p. 184 | WASHING AND BAPTIZING by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA · Apr 22, 1880

WASHING AND BAPTIZING

By Editor

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM—NO. 3.

WASHING AND BAPTIZING.

It has been said, and often said, that Scripture usage shows that wash is the equivalent of baptize; and as washing may be performed by various methods, so may baptizing. The fallacy of this is easily shown.

In 2 Kings we find the commandment of Elisha, given to the Syrian, to "wash in Jordan;" and accordingly he "dipped himself in Jordan." Where the preposition is thus used,—in Jordan,—the mind is naturally led to dipping as the method of washing. But washing may be performed by other methods, or without dipping; therefore washing and dipping are not equivalents. Washing designates neither dipping nor pouring, but may include both. Thus in signification it materially differs from either. Washing indicates an action; dipping or immersing indicates a method of action. The latter is specific; the former is not. The latter is always used in reference to the gospel ordinance; the former is never so used. There is no necessity for mistake in this matter.

But the objection is based chiefly on Mark 7:4: "And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptisontai], they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismous] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables, or couches."

Here it is assumed that baptism is used where immersion is, at least, improbable. The reader will be interested in the following extracts from Clarke's comment on the text:—

"Except they wash] or dip; for Baptisontai may mean either. But instead of the word in the text, the famous Codex Vaticanus, (B) eight others, Euthymius, have rhantisontai, sprinkle. However, the Jews sometimes washed their hands previously to their eating; at other times they simply dipped or plunged them into the water."

"And of tables] Beds, couches—kai klinon. This is wanting in BL, two others, and the Coptic. It is likely it means no more than the forms or seats on which they sat. A bed or couch was defiled if any unclean person sat or leaned on it,—a man with an issue, a leper, a woman with child, etc. As the word baptismous, baptisms, is applied to all these, and as it is contended that this word, and the verb whence it is derived, signify dipping or immersion alone, its use in the above cases refutes that opinion, and shows that it was used, not only to express dipping or immersion, but also sprinkling and washing. The cups and pots were washed; the beds and forms perhaps sprinkled; and the hands dipped up to the wrist."

This is the most that can possibly be said on that side of the question. It would have been well for his opinion if facts have permitted him to say more than "perhaps sprinkled." More than a "perhaps" should be inquired for by every one who seeks a "full assurance of faith." Heb. 10:22. On this subject we have "the law," which settles all controversies.

Lev. 6:28: "And if it be sodden in a brazen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water."

Chap. 11:32: "And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even."

Chap. 15:12: "And the vessel of earth that he toucheth which hath the issue, shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water."

Here is the requirement for putting into water, or baptizing the very articles specified in Mark 7:4. And not only those vessels, but raiment, and "whatsoever" was rendered unclean by contact. And thus every conjecture and "perhaps" which is designed to obscure the plain truth of this passage, is shown to be gratuitous. No reason exists for giving baptizo any other definition than immerse.

It should be noticed that the Saviour did not say a word against the baptisms required in the Levitical law; but he spoke against their traditions in connection with them, or their making void the commandment of God by their traditions.

DIP AND SPRINKLE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Inasmuch as the advocates of sprinkling endeavor to bring the Old Testament to their aid, by citing to those passages which state that water or blood was required to be sprinkled on certain things, it may be of use, certainly it will be of interest, to inquire whether the language of the Old Testament is definite in its distinctions between the two actions; whether immersion and sprinkling are so separated that one cannot, in its language, be mistaken for the other. We affirm that the order to sprinkle the blood on the mercy-seat would not have been obeyed if the priest had immersed the mercy-seat in blood. It was no mere chance by which the apostle spoke of the blood of rhantismos, instead of the blood of baptismos; for the former, or sprinkling of blood, was required and practiced, but the latter, baptism of blood, was unknown to the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament, except in such cases as Lev. 4:6, where the priest was required to dip his finger in blood, and sprinkle the blood before the vail. But here the two actions are clearly and necessarily distinct. So, also, it is no mere chance, but by evident design, that the rite of baptismos is so often, and so definitely joined in the gospel, while that of rhantismos is never mentioned. But to the Old Testament terms.

Tah-val.	Common Version.	Septuagint.
Gen. 37:31	dipped.	emolunan.
Ex. 12:22	dip.	bapsantes.
Lev. 4:6	dip.	bapsei.
17	dip.	bapsei.
9:9	dipped.	ebapse.
14:6	dip.	bapsei.
16	dip.	bapsei.
51	dip.	bapsei.
Num. 19:18	dip.	bapsei.
Deut. 33:24	dip.	bapsei.
Josh. 3:15	dipped.	ebaphesan.
Ruth 2:14	dip.	bapseis.
1 Sam. 14:27	dipped.	ebapsen.
2 Kings 5:14	dipped.	ebaptisato.
8:15	dipped.	ebapsen.
Job 9:31	plunge.	ebapses.

This embraces the entire use of the Hebrew word tah-val in all its forms. In the first instance, emolunan is used in the Septuagint, which, in the New Testament, is rendered defile. This does not conflict with the meaning of the terms, as it (Joseph's coat) might be defiled with the blood by being dipped in it. And so our version renders it. And no objection can be raised that bapto is used instead of baptizo; for they both proceed from the same monosyllabic root, and the first meaning of bapto is to dip, or immerse, and baptizo has no other meaning.

This last statement has been contradicted by some authors, who have endeavored to make baptizo carry the two definitions of bapto, namely, to dip, or immerse, and to dye. The method of the last of these meanings of bapto indicates its relation to and derivation from the first meaning, as it was common to dye by dipping. Dr. Carson has very clearly proved that baptizo does not take this second meaning of bapto, but, for obvious reasons, we prefer to quote the conclusions of Prof. Stuart on this point. In examining the inquiry "whether bapto and baptizo are really synonymous, as they have often been asserted to be," Prof. Stuart says:—

"Let us now inquire whether, in actual usage, baptizo has a different meaning from bapto. In particular, is it distinguished from bapto by the writers of the New Testament? "The answer to these questions will be fully developed in the sequel. I have already intimated that baptizo is distinguished from bapto in its meaning. I now add, that it is not, like this latter word, used to designate the idea of coloring or dyeing; while in some other respects, it seems, in classical use, to be nearly or quite synonymous with bapto. In the New Testament, however, there is one other marked distinction between the use of these verbs. Baptizo and its derivatives are exclusively employed when the rite of baptism is to be designated in any form whatever; and in this case bapto seems to be purposely, as well as habitually, excluded."

And in another paragraph he says:— "The idea of plunging or immersing is common to both the words bapto and baptizo, while that of dyeing or coloring belongs only to bapto."

This is worthy of the most careful consideration. Not only is every word which signifies pour or sprinkle excluded from the texts in the New Testament which speak of the rite of baptism, but a word which signifies dip or immerse, in common with baptizo, is also excluded because it has another meaning also; and a word is chosen to designate the ordinance which has the signification of immerse, and that only. Such is the remarkable precision of the Greek language used by our Saviour to designate the duty of his followers in this rite. The foregoing table plainly shows that the idea of sprinkling is not contained in the Hebrew word tah-val.

There has much ado been made over the use of bapto in Dan. 4 and 5, rendered in our version, "wet with the dew of heaven." But it is admitted by all that bapto has acquired, or secondary, meanings, which baptizo has not. And inasmuch as baptizo is always used for the ordinance, from which, as Prof. Stuart remarks, bapto is carefully excluded, we cannot see that the opponents of immersion gain anything at all on this scripture. It is scarcely an outpost of the citadel of baptism, which stands solely on the use of the word baptizo. This is the only case, however, in all the Scriptures in which even bapto carries any other signification than that of dip.

Dip is once derived, in the Old Testament from the Hebrew mah-khatz, which occurs fourteen times, and is rendered wound, seven times; smite, three times; pierce, twice; strike, once; and dip, once; viz., in Ps. 68:23, where the Septuagint has baphe (bapto). Its use in the latter text is peculiar, though it may stand related to its signification, as pierce does to smite. This is the entire use of the word dip in the Old Testament.