Old Testament Usage Proves that "Baptizo" Cannot Necessarily Mean "Immerse"

One of the claims made by certain groups, such as Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists, regarding baptism is that immersion is the required mode. I am sure that you have seen the pictures of a person lowered back first - always back first - into a baptismal pool. Or just a swimming pool, pond, seaside, in a bath tub - I've seen them all. One of the reasons they give is that "baptizo," the Greek verb from which we get the word "baptism," supposedly means "to immerse."

It is that assertion that I wish to address here.

As I have said before, I agree with the Westminster Confession regarding the mode of baptism: "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person" (XXVIII:3). I do not claim, nor does the Confession state, that baptism by immersion invalidates the rite. In fact, I was personally baptized by immersion, and it was in a swimming pool! However, as I have grown in my knowledge of Scripture, I have come to conclude that sprinkling is the intended mode of baptism.

The problem with the claim about the word "baptizo" is that it is inconsistent with the usage of that word. In the New Testament, does anyone claim that the pharisees immersed their dining couches (Mark 7:4)? The word translated "wash" there is "baptizo" in the Greek. The problem is even greater in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. In that version, "baptizo" or "bapto" appear five times. Of those, two are used in situations in which sprinkling, not immersion, are logically or explicitly required.

The first is in Daniel 4:33 (verse 30 in the LXX), the description of Nebuchadnezzar's curse of madness. We are told that he was "bathed in the dew of Heaven." "Bathed" there is a translation of "ebapso," a tense of "bapto." Could any sensible person suggest that he was immersed in the dew?

The other is Ecclesiasticus 34:25 (not Ecclesiastes; also called Sirach): "He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?" The first use of "washing" is a translation of "baptizomenos," a tense of "baptizo." Some might object that this verse is from the Apocrypha, which is true. However, I cite it only as an example of usage. Compare it to the Mosaic laws regarding purification washings (e. g., Numbers 19:9; and Judith 12:7, in a fountain), and we see that the ceremonies described by Sirach were done by sprinkling, not by immersion.

The conclusion is unavoidable that the claim that "baptizo" refers only to "immersion" is not biblically sustainable. To insistence on it is to put a denominational prejudice ahead of the words in the text.

Mormons, the Canon, and the Trustworthiness of the Bible

While this appears on April 1, it is not a joke.

One of the ways that Mormons attract novice Christians to their religion is by undermining the trust of the Christians in the Bible as the word of God. A major thrust in that effort is to point to books named in the Bible, but not included in it, such as the Book of Jasher. If the Bible is trustworthy, the Mormon asks, then how have those books been lost?

For example, the Mormon scriptures, the Book of Mormon, claim (I Nephi 13:26), "For they have taken away from the gospel of the lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away."

In contrast, the Book of Mormon is said to contain "the fullness of the gospel" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:9), "the fullness of the everlasting gospel" (27:5), and again "the fullness of the gospel" (42:12). Yet, mysteriously, the books supposedly lost from the Bible never appear in the Book of Mormon, or any other Mormon Scripture. If they were so valuable, why are they not found in "the fullness of the gospel"?

Smith's Scriptures

More interestingly, the "missing books" also don't appear in Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible, supposedly written through supernatural inspiration. He doesn't restore these lost books! In addition, Smith lost another book, the Son of Solomon! If the Mormons are correct about the Bible, then they refute their own "prophet," because he increased the supposed defection of the Bible! This is the man of whom "God" said, "I have sent forth the fullness of my gospel by the hand of Joseph Smith" (Doctrine and Covenants 35:17).

The essence of this is that Christians have nothing to fear from this challenge from Mormons. If the Mormon claim is true, it undermines their own religion. In other words, if Mormonism is true, then Mormonism is false!

The truth of these books which were supposedly lost from the Bible is that they were never part of the Bible. They were consulted by the Bible writers, and the relevant information entered the biblical text through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is comparable to this blog post. I have cited books which I have not included in the text itself. Are the books, therefore, lost? Of course not!

More Patristics versus the Apocrypha

In the Fourth Century, Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, continued the tradition of counting the books of the Old Testament canon in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet, i. e., twenty-two. He enumerated them in his Prologo in Psalmos: "Five of Moses; Joshua the son of Nun, the sixth; Judges and Ruth, the seventh; first and second Kings [what we call "Samuel"], the eighth; third and fourth Kings, the ninth; two books of Chronicles, the tenth; Ezra, the eleventh; Psalms, the twelfth; Ecclesiastes and Canticles, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth [sic, Proverbs dropped by a copyist]; the Twelve Prophets, the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, together with his Lamentations and his epistle; Daniel and Ezekiel; and Job and Esther make up the full number of twenty-two books."

In the same time period, Cyril of Jerusalem was even more forceful: "Learn diligently from the Church what are the books of the Old Testament and what of the New, but read me none of the Apocryphal; for, if you do not know the books acknowledged by all, why do you vainly trouble yourself about the disputed books? Read, then, the divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which have been translated by the seventy-two interpreters [i. e., of the Septuagint]. Of the Law first are the five books of Moses, then Jesus the son of Nave [Greek for Joshua the son of Nun], and the book of Judges with Ruth, which is numbered the seventh; then follow other historical books, the first and second of the Kingdoms [i. e., Samuel]; the third and fourth are also one book [i. e., the books of Kings]; the first and second of Chronicles are, in like manner, reckoned as one book; the twelfth is Esther. These are the historical books. The books written in verse are five - Job and the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs - making the seventeenth book. After these are the five prophetical books - one of the Twelve Prophets, one of Isaiah, one of Jeremiah, with Baruch, Lamentations, and an Epistle; then Ezekiel and the book of Daniel, the twenty-second book of the Old Testament" (emphasis added).

And in that same century, Epiphanius of Salamis wrote, "Twenty-seven books, acknowledged and received into the Old Testament, which, according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, are counted as twenty-two, have been interpreted... [The Jews] enumerate their books as twenty-two, though in reality twenty-seven; for the book of Ruth is joined to the book of Judges, and the two are counted as one by the Hebrews. The first and second Kings [i. e., Samuel] are also counted as one book, and in like manner the third and fourth of Kings are reckoned as one. And in this way all the books of the Old Testament are comprehended in five pentateuchs, with two other books not included in these divisions. Five pertain to the law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy... Five are poetical: Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. Then another pentateuch embraces the Hagiographa: Joshua, Judges and Ruth, first and second Chronicles, first and second Kings [Samuel], and third and fourth of Kings. This is the third pentateuch. Another pentateuch contains the Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Besides these there remain the two books of Ezra [i. e., Ezra with Nehemiah], which are counted as one, and the book of Esther. In this way, the twenty-two books are made out according to the number of the Hebrew letters."

And finally, let me quote Gregory of Nazianzus: "There are twelve historical books of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: the first Genesis; then Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the next Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, the eighth; ninth and tenth the acts of the Kings [i. e., I and II Samuel and I and II Kings], and then the Remains [i. e., Chronicles], and Esdras the last [i. e., Ezra and Nehemiah]. Then the five books of verse, the first Job, next David [i. e., Psalms], then the three books of Solomon: Ecclesiastes, the Song, and Proverbs. The prophetic books are five: the Twelve Prophets are one book, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, all these make one book; the second is Isaiah, then Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; which make twenty-two books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters." That he refers to the Twelve prophets, and then lists only eleven probably indicates a copyist error in dropping Zephaniah, likely because of its similarity to the name Zechariah.

Patristic Views of the Old Testament Canon

The Church of Rome makes bold claims about the Apocrypha, the books in her Old Testament Canon, though rejected by both Jews and Protestants. Catholic apologists will often challenge, "By what authority did Protestants remove them from the canon?" Of course, that question ignores their exclusion from the Jewish canon.

However, what that catholic challenge ignores is the testimony of the Church fathers against the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon.

Consider first Melito, the Bishop of Sardis (died 180AD). His friend Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, had asked his opinion of the Apocrypha, so Melito investigated their standing. In his Letter to Onesimus, he wrote, "Having come to the East and arrived at a place where these things were preached and done, and having accurately learned the books of the Old Testament, I have subjoined a list of them and sent it to thee. The names are as follows: of Moses, five books, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; Joshua, son of Nun, judges, Ruth; four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job; of Prophets, the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, writings of the Twelve Prophets in one book. Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra, from which I have made selections." Nehemiah and the Hebrew text of Esther appear to be included under the title of Ezra. No Apocrypha.

Origen testified, "Let it not be unknown that the canonical books, as the Hebrews transmit them, are twenty-two, for such is the number of letters among them... These are the twenty-two books of the Hebrews: the book called Genesis..., Exodus..., Leviticus..., Numbers..., Deuteronomy... These are the Words: ...Joshua ben Nun, Judges, Ruth...; Kings, first and second... in one called Samuel; the third and fourth of Kings in one book...; the first and second of Chronicles, in one book...; the first and second of Esdras, in one book called Ezra...; the Book of Psalms...; the Proverbs of Solomon; Ecclesiastes; the Song of Songs...; Isaiah; Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and his epistle, in one volume, Jeremiah; Daniel; Ezekiel; Job; Esther. Beside these there are also the Maccabees." The Epistle of Jeremiah refers to chapter 29 of that book. The Twelve Prophets were left out by a transcriber. Some manuscripts of Origen's work return them. Notice that the books of Maccabees are described as beside the canon of twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible. the other apocryphal works don't even rate a mention.

Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, wrote, "All the books of the Old Testament are two and twenty in number, for, as I have heard, this is the order and number of the Hebrew letters. To name them, they are as follows: the first, Genesis, the next, Exodus, then Leviticus, after that the Numbers, and then Deuteronomy; next to them is Jesus the son of Nave [sic, Greek for Joshua son of Nun], and Judges; after that, Ruth; and again the next in order are the four books of the Kingdoms [I and II Samuel, I and II Kings]...; after them the first and second of the Remains, or Chronicles...; then the first and second of Esdras...; after them the Book of Psalms; then the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; besides these there is Job, and, at length, the Prophets; the twelve are reckoned one book; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, and with him Baruch, the Lamentations, the Epistle; and after them Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus far the books of the Old Testament." Like Melito, Athanasius seems to include the Hebrew version of Esther with Ezra. He also refers to Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, not as the names of the apocryphal books, but as portions of Jeremiah. What he adds after this is also important: "For the sake of greater accuracy I will add - and the addition is necessary - that there are also other books beside these, not, indeed, admitted into the canon, but ordained by the Fathers to be read by such as have recently come over to us, and who wish to receive instruction in the doctrine of piety - the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, the Doctrine of the Apostles, as it is called, and the Shepherd." Thus this father cannot be accused of overlooking or being ignorant of the Apocrypha. rather, he mentions them as being read, but then excludes them from the canon.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather just some explicit examples. While Rome makes much of her so-called sacred tradition, they contradict that tradition here. The Council of Trent made into Scriptures books which Christians had traditionally rejected as such. In contrast, the statement of the Westminster Confession of faith (I:3) is consistent with the true tradition: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

The Apocrypha and the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture

"If it is well-composed and to the point, that is just what I wanted. If it is worthless and mediocre, that is all I could manage."
- II Maccabees 15:38, New Jerusalem Bible

This verse is the penultimate verse of the apocryphal Second Book of Maccabees. Along with First Maccabees, this book is an accepted part of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons of the Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox also accept Third and Fourth Maccabees. These books describe the historical period between the prophecies of Malachi and the Gospel of Matthew.

All of these books are found in the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. However, all four are excluded from the so-called Palestinian canon, the basis of both the modern Jewish and Protestant canons. The Orthodox accept all four simply on the grounds that they consider the Septuagint to be the authoritative basis for their Old Testament. And, it must be acknowledged, the manuscripts that survive of the Septuagint are far older than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts. The Church of Rome, on the other hand, pleads the actions of certain church councils (not any of the universal Ecumenical Councils), especially of the Third Council of Carthage, a provincial council that met in 397, and ratified by the Sixth Council of Carthage in 419. However, Rome rejects the Synod of Laodicea, 365, which excluded the Books of Maccabees. In addition, they claim the authority of Augustine, who accepted the books, but reject the opinion of Jerome who excluded them from his canon, i.e., the Vulgate Bible.

My point in mentioning these councils and church Fathers is that the Church of Rome cherry-picks its authorities. Since the Council of Trent "infallibly" determined to include the books, the Roman Church is forced by its own claims to profess only those authorities that agree with that decree.

The problem for the Catholic (and Orthodox) view is that it is contradicted by the very text that they are claiming as canonical. Look at the quote at the top of this page. The writer of Second Maccabees is worried that his book will be found to be mediocre! Would he have that fear if he were inspired, as, for example, Paul was? Rome claims that he was merely mistaken, unaware of his inspiration, because, they claim, the Scriptures aren't infallible in matters of science or history, i.e., "objective" facts. A-hah! Here we have the crux of the issue: in order to maintain its own infallibility, Rome is perfectly willing to cast away the infallibility of God! This is the reason the Reformers pointed their fingers at the papacy with the cry of "Antichrist"!

In contrast, Jesus, speaking to His heavenly Father, trustingly confessed, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). That is the authority that I accept. As the Psalmist says (Psalm 119:160), "The sum of Your word is truth." Since no pope has ever died for my sins or risen from the dead, I will choose the words of Jesus over the words of Rome. I am secure in the trust that those words will never change.

The Mode of Baptism, According to the Scriptures, Part 2

Continuing with A. A. Hodge's refutation of the immersion-only view of baptism, I come to his discussion of the Greek word adopted into English as "baptize."

In the New Testament, that word is always baptizo, which can indeed mean "immerse," but also "dip, moisten, purify, wash," depending of course on context. The Septuagint uses bapto and baptizo, with no apparent distinction between the two variants. In the Greek version of Daniel 4:33, Nebuchadnezzar is said to be "baptized with the dew of heaven." That could hardly mean immersion. And in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus 34:30, reference is made to one "who baptizes himself after the touching of a dead body." Yet, Numbers 19:9, 13, and 20, describe that rite as done through sprinkling.

In Mark 7:3-4 and Luke 11:38, Jesus refers to the Pharisees "washing their hands" with baptizo, but in the parallel passage in Matthew 15:2, 20, the Greek has nipto, which simply means "to wash." The emphasis in using baptizo, therefore, is not on the method, whether immersion or otherwise, but on the use, i.e., cleansing. The same meaning for baptizo is seen in its use by the disciples of John in John 3:25 and 4:2.

In Hebrews 9:10, the author describes the use of the earthly tabernacle for "diverse baptisms" ("washings" in contemporary English versions), then gives specific "baptisms" in verse 13 ("the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood"), verse 19 ("sprinkled both the book itself and all the people"), and verse 21 ("he sprinkled with the blood"). Thus the writer of Hebrews explicitly uses "baptize" to describe a rite of sprinkling, not immersion.

I will add one additional passage to those mentioned by Hodges. In I Corinthians 10:2, Israel is said to have been "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea", that is, in the crossing of the Red Sea. Yet, not only was Israel not immersed, they are even explicitly said not to have gotten wet (Exodus 14:16, 21, 22, and 29)! It was the Egyptians that were immersed, yet they are not described as "baptized"!

To go to part 3, click here.

The Apocrypha Used in the New Testament?

I attend a men's Bible study on Monday nights. We are just getting started, using a Navpress study on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Tonight I was preparing for the study of the opening four verses.

Hebrews 1:1-4: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name He has inherited is more excellent than theirs."

The editors of the Reformation Study Bible attribute the phrase "radiance of the glory" to common terminology from the intertestamental period, found in the apocryphal book, the Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 7, verses 25-28 (referring to the personification of Wisdom, as can be found also in the Proverbs): "For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom."

I assume that the editors refer to Wisdom as an indication of the rise of certain theological terminology, not as an application of the analogy of faith. But even given that assumption, this note gives me trepidations. While the original King James Version included the Apocrypha, a few years later the Westminster Confession (I:3) advised, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be otherwise approved or made use of, than other human writings." And the Westminster Directory for Public Worship instructs, "All the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments (but none of those which are commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation, distinctly, that all may hear and understand."

Obviously, the footnotes of a study bible must necessarily be brief, lest the volume become unusably large. However, I would have wished some clarification here, for the sake of conscience. Perhaps the note was clarified in the recent update of the RSB.