Baptize – to immerse or to sprinkle?
The photo on the right is an old archeological find of a Jewish “mikvah.” In Christianity, we would refer to it as a “baptismal.” If they were close to the river, such as Jesus’ baptism, they would be mikvah’d in the river. A mikvah was always by full immersion.
It depends on the Christian denomination if baptism is performed by immersion or by sprinkling water.
History Of The Word “Baptize”
We get our English word “baptize” from the Greek word “baptízō.” The Greek word literally means to “dip or immerse.” 2,000 or so years ago, the word “baptízō” was used when dying material or cloth, such as changing the color from white to purple. In order to do this, they did not sprinkle purple dye on the cloth nor did they pour dye over it. Instead, they filled a container with purple dye and “baptized” the cloth by fully immersing the cloth in the dye. The cloth thus came out transformed. That is the imagery of baptism. The Greek word is more descriptive to the event than the word “immerse” or “dip” as it signifies transformation.
Why Baptízō Was Transliterated And Not Translated
The translators of the 1611 Kings James Version chose to transliterate baptízō instead of translating the word. The history behind the choice to transliterate is because in that time period, there were religious groups that were sprinkling. In order to not offend any one group by translating it to the corresponding word “immerse,” they transliterated the word. Before the 1611 King James Bible, there were mainly two Bibles being read, either the Roman Catholic Latin version or the Greek Orthodox Church, though the layperson did not have access to the bible, only clergy. The Latin word for baptism was also a transliteration, baptizare. Immersion was dying out in Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, who had used immersion at one point, declared in 1311 that it did not matter what method was used.
The translators of the 1611 King James Version faced a quandary. They could either correct the mistake of sprinkling by translating baptízō to a corresponding word in English (dip or immerse) or allow what had become custom to continue. They chose to allow custom to continue and, therefore, their only option was to transliterate instead of translate.
In all instances in the New Testament, baptism was by full immersion. There is no evidence to support that sprinkling was a method used either in Old Covenant or the New Covenant. The new Christians employed full immersion; sprinkling was not employed until much later.
Baptize really is a better word if we can understand the imagery that baptízō signifies. It mimics the death, burial and resurrection to a new life, a transformation from death unto life.
WordPress Tags: Baptize, Jews, Christ, Jesus, baptism, Christian, denomination, immersion, imagery, transformation, Bible, Orthodox, custom,Covenant, death, resurrection, life, mikvah
Related posts:
I won’t attempt to guess which one is better. Though I have heard from those on both sides of the argument who would argue your hell bound if you don’t get it right.
Hi, yeah, I know the arguments including the hell bound if you don’t get baptized. I just post as I see the truth.
Isn’t this debate close to confusing the outward signs for the invisible grace?
I get the point and the symbolism of full immersion, which is why churches that allow a choice of methods include immersion among the choices. But why is the quantity of water central? Is this not getting very close to magical thinking when we make the quantity of water the way to tell whether baptism “worked” or not?
I hope it’s not close to confusing the outward signs for the invisible grace.
It’s not so much that the quantity of water is central just that it’s in obedience. If the bible is to be truth in matters of faith and practice, why come up with something different? It’s not a salvific issue and if one does not get baptized, they are saved nonetheless IF they have believed and received. God said to be fully immersed. Why not stick with that? My thoughts are why are we changing it? Convenience?
If someone never gets baptized in water, they remain saved. But why would someone not obey?
Thanks for stopping by
Hey Blog Lady T,
Both my wife and I were baptized (sprinkled) as infants. A lot of good that did! We were both atheists until nearlly 12 years ago.
We became members at our new church last month. In that process, talking with the elder, we decided to be baptized as a public profession of faith. This was something I’d thought about almost as long as I’d been saved.
So we did it and it was great. Two of my young boys from children’s ministry were there and got to see their teacher being baptized along with 18 other people.
It was full immersion.
Great history lesson on baptism! There are so many who don’t understand the clear truth about what baptism really was and is. It has always seemed funny to me that some say they were baptized (immersed) by sprinkling or pouring.
I agree — I think it’s very difficult for people to let go of traditions that they’ve been taught.