Baptism in the Greek by W. E. Howell

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Feb 10, 1910

Baptism in the Greek

By W. E. Howell

W. E. HOWELL

A RECENT exchange, in an article entitled “A Preposition and Its Meaning,” says:—

“The arguments for immersion are usually founded upon misunderstood and mistranslated words and phrases. Many simple minds, unable to appreciate the great analogies of Scripture, have been misled into believing immersion to be the form of baptism because they read, in Matt. 3:16, that Jesus ‘went up straightway out of the water.’ They are told that he must have been in the water and under the water in order to have gone out of the water.

“Now the fact is that the Greek preposition ἀπό should not have been translated ‘out of,’ since its real meaning is ‘away from.’ Had the passage been translated properly, it would have stated that ‘Jesus went up straightway away from the water,’ and the inference would have been that he ascended the bank away from the margin of the stream where John had poured or sprinkled water upon him, in accordance with the great Scripture analogies of the outpoured Spirit and the sprinkling of the nations.”

It is necessary to vary the language of this extract but slightly in order to make it speak the real truth, for the article itself furnishes an excellent illustration of the very thing it condemns. Thus:—

The arguments for sprinkling as a method of baptism are usually founded upon misunderstood or mistranslated words and phrases. Many simple minds, unable to appreciate the great analogies of Scripture, have been misled into believing sprinkling or pouring to be the form of baptism because they are told that Matt. 3:16, instead of reading, “Jesus went up straightway out of the water,” should read, “Jesus went up straightway away from the water,” and that therefore the inference would be that he ascended the bank away from the margin of the stream where John had poured or sprinkled water upon him in accordance with the great Scripture analogies of the outpoured Spirit and the sprinkling of the nations.

This “great analogy” and this still greater “inference” are based upon the fact that in Matt. 3:16—nowhere else in any New Testament record of baptism—the Greek preposition used in the original before “water” is ἀπό, meaning from, away from, and not ἐκ, meaning out of.

There are two considerations why such an inference, from even the record in Matthew, is not justifiable. The first is that Matthew, like Mark (these being the only two New Testament writers who record this event), does not describe the act of baptism itself, which shows that this was not the thing uppermost in his mind. The main object of both Matthew’s and Mark’s recording the event is clearly to establish the identity of Jesus as the Christ by the descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven which immediately followed the baptism, and which was the conclusive evidence of his Messiahship to John the Baptist himself.

The other consideration is that while the preposition does not specifically express that he came up out of the water, it by no means precludes the idea. We have only to compare the use of ἀπό in Matt. 3:13, which says that Jesus came from Galilee to be baptized of John. Does this mean that he did not or could not come out of Galilee? Mark says he came from (ἀπό) Nazareth. Does this necessarily mean that he came merely “away from the margin” of Nazareth, and did not come out of the city?

Nor is the citing by the author of the article, of ἀπό compounded with στέλλω, forming the verb ἀποστέλλω, I send forth, from which comes the noun ἀπόστολος, apostle, to the point in this connection. Is the one who goes forth as a missionary sent merely “away from the margin” of his home or his country? Or is he rather sent in reality out of his home and his country?

Still less to the point is the citing of ἀποκαλύπτω, I uncover, from which comes the noun ἀποκάλυψις, an uncovering, apocalypse. Every Greek student knows that a preposition compounded with a verb often suffers considerable modification of its individual force, sometimes losing it altogether, so far as can be detected. In this verb, as often, ἀπό is used to negative the verbal idea; καλύπτω = I cover; ἀποκαλύπτω = I uncover: as also δοκιμάζω = I approve (1 Cor. 16:3); ἀποδοκιμάζω = I disapprove, reject (Matt. 21:42).

The preposition ἀπό also often denotes, in compounds, back, again: δίδωμι = I give; ἀποδίδωμι = I give back, or restore. It is also used to intensify the idea in the verb: γράφω = I write; ἀπογράφω = I enroll (for permanent use, Luke 2:1, 3, 5—in modern Greek it = I take the census; Heb. 12:23); κρύπτω = I hide; ἀποκρύπτω = I hide (fully or for a long time, Col. 1:26). The more legitimate way to study ἀπό as a preposition is in its independent use, not compounded with a verb.

It can easily be seen from the foregoing that ἀπό is a very flimsy foundation on which to build a doctrine, especially when based on only one independent use of it. Drawing so great an “inference” under such circumstances for guidance in spiritual practise, may “mislead many simple minds.”

To make this doctrine of sprinkling appear still more inconsistent, it may be asked what was the necessity of John’s taking Jesus down to a river merely to sprinkle or pour water on him? To make the doctrine appear outrightly absurd, it is but necessary to call attention to John 3:23, where it is said that John was baptizing in Ænon (which means springs) “because there was much water there.” It does not require very “much” to sprinkle or pour.

We are by no means dependent on such inferential evidence for the doctrine of immersion. Mark (1:10) says plainly of the event of Christ’s baptism, “straightway going up out of [ἐκ] the water.” This does not contradict but supplements Matt. 3:16.

To make it still stronger, it is said of Philip and the eunuch, that “they went down into [εἰς] the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of [ἐκ] the water,” etc.,—neither of which would have been necessary for two travelers if the rite had consisted in sprinkling or pouring.

Consistent with this is Christ’s solemn assertion to Nicodemus, “Unless one be born out of [ἐξ, a euphonic form of ἐκ] water and the Spirit,” etc. It certainly would have perplexed Nicodemus still more to be born from the “margin” of something.

Further, Mark 1:5 says, “And there were going out to him all the land of Judea and all the Jerusalemites and were being baptized by him in [ἐν] the Jordan River.” A “river” is a very suitable place for immersion. This is fully in harmony with John the Baptist’s own statement of his work, “I baptize in [ἐν] water” (John 1:26); “He who sent me to baptize in [ἐν] water” (John 1:33). These two passages are not consistently rendered “with water;” just as well say in Mark that all Judea and all the Jerusalemites were being baptized “with the Jordan River”!

The evidence, both direct and indirect, for immersion is so abundant that it can not be exhausted in one short article, but one more fundamental proof may be allowable. The word βαπτίζω, I baptize, is from a shorter form, βάπτω, I dip, which is built on the primitive root, βαφ, appearing

in the noun βαφή, which from Homer (800 B. C.) down has meant a dipping (as of hot metal in water to temper it), and somewhat later, a dyeing (of cloth). It would be difficult to perform either of those operations on the “margin” of the water or the dye; nothing short of immersing would suffice in either case. βάπτω is the verb which means to perform such an act of immersing. Jesus dipped [from βάπτω] the sop (bread) and gave it to Judas Iscariot. The rich man asked that Lazarus might dip (from βάπτω) the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue. βαπτίζω is an intensive form of βάπτω, and could therefore assuredly mean no less than to immerse.

In the light of this short study, is there any possible ground for any one who professes to know the Greek, to say, as did a writer in the Herald and Presbyter recently, whose article called forth this one: “No one has any right to use words that imply that Christ was in the water and came out of it, and yet, just on this very mistranslation and perversion, the faith of many simple ones has been fixed for immersion as the form of baptism”?

Would there were more whose faith is simple enough to take the Bible as it reads when interpreted as a consistent whole. And would there were many more of such faith who had sufficient knowledge of the original Greek of the New Testament not to be “misled into believing” so unscriptural a doctrine as sprinkling, and who could enlighten other “simple minds,” when attempt is made to misguide them into error by such narrow and unscientific interpretations of the Holy Scriptures.

Takoma Park, D. C.