The semantic range of the Greek "baptizo" [Archive]

View Full Version : The semantic range of the Greek "baptizo"

Jezz

April 11th 2004, 01:29 PM

The question being addressed in this thread is very specific: as the title suggests, it is to do with the semantic range of the Greek word "baptizo". As thread starter, I ask that you please refrain from posting on any other topic (eg, the efficacy of sprinkling vs full immersion) in this thread. I will be asking for moderation of posts that violate this guideline.

The verb "baptizo" means, in general, "to immerse". The question is whether or not the word "baptizo" always refers to a full body immersion. VFarris01 insisted in another thread that this very word always refers to a full body immersion. In contrast, it is my position that this word may at times simply refer to an "immersion", but not necessarily of the whole body.

In order to make my case and rebut VFarris' argument, it is only necessary for me to find one example of a usage of the word "baptizo" from Biblical times where the word referred to something other than a complete body immersion. Fortunately, we have one such example in the NT:

But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.

The word translated "wash" is a form of the Greek verb "baptizo". Clearly, the Pharisee would not be expecting Jesus to wash his entire body before eating - just his hands. So this text is clear proof that "baptizo" does not always mean the entire body.

When I brought this verse up, VFarris alleged that what the Pharisee was amazed at was that Jesus did not wash his food before the meal - with the object of the verb "baptizo" being the implied (but omitted) "food". Now, I have no problem in admitting that the Pharisees "dipped" their food before eating it (VFarris provided Scriptural support from Matthew and Mark to back up this assertion). But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the Pharisee in Luke's dialog meant food.

Immersing ourselves (excuse the pun) in the Greek for this passage a little will answer this question. Y'see, the verb "baptizo" does not appear in the "active voice" in this sentence. It appears in what is known as "passive voice". This means that the thing that receives the action of the verb is the subject of the verb. For an example of the difference:

Active voice: "He baptised (something)."
Passive voice: "He was baptised (by something)."

If VFarris' argument was correct, then the verse would have to appear in active voice. However, Luke 11:38 uses the passive voice - the second of the two forms. In other words, a more literal translation of the verse would be:

But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus was not first baptised before the meal, was surprised.

It is clear from the Greek that the Pharisee was surprised that Jesus was not first baptised before eating. It had nothing to do with Jesus baptising his own food, as VFarris tried to argue.

Thus, I have proven that the word "baptizo" did not always refer to full body immersion by itself. It's semantic range was broader than that.

Maxentius

April 11th 2004, 04:53 PM

VFarris01

April 11th 2004, 07:37 PM

Jezz,

This is a very interesting topic and one to which I am pleased to respond.

We are in full agreement the verb baptizo (G907) indeed means “to immerse” fully.

Do you believe the New Testament contains the “God-breathed” infallible Word of God?

Do you believe full-body baptism was the only method employed during the first century for believers in Jesus Christ?

I must clarify my position concerning baptism. I am not changing my position mind you, merely clarifying my position.

I do not “insist,” contrary to your assertion, the word baptizo (G907) always means full-body immersion. I do insist, however, the word (G907) always means full-body immersion when used to describe the practice of baptism of believers in Jesus Christ.

My Christian Brother, you are attempting to equate the Jewish tradition of washing of the hands (ceremonial cleansing) before eating with baptism of believers in Jesus Christ.

As I have said many times, in order to understand parts of the Bible, it is necessary to understand all of the Bible and the practices of the people in the Bible.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke document three times when the Pharisees questioned Jesus for not performing this ceremonial cleansing before eating.

The first is in:

(1) Then some Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to Jesus and said, (2) "Why do your disciples disregard the tradition of the elders? For they don't wash (G3538) their hands when they eat."

The second in:

(1) The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus. (2) They noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them. (3) (For the Pharisees and indeed all the Jewish people don't eat unless they wash (G3538) their hands properly, following the tradition of their elders.) (4) They don't eat anything from the marketplace unless they dip (G907) it in water. They also observe many other traditions, such as the washing (G909) of cups, jars, brass pots, and dinner tables. (5) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with unclean hands."

and finally, the third in:

(37) After Jesus had said this, a Pharisee invited him to have a meal with him. So Jesus went and took his place at the table. (38) The Pharisee was surprised to see that he didn't first wash (G907) before the meal. (39) But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean (G2511) the outside of the cup and the dish, but on the inside you are full of greed and evil.

In these three passages the verb baptizo (G907) is used twice, once in the common usage, to dip (Mark 7:4), and once to describe ceremonial cleansing (Luke 11:38).

Problems are routinely encountered when translating from a first language into a second language. Typically, as in most languages, problems occur in the translation from Hebrew (or Aramaic) to Greek.

Here the problem involves the translation of the Hebrew words wash and dip into the corresponding Greek. There are three words in Hebrew meaning wash or washed (H1740, H3526, H7364) and one meaning dip (H2882). Conversely, there are five words in Greek meaning wash or washed (G633, G1026, G2511, G3068, G3538) and three meaning dip or plunge (G907, G909, and G911).

Certainly, the Jews did not need to fully immerse their whole body in water before eating; they need only immerse their hands in water before eating (ceremonial cleansing). The impracticality of full-body immersion before every meal and snack makes your argument against full-body baptism illogical. This is not only a misunderstanding of the New Testament scripture it is a complete misunderstanding of Jewish cleanliness and dietary laws and customs.

Recorded acts of baptism in the New Testament:

(23) John was also baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, because there was plenty of water there. People kept coming and were being baptized, (24) since John had not yet been thrown into prison.

Why did John need “plenty of water?”

(13) Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. (14) But John tried to stop him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?" (15) But Jesus answered him, "Let it be this way for now, for this is the proper way for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then John let him. (16) When Jesus had been baptized, he immediately came up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens opened up for him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him.

Jesus sets the example of full-body immersion by being dipped (baptized) then to come “up out of the water.”

(7) He kept proclaiming, "The one who is coming after me is stronger than I am, and I am not worthy to bend down and untie his sandal straps. (8) I baptized you with water, but it is he who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." (9) In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. (10) Just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens split open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. (11) Then a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you!"

The writer of Mark’s account duplicates the writer of Matthew’s account. Do you recall the Jewish practice of confirmation by two or three witnesses?

ISV (34) The eunuch said to Philip, "I ask you, about whom is the prophet speaking-about himself or about someone else?" (35) Then Philip opened his mouth and, starting from this Scripture, told him the good news about Jesus. (36) As they were going along the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, "Look, there's some water. What keeps me from being baptized?" (37) Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." He replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (38) So he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. (39) When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away. The eunuch went on his way rejoicing and did not see Philip again.

The writer of Acts provides a third witness. Philip and the eunuch “went down into the water” then “came up out of the water.”

These are three clear examples of baptism performed in the first century. There are no other examples clearly demonstrating the “tradition” of baptism of believers in Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

In order for Jezz to make his case, he must find one example from the Bible of the verb baptizo (G907) describing baptism of believers in Jesus Christ as meaning something other than full-body immersion. Regrettably for his position, no such usage exists.

My Christian Brother you are also confused on the meaning of:

… in case I am delayed so that you may know how one is to behave in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Church is indeed the pillar and foundation (ground) of the truth; that is the Church is the base and support (an immovable institution) for the Word of God.

Paul did not say the Church is the interpreter and arbitrator of God’s Word.

The Church cannot, on its own accord or for convenience, change the “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) Word of God; to do so is to make the Church the “ultimate authority” and not God.

For your convenience, Jezz, and that of the readers, these are the Hebrew and Greek definitions from Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries.

H1740 דּוּח du^ach doo'-akh A primitive root; to thrust away; figuratively to cleanse: - cast out, purge, wash.

H3526 כּבס ka^bas kaw-bas' A primitive root; to trample; hence to wash (properly by stamping with the feet), whether literally (including the fulling process) or figuratively: - fuller, wash (-ing).

H7364 רחץ ra^chats raw-khats' A primitive root; to lave (the whole or a part of the thing): - bathe (self), wash (self).

H2881 טבל ṭa^bal taw-bal' A primitive root; to dip: - dip, plunge. Translated in the OT (KVJ) 9 times as “dip,” Exodus 12:22, Leviticus 4:6, 4:17, 14:6, 14:16, 14:51, Numbers 19:18, Deuteronomy 22:24, Ruth 2:14.

G633 απονίπτω aponipto¯ ap-on-ip'-to From G575 and G3538; to wash off (reflexively one’s own hands symbolically): - wash.

G1026 βρέχω brecho¯ brekh'-o A primary verb; to moisten (especially by a shower): - (send) rain, wash.

G2511 καθαρίζω katharizo¯ kath-ar-id'-zo From G2513; to cleanse (literally or figuratively): - (make) clean (-se), purge, purify.

G3068 λούω louo¯ loo'-o A primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas G3538 means to wet a part only, and G4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): - wash.

G3538 νίπτω nipto¯ nip'-to To cleanse (especially the hands or the feet or the face); ceremonially to perform ablution: - wash. Compare G3068.

G4150 πλύνω pluno¯ ploo'-no, ploo'-o A prolonged form of an obsolete πλύω pluo¯ ploo'-o (to “flow”); to “plunge”, that is, launder clothing: - wash. Compare G3068, G3538.

G907 βαπτίζω baptizo¯ bap-tid'-zo From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

G909 βαπτισμός baptismos bap-tis-mos' From G907; ablution (ceremonially or Christian): - baptism, washing.

G911 βάπτω bapto¯ bap'-to A primary verb; to whelm, that is, cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): - dip.

Jezz

April 12th 2004, 07:39 AM

Jezz,

This is a very interesting topic and one to which I am pleased to respond.
:thumb:

We are in full agreement the verb baptizo (G907) indeed means “to immerse” fully.
:thumb:

Do you believe the New Testament contains the “God-breathed” infallible Word of God?
This is irrelevant to the subject that I deemed for this thread: ie, the semantic range of the Greek word "baptizo". Whether or not the Bible is the infallible word of God, it remains the case that "baptizo" does not

Do you believe full-body baptism was the only method employed during the first century for believers in Jesus Christ?
This is again a red herring. The topic of this thread is the semantic range of the Greek word "baptizo". It matters not how baptism was practiced in the first century.

I must clarify my position concerning baptism. [i]I am not changing my position mind you, merely clarifying my position.

I do not “insist,” contrary to your assertion, the word baptizo (G907) always means full-body immersion.
Ok then, my original point is resolved. We are both in agreement: "baptizo" did not always mean full-body immersion. The word by itself does not support the idea that sprinkling (partial immersion) is an unacceptable form of baptism.

I do insist, however, the word (G907) always means full-body immersion when used to describe the practice of baptism of believers in Jesus Christ.
That's fine if you wish to do that, but if you want to do that you'll need to use some argument other than relying on the semantic range of the word "baptizo" itself (which takes us beyond the bounds I set for this thread). The word itself has a semantic range that is broad enough to consider both partial and full immersion as acceptable forms of baptism.

Start a new thread if you wish to adduce new arguments for the necessity of full-body immersion. Otherwise, if you have any comments to add about the semantic range of "baptizo", feel free.

truthman

April 12th 2004, 11:05 AM

Jezz,

I'm glad to see this thread. Although we're going through a very similar discussion in my thread, "Discussing Sprinkles (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23880)"

There, I have foes like Jade and Bill the Cat who also have lightly determined that it is 'always' translated immerse. But, without fully delving into it, incorrectly assume that it is the person that is being immersed.

One of my big deals there is that it was a palm branch or other implement that was fully immersed in the water and then sprinkled on the object or person. Likewise, the pots in the OT times were not fully immersed as that would make impure the whole pot of purification water. Rather a pure implement was dipped into the pure water to sprinkle the impure item.

truthman

VFarris01

April 12th 2004, 05:40 PM

We are in full agreement the verb baptizo (G907) indeed means “to immerse” fully.
thumbs up
That you agree baptizo (G907) means “to immerse” fully is important.

As I have stressed repeatedly, the context in which a word is used is vitally important to the understanding of what the authors of the Bible meant when using various words. Do you disagree?

To say baptizo (G907) must always mean in every context it is used mean full-body immersion is perposterous.

(4) They don't eat anything from the marketplace unless they dip (G907) it in water.</FONT>
Are we to assume from this verse the apostles must dip themselves in water?

Certainly not!

This verse is very specific as to what the Jews had to dip (baptize) in water, what they ate from the market place.

This same is true of:

(38) The Pharisee was surprised to see that he didn't first wash (G907)before the meal.</FONT>
The Pharisee was surprised to see that Jesus did not first wash (baptize) a very specific part of His body in water, his hands.
Do you believe the New Testament contains the “God-breathed” infallible Word of God?
This is irrelevant to the subject that I deemed for this thread: ie, the semantic range of the Greek word "baptizo". Whether or not the Bible is the infallible word of God, it remains the case that "baptizo" does not.
You have a habit of “limiting” the range of the discussion.

I think my question is entirely relevant.

Again: Do you believe the New Testament contains the “God-breathed” infallible Word of God? Yes or no?

Humor me.
Do you believe full-body baptism was the only method employed during the first century for believers in Jesus Christ?
This is again a red herring. The topic of this thread is the semantic range of the Greek word "baptizo". It matters not how baptism was practiced in the first century.
Labeling this question a red herring allows you to avoid admitting baptism to be exactly what it is when used within its “semantic range” of full-body baptism as the only method employed during the first century for believers in Jesus Christ.

Humor me, answer the question.
I must clarify my position concerning baptism. I am not changing my position mind you, merely clarifying my position.

I do not “insist,” contrary to your assertion, the word baptizo (G907) always means full-body immersion. I do insist, however, the word (G907) always means full-body immersion when used to describe the practice of baptism of believers in Jesus Christ.
Ok then, my original point is resolved. We are both in agreement: "baptizo" did not always mean full-body immersion. The word by itself does not support the idea that sprinkling (partial immersion) is an unacceptable form of baptism.
Remember now, we are discussing the semantics of a word; how the word is used. The password is, baptizo.

Words are allowed to be used in more than one context are they not?

Now please, answer my question:

Do you believe full-body baptism was the only method employed during the first century for believers in Jesus Christ?

Jezz, it still remains, in order for you to make yourcase, you must find one example from the Bible of the verb baptizo (G907) describing baptism of believers in Jesus Christ as meaning something other than full-body immersion. Regrettably for your position, no such usage exists.

nomad

April 12th 2004, 06:36 PM

Do you believe full-body baptism was the only method employed during the first century for believers in Jesus Christ?

the rest of this i'm not as interested in, already making up my own mind, but for this question, i would have to say 'no':

(this same passage was quoted by studyhound in another baptism thread):

CHAPTER 7

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

The Didache has been dated in the 50-110 AD range, which would make it first century or close to it, and seems to show that immersion was preferred, but not required.

VFarris01

April 12th 2004, 07:37 PM

nomad,

Certainly you are talking about baptism, however, we are discussing the meaning of G907 as used in the Bible, not a “document” that can neither be dated or relied on with any certainty.

Submitted for your approval:

(3) Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into union with Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (4) Therefore, through baptism we were buried with him into his death so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father's glory, we too may live an entirely new life. (5) For if we have become united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. (6) We know that our old selves were crucified with him so that our sinful bodies might be rendered powerless and we might no longer be slaves to sin.
(3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (4) 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. (5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: (6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

What part of Jesus’ body was buried, part of it or all of it?

What “form” of baptism is most like the burial of Jesus, pouring, sprinkling, or immersion?

How was Jesus baptized, pouring, sprinkling, or immersion? Matthew 3:13-16, Mark 1:7-11.

Jezz

April 13th 2004, 12:45 AM

That you agree baptizo (G907) means “to immerse” fully is important.
That you agree that the word need not mean immersion of the whole body is equally important.

As I have stressed repeatedly, the context in which a word is used is vitally important to the understanding of what the authors of the Bible meant when using various words. Do you disagree?
I agree. But the purpose of this thread (and I, being the thread starter, am uniquely qualified to tell you what the purpose of this thread is) is not to consider the word in any particular context - it is to consider the semantic range of the word. The semantic range of a word is the range of potential meanings that a word may have, before context is taken into accout.

To say baptizo (G907) must always mean in every context it is used mean full-body immersion is perposterous.
Good, then you agree with the point that I set out prove in this thread. You can stop posting in this thread then. :teeth:

The rest of your post is simply red herrings, because it is irrelevant to the point that I set out to prove in this thread. You have already admitted to the point that I set out to prove in this thread.. I will ask you politely (for a second time) to refrain from posting more off-topic information.

You have a habit of “limiting” the range of the discussion.
You mean, I have a habit of trying to prohibit my debate opponents from introducing endless red herrings in an effort to keep the discussion on-topic...

As thread starter, it is my prerogative to tell you what the range of allowable topics for my thread is. As a participant on these forums, it is your duty to respect the wishes of the thread starter in this area. Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum), which you must agree to abide by as a condition of your posting here - in particular, the section on "Board Ettiqute": "Please respect the wishes of the thread starter to keep a thread on topic when requested..."

Now, for the final time: the sole purpose of this thread is to discuss the semantic range of the Greek word baptizo.

This is not a thread for discussing whether Jesus commanded only full body immersion for baptism.
This is not a thread for discussing what type of baptism the early Christians performed.
This is not a thread for discussing whether or not the Bible is the infallible word of God.

If you want to talk about any of these other things, then start a new thread on that topic.

One more comment, because this might be the root cause for your confusion:

Words are allowed to be used in more than one context are they not?
Yes, but that's not the point. It seems that you do not understand what the term "semantic range" means.

The semantic range of a word is the range of meanings (ie, "semantics") that a word may have in any possible context. That is what the term "semantic range" means. As soon as you start considering the meaning of a word in a specific context, then you are no longer talking about the semantic range of the word, and you have gone outside the topic set for this thread.

I've tried to explain this as nicely as I can. If it still doesn't sink in, then I will have to involve a moderator for official action.

Maxentius

April 13th 2004, 09:01 AM

The semantic range of a word is the range of meanings (ie, "semantics") that a word may have in any possible context. That is what the term "semantic range" means. As soon as you start considering the meaning of a word in a specific context, then you are no longer talking about the semantic range of the word, and you have gone outside the topic set for this thread.

I've tried to explain this as nicely as I can. If it still doesn't sink in, then I will have to involve a moderator for official action.

Wouldn't the semantic range of a word be the way it is used in different contexts?

For instance, the English word "let" means to allow, yet in otrher contextx, like Elizabethan English, it means stop. We only know this because of the specific context of usage in Elizabethan English.

Regarding baptizo, the range of usages in its literary and cultural context tells me that it did not always mean immerse.

My $0.02
:smile:

truthman

April 13th 2004, 09:54 AM

Solly

April 13th 2004, 10:05 AM

I think there is some necessity to look at primary and secondary meanings, not just take what is obviously a church word and read back everything in conformity with it. A friend of mine who has done a study on baptism in the Bible and church, points out that the semantic range implies immerse, with the further implications of plunge, dip, and drench - notice the emphasis on an action, and the results of that action; immerse and immersed carry that connotation too. Hence it can be used to refer to the cleaning of hands and pots, to emphasise the thoroughness of that which is done to them. The word itself does not mean "immerse a body", that is a church meaning attached to "baptise". But it does mean to do something thoroughly, in this case to drench, and a body is drenched by full immersion, just as hands and pots are drenched by full immersion, whether the water be poured or they be dipped (another cognate meaning). Can we sprinkle converts? As long as you drench them, which would look pretty silly as they stand beside the font. but the emphasis is still on something being done to another thing, rather than at it. Hands, food, people are plunged, dipped, immersed. We are not sprinkled in the same way, passively, as we are immersed.
I am not sure if i am making myself clear, since grammar and syntax is not my strong suit, but the word has meanings that carry over, if you see what I mean.

Btw, there is some awful formatting on this thread that makes much engagement painful to the eyes.

VFarris01

April 13th 2004, 09:51 PM

Greetings Friends and Readers,
One of the problems in understanding the doctrine of baptism, and many others, is people fail to find the "semantic range," and correct exegesis when interpreting passages. Moreover, many hold to what they have been taught by some particular school of thought or training. Although, they say they don't, this then places preconceived ideas into the exegetical process, and thus error is conceived by placing man's understanding above God's. – Author unknown
That you agree baptizo (G907) means “to immerse” fully is important.
That you agree that the word need not mean immersion of the whole body is equally important.
Keep up what you are good at, taking me out of context. Baptizo (G907) always means to immerse fully. Baptizo (G907), when used to describe baptism of believers in Jesus Christ always means complete full-body immersion. That you want to continually take words out of context is revealing of your bias.
As I have stressed repeatedly, the context in which a word is used is vitally important to the understanding of what the authors of the Bible meant when using various words. Do you disagree?
I agree. But the purpose of this thread (and I, being the thread starter, am uniquely qualified to tell you what the purpose of this thread is) is not to consider the word in any particular context - it is to consider the semantic range of the word. The semantic range of a word is the range of potential meanings that a word may have, before context is taken into accout.
You agree the context of a word is important but you are not willing to consider the context of a word because it disagrees with your assertion even if the context is vital to understanding the semantic range; hypocritical if you ask me, but no one is asking me.

You, being the thread starter, are required to consider different points of view no matter how much they differ from your own. You want to limit the conversation so only your point of view is highlighted (what is the semantic range of highlighted as used here?). Your point of view and the truth are severely at odds.
To say baptizo (G907) must always mean in every context it is used mean full-body immersion is preposterous.
Good, then you agree with the point that I set out prove in this thread. You can stop posting in this thread then.
You have actually proved nothing. Your ego is getting the better part of you.

Here again you are taking me out of context (what else is new); unbelievable how you do this over and over and over…

You agree baptizo (G907) means “to immerse” fully.

You agree the context in which a word is used vitally important to the understanding of a word’s meaning.

Then you must agree when G907 is used to describe hand washing (Luke 11:38) it can only mean to fully immerse one’s hands.

Then you must agree when G907 is used to describe cleaning food (Mark 7:4) it can only mean to fully immerse the piece of food one is going to eat.

Then you must agree when G907 is used to describe the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9) it can only mean His body was fully immersed.

When G907 is used in the context of believers in Jesus Christ being baptized it must then always mean full-body immersion. But to use the context defeats you and you do not like it so you pass the context in which a word is used as a red herring.
I will ask you politely (for a second time) to refrain from posting more off-topic information.
You must be related to Sam Gibson.
You have a habit of “limiting” the range of the discussion.
You mean, I have a habit of trying to prohibit my debate opponents from introducing endless red herrings in an effort to keep the discussion on-topic...
No, you have a habit of not allowing the introduction of relevant material you find damaging to your position.
As thread starter, it is my prerogative to tell you what the range of allowable topics for my thread is. As a participant on these forums, it is your duty to respect the wishes of the thread starter in this area. Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum), which you must agree to abide by as a condition of your posting here - in particular, the section on "Board Ettiqute": "Please respect the wishes of the thread starter to keep a thread on topic when requested..."
Since semantic range of a word is directly related to the context in which a word is used I am NOT off topic.
Now, for the final time: the sole purpose of this thread is to discuss the semantic range of the Greek word baptizo.
And so we are.
This is not a thread for discussing whether Jesus commanded only full body immersion for baptism.
I do not know of any one who is discussing this topic.
This is not a thread for discussing what type of baptism the early Christians performed.
I do not know of any one who is discussing this topic.

However, to understand the semantic range of a word it is important to know the intended meaning of a word; examples are drawn from the New Testament.
This is not a thread for discussing whether or not the Bible is the infallible word of God.
No one is discussing if the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

I asked a question; that you do not want to answer the question is your perogative and, I believe, telling of your intentions in this thread, to quelch opposition to your view.
If you want to talk about any of these other things, then start a new thread on that topic.
I certainly will if I wish to discuss something like, “Is baptism essential to salvation.” Right now we are discussing the the semantic range of baptizo (G907) as used within the New Testament I believe.

One more comment, because this might be the root cause for your confusion:
Words are allowed to be used in more than one context are they not?
specific[/i] context, then you are no longer talking about the semantic range of the word, and you have gone outside the topic set for this thread.

I've tried to explain this as nicely as I can. If it still doesn't sink in, then I will have to involve a moderator for official action.
”The semantic range of a word is the range of meanings (ie, "semantics") that a word may have in any possible context.” Is this not exactly what we are discussing or is it necessary for you believe you are right regardless of how wrong you are?

You agree baptizo (G907) means “to immerse” fully.

I do not agree baptizo (G907) does not mean immersion of the whole body when baptizing of believers in Jesus Christ; in other words, baptizo (G907), when used to describe baptism of believers in Jesus Christ always means complete full-body immersion.

I do agree baptizo (G907) can be used to describe immersion of a single part a tool or even a single part of a persons body, but still one must consider the context; even then baptizo (G907) will still mean “to immerse” fully (that part). The meaning of baptizo (G907) remains unchanged.

Since we must look at the context the word is used, a word can not have more than one possible meaning in any single usage unless there are two useages of the same word in the same context; even then the usage of the word depends on the context.

Consider this:

The word cool; does it mean not hot, not cold, or trendy.

Example: Cool people wear cool clothes on cool nights.

Does the first instance of cool mean not hot, not cold, or trendy?

Does the second instance of cool mean not hot, not cold, or trendy?

Does the third instance of cool mean not hot, not cold, or trendy?

I have tried to explain this as nicely as I can. If it still does not sink in, then you may involve a moderator for official action. Bear in mind, to do so is really going to make you look defensive of your defenseless position, not me.
My $0.02
Thanks for your very useful input Max. I think it was worth at least $0.10.
First of all, the baptism of Romans 6 is Holy Spirit baptism. The same baptism that is mentioned in Ephesians 4:5. Where do you get that it's water?

Second, as discussed in my very lengthy thread already, Jesus was sprinkled, not immersed. There's nothing in the Matthew or Mark passages that show otherwise.
Interesting how I get chastized and you did not. Jezz must hold some bias in his rationale.

As is your input too Solly, useful that is.
Btw, there is some awful formatting on this thread that makes much engagement painful to the eyes.
I have been told my posts come out screwy; I hope this is still not the case. Everything appears fine on my monitor at least.

themuzicman

April 14th 2004, 09:33 AM

Jezz:

Ask yourself a couple of questions:

1) What what Jesus supposed to have washed? (A: His hands, right?)

2) How do you wash your hands? By sprinkling? By pouring a little water to get some of the hand wet? Or do you immerse your hands in water, so as to get every part of the hands wet?

So, the semantic range of baptizo remains "dip" or "immerse", when you consider the context.

Michael

Jezz

April 15th 2004, 12:59 AM

Wouldn't the semantic range of a word be the way it is used in different contexts?
Yes, but VFarris was trying to get me to argue that "baptizo" in a specific context (the command to baptise) meant a specific thing:

In order for Jezz to make his case, he must find one example from the Bible of the verb baptizo (G907) describing baptism of believers in Jesus Christ as meaning something other than full-body immersion.

That is beyond the scope of this thread. As I have already stated, I believe that "baptizo" can refer to full-body immersion in some contexts. Arguing over which contexts this holds true for is not relevant to this thread.

For instance, the English word "let" means to allow, yet in otrher contextx, like Elizabethan English, it means stop. We only know this because of the specific context of usage in Elizabethan English.
Yes, but (to maintain the analogy) VFarris was trying to get me to counter his claim that in a particular context, "let" meant one and not the other. I agree that "let" can have both meanings, even if I disagree with VFarris over its meaning in a given context.

Regarding baptizo, the range of usages in its literary and cultural context tells me that it did not always mean immerse.
I think it did - the main question was about what kind of immersion.

Jezz

April 15th 2004, 01:41 AM

Baptizo (G907) always means to immerse fully.
I agree.

Baptizo (G907), when used to describe baptism of believers in Jesus Christ always means complete full-body immersion.
I disagree, but that is not relevant to this thread. All that matters for the purposes of this thread is that I agree that in some contexts, "baptizo" means full-body immersion. Ok?

You agree the context of a word is important but you are not willing to consider the context of a word because it disagrees with your assertion even if the context is vital to understanding the semantic range; hypocritical if you ask me, but no one is asking me.
I'm willing to consider the specific context of a word, but not in this thread.

You, being the thread starter, are required to consider different points of view no matter how much they differ from your own.
I am only required to consider different points of view if they are within the topic that I set.

You want to limit the conversation so only your point of view is highlighted (what is the semantic range of highlighted as used here?).
And this clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of what a "semantic range" is. A word in a single context does not have a semantic range. To ask for the "semantic range" of "highlighted" as used here is to ask me to draw a square circle. Semantic range is determined by a range of usages, not a particular instance.

You agree baptizo (G907) means “to immerse” fully.
Yes.

You agree the context in which a word is used vitally important to the understanding of a word’s meaning.
Context of a word is vitally important to the understanding of the word in that context only.

When G907 is used in the context of believers in Jesus Christ being baptized it must then always mean full-body immersion. But to use the context defeats you and you do not like it so you pass the context in which a word is used as a red herring.
It is a red herring for this thread. If you want to discuss it, I will start a new thread soon.

No, you have a habit of not allowing the introduction of relevant material you find damaging to your position.
*sigh* I've said to you a couple of times that if you want to discuss that material, you are welcome to do so in another thread. But not this one, because it is irrelevant to this thread. I can't stop you from starting your own thread, so the reason I'm stopping you from introducing this material cannot be that I am trying to prevent your viewpoint from being heard altogether.

Since semantic range of a word is directly related to the context in which a word is used I am NOT off topic.
Again you indicate your lack of understanding of what "semantic range" means. It is independent of the context in which a word is used. It is pretty much an oxymoron to speak of the semantic range of a word in a given context.

However, to understand the semantic range of a word it is important to know the intended meaning of a word; examples are drawn from the New Testament.
To understand the semantic range of a word it is important to know the intended meaning of the word in a variety of contexts. It is not necessary to get obsessed over the meaning of any particular context.

No one is discussing if the Bible is the infallible Word of God.
Ahem. Then why did you ask me this question in your first post? Is it because you have trouble staying on-topic? :smile:

I asked a question; that you do not want to answer the question is your perogative and, I believe, telling of your intentions in this thread, to quelch opposition to your view.
Look, whether or not the Bible is the infallible word of God, what does that have to do with the semantic range of the word "baptizo"? Nothing! Even if the Bible is not inspired, the word "baptizo" still has a semantic range, and we can discuss that semantic range without going near the topic of the inspiration of the Bible. Let it be already.

I certainly will if I wish to discuss something like, “Is baptism essential to salvation.” Right now we are discussing the the semantic range of baptizo (G907) as used within the New Testament I believe.
Wrong. We are discussing the semantic range of the word "baptizo" as used by native Greek speakers in the first century. That includes, but is not limited to, the New Testament.

I do not agree baptizo (G907) does not mean immersion of the whole body when baptizing of believers in Jesus Christ; in other words, baptizo (G907), when used to describe baptism of believers in Jesus Christ always means complete full-body immersion.
Fine, I disagree, if you want to argue that, start another thread. This has nothing to do with the question that I am asking.

Consider this:

The word cool; does it mean not hot, not cold, or trendy.
It means all three, depending on context. That is its semantic range. Question answered. End of story.

Example: Cool people wear cool clothes on cool nights.

Does the first instance of cool mean not hot, not cold, or trendy?

Does the second instance of cool mean not hot, not cold, or trendy?

Does the third instance of cool mean not hot, not cold, or trendy?
Irrelevant. The question is: what is the semantic range of "cool"? The answer is: "not hot", "not cold" or "trendy" (among other meanings) - that is its semantic range. To ask about the "semantic range of a word in a given context" is almost an oxymoron.

I have tried to explain this as nicely as I can. If it still does not sink in, then you may involve a moderator for official action. Bear in mind, to do so is really going to make you look defensive of your defenseless position, not me.
Rather, it will make it obvious that you can't follow simple instructions. :shrug: As I said, "defensiveness" cannot possibly be the reason I am restricting this thread, because there is nothing stopping you from starting your own thread.

Interesting how I get chastized and you did not. Jezz must hold some bias in his rationale.
Yes, truthman did go off topic, but he hardly made as big a deal out of it as you did, so I didn't bother going to the effort of pointing it out. But for the record: truthman, please try to stay on topic in the future.

I have been told my posts come out screwy; I hope this is still not the case. Everything appears fine on my monitor at least.
I've not had a problem with the formatting of your posts. The content... well, that's another story... :wink:

Ok, in summary: If we both agree that:

1. In some contexts, "baptizo" can mean full-body immersion.
2. In some contexts, "baptizo" can mean full immersion of part of the body.

...then my purposes for this thread will be achieved. If you want to quibble over specific instances of which meaning is found where, then that needs to be done in a separate thread.

Jezz

April 15th 2004, 01:46 AM

themuzicman

April 15th 2004, 12:05 PM

However, when standing in the Jordan river, and being baptized for repentance of sins, it's pretty clear that John was doing a full body immersion. We have no other standard by which we can measure water baptism as a spiritual ritual.

Michael

VFarris01

April 15th 2004, 04:36 PM

Hello Christian Friends:

It appears Jezz, you are allowing this topic to expand; let me know if I am mistaken.

I would like to comment on the last two posts.

Strong

G907 βαπτίζω baptizo¯ bap-tid'-zo From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

G911 βάπτω bapto¯ bap'-to A primary verb; to whelm, that is, cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): - dip.

Thayer

G907 βαπτίζω baptizo¯ Thayer Definition: 1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) 2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe 3) to overwhelm

Part of Speech: verb from a derivative of G911

G911 βάπτω bapto¯ Thayer Definition: 1) to dip, dip in, immerse 2) to dip into dye, to dye, colour

Part of Speech: verb

The “semantic range” of G907 is limited to (in no specific order):
1. cover wholly with a fluid
2. immerse
3. submerge
4. dip
5. dip repeatedly
6. cleanse by dipping or submerging
7. make fully wet
8. in a specific sense, to moisten a part of one’s person
9. stain or dye

Matthew, Mark, and Luke document three times when the Pharisees questioned Jesus for not performing this ceremonial cleansing before eating.

The first is in:

Matthew 15:1-2 ISV(1) Then some Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to Jesus and said, (2) "Why do your disciples disregard the tradition of the elders? For they don't wash (G3538) their hands when they eat."the second in:

Mark 7:1-5 ISV(1) The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus. (2) They noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them. (3) (For the Pharisees and indeed all the Jewish people don't eat unless they wash (G3538) their hands properly, following the tradition of their elders.) (4) They don't eat anything from the marketplace unless they dip (G907) it in water. They also observe many other traditions, such as the washing (G909) of cups, jars, brass pots, and dinner tables. (5) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with unclean hands."
</FONT>and finally, the third in:

Luke 11:37-39 ISV(37) After Jesus had said this, a Pharisee invited him to have a meal with him. So Jesus went and took his place at the table. (38) The Pharisee was surprised to see that he didn't first wash (G907) before the meal. (39) But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean (G2511) the outside of the cup and the dish, but on the inside you are full of greed and evil.
In these three passages the verb baptizo (G907) is used twice, once in the common usage, to dip (Mark 7:4), and once to describe ceremonial cleansing (Luke 11:38).

Notice as well, the verses are very clear as to what is being baptized, hands (Matthew 15:2, Mark 7:3, Mark 7:5, Luke 11:38) and food (Mark 7:4).

Recorded acts of baptism in the New Testament. The "standard:"

John 3:23-24 ISV(23) John was also baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, because there was plenty of water there. People kept coming and were being baptized, (24) since John had not yet been thrown into prison.
Why did John need “plenty of water?”

Matthew 3:13-16 ISV(13) Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. (14) But John tried to stop him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?" (15) But Jesus answered him, "Let it be this way for now, for this is the proper way for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then John let him. (16) When Jesus had been baptized, he immediately came up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens opened up for him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him.
Jesus sets the example of full-body immersion by being dipped (baptized) then to come “up out of the water.”

Notice this verse is also specific as to what (or who) is being baptized, "Jesus had been baptized (G907)."

Had the author of Matthew's account said "(16) When Jesus had his hands (substitute head, feet, or whatever you please; try even finger) baptized (G907),..." we would have a clearly different meaning.

Mark 1:7-11 ISV(7) He kept proclaiming, "The one who is coming after me is stronger than I am, and I am not worthy to bend down and untie his sandal straps. (8) I baptized you with water, but it is he who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." (9) In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. (10) Just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens split open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. (11) Then a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you!"
The writer of Mark’s account duplicates the writer of Matthew’s account. Do you recall the Jewish practice of confirmation by two or three witnesses?

Acts 8:26-39ISV (34) The eunuch said to Philip, "I ask you, about whom is the prophet speaking-about himself or about someone else?" (35) Then Philip opened his mouth and, starting from this Scripture, told him the good news about Jesus. (36) As they were going along the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, "Look, there's some water. What keeps me from being baptized?" (37) Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." He replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (38) So he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. (39) When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away. The eunuch went on his way rejoicing and did not see Philip again.
The writer of Acts provides a third witness. Philip and the eunuch “went down into the water” then “came up out of the water.”

Notice this verse is also specific as to what (or who) is being baptized, "Philip baptized (G907) him (the eunuch).

Had the author of the Acts said "(38) So he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and Philip baptized his (the eunuch's) hands (substitute head, feet, or whatever you please; try even finger)," we would have a clearly different meaning.

These are three clear examples of baptism performed in the first century. There are no other examples clearly demonstrating the “tradition” of baptism of believers in Jesus Christ in the New Testament. These three examples are clear the method of baptism was by full-body immersion.