p. 16 | Yes, They Are Easy

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Mar 18, 1903

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 29, No. 11.

Yes, They Are Easy.

—A friend sends us a clipping from the Free Methodist, of Chicago, entitled, “Easy Questions for Immersionists to Answer.” Here are the first four, fair samples of all the rest:—

Where do we read that we must be baptized by immersion?

In what part of the Bible do we find that Jesus was baptized by immersion?

Where does it say that Jesus was baptized for an example for us?

What right have you to say that John baptized by immersion?

Now the simple fact is that baptize is a Greek word transferred to our language, but not translated. It has come to mean by usage a so-called Christian rite performed in several different ways. But that is not the meaning of the Greek word baptizo. The meaning of the Greek word is to immerse, whelm. It would be tautological nonsense, were it not for the derived meaning of the word,—a meaning which has no place in Scripture,—to speak of baptism by immersion. There is no other baptism. One might as well speak of baptism by baptism, or immersion by immersion. Baptism is immersion, and immersion is baptism. That is what the word means. All meaning apart from this is derived meaning, and is a perversion of the word and the rite. When Peter said, “Metanoēsate,” he meant “repent;” and when he said, “baptisthēto,” he as truly meant “be immersed.” If we would take the words of the Bible for what they mean, we would not have to guess so much about their “interpretation.” There is a word used in the New Testament, rhantizo, meaning to sprinkle. The Lord might have used that instead of baptizo, but He did not. “Repent and be sprinkled” would sound strange, even to a pedo-Baptist. “Repent and be immersed” it would be, if the Greek were translated. And, by the way, the American Standard Revised Version renders baptized “in water,” instead of “with water;” and there was no immersionist on the committee.