Baptism "en" the Holy Ghost

[Doug Brents]

Nope, there was no first century meaning in either classic or biblical Greek which provided for an emersion from water

Thus, men fully immersed in water drown and ships sink

If that were true, then all of the people John baptized, including Jesus, were drowned in Jordan, and the Bible is lying when it says that Jesus was crucified. He couldn't have been crucified, because He never came out of Jordan at the beginning of what would have been His ministry.

 

[TomL]

If that were true, then all of the people John baptized, including Jesus, were drowned in Jordan, and the Bible is lying when it says that Jesus was crucified. He couldn't have been crucified, because He never came out of Jordan at the beginning of what would have been His ministry.

Only if you assume your meaning of baptism

Thus you beg the question

 

[Doug Brents]

Only if you assume your meaning of baptism

Thus you beg the question

Beg what question?

 

[TomL]

The words "baptize" and "baptism" have come to be common English words, and properly defined they mean "to immerse" and "immersion" respectively. So no, all translations are not wrong or misleading. But they were when first translated into English because these new English words were not properly defined.

This is true. They were only required to immerse their hands, or feet, or dishes for certain purification rites. We are commanded to have our whole bodies immersed in order to be saved.

The bath in the Temple that Solomon built, and in the Tabernacle that Moses built, and presumably in the second Temple after the return to Jerusalem, was not a running fountain or stream flowing through the Temple. It was a very large tub into which an enormous quantity of water was placed. This was the ritual cleansing pool in which the priests cleansed themselves before performing their priestly duties. It does not require "living water", or flowing water to be baptized. All that is required is that the water be of sufficient quantity to immerse the body (or item being immersed, ie: hands, dishes, etc.).

Um

CHAPTER VII. Baptism Out of the Laver. The most perfect historic record of baptism that we have is that of the ancient Jews. It is that of the laver. Here we have a record —a history. It runs through fifteen hundred years. The data are most abundant. If we fail to get light from such a record, with such a vast literature, inspired and uninspired, encircling it, we may well despair of understanding the matter altogether. In this, the origin of symbolic baptism as a divine rite, commanded by Jehovah and performed by his people, we may clearly see the design and correct the many abuses of baptism. We can clearly see that it was symbolic, but not of death, of burial, of resurrection ; not a door into the church ; not an initiatory rite ; not for remission of sins ; not really sacramental. In Exodus xxx, 18-21, we read of the laver that stood between the altar of burnt offerings and the door of the tabernacle. "Aaron and his sons shall wash (rachats) their hands and their feet [ek, Heb. min~\ out of it."* "And when they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not." " Thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water (Ex. xl, 12).

Ditzler on baptism

Hebrews on baptism

Hebrews 9:8–14 (YLT) — 8 The Holy Spirit this evidencing that not yet hath been manifested the way of the holy places, the first tabernacle having yet a standing; 9 which is a simile in regard to the present time, in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which are not able, in regard to conscience, to make perfect him who is serving, 10 only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances—till the time of reformation imposed upon them. 11 And Christ being come, chief priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands—that is, not of this creation— 12 neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained; 13 for if the blood of bulls, and goats, and ashes of an heifer, sprinkling those defiled, doth sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of the Christ (who through the age-during Spirit did offer himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

[TomL]

Beg what question?

Your statement

"If that were true, then all of the people John baptized, were drowned in Jordan"

You assume baptism was by immersion

thus you beg the question of mode

 

[Doug Brents]

Your statement

"If that were true, then all of the people John baptized, were drowned in Jordan"

You assume baptism was by immersion

thus you beg the question of mode

No, I don't assume that. The text tells us the mode that was used. When Phillip baptized the Eunuch, they both went down into the water, and then came back up out of the water. If it was just a sprinkling or pouring, then only Phillip needed to go to the water's edge. And the Eunuch need not have even left his chariot. Again in Acts 22, Saul need not have moved if baptism were sprinkling or pouring (or simply of the Spirit). All of those modes could have been done with him sitting where he was.

 

[TomL]

No, I don't assume that. The text tells us the mode that was used. When Phillip baptized the Eunuch, they both went down into the water, and then came back up out of the water. If it was just a sprinkling or pouring, then only Phillip needed to go to the water's edge. And the Eunuch need not have even left his chariot. Again in Acts 22, Saul need not have moved if baptism were sprinkling or pouring (or simply of the Spirit). All of those modes could have been done with him sitting where he was.

Afraid not

Katabaino - went down , stepped down used to denote dismounting a chariot Josephus so uses it 12, 4, 3. Homer, Herodotus,Plato, Xenophon use it to note mounting upon a vessel, a camel, a horse etc. In verse 31 Phillip stepped up (anabaino) into the chariot. so katabaino notes the stepping down from the chariot. Thus they stepped down from the chariot into the water There is no step by step journey. They dismounted and were in the water.



No immersion here at all.



Does not show immersion the normal means of baptism Since both went down to or into the water and then the baptism proceeded



The law required whenever possible living water



Nor will the prepositions determine the case; they would have been employed properly had Philip and the eunuch gone into the water by partial or by entire immersion, and therefore come out of it on dry land; and with equal propriety, and according to the habitual use of the same prepositions by Greek writers, they would express going to the water, without going into it, and returning from it, and not out of it, for eis is spoken of place, and properly signifies at, or it indicates motion toward a certain limit, and, for anything that appears to the contrary in the history of the eunuch’s baptism, that limit may just as well be placed at the nearest verge of the water as in the middle of it. Thus the LXX say, Isaiah. xxvi, 2, "The king sent Rabshakeh from Lachish, eis, to Jerusalem," certainly not into it, for the city was not captured. The sons of the prophets "came eis, to Jordan to cut wood," 2 Kings vi, 4. They did not, we suppose, go into the water to perform that work. Peter was bid to "go, eis, to the sea, and cast a hook," not surely to go into the sea; and our Lord, Matt. v, 1, "went up, eis, to a mountain," but not into it. The corresponding preposition ek, which signifies, when used of place, from, out of, must be measured by the meaning of eis. When eis means into, then ek means out of; but when it means simply to, then ek can express no more than from. Thus this passage is nothing to the purpose of the Immersionists.



Much appeal has been made to two other Greek prepositions, ek and eis, to support, practically exclusively, the ideas out of and into, respectively, in order to teach that the baptized went down into the water and came up out of the water, and that in the very act of baptism. But when you examine the usage of eis and ek in Scripture, you find something different from this claim. In John 20 , Mary Magdalene comes "unto (eis) the tomb" to find the stone removed "from (ek) the tomb." Here it is plain that Mary went to the tomb, not into it, and that the stone was taken from the tomb, not out of it. Then Peter and John "went toward (eis) the tomb" and John "came first to (eis) the tomb … yet entered not in." Peter arriving, "entered into the tomb … Then entered in the other disciple" (vv. 1-8). Here demonstrated is the distinction between "going to" and "going into." By itself, eis means to, expressing motion toward, as in John. 20:1, 3, 4 . To express motion into, the preposition is both prefixed to the verb and added after the verb, as in v.6, eiselthen eis. (See Acts 9:6, 8, 17

Matthew 18:3; John 3:5; Mark 2:1; Matthew. 6:20). So then, Mark 1:10, 11 ought to be translated, "coming up from (ek) the water" and "a voice came from (ek) the heavens," as in John 20:1, "from (ek) the sepulchre."



The next case is the baptism of the people of Samaria (Acts 8:12-16). It is remarkable, to say the least, that here where you have baptism, water is not mentioned, yet mode is indicated (8:16)! What follows is the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. Especially verses 38 and 39 are surely to be emphasized. I call attention to "down into the water … and … up out of the water." The question is, who experienced this action? Also, which is first, in the account, the action of going down, or the action of coming up? In answer, we point out that Philip, as commanded, joined the eunuch as he was traveling by chariot in the desert. Running beside the vehicle, he heard the man reading aloud the prophecy of Isaiah. Keeping up with the lumbering chariot, Philip greeted the man with the sudden, "Doubtless so! yet understandest thou what thou readest?" (Gk.). Then the man "desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Then Philip instructed him in the Scripture he had been reading, Isaiah 53. Likely it is that Philip also gave him some insights into the immediately preceding context, 52:13-15. For since the man requested baptism, we would think naturally the baptism of Isaiah 52:15 would be in mind, "So shall He sprinkle many nations." Philip complying with the request, the man "commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." Here three things occurred: (1) they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; (2) he baptized him, and (3) they came up out of the water. To be carefully noted is the fact that the going down into the water and the coming up out of the water did not constitute the baptism. The baptism took place between the going down and the coming up. Since the going down and the coming up are said of both of them, the words cannot imply immersion, as Philip obviously would not immerse himself along with the eunuch. That both went down, both Philip and the eunuch, that action sees them now stepping down out of the chariot where casual water immediately confronts them.



e

 

[Doug Brents]

they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; (2) he baptized him, and (3) they came up out of the water. To be carefully noted is the fact that the going down into the water and the coming up out of the water did not constitute the baptism. The baptism took place between the going down and the coming up. Since the going down and the coming up are said of both of them, the words cannot imply immersion, as Philip obviously would not immerse himself along with the eunuch. That both went down, both Philip and the eunuch, that action sees them now stepping down out of the chariot where casual water immediately confronts them.

"And he ordered that the chariot stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him." - Acts 8:38
They didn't just come down out of the chariot. They both went down INTO THE WATER, and then Philip immersed the eunuch into the water, and then both came back up out of the water.

 

[Seabass]

BTW Does it strike you as strange that not one major translation translates baptizo as immerse

however

Mark 7:4And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions which they have received and hold fast to—for example, the washing of cups and pitchers and bronze kettles and dining couches.)
Luke 11:38And the Pharisee, when he saw it, was astonished that he did not first wash before the meal.

It is translated as wash in the Lexham English bible

and the KJV
Mark 7:4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Luke 11:38And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

and the NIV

Mark 7:4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
Luke 11:38But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

and the NASB offers

Mark 7:4and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)
Luke 11:38When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.

Hi.

The problem lies with translators. Translators were not inspired men of God and they possessed their own personal religious biases and they sometimes allowed those biases to show in how they interpretated Greek into English. And many of those earlier translators believed in sprinkling (or pouring), so instead of correctly TRANSLATING baptizo as IMMERSION as they should have done they TRANSLITERATED baptizo and created the English word baptize purposefully obfuscating the real meaning of baptizo...immersion.

In the early history of the English Bible, they even tried to outlaw the word immersion:

"There was even a movement in England to abolish immersion by law! Accordingly, in an effort to cover up the true meaning of the original word, the term has been left obscured in a Greekish form.

Even today, can you imagine a version being popular with the denominationalists (especially those who practice infant baptism) that reads:

“He who believes and is immersed shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16)?

It would be an economic disaster — and for many, making money is the name of the game!"

Translating Bapto

Why do most modern translations use the word baptize, an anglicized Greek word, rather than translating the Greek word into English?

christiancourier.com

"It was during this time that the controversy over immersion vs. sprinkling was heating up, and it was in this atmosphere that the King James translation was done. Some of the Bishops had gone before Parliament affirming that “the devil of immersion ought to be legislated out of the realm, it (was) so troublesome.” When these men came to the word baptizo, they had a problem. If they were to translate the word by its accepted meaning of immerse or dip, it would effectively serve to “legislate the devil of immersion” into the realm, rather than legislating it out.

They decided not to translate the word at all, but rather transfer it from Greek into the English language. They dropped the Greek letter omega (ω) at the end of the word, replacing it with the English letter “e.” So from baptizo in Greek, we have baptize in English. Therefore, the Bishops did not translate the word at all but left it in the Greek to cover up their pious fraud. Those who could read could then assign whatever meaning they wanted to this new English word."

An Inquiry into Baptism

Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion, Which Shall It Be? by Jefferson David Tant Introduction Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mark 16:16; Gala…

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org

The absurb lengths some will go to protect a false theological bias.

Furthermore. to add to the hypocrisy of those early English translators, when it came to verses as Lk 16:24; Jn 13:26; Rev 19:13 that DO NOT deal with baptism, those translators easily understood baptizo means to dip. They clearly understood baptizo means immersion, to dip.

Secondly, all major Greek lexicons define baptizo as immersion...Thayer, Arndt, Gingrich, Mounce, on and on. Again, those early translators had no FACTUAL reason to obfuscate the meaning of immersion other than a corrupt personal biased.

Third. The Bible, NOT TRANSLATORS, settles the issue. How does the Bible describe the action of baptism? Paul described it as a "burial" Rom 6:4; Col 2:12. ..a burial which one is "raised up from":

a) I have been in many cemeteries where every grave the caskets/vaults are buried in the earth, no dirt just sprinkled on them.

b) this burial from which one is raised up from is significant. 2 Thess 1:8 one must obey the gospel to not be in flaming fire. The gospel is the death, BURIAL & RESURRECTION of Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4). Hence when one is water baptized per Rom 6, one must die to sin, the old man of sin is BURIED in a watery grace and then RESURRECTED, raised up from that watery grave to then walk in newness of life. Rom 6:17-18 baptism was that "form" of doctrine those Romans obeyed, form meaning a pattern....as Christ was buried in the earth and resurrected, likewise when men are water baptized they are buried in a watery grave and raised up from, resurrected from that watery grave. There is no burial much less a resurrection from sprinkling. If one has not been immersed, not buried and raised up from (resurrected) then one has NOT obeyed the gospel of Christ.

c) Gal 3:27
"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." "Put on Christ" is from the Greek endyo meaning "to sink into (clothing), put on, clothe one's self" Strong's. When I put on the shirt I am now wearing, I am now in the shirt, immersed, surrounded in the shirt. I did not sprinkle just a few miniscule pieces of shirt on my body.

d) further evidence the Bible gives that baptism is an immersion, a burial:
Jn 3:23 John baptized where there was 'much water', no need for much water if a few drops is all that is needed. Mark 1:4-5 John baptized people in the Jordan, again no need for a river if a few drops is all that is needed. Mark 1:9-10 John baptized Jesus and Jesus came up striatway out of the water. No need to get into water if a few drops is all that is needed as in Acts 8:38ff Phillip and eunuch came up out of the water.

Lastly, Mark 4:7 does not, cannot prove sprinkling when the Bible clearly describes the action of baptizing as a burial that one is resurrected/raised up from:

"The Greek word baptizo means to dip, immerse, plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm (Arndt and Gingrich 1967, 131). Unless it can be absolutely demonstrated that the cognate form must have a different meaning in this context, no one has the right to assert otherwise. It certainly is not necessary to draw that conclusion from this text (Mark 4:7)

The KJV “tables” is a mistranslation. The Greek word is klinon, from the root kline, a bed, couch, or resting place. The kindred term, klino, simply means to incline, bend, or bow.

Kline can denote an item which is used for sleep, or for reclining at a table for eating (as the custom was among the first-century Jews), or for transporting the infirm. It may thus denote a bed, couch, or pallet (Ibid. 437).

These items came in various sizes and forms, and it is not at all impossible that such an object could have been immersed in the Jewish ceremonial cleansing process.

Alfred Edersheim, himself a Jew and an expert in rabbinic literature, described the Pharisaic cleansing ritual:

Earthen vessels that had contracted impurity were to be broken; those of wood, horn, glass, or brass immersed; while, if vessels were bought of Gentiles, they were (as the case might be) to be immersed, put into boiling water, purged with fire, or at least polished (1947, 15; emphasis added).

Finally, the term klinon is not in the better Greek manuscripts. A. T. Robertson thought that its place in the original text was “probably not genuine” (1930, 322). Accordingly, “tables” is not in the text of most of the later versions (ASV, RSV, NIV), but is relegated to a footnote. The NKJV is an exception. The NASB does not even grant the term footnote status.

Clearly, no case for sprinkling as a substitute for immersion can be grounded in this passage."

Does Mark 7:4 Authorize Sprinkling?

This article addresses a sectarian argument that attempts to justify sprinkling as a substitute for immersion.

christiancourier.com

===========

" that still leaves the question: what am I to make of people “baptizing” their beds?

Am I really to believe that this was something commonplace in the first century?

After all, who would wash their bed by baptizing it?

Actually, what I found is that the Jews REALLY DID wash their beds by immersing them!

Everett Ferguson has this intriguing commentary on the subject:

“The Mishnah tractate Mikwaoth discusses the immersion of vessels (6.1-2, 5-6; 10.1, 5), including beds (7.7).” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism In The Early Church: History, Theology, And Liturgy In The First Five Centuries, 22148 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)

Intrigued, I turned to my copy of the Jewish Midrish. I found the following traditions:

“MISHNAH 1. IF A MAN DISMANTLED A BED IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT IMMERSE IT, 1 ANY ONE WHO TOUCHES THE ROPES2 REMAINS CLEAN. 3…MISHNAH 7. IF A BED WAS IMMERSED THEREIN, 32 ALTHOUGH ITS FEET SINK INTO THE THICK MUD, IT STILL BECOMES CLEAN BECAUSE THE WATER TOUCHED THEM BEFORE [THE MUD]. 33” (I. W. Slotki, H. Bornstein, M. H. Segal, I. Fishman, S. M. Lehrman UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF ISIDORE EPSTEIN Reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana 5771, The Soncino Babylonian Talmud MISHNAH SEDER TOHOROT, 2850, 11857 (Kindle Edition); Teaneck New Jersey; Talmudic Books)

The Midrash makes it clear that it was necessary for the Jews to wash their beds considering menstrual and seminal discharges. So when Jesus talked about the Jews “baptizing” their beds, He was referencing immersion (which determination is made linguistically, historically, and contextually)."

Does Mark 7:4 Teach That Baptism Is Sprinkling And Pouring?

An Argument For Sprinkling And Pouring As Baptism? It is written: “When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received an…

marktabata.com

 

[TomL]

Hi.

The problem lies with translators. Translators were not inspired men of God and they possessed their own personal religious biases and they sometimes allowed those biases to show in how they interpretated Greek into English. And many of those earlier translators believed in sprinkling (or pouring), so instead of correctly TRANSLATING baptizo as IMMERSION as they should have done they TRANSLITERATED baptizo and created the English word baptize purposefully obfuscating the real meaning of baptizo...immersion.

In the early history of the English Bible, they even tried to outlaw the word immersion:

"There was even a movement in England to abolish immersion by law! Accordingly, in an effort to cover up the true meaning of the original word, the term has been left obscured in a Greekish form.

Even today, can you imagine a version being popular with the denominationalists (especially those who practice infant baptism) that reads:

“He who believes and is immersed shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16)?

It would be an economic disaster — and for many, making money is the name of the game!"

Translating Bapto

Why do most modern translations use the word baptize, an anglicized Greek word, rather than translating the Greek word into English?

christiancourier.com

"It was during this time that the controversy over immersion vs. sprinkling was heating up, and it was in this atmosphere that the King James translation was done. Some of the Bishops had gone before Parliament affirming that “the devil of immersion ought to be legislated out of the realm, it (was) so troublesome.” When these men came to the word baptizo, they had a problem. If they were to translate the word by its accepted meaning of immerse or dip, it would effectively serve to “legislate the devil of immersion” into the realm, rather than legislating it out.

They decided not to translate the word at all, but rather transfer it from Greek into the English language. They dropped the Greek letter omega (ω) at the end of the word, replacing it with the English letter “e.” So from baptizo in Greek, we have baptize in English. Therefore, the Bishops did not translate the word at all but left it in the Greek to cover up their pious fraud. Those who could read could then assign whatever meaning they wanted to this new English word."

An Inquiry into Baptism

Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion, Which Shall It Be? by Jefferson David Tant Introduction Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mark 16:16; Gala…

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org

The absurb lengths some will go to protect a false theological bias.

Furthermore. to add to the hypocrisy of those early English translators, when it came to verses as Lk 16:24; Jn 13:26; Rev 19:13 that DO NOT deal with baptism, those translators easily understood baptizo means to dip. They clearly understood baptizo means immersion, to dip.

Secondly, all major Greek lexicons define baptizo as immersion...Thayer, Arndt, Gingrich, Mounce, on and on. Again, those early translators had no FACTUAL reason to obfuscate the meaning of immersion other than a corrupt personal biased.

Third. The Bible, NOT TRANSLATORS, settles the issue. How does the Bible describe the action of baptism? Paul described it as a "burial" Rom 6:4; Col 2:12. ..a burial which one is "raised up from":

a) I have been in many cemeteries where every grave the caskets/vaults are buried in the earth, no dirt just sprinkled on them.

b) this burial from which one is raised up from is significant. 2 Thess 1:8 one must obey the gospel to not be in flaming fire. The gospel is the death, BURIAL & RESURRECTION of Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4). Hence when one is water baptized per Rom 6, one must die to sin, the old man of sin is BURIED in a watery grace and then RESURRECTED, raised up from that watery grave to then walk in newness of life. Rom 6:17-18 baptism was that "form" of doctrine those Romans obeyed, form meaning a pattern....as Christ was buried in the earth and resurrected, likewise when men are water baptized they are buried in a watery grave and raised up from, resurrected from that watery grave. There is no burial much less a resurrection from sprinkling. If one has not been immersed, not buried and raised up from (resurrected) then one has NOT obeyed the gospel of Christ.

c) Gal 3:27
"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." "Put on Christ" is from the Greek endyo meaning "to sink into (clothing), put on, clothe one's self" Strong's. When I put on the shirt I am now wearing, I am now in the shirt, immersed, surrounded in the shirt. I did not sprinkle just a few miniscule pieces of shirt on my body.

d) further evidence the Bible gives that baptism is an immersion, a burial:
Jn 3:23 John baptized where there was 'much water', no need for much water if a few drops is all that is needed. Mark 1:4-5 John baptized people in the Jordan, again no need for a river if a few drops is all that is needed. Mark 1:9-10 John baptized Jesus and Jesus came up striatway out of the water. No need to get into water if a few drops is all that is needed as in Acts 8:38ff Phillip and eunuch came up out of the water.

Lastly, Mark 4:7 does not, cannot prove sprinkling when the Bible clearly describes the action of baptizing as a burial that one is resurrected/raised up from:

"The Greek word baptizo means to dip, immerse, plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm (Arndt and Gingrich 1967, 131). Unless it can be absolutely demonstrated that the cognate form must have a different meaning in this context, no one has the right to assert otherwise. It certainly is not necessary to draw that conclusion from this text (Mark 4:7)

The KJV “tables” is a mistranslation. The Greek word is klinon, from the root kline, a bed, couch, or resting place. The kindred term, klino, simply means to incline, bend, or bow.

Kline can denote an item which is used for sleep, or for reclining at a table for eating (as the custom was among the first-century Jews), or for transporting the infirm. It may thus denote a bed, couch, or pallet (Ibid. 437).

These items came in various sizes and forms, and it is not at all impossible that such an object could have been immersed in the Jewish ceremonial cleansing process.

Alfred Edersheim, himself a Jew and an expert in rabbinic literature, described the Pharisaic cleansing ritual:

Earthen vessels that had contracted impurity were to be broken; those of wood, horn, glass, or brass immersed; while, if vessels were bought of Gentiles, they were (as the case might be) to be immersed, put into boiling water, purged with fire, or at least polished (1947, 15; emphasis added).

Finally, the term klinon is not in the better Greek manuscripts. A. T. Robertson thought that its place in the original text was “probably not genuine” (1930, 322). Accordingly, “tables” is not in the text of most of the later versions (ASV, RSV, NIV), but is relegated to a footnote. The NKJV is an exception. The NASB does not even grant the term footnote status.

Clearly, no case for sprinkling as a substitute for immersion can be grounded in this passage."

Does Mark 7:4 Authorize Sprinkling?

This article addresses a sectarian argument that attempts to justify sprinkling as a substitute for immersion.

christiancourier.com

===========

" that still leaves the question: what am I to make of people “baptizing” their beds?

Am I really to believe that this was something commonplace in the first century?

After all, who would wash their bed by baptizing it?

Actually, what I found is that the Jews REALLY DID wash their beds by immersing them!

Everett Ferguson has this intriguing commentary on the subject:

“The Mishnah tractate Mikwaoth discusses the immersion of vessels (6.1-2, 5-6; 10.1, 5), including beds (7.7).” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism In The Early Church: History, Theology, And Liturgy In The First Five Centuries, 22148 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)

Intrigued, I turned to my copy of the Jewish Midrish. I found the following traditions:

“MISHNAH 1. IF A MAN DISMANTLED A BED IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT IMMERSE IT, 1 ANY ONE WHO TOUCHES THE ROPES2 REMAINS CLEAN. 3…MISHNAH 7. IF A BED WAS IMMERSED THEREIN, 32 ALTHOUGH ITS FEET SINK INTO THE THICK MUD, IT STILL BECOMES CLEAN BECAUSE THE WATER TOUCHED THEM BEFORE [THE MUD]. 33” (I. W. Slotki, H. Bornstein, M. H. Segal, I. Fishman, S. M. Lehrman UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF ISIDORE EPSTEIN Reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana 5771, The Soncino Babylonian Talmud MISHNAH SEDER TOHOROT, 2850, 11857 (Kindle Edition); Teaneck New Jersey; Talmudic Books)

The Midrash makes it clear that it was necessary for the Jews to wash their beds considering menstrual and seminal discharges. So when Jesus talked about the Jews “baptizing” their beds, He was referencing immersion (which determination is made linguistically, historically, and contextually)."

Does Mark 7:4 Teach That Baptism Is Sprinkling And Pouring?

An Argument For Sprinkling And Pouring As Baptism? It is written: “When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received an…

marktabata.com

Serious, you really imagine Jews drank from and cooked with water they use to immerse unclean things

Such water would be unclean unless there was a very large confluence of water

BTW there is no passage which identifies water baptism as a burial

 

[Seabass]

Serious, you really imagine Jews drank from and cooked with water they use to immerse unclean things

Such water would be unclean unless there was a very large confluence of water

BTW there is no passage which identifies water baptism as a burial

By arguing the mode of baptism you are implying that the one baptism (Eph 4:5) is water baptism, hence Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 12:13; Mk 16:16; Col 3:11-12 etc., all refer to water baptism and not some kind of spirit baptism as many people falsely claim in order to get around the necessity of water baptism.

================

Rom 6 and Col 3 Paul clearly describes baptism as a burial that one is raised up from. Again, the "form" of doctrine those Romans obeyed was water baptism with form (tupos) meaning type, a pattern, a model. Hence Christ was buried in the earth and raised up from that grave, the type, the pattern, the model those Romans obeyed was burial in water from which they were raised up from. Sprinkling is not a type, pattern, model of a burial. Christ was buried in a grave not sprinkled into to a grave.

NT Greek is a very specific language with distinct words for immersion (baptizo) and sprinkling (rantizo) and pour (cheo) and rantizo is not used when speaking about NT baptism. Rantizo is not a burial. In the Greek OT LXX we find in Leviticus 4:17: “Then the priest shall dip [baptizo] his finger in the blood and sprinkle [rhantizo] it several times before the Lord, in front of the veil.” Immersion and sprinkling are two distinct, different things. Sprinkling therefore is NOT baptism/baptizo. If baptism were sprinkiling then rantizo would be used...but it's NEVER used about NT baptism.

Running short on time, so I will have to end this post with this:
Acts 8:38: And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

An important distinction has to be made here...it was not the water that Phillip was handling in pouring or sprinkling rather it was the person (eunuch) that Phillip was handling...hence he (Phillip) immersed him (eunuch). If baptizo means sprinkling then Phillip ripped to shreds the eunuch and sprinkled the pieces of the eunuch into the water. Nor did Phillip liquify the eunuch and pour the eunuch into the water. Phillips handling of the eunuch (not the water) can only be described as an immersion of the eunuch into the water...the one immersion of Eph 4:5. Again Christ's body was handled and His body was not sprinkled into a grave.

 

[TomL]

By arguing the mode of baptism you are implying that the one baptism (Eph 4:5) is water baptism, hence Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 12:13; Mk 16:16; Col 3:11-12 etc., all refer to water baptism and not some kind of spirit baptism as many people falsely claim in order to get around the necessity of water baptism.

================

Rom 6 and Col 3 Paul clearly describes baptism as a burial that one is raised up from. Again, the "form" of doctrine those Romans obeyed was water baptism with form (tupos) meaning type, a pattern, a model. Hence Christ was buried in the earth and raised up from that grave, the type, the pattern, the model those Romans obeyed was burial in water from which they were raised up from. Sprinkling is not a type, pattern, model of a burial. Christ was buried in a grave not sprinkled into to a grave.

Sorry, but there is not a drop of water in either Roman 6 or cool 3

And BTW Christ was not buried under ground

n the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be “into Christ” and (its equivalent baptism) “into his death;” and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit.11 James W. Dale, An Inquiry Into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ and the Nature of Christic and Patristic Baptism (Philadelphia: Wm. Rutter & Co., 1874), 245.



6:3–4. Paul explained in more detail the spiritual basis for his abrupt declaration, “We died to sin” (v. 2). Whether the Roman Christians knew it or not, the fact is that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death. The question here is whether Paul had in mind Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13) or water baptism. Some object to taking Romans 6:3 as Spirit baptism because that verse speaks of being “baptized into Christ” whereas 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks of Spirit baptism placing the believer into Christ’s body. Of course, both are true: the believer is “baptized” (placed into) Christ and also into the body of Christ, and both are done by the Holy Spirit.

Others take Romans 6:3 to refer to water baptism, but the problem with that is that it seems to suggest that baptism saves. However, the New Testament consistently denies baptismal regeneration, presenting water baptism as a public attestation to an accomplished spiritual work (cf., e.g., Acts 10:44–48; 16:29–33). The spiritual reality Paul spoke of is that by faith believers are “baptized (placed) into Christ” and thereby are united and identified with Him. This spiritual reality is then graphically witnessed to and pictured by believers’ baptism in water. The one baptism (by water) is the visible picture of the spiritual truth of the other baptism (identification with Christ; cf. Gal. 3:27, “baptized into Christ … clothed with Christ”).1

1 John A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck; vol. 2; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2461–462.


We are buried with Christ by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead … even so we also should walk in newness of life." That Paul is not speaking of water baptism, however, but of the spiritual reality it symbolizes, is clear, for he says that through baptism "our old man sinful nature is crucified with him Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed." As a consequence, he urges believers to reckon" themselves " to be dead indeed unto sin … . Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body" (vv 6-13).



2. That this baptism is real, by the Spirit, and not ritual, by water, is farther conclusively shown by the fact, that εἰς with its regimen related to βαπτίζω declares definitely and finally the baptism and the nature of the baptism.

This is true without exception of Classic usage. In such phrases as βαπτίζω εἰς θάλασσαν, εἰς λίμνην, εἰς ποταμόν, no one ever thought of any other translation or interpretation than that which makes the baptized object pass into the sea, into the lake, into the river, without any purpose or power of the verb to bring out; therefore, subjecting the object to the unlimited influence of sea, lake, or river. The same is true of Jewish writings. When Josephus speaks of a baptism εἰς ἀναισθησίαν an intelligent translation precludes any other than a baptism “into insensibility,” the verbal form being modelled after that of a physical baptism; but inasmuch as a physical passing “into insensibility” as an element is impossible, this idea is rejected; and that other idea of unlimited influence consequent upon an object being introduced, without withdrawal, into a physical element, is accepted as the idea designed to be conveyed by such phrase. The same form, with the same power of expression, is used by Patristic writers. Clemens Alex, speaks of a baptism εἰς ὕπνον into sleep; where, again, we reject the impossible idea of a passage “into sleep” as an element, and accept the associate and inseparable idea, unlimited influence of sleep. Now, unless the Greek of the New Testament be under essentially different laws from all other Greek (Classic, Jewish, and Patristic), then baptism “into Christ” is modelled after the form of a physical baptism which represents an object passing into a physical element, and thus subjected to the fullest influence of such element; but inasmuch as the redeemed souls of a world cannot, in fact, pass “into Christ,” we reject this idea (except as suggestive) and take the inseparable, consequent idea of unlimited influence exerted by Christ over his redeemed people = taking away the guilt of sin, and giving “newness of life” through the regenerating power of his Spirit. The same explanation applies to baptism “into his death,” which is only a more precise statement as to the source of that influence exercised by Christ over his people. Christ is what he is to his people by reason of his atoning death; therefore, “so many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into his death.”

3. There is no just ground for error or doubt as to the import of εἰς and its regimen in relation with βαπτίζω. The principle of interpretation is clear and fixed. It is found in the influence exerted over an object in physical baptism. The nature of such influence is no less clear and fixed. It is the most unlimited = penetrating, controlling, and assimilating influence which the nature of the case allows. The variable quantities in such baptism are found in the nature of the element and the nature of the object. If water or oil be the element into which a fleece of wool is baptized the effect upon the wool will be diverse, according to the diverse nature of water and oil. If a vessel and its crew be baptized together into the sea, the effect of this common baptism on vessel and crew will be diverse, according to the nature of lifeless wood and of living men. A baptism “into insensibility” differs from a baptism “into repentance” just as insensibility differs from repentance. And a baptism “into Moses,” “into Paul,” “into Christ,” differs the one from the other just as Moses and Paul and Christ differ the one from the other.

If these things be true, then, when in the statement of any baptism εἰς and its regimen appears, the baptism is thereby definitely and absolutely declared, and all farther inquiry is concluded.

In the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be “into Christ” and (its equivalent baptism) “into his death;” and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit.1

1 James W. Dale, An Inquiry Into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ and the Nature of Christic and Patristic Baptism (Philadelphia: Wm. Rutter & Co., 1874), 243–245.

 

[MTMattie]

Good morning people.

Fascinating discussion and comments here already.

If y'all have a few moments and want to read a commentary (long) read what I posted, from beginning to end, here, on this subject.

I will not bold, highlight or color change any part of this... because of the copyright instructions. (Or copy parts)​

Copyright 1994 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://www.mountainretreatorg.net
-------------------------*---------------------------

Feel free to duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, as long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.

I am in the process of trying to contact Tony Warren (author) for permission to quote parts, rather then all of this...

Enjoy.

Part 1 : https://berean-apologetics.communit...aptism-is-baptism-by-tony-warren-part-1.2380/

Part 2: https://berean-apologetics.communit...aptism-is-baptism-by-tony-warren-part-2.2381/

Part 3: https://berean-apologetics.communit...aptism-is-baptism-by-tony-warren-part-3.2382/

 

[Seabass]

Sorry, but there is not a drop of water in either Roman 6 or cool 3

And BTW Christ was not buried under ground

n the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be “into Christ” and (its equivalent baptism) “into his death;” and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit.11 James W. Dale, An Inquiry Into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ and the Nature of Christic and Patristic Baptism (Philadelphia: Wm. Rutter & Co., 1874), 245.



6:3–4. Paul explained in more detail the spiritual basis for his abrupt declaration, “We died to sin” (v. 2). Whether the Roman Christians knew it or not, the fact is that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death. The question here is whether Paul had in mind Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13) or water baptism. Some object to taking Romans 6:3 as Spirit baptism because that verse speaks of being “baptized into Christ” whereas 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks of Spirit baptism placing the believer into Christ’s body. Of course, both are true: the believer is “baptized” (placed into) Christ and also into the body of Christ, and both are done by the Holy Spirit.

Others take Romans 6:3 to refer to water baptism, but the problem with that is that it seems to suggest that baptism saves. However, the New Testament consistently denies baptismal regeneration, presenting water baptism as a public attestation to an accomplished spiritual work (cf., e.g., Acts 10:44–48; 16:29–33). The spiritual reality Paul spoke of is that by faith believers are “baptized (placed) into Christ” and thereby are united and identified with Him. This spiritual reality is then graphically witnessed to and pictured by believers’ baptism in water. The one baptism (by water) is the visible picture of the spiritual truth of the other baptism (identification with Christ; cf. Gal. 3:27, “baptized into Christ … clothed with Christ”).1

1 John A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck; vol. 2; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2461–462.


We are buried with Christ by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead … even so we also should walk in newness of life." That Paul is not speaking of water baptism, however, but of the spiritual reality it symbolizes, is clear, for he says that through baptism "our old man sinful nature is crucified with him Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed." As a consequence, he urges believers to reckon" themselves " to be dead indeed unto sin … . Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body" (vv 6-13).



2. That this baptism is real, by the Spirit, and not ritual, by water, is farther conclusively shown by the fact, that εἰς with its regimen related to βαπτίζω declares definitely and finally the baptism and the nature of the baptism.

This is true without exception of Classic usage. In such phrases as βαπτίζω εἰς θάλασσαν, εἰς λίμνην, εἰς ποταμόν, no one ever thought of any other translation or interpretation than that which makes the baptized object pass into the sea, into the lake, into the river, without any purpose or power of the verb to bring out; therefore, subjecting the object to the unlimited influence of sea, lake, or river. The same is true of Jewish writings. When Josephus speaks of a baptism εἰς ἀναισθησίαν an intelligent translation precludes any other than a baptism “into insensibility,” the verbal form being modelled after that of a physical baptism; but inasmuch as a physical passing “into insensibility” as an element is impossible, this idea is rejected; and that other idea of unlimited influence consequent upon an object being introduced, without withdrawal, into a physical element, is accepted as the idea designed to be conveyed by such phrase. The same form, with the same power of expression, is used by Patristic writers. Clemens Alex, speaks of a baptism εἰς ὕπνον into sleep; where, again, we reject the impossible idea of a passage “into sleep” as an element, and accept the associate and inseparable idea, unlimited influence of sleep. Now, unless the Greek of the New Testament be under essentially different laws from all other Greek (Classic, Jewish, and Patristic), then baptism “into Christ” is modelled after the form of a physical baptism which represents an object passing into a physical element, and thus subjected to the fullest influence of such element; but inasmuch as the redeemed souls of a world cannot, in fact, pass “into Christ,” we reject this idea (except as suggestive) and take the inseparable, consequent idea of unlimited influence exerted by Christ over his redeemed people = taking away the guilt of sin, and giving “newness of life” through the regenerating power of his Spirit. The same explanation applies to baptism “into his death,” which is only a more precise statement as to the source of that influence exercised by Christ over his people. Christ is what he is to his people by reason of his atoning death; therefore, “so many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into his death.”

3. There is no just ground for error or doubt as to the import of εἰς and its regimen in relation with βαπτίζω. The principle of interpretation is clear and fixed. It is found in the influence exerted over an object in physical baptism. The nature of such influence is no less clear and fixed. It is the most unlimited = penetrating, controlling, and assimilating influence which the nature of the case allows. The variable quantities in such baptism are found in the nature of the element and the nature of the object. If water or oil be the element into which a fleece of wool is baptized the effect upon the wool will be diverse, according to the diverse nature of water and oil. If a vessel and its crew be baptized together into the sea, the effect of this common baptism on vessel and crew will be diverse, according to the nature of lifeless wood and of living men. A baptism “into insensibility” differs from a baptism “into repentance” just as insensibility differs from repentance. And a baptism “into Moses,” “into Paul,” “into Christ,” differs the one from the other just as Moses and Paul and Christ differ the one from the other.

If these things be true, then, when in the statement of any baptism εἰς and its regimen appears, the baptism is thereby definitely and absolutely declared, and all farther inquiry is concluded.

In the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be “into Christ” and (its equivalent baptism) “into his death;” and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit.1

1 James W. Dale, An Inquiry Into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ and the Nature of Christic and Patristic Baptism (Philadelphia: Wm. Rutter & Co., 1874), 243–245.

What you are doing is really no different from those who take Acts 2:38 and try to make the word "for" (eis) mean 'because" in order to pervert the meaning of the verse to make the verse conform to their faith onlyism. You take the word "buried" and try to make it mean "sprinkle" to make the Bible conform to your personal bias.

1 Cor 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2 Thess 1:8
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 6:3-5
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Paul described baptism as a burial not sprinkling and the Bible explains why Paul explicitly, specifically used the term "buried":
---one must obey the gospel of Christ else be in flaming fire, 2 Thess 1:8
---the gospel is the death BURIAL and resurrection of Christ, 1 Cor 15:1-4
----in water baptism one must die to sin, be buried and raised up....a death burral and resurrection takes place in water baptism. Rom 6:3-5

By trying to substitute sprinkling for burial then you are in effect attempting to CHANGE THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. It would be strange for Paul to use the term buried if he meant sprinkling (rantizo). Christ was not sprinkled but buried in the earth....the gospel does not consist of a death, sprinkling and resurrection. One is not buried by sprinkling.

Not only are you trying to CHANGE the gospel of Christ by turning buried into sprinkling you are also trying to CHANGE the element of baptism from water (Jn 3:5; Acts 8:38; Acts 10:47-48) to spirit. Nowhere in the NT is obeying the gospel of Christ (a death burial and resurrection) associated with some kind of 'spirit baptism'. No one was ever commanded to be baptized with spirit. Nowhere is some kind of spirit baptism associated with salvation. There is but ONE baptism in this present gospel dispensation, not two distinct baptisms, and Paul explicitly stated this baptism is a burial, an immersion whereby the death, burial & resurrection that takes place in water baptism which is a type, pattern, model (Rom 6:17) of Christ's death BURIAL & resurrection....sprinkling is not a TYPE, pattern for burial.

In Acts 8 the Spirit did not personally 'spirit baptize" the eunuch, the Spirit did not even personally teach the eunuch. Instead the Spirit sent for Phillip to come and teach the eunuch (Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 1:21) and immerse him in the element water. It is God's plan that men (disciples) to go and teach and baptize (great commission) and not the Spirit Himself to go and make disciples by personally teaching and 'spirit baptizing' men. Men (disciples) can and do teach and water baptized....no man can 'spirit baptize' another man.

 

[MTMattie]

Sorry, but there is not a drop of water in either Roman 6 or cool 3

And BTW Christ was not buried under ground

Correct, he was basically buried in a cave.

n the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be “into Christ” and (its equivalent baptism) “into his death;” and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit.11 James W. Dale, An Inquiry Into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ and the Nature of Christic and Patristic Baptism (Philadelphia: Wm. Rutter & Co., 1874), 245.



6:3–4. Paul explained in more detail the spiritual basis for his abrupt declaration, “We died to sin” (v. 2). Whether the Roman Christians knew it or not, the fact is that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death. The question here is whether Paul had in mind Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13) or water baptism. Some object to taking Romans 6:3 as Spirit baptism because that verse speaks of being “baptized into Christ” whereas 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks of Spirit baptism placing the believer into Christ’s body. Of course, both are true: the believer is “baptized” (placed into) Christ and also into the body of Christ, and both are done by the Holy Spirit.

Others take Romans 6:3 to refer to water baptism, but the problem with that is that it seems to suggest that baptism saves. However, the New Testament consistently denies baptismal regeneration, presenting water baptism as a public attestation to an accomplished spiritual work (cf., e.g., Acts 10:44–48; 16:29–33). The spiritual reality Paul spoke of is that by faith believers are “baptized (placed) into Christ” and thereby are united and identified with Him. This spiritual reality is then graphically witnessed to and pictured by believers’ baptism in water. The one baptism (by water) is the visible picture of the spiritual truth of the other baptism (identification with Christ; cf. Gal. 3:27, “baptized into Christ … clothed with Christ”).1

1 John A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck; vol. 2; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2461–462.


We are buried with Christ by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead … even so we also should walk in newness of life." That Paul is not speaking of water baptism, however, but of the spiritual reality it symbolizes, is clear, for he says that through baptism "our old man sinful nature is crucified with him Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed." As a consequence, he urges believers to reckon" themselves " to be dead indeed unto sin … . Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body" (vv 6-13).



2. That this baptism is real, by the Spirit, and not ritual, by water, is farther conclusively shown by the fact, that εἰς with its regimen related to βαπτίζω declares definitely and finally the baptism and the nature of the baptism.

This is true without exception of Classic usage. In such phrases as βαπτίζω εἰς θάλασσαν, εἰς λίμνην, εἰς ποταμόν, no one ever thought of any other translation or interpretation than that which makes the baptized object pass into the sea, into the lake, into the river, without any purpose or power of the verb to bring out; therefore, subjecting the object to the unlimited influence of sea, lake, or river. The same is true of Jewish writings. When Josephus speaks of a baptism εἰς ἀναισθησίαν an intelligent translation precludes any other than a baptism “into insensibility,” the verbal form being modelled after that of a physical baptism; but inasmuch as a physical passing “into insensibility” as an element is impossible, this idea is rejected; and that other idea of unlimited influence consequent upon an object being introduced, without withdrawal, into a physical element, is accepted as the idea designed to be conveyed by such phrase. The same form, with the same power of expression, is used by Patristic writers. Clemens Alex, speaks of a baptism εἰς ὕπνον into sleep; where, again, we reject the impossible idea of a passage “into sleep” as an element, and accept the associate and inseparable idea, unlimited influence of sleep. Now, unless the Greek of the New Testament be under essentially different laws from all other Greek (Classic, Jewish, and Patristic), then baptism “into Christ” is modelled after the form of a physical baptism which represents an object passing into a physical element, and thus subjected to the fullest influence of such element; but inasmuch as the redeemed souls of a world cannot, in fact, pass “into Christ,” we reject this idea (except as suggestive) and take the inseparable, consequent idea of unlimited influence exerted by Christ over his redeemed people = taking away the guilt of sin, and giving “newness of life” through the regenerating power of his Spirit. The same explanation applies to baptism “into his death,” which is only a more precise statement as to the source of that influence exercised by Christ over his people. Christ is what he is to his people by reason of his atoning death; therefore, “so many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into his death.”

3. There is no just ground for error or doubt as to the import of εἰς and its regimen in relation with βαπτίζω. The principle of interpretation is clear and fixed. It is found in the influence exerted over an object in physical baptism. The nature of such influence is no less clear and fixed. It is the most unlimited = penetrating, controlling, and assimilating influence which the nature of the case allows. The variable quantities in such baptism are found in the nature of the element and the nature of the object. If water or oil be the element into which a fleece of wool is baptized the effect upon the wool will be diverse, according to the diverse nature of water and oil. If a vessel and its crew be baptized together into the sea, the effect of this common baptism on vessel and crew will be diverse, according to the nature of lifeless wood and of living men. A baptism “into insensibility” differs from a baptism “into repentance” just as insensibility differs from repentance. And a baptism “into Moses,” “into Paul,” “into Christ,” differs the one from the other just as Moses and Paul and Christ differ the one from the other.

If these things be true, then, when in the statement of any baptism εἰς and its regimen appears, the baptism is thereby definitely and absolutely declared, and all farther inquiry is concluded.

In the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be “into Christ” and (its equivalent baptism) “into his death;” and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit.1

1 James W. Dale, An Inquiry Into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ and the Nature of Christic and Patristic Baptism (Philadelphia: Wm. Rutter & Co., 1874), 243–245.

 

[Seabass]

Correct, he was basically buried in a cave.

Christ was buried in the earth, Mt 12:40. Just as the dead are buried in the earth in cemeteries. Though the bodies are in caskets/vaults and the earth itself is not touching the bodies, the body itself is buried, immersed in the earth. Likewise Christ was buried, immersed in the earth. The idea of sprinkling is distinct from a burial, immersion.

 

[MTMattie]

Christ was buried in the earth, Mt 12:40. Just as the dead are buried in the earth in cemeteries. Though the bodies are in caskets/vaults and the earth itself is not touching the bodies, the body itself is buried, immersed in the earth. Likewise Christ was buried, immersed in the earth. The idea of sprinkling is distinct from a burial, immersion.

The Burial of Jesus

Following His death, Jesus' body was requested by Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council who was also a secret disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57, Mark 15:43, Luke 23:50-51, John 19:38). Joseph, with the assistance of Nicodemus, took Jesus' body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth with spices, as was the Jewish burial custom (John 19:39-40).

Jesus was laid in a new tomb hewn out of rock, which belonged to Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, John 19:41). A large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb, and a guard was set to secure it at the request of the chief priests and Pharisees, who remembered Jesus' prediction of His resurrection (Matthew 27:62-66).

YOU are forgetting the rock that had to be rolled away from the entrance so they could enter.

The tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea

Joseph of Arimathea is a biblical figure known for providing a tomb for Jesus after his crucifixion. He is described in the Gospels as a wealthy and respected member of the Sanhedrin who secretly followed Jesus and boldly requested Jesus' body from Pontius Pilate for burial.

 

[Seabass]

The Burial of Jesus

Following His death, Jesus' body was requested by Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council who was also a secret disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57, Mark 15:43, Luke 23:50-51, John 19:38). Joseph, with the assistance of Nicodemus, took Jesus' body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth with spices, as was the Jewish burial custom (John 19:39-40).

Jesus was laid in a new tomb hewn out of rock, which belonged to Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, John 19:41). A large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb, and a guard was set to secure it at the request of the chief priests and Pharisees, who remembered Jesus' prediction of His resurrection (Matthew 27:62-66).

YOU are forgetting the rock that had to be rolled away from the entrance so they could enter.

The tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea

Joseph of Arimathea is a biblical figure known for providing a tomb for Jesus after his crucifixion. He is described in the Gospels as a wealthy and respected member of the Sanhedrin who secretly followed Jesus and boldly requested Jesus' body from Pontius Pilate for burial.

.....the issue is a burial took place....Christ was wrapped in linen and buried in the earth as people are dressed and put in caskets/coffins and buried in the earth. Sprinkling and burial are two distinct, different things and substituting sprinkling for burial is as corrupt as trying to substitute peanuts and coke zero for unleaven bread and fruit of vine of the Communion.

 

[TomL]

Correct, he was basically buried in a cave.

Yes above ground

 

[TomL]

What you are doing is really no different from those who take Acts 2:38 and try to make the word "for" (eis) mean 'because" in order to pervert the meaning of the verse to make the verse conform to their faith onlyism. You take the word "buried" and try to make it mean "sprinkle" to make the Bible conform to your personal bias.

You are changing the subject and misrepresenting my view

I do not , have not, attempted to make the word buried mean spirinkle

And the baptism is into Christ, and into his death not into water

Our union with Christ unites us with or in Christ and in his death



And BTW Christ was not buried under ground

In the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be “into Christ” and (its equivalent baptism) “into his death;” and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit.11 James W. Dale, An Inquiry Into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ and the Nature of Christic and Patristic Baptism (Philadelphia: Wm. Rutter & Co., 1874), 245.



6:3–4. Paul explained in more detail the spiritual basis for his abrupt declaration, “We died to sin” (v. 2). Whether the Roman Christians knew it or not, the fact is that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death. The question here is whether Paul had in mind Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13) or water baptism. Some object to taking Romans 6:3 as Spirit baptism because that verse speaks of being “baptized into Christ” whereas 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks of Spirit baptism placing the believer into Christ’s body. Of course, both are true: the believer is “baptized” (placed into) Christ and also into the body of Christ, and both are done by the Holy Spirit.

Others take Romans 6:3 to refer to water baptism, but the problem with that is that it seems to suggest that baptism saves. However, the New Testament consistently denies baptismal regeneration, presenting water baptism as a public attestation to an accomplished spiritual work (cf., e.g., Acts 10:44–48; 16:29–33). The spiritual reality Paul spoke of is that by faith believers are “baptized (placed) into Christ” and thereby are united and identified with Him. This spiritual reality is then graphically witnessed to and pictured by believers’ baptism in water. The one baptism (by water) is the visible picture of the spiritual truth of the other baptism (identification with Christ; cf. Gal. 3:27, “baptized into Christ … clothed with Christ”).1

1 John A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck; vol. 2; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2461–462.


We are buried with Christ by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead … even so we also should walk in newness of life." That Paul is not speaking of water baptism, however, but of the spiritual reality it symbolizes, is clear, for he says that through baptism "our old man sinful nature is crucified with him Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed." As a consequence, he urges believers to reckon" themselves " to be dead indeed unto sin … . Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body" (vv 6-13).



2. That this baptism is real, by the Spirit, and not ritual, by water, is farther conclusively shown by the fact, that εἰς with its regimen related to βαπτίζω declares definitely and finally the baptism and the nature of the baptism.

This is true without exception of Classic usage. In such phrases as βαπτίζω εἰς θάλασσαν, εἰς λίμνην, εἰς ποταμόν, no one ever thought of any other translation or interpretation than that which makes the baptized object pass into the sea, into the lake, into the river, without any purpose or power of the verb to bring out; therefore, subjecting the object to the unlimited influence of sea, lake, or river. The same is true of Jewish writings. When Josephus speaks of a baptism εἰς ἀναισθησίαν an intelligent translation precludes any other than a baptism “into insensibility,” the verbal form being modelled after that of a physical baptism; but inasmuch as a physical passing “into insensibility” as an element is impossible, this idea is rejected; and that other idea of unlimited influence consequent upon an object being introduced, without withdrawal, into a physical element, is accepted as the idea designed to be conveyed by such phrase. The same form, with the same power of expression, is used by Patristic writers. Clemens Alex, speaks of a baptism εἰς ὕπνον into sleep; where, again, we reject the impossible idea of a passage “into sleep” as an element, and accept the associate and inseparable idea, unlimited influence of sleep. Now, unless the Greek of the New Testament be under essentially different laws from all other Greek (Classic, Jewish, and Patristic), then baptism “into Christ” is modelled after the form of a physical baptism which represents an object passing into a physical element, and thus subjected to the fullest influence of such element; but inasmuch as the redeemed souls of a world cannot, in fact, pass “into Christ,” we reject this idea (except as suggestive) and take the inseparable, consequent idea of unlimited influence exerted by Christ over his redeemed people = taking away the guilt of sin, and giving “newness of life” through the regenerating power of his Spirit. The same explanation applies to baptism “into his death,” which is only a more precise statement as to the source of that influence exercised by Christ over his people. Christ is what he is to his people by reason of his atoning death; therefore, “so many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into his death.”

3. There is no just ground for error or doubt as to the import of εἰς and its regimen in relation with βαπτίζω. The principle of interpretation is clear and fixed. It is found in the influence exerted over an object in physical baptism. The nature of such influence is no less clear and fixed. It is the most unlimited = penetrating, controlling, and assimilating influence which the nature of the case allows. The variable quantities in such baptism are found in the nature of the element and the nature of the object. If water or oil be the element into which a fleece of wool is baptized the effect upon the wool will be diverse, according to the diverse nature of water and oil. If a vessel and its crew be baptized together into the sea, the effect of this common baptism on vessel and crew will be diverse, according to the nature of lifeless wood and of living men. A baptism “into insensibility” differs from a baptism “into repentance” just as insensibility differs from repentance. And a baptism “into Moses,” “into Paul,” “into Christ,” differs the one from the other just as Moses and Paul and Christ differ the one from the other.

If these things be true, then, when in the statement of any baptism εἰς and its regimen appears, the baptism is thereby definitely and absolutely declared, and all farther inquiry is concluded.

In the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be “into Christ” and (its equivalent baptism) “into his death;” and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit.1

1 James W. Dale, An Inquiry Into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ and the Nature of Christic and Patristic Baptism (Philadelphia: Wm. Rutter & Co., 1874), 243–245.