by Steve Atkerson
Nearly every church
“baptizes” its converts, either by pouring, immersing, or
sprinkling. The Greek behind our English word “baptize” is
baptizo. According to Thayer’s lexicon, 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).” BAGD defines
baptizo as “dip, immerse” and points out that even in
non-Christian literature it meant “plunge, sink, drench,
overwhelm.” J. D. G. Dunn 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 is it 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
threaten popularity? What church which believes in sprinkling or
pouring would subscribe to an English translation that reads, “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 asked to see a picture of my wife, and I, in turn,
showed you a picture of 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 the 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 a large city
could be sprinkled with a washtub full of water. John’s method of
baptism was by immersion, and that takes “plenty” of water.
According to Ac 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 point out in their Greek-English 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.
Since God promised to “pour out” (ekcheo, Ac 2:33; 10:45) His
Spirit, wouldn’t pouring water be a more fitting mode of baptism?
Well perhaps, it if could be shown that baptizo ever meant
“pour,” but there is no lexical evidence that it ever meant anything
other than “immerse.” Those who believe in pouring argue that Ac
1:5 (viewed in light of ekcheo in 2:33) is just such a case where
baptizo means “pour out.” But this is faulty
reasoning. One might just as forcefully argue that ekcheo
in Ac 2:33 really means “immerse” since it is paralleled with
baptizo in Ac 10:44-48! A more likely explanation for
ekcheo in Ac 2:33 is that, just as in the days of Noah when God
opened the flood-gates of heaven and poured forth the waters resulting
in the immersion of every living creature (except those with Noah), so
at Pentecost God poured out the Holy Spirit resulting in the immersion
of His people into the Spirit.
King David was quite sincere in wishing to please God when he had the
ark carried toward Jerusalem on an oxcart (2 Sa 6:1-5); but because he
neglected to follow God’s previous instructions to carry it on poles (Ex
25:12-14; 1 Ch 15:13-15), tragedy resulted (2 Sa 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!
