerse/immersion. But since then, the word baptize has become a commonly used English word. The problem is not in the word, it is in the definition that the people who transliterated it gave it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Until then, the words "baptizo/baptizma" were understood to mean immerse/immersion.

Now you going of the deep end. This conversation is ended.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Perhaps the strongest argument against immersion only baptism is the distinction between a prescriptive statement of Scripture and a descriptive statement of Scripture. All Scriptural statements about the administrating of baptism are DESCRIPTIVE. There is no clear-cut command in the Bible as to how the Church is to perform baptism, and anyone who asserts that there is such a command is not examining the text properly.

Since, God Himself never gives any command for a specific mode, we freely believe God Himself isn't pleased more with one mode over another. For Immersionists, the mode of immersion is man centered and ego pleasing.

Immersionists bind the consciences of the people of God to something that He has left free, they offend Christian liberty and divide the body of Christ. They convert a gospel ordinance into a disgusting new legalism.

What would convince me to believe in immersion only baptism?

• Demonstrate a prescriptive command to immerse only.
• Demonstrate a prescriptive command not to sprinkle or pour

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Interesting quote I read:

For Credobaptists: The precise mode of washing with water is the substance of baptism, and in the name of the Trinity is merely accidental to it.

For Paedobaptists: The washing with water in the name of the Holy Trinity is of the substance of the baptism, whereas the precise mode of washing is merely incidental to it.

Martin Luther said it best:

How can water do such great things? It is not the water indeed that does them, but the Word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such Word of God in the water. For without the Word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the Word of God it is a baptism

 

[Doug Brents]

Interesting quote I read:

For Credobaptists: The precise mode of washing with water is the substance of baptism, and in the name of the Trinity is merely accidental to it.

For Paedobaptists: The washing with water in the name of the Holy Trinity is of the substance of the baptism, whereas the precise mode of washing is merely incidental to it.

It doesn't really matter what any kind of "*****baptists" think. For Christ followers: the immersion in water, and it being done in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) (and/or the Father and Son (Matt 28:19-20)), and belief in the Gospel (Mark 16:16) are the substance of baptism.

Martin Luther said it best:

How can water do such great things? It is not the water indeed that does them, but the Word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such Word of God in the water. For without the Word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the Word of God it is a baptism

Yes, it is the Word of God which is IN AND WITH the water. So let me ask you, if you never enter the water, did you every obey God's Word? No!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

the immersion in water

I have already demonstrated baptizo has a narrow and a wide definition in the NT. Luke 11 and Mark 7 affirm a wider definition than you will allow. This is crystal clear from your writings.

Seem to me we have two different hermenuetics. Question: Does grammar inform theology or does theology inform grammar?

For me, grammar informs theology. Therefore, in Acts 9 the simple command is to stand up and be baptized. I accept the plain text and take Scriptures as they are.

Just the opposite for you. Theology informs grammar. In this instance, one starts with the presupposition all baptism are immersion (from Hellenistic Greek not Koine Greek) and then force the text to conform to the presupposition. Your example:

No Dan. God does not write in His Word every single step in a command. Arise, go outside, find the nearest water big enough to get into.... No, it is sufficient to say that he must arise, because he couldn't get baptized where he was sitting, and do whatever it takes to get baptized right now.

This is clear: Your theology informs grammar....and we see the bending of the text into something that is not there but more specfically your pronouncement that "God does not write in His Word every single step in a command." Pretty presumptuous that you know what God does or does not do. This is what is called the "Could'a, Should'a, Would'a" rules for interpreting Scripture. Do you have a Scriptural reference for this bizarre rule of interpretation of yours? Please chapter and verse.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

the immersion in water

Here is a great exercise for you:

Using the "Could'a, Would'a, Should'a" rules for interpreting Scripture, just how was the Philippian jailor immersed?

I have seen some pretty interesting ways immersionists have interpreted this. What is your spin?

 

[Doug Brents]

I have already demonstrated baptizo has a narrow and a wide definition in the NT. Luke 11 and Mark 7 affirm a wider definition than you will allow. This is crystal clear from your writings.

Seem to me we have two different hermenuetics. Question: Does grammar inform theology or does theology inform grammar?

For me, grammar informs theology. Therefore, in Acts 9 the simple command is to stand up and be baptized. I accept the plain text and take Scriptures as they are.

I tell my daughters all the time, "get up and take a shower". By your comments, you expect them to take a shower in their cloths right there where they are standing, even though there is no water in their playroom, or bedroom, or our living room (places they are typically sitting). No, there are understood (by the typical, logical, thinking human) instructions that are part of normal commands and descriptions. "... got up and was baptized" in no way indicates that he was baptized right there in that room while he was standing.

Just the opposite for you. Theology informs grammar. In this instance, one starts with the presupposition all baptism are immersion (from Hellenistic Greek not Koine Greek) and then force the text to conform to the presupposition. Your example:

This is clear: Your theology informs grammar....and we see the bending of the text into something that is not there but more specfically your pronouncement that "God does not write in His Word every single step in a command." Pretty presumptuous that you know what God does or does not do. This is what is called the "Could'a, Should'a, Would'a" rules for interpreting Scripture. Do you have a Scriptural reference for this bizarre rule of interpretation of yours? Please chapter and verse.

There are numerous places in Scripture where instructions or descriptions are given in general terms, and not all the specifics are stated.

Here is a great exercise for you:

Using the "Could'a, Would'a, Should'a" rules for interpreting Scripture, just how was the Philippian jailor immersed?

I have seen some pretty interesting ways immersionists have interpreted this. What is your spin?

The Philippian Jailer is a good example of implied events. "They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of God to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and was overjoyed, since he had become a believer in God together with his whole household." (Acts 16:31-34)
They were still at the jail when Paul told the Jailer to believe in the Lord. Where did they speak the Word of God to him? There in the street? Back inside the Jail? Probably in the house that was probably near the jail. And the Jailer's wife and family were there to hear the Gospel preached, and were went to clean the Disciple's wounds and to be baptized with the Jailer (whether that was in a pool near their house, a horse trough, or whatever body of water was near enough to serve the purpose.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

(whether that was in a pool near their house, a horse trough, or whatever body of water was near enough to serve the purpose.

That is "could'a, would'a, should'a" interpretation.

Probably in the house that was probably near the jail.

The text does not say this.
Another "could'a, would'a, should'a.

 

[Doug Brents]

That is "could'a, would'a, should'a" interpretation.

The text does not say this.
Another "could'a, would'a, should'a.

These are unimportant details that are not relevant to the Spiritual salvation of the Jailer, or the spread of the Gospel. If they were relevant, they would be given. But we can deduce many of them from the text as God gave it to us. What is relevant to their, and our, salvation is that Paul preached the Gospel to them, their wounds were tended to, and then they were baptized (immersed) in order to receive salvation. And then they took the Disciples into their home, fed them, and spent more time with them learning more about Jesus.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Another problem I have with immersionists: Immersionist commit what is called a reverse etymological fallacy….meaning the NT usage of a word baptizo is considered primary for determining the earlier Hellenistic meaning of the word.

To be sure, Plato and Aristotle understood stood the word baptizo could mean immerse. But this is not a linguistic equivalent to what immersionist think baptizo means in the NT.

Common examples immersionists will give citing Hellenistic literature would be drowned person, a sinking ship, a shipwreck, and the brining of pickles. However, these examples are not exactly identical to what Christian immersion baptism is. Many times Hellenistic literature portrays baptizo as uni-directional, whereas in the NT is portrayed as bi-directional (submersion and resurfacing).

• A drowned person is in a permanent state or condition in the water and cannot egress from the water.
• A sinking ship is in the temporary state of floating, but will soon be submerged permanently.
• A shipwreck by definition is in a permanent condition on the ocean floor.
• Cucumbers are in a brining solution for weeks, but then come out.
• The myth of Odysseus and Polyphemus the Cyclops is an example. Odysseus is trapped in a cave by Polyphemus. So Odysseus gets Polyphemus drunk. And while the Cyclops is sleeping, Odysseus takes his staff and plunges (baptizes) it into his single eye and escapes. And nothing in the myth describes the staff coming out of Cylops eye.

Hellenism also gives a much wider meaning to the term baptism, as it conveys the idea of dipping, plunging in any medium or substance for any period of time including permanency.

Christian immersion baptism is bi-directional. In many cases, Hellenism portrays baptizo is uni-directional. The Hellenistic Greek gives much more latitude in meaning and is seen as fluid in its application.

Some modern immersionists use the classical Hellenistic definition of baptism, but they qualify it acknowledging the original Greek has more than one meaning.

Hard core NT immersionists, just don't understand the history of the word baptizo which always allows for more than one meaning as it does in the NT. Luke 11 and Mark 7 clearly allows for departure of immersion only-ism.

 

[Doug Brents]

Another problem I have with immersionists: Immersionist commit what is called a reverse etymological fallacy….meaning the NT usage of a word baptizo is considered primary for determining the earlier Hellenistic meaning of the word.

To be sure, Plato and Aristotle understood stood the word baptizo could mean immerse. But this is not a linguistic equivalent to what immersionist think baptizo means in the NT.

Common examples immersionists will give citing Hellenistic literature would be drowned person, a sinking ship, a shipwreck, and the brining of pickles. However, these examples are not exactly identical to what Christian immersion baptism is. Many times Hellenistic literature portrays baptizo as uni-directional, whereas in the NT is portrayed as bi-directional (submersion and resurfacing).

Baptism (from the Greek baptisma/baptismo), which means immersion, is not bi-directional. It simply means to immerse. Now in the case of inanimate objects, it is certainly OK to immerse and leave those things immersed indefinitely. But in the case of a living person, unless you want to go to jail for murder, the person needs to come up for air at some point pretty soon after being immersed. What a ridiculous argument.

Hellenism also gives a much wider meaning to the term baptism, as it conveys the idea of dipping, plunging in any medium or substance for any period of time including permanency.

Any period of time? So it could be permanent, or it could be for mere seconds (as Biblical baptism is historically).

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Any period of time?

Hardcore immersionists also commit the linguistic fallacy of the root. The root fallacy is assigning the (supposed) original meaning of a word to its usages throughout history.

​

About three centuries before the NT was written, a cultural phenomenon called Hellenism had a lasting impact on Judaism and the Jewish people. Hellenism was a synthesis of the Greek language with the native cultures all around Rome’s conquered lands. Israel was no exception. The best example of Hellenism is the production of the LXX around 250 BC. Hundreds of Greek words gradually begin to migrate into the Hebrew and Aramaic and take on new meanings. Take for instance the NT word σάρξ (sarx). The Hellenistic meaning of the word would be flesh or meat….this is how Aristotle or Plato would have understood the term. In the NT, it is quite different…it means the Old Adam or our sin nature. Common Hellenistic words such as heaven, God, redemption, kingdom, ekklésia and faith, do not have the same meaning for the pagan Greek as they do for Christian. The same phenomena occurred with the word Baptizó. Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original pagan context and used it for the practice of general ceremonial washing. The NT provides us with two examples where βαπτίζω is translated “wash” in the NT particularly when water is applied to the human body and contextually it cannot be immersion. Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4.​ Hardcore immersionists readily admit some Hellenistic words actually do take on new meanings in the NT, EXCEPT Baptizó . Just why Baptizó is the exception to the rule of a word taking on a new and wider meaning as the NT allows, is never stated but easily understandable. Confirmation bias. Immersionists have been brought up from cradle to grave believing all usages of Baptizó are examples of immersion only. Therefore they have to be without examining the text. Certainly John Warwick Montgomery’s parable of the man who thought he was dead is applicable here. I was never taught before I even opened up the Bible to study it….all uses of Baptizó are immersion. I am thankful that immersionists don’t apply the same rule of interpreting Baptizó as they would do with other pagan Hellenistic words.​

​

 

[Doug Brents]

Hardcore immersionists also commit the linguistic fallacy of the root. The root fallacy is assigning the (supposed) original meaning of a word to its usages throughout history.

About three centuries before the NT was written, a cultural phenomenon called Hellenism had a lasting impact on Judaism and the Jewish people. Hellenism was a synthesis of the Greek language with the native cultures all around Rome’s conquered lands. Israel was no exception. The best example of Hellenism is the production of the LXX around 250 BC. Hundreds of Greek words gradually begin to migrate into the Hebrew and Aramaic and take on new meanings. Take for instance the NT word σάρξ (sarx). The Hellenistic meaning of the word would be flesh or meat….this is how Aristotle or Plato would have understood the term. In the NT, it is quite different…it means the Old Adam or our sin nature. Common Hellenistic words such as heaven, God, redemption, kingdom, ekklésia and faith, do not have the same meaning for the pagan Greek as they do for Christian. The same phenomena occurred with the word Baptizó. Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original pagan context and used it for the practice of general ceremonial washing. The NT provides us with two examples where βαπτίζω is translated “wash” in the NT particularly when water is applied to the human body and contextually it cannot be immersion. Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4.​ Hardcore immersionists readily admit some Hellenistic words actually do take on new meanings in the NT, EXCEPT Baptizó . Just why Baptizó is the exception to the rule of a word taking on a new and wider meaning as the NT allows, is never stated but easily understandable. Confirmation bias. Immersionists have been brought up from cradle to grave believing all usages of Baptizó are examples of immersion only. Therefore they have to be without examining the text. Certainly John Warwick Montgomery’s parable of the man who thought he was dead is applicable here. I was never taught before I even opened up the Bible to study it….all uses of Baptizó are immersion. I am thankful that immersionists don’t apply the same rule of interpreting Baptizó as they would do with other pagan Hellenistic words.​

The concept of "wash" is not contradictory to immersion. Because the word "wash" does not denote or connote the method of washing. But the word baptizo does denote the method of washing: washing by immersion in water.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

But the word baptizo does denote the method of washing: washing by immersion in water.

Nope.

The Pharisee was not astonished that Jesus didn't take a bath (baptizo), he was astonished that he did not ceremonially 'wash' his hands via non-immersion. (Luke 11:38). The disciples were not criticized were for taking a bath (baptizo) after returning from the Market, they were criticized for not ceremonially 'washing" their hands via non-immmersion. Mark 7:4

Baptizo allows any method of washing.....immersion, pouring or sprinkling.