Immersed Into Christ and Overwhelmed By His Spirit…That’s Baptizo

Waldron, in his A Modern Exposition, states the following regarding the exclusive use of baptizo and immersion as the proper mode for baptism:

1. Its literal use in secular Greek confirms its meaning. Its basic meaning is to immerse, submerge, dye, to plunge, to bathe. One graphic illustration of its meaning is its being used of the baptism of a sea vessel. The ship was baptized during a naval battle!

2. Its figurative use in secular Greek also confirms the general meaning. here it means to plunge, to immerse, to whelm (as in engulfing floods), in calamities, in ruin, in troubles, in cares, in poverty, in debts, in stupor, in sleep, in ignorance, in pollution, etc.

3. Its literal use in the Septuagint of the Old Testament also very clearly confirms the meaning to immerse (2 Kings 5:14).

4. Its figurative use in the Septuagint also confirms this general idea (Ps. 69:2; Isa. 21:4)

5. Its literal use in the New Testament clearly means immerse (Mark 1:5, 8-9; John 3:23; Acts 8:38; Romans 6:4; Col. 2:12; Mark 7:3-4). Baptize does not in this last passage mean merely to wash. There is an implied contrast between their washing or sprinkling themselves and their baptizing their cups, pitchers and copper pots.

6. Its figurative use in the New Testament is consistent with the idea of immersion. (Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50; 1 Cor 10:1-2–this was figuratively an immersion; Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5, 8; 2:1-4, 17).

Of these [figurative] passages A.A. Hodge remarks, “Baptism of the Holy Ghost, of which water baptism is the emblem, is never set forth in Scripture as an ‘immersion’, but always as a ‘pouring’ and ’sprinkling’.” Hodge is confused. Baptizing, pouring out and sprinkling are all used as figures of speech in such passages. It is lexically atrocious to determine the meaning of a word by its figurative use. It is worse to argue from parallel figures of speech.

Baptism literally means to immerse and figuratively means to overwhelm. Baptism points to our being completely and spiritually immersed into Christ and overwhelmed by his Spirit. It points to the spiritual wealth and power we possess in Christ. Nothing less than immersion or such a pouring as literally overwhelms properly symbolizes this truth.

Lost in Transliteration

The technical word is ‘anglicized’, and it basically means, instead of using an English word to define it, you instead copy a word from one language and make a new word in English. There is no translating of the word being done whatsoever. It is literally being imported into English from its original language. We have done this with other words, such as ‘amen’ – truth, ‘Christ’ – the annointed one, and also with ‘baptize’ – immerse.

I have a theory as to why even our very first English Bible translations did not dare translate the Greek word ‘baptizo’ into English. The first English Bible translation was done by John Wycliff in the 14th century. By this time sprinkling as THE mode for baptism had finally become the official method, being so agreed to in a council in 1311. Now, think about this…all of those great men of faith doing our earliest English Bibles were practicing sprinkling as the mode for baptism. Now, if baptizo means to immerse, and if they had translated baptizo into English, what do you think that would have done to their position regarding sprinkling? Allow me to quote another blogger on this same issue (I found his thoughts on this after I had already been forming my own):

The truth of the matter as to why the Greek work was anglicized and never translated is to be found in the fact that by the time the Bible came to be translated into English man had decided on his own initiative that sprinkling would do just as well as immersion. If you translate the Greek and you are honest in your scholarship you will have to use the word immerse or dip. If you do that what will that do to your doctrine of sprinkling? It will destroy it. That cannot be allowed to happen. What is the solution? Don’t translate the Greek, anglicize it producing a new English word that because it is new you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Let’s Hear from Some Respected Sprinklers

A. T. Robertson, on anyone’s scale one of the greatest Greek scholars America ever produced, went so far as to say that he questioned either the honesty or the scholarship of anyone who said that baptizo meant anything other than “to dip, plunge, or immerse.”

Martin Luther himself wrote, “On this account…I could wish that such as are to be baptized should be completely immersed into the water, according to the meaning of the word, and to the significance of the ordinance, not because I think it necessary, but because it would be beautiful to have a full and perfect sign of so perfect a thing; as also, without doubt, it was instituted by Christ” ( Luther’s Works, 1551 edition, Vol. 2, p.76)

Calvin wrote that “. . . it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church” ( Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XV, Paragraph 19).

The famous Presbyterian church historian, Philip Schaff, wrote, “Immersion and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, normal form of baptism. Immersion shows the very meaning of the Greek word baptize” ( History of the Apostolic Church, p. 568).

John Wall, an Episcopalian, wrote, “Immersion was in all probability the way in which our blessed Savior was baptized, and certainly the most used way of baptism” ( History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, page 571).

These confessions are significant coming [from] men who practiced sprinkling! Further, it can be demonstrated that baptism was administered by immersion (predominantly) for at least the first thirteen centuries of the church. Understandably so, for if the word itself means “to dip or immerse,” then when Jesus said “Go ye therefore and baptize” we don’t expect to find the disciples raising their hands and asking “by what mode?” It would be like asking “What method of immersing do you prefer?” The [Lutheran] pamphlet argues that “we dare not insist that one particular method must be used” and that the Lord did “not specify the mode.” But how many methods or modes of immersion can there be?

(HT: Biblical Studies)