Excursus - Baptism as Ritual Washing
After being made aware of the basic purificatory definition of NT baptism, magical thinking held about the practice dissipates with every future reading of the Gospels.
by J. W. Dale
Excursus
For those unfamiliar with the term, excursus is a Latin word used in biblical scholarship to denote a detailed digression from the subject under examination, typically inserted parenthetically into the text of a work, or included as an appendix.1 The following excursus is a digression from our critical study on the meaning and purpose of baptism within Covenant Eschatology. It is intended to supply hermeneutical support for the conclusions stated in the NT Usage and Terminology section of that study.
Baptism: NT Usage and Terminology
The following conclusions on the meaning of the terms “to baptise”, and “baptism,” in the NT appeared at the beginning of the online precis of our study entitled Baptism at the End of the Mosaic Covenant:
In the Greek New Testament, the verb to baptise (baptizō) means “to ritually wash.” The noun baptism (baptisma) refers to the act of “ritual washing.” Therefore, according to NT usage, if a person has been baptised, then he is considered ritually clean.
Moreover, since a baptism is a ritual washing, no empirical standard of hygiene or thoroughness is implied. For this reason, the method of baptism (immersion, aspersion, dousing), or medium of baptism (water, spirit, fire), has no bearing on the action or on its result. That is, regardless of which ritual is undergone, a person can definitively be declared baptised, in the same way as a garment is declared to be dyed, whether tinted in whole or in part, regardless of the dying agent used, or how it was applied.
So, in short, according to NT usage, undergoing the act ascribed (e.g. John’s Baptism of Repentance), by the medium prescribed (water), is how one achieves the state described (penitence). This is the same for NT water baptism, holy spirit2 baptism, or fire baptism.
While these conclusions are founded upon a mountain of sound lexical and exegetical scholarship, only a handful of representative sets of these hermeneutical supports are given below. Nonetheless, they are more than enough to fulfil the shallow brief of this excursus.
Lexical Support: BDAG,3 Louw-Nida4
BDAG tells us that the primary meaning, that is, the more strictly lexical meaning, of the verb baptizō is to “wash ceremonially for purpose of purification, wash, purify, [in reference to] a broad range of repeated ritual washing rooted in Israelite tradition (cp. Just., D. 46, 2) Mk 7:4; Lk 11:38.”5
The secondary meaning in BDAG speaks more to the verb’s usage in the NT:
② to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship w. God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize. The transliteration ‘baptize’ signifies the ceremonial character that NT narratives accord such cleansing, but the need of qualifying statements or contextual coloring in the documents indicates that the term [baptizō] was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests.6
Louw-Nida makes a similar distinction between primary and secondary meanings, albeit with the verb forms and their different noun forms together.
53.31 βαπτίζωa; καταβαπτίζω; βαπτισμόςa, οῦ m: to wash (in some contexts, possibly by dipping into water), with a view to making objects ritually acceptable—‘to wash, to purify, washing, purification.’ … There is some doubt as to the precise extent to which [baptizō], [katabaptizō], and [baptismos] in Mk 7:4 involve ritual cleansing, but the context would seem to imply this, particularly in view of the relationship of such washing to the rules followed by Jews in general and Pharisees in particular.7
53.41 βαπτίζωb; βάπτισμα, τος n; βαπτισμόςb, οῦ m: to employ water in a religious ceremony designed to symbolize purification and initiation on the basis of repentance—‘to baptize, baptism.’
The baptism practiced by John the Baptist would seem to reflect far more the Jewish pattern of ritual washing than the type of baptism employed by Christians, which constituted a symbol of initiation into the Christian community on the basis of belief in and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. There seems, however, to be no reason to employ a different expression for baptism in the case of John than in the case of the early Christians. Most translators actually employ a transliterated form of the Greek term [baptizō], but in some languages this is both awkward as well as inappropriate, especially if another term or expression has already been employed and is widely accepted by groups practicing various types or forms of baptism. In some languages, for example, one may employ an expression such as ‘to enter the water’ or ‘to undergo the ritual involving water.’ Such expressions do not necessarily imply the quantity of water nor the particular means by which water is applied.8
Dictionary Support: DJGSE,9 DJG,10 TDNT11
As we can see from the second L&N entry above, there are two noun forms of the verb baptizō found in the NT, the masculine baptismos and the neuter baptisma. The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition, explains:
The common Greek word used to describe dipping in water for the purpose of purification, baptismos, occurs in the Gospels only in Mark 7:4 (cf. Heb 6:2; 9:10). In distinction from these repeated washings, the baptism of John and Christian baptism are represented by baptisma (e.g., Mk 1:4; 11:30; cf. Acts 1:22; Rom 6:4; Eph 4:5).12
The first edition of the DJG gives us a bit more on baptisma.
The noun form, baptisma, is not found outside the NT and is only found in the singular. The term implies not only the external act of baptism, but also denotes the inner meaning and force of the act. Baptism may then be appropriately employed for Spirit baptism as well as water baptism.13
Of course, the word baptisma can only imply all of this because the people who selected it for their purposes believed that all these denotations attached to their special act of “ritual washing.” Yet, notice that the basic meaning of their bespoke noun was still such that even their recording of the acts required various instrumental phrases (e.g.: Mt 3:11: “with water” and “with spirit and fire”) to distinguish which baptisma was in view.
The conclusions of the diachronic word studies of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament are in harmony with both editions of the DJG.
“Immersion” or “baptism,” [baptismos] signifying the act alone and [baptisma] the act with the result, and therefore the institution. There are no instances of [baptisma] outside the NT. Even [baptismos] used to be regarded as a new Jewish and Christian term ….
[Baptismoi (pl.)] are Levitical “cleansings” of vessels or of the body at Mk. 7:4 (8 vl.); Heb 9:10. [Baptismōn didachē] denotes instruction on the difference between Jewish (and pagan?) “washings” (including John’s baptism?) and Christian baptism (Heb 6:2). [Baptisma] is the specific NT word for “baptism.”
Since the NT either coins or reserves for Christian baptism (and its precursor) a word which is not used elsewhere and has no cultic connections, and since it always uses it in the singular and never substitutes the term employed elsewhere, we can see that, in spite of all apparent or relative analogies, it understands the Christian action to be something new and unique.14
That last point, that the NT authors, as the earliest Christian writers in Greek, adopted a near-unique substantive form of baptizō for their unique type of passive, one-off Hebraic baptismos, is clearly of the utmost etymological significance. However, it should not be read as implying that the basic meaning of baptisma was at all different to that of baptismos. In fact, baptisma was chosen because of its synonymity with baptismos, an already proven Greek translation of whatever Aramaic or Hebrew word John the Baptist, and his contemporaries, were actually using. In much the same way as the Jewish historian Josephus (c. AD 37 – c. 100), a first century non-Christian writing in Greek, chose the similarly synonymous feminine noun baptisis when writing about John the Baptist (Ant., 18.116 –119).
2. (116) Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; (117) for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism [baptisis]; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.15
So, yes, the peculiar form of baptism practiced in the NT became the exclusive referent of the rare noun baptisma, but this NT baptisma, whether performed by John the Baptist, or by an apostle of Christ, was still a type of Jewish “ritual washing,” that is, a religious act of purification.
Exegetical Support: John 3:22–26
After one is made aware of the basic purificatory definitions of baptizō and baptisma, any magical thinking still held about the practice of NT baptism should dissipate in every future encounter with passages such as John 3:22–26 (ESV):
John the Baptist Exalts Christ
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized (for John had not yet been put in prison).
Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification. And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.”
The ESV’s subheading is retained here because it adds a fifth instance of those “words [emphasised in the text] that are built on the root bap-,”16 thereby further reinforcing the literary-critical significance of the Evangelist’s decision to insert a sentence about “purification” [katharismos] into a mix of three about “baptizing” [baptizō], at the beginning of his narrative on the superseding of the rabbi John by the rabbi Jesus.
The contrast between Jesus and John the Baptizer is brought into focus by John’s disciples, who apparently had been engaged in a dispute or “argument” (zētēsis) with a Jew over purification or “ceremonial washing.” … The mention of water and purification together, however, does remind the reader of the first Cana story, where Jesus transformed the water of the Jewish purification pots into wine (2:6–9).17
Newman and Nida, in their UBS Handbook for translators of the Greek text into languages other than English, clearly concur with Borchert’s reading of “purification” as “ceremonial washings,” and, by implication, its relationship to baptism in the Evangelist’s juxtaposing of the two terms.
About the matter of ritual washing is literally “concerning purification.” Although commentators are divided in their opinions as to the precise reference involved, it seems best to take this expression as referring to the matter of Jewish purification in general (it is used in this sense in 2:6), rather than as reflecting a controversy about the relative value of the baptisms performed by Jesus and John the Baptist. Today’s English Version takes it as a reference to Jewish purification in general, and at the same time makes clear to its readers that a kind of ritual washing is meant.
In some instances ritual washing may be translated as “religious washing” or “the kind of washing one does in his religion” or “… because of his religion.” However, this phrase may also be expanded in some languages as “washing to make one religiously pure” or “washing to eliminate taboo.” However, it is possible to avoid specific reference to “washing” by saying “how one becomes clean from taboo” or “how one removes taboo.” Note, however, that in these instances “taboo” must be understood in terms of “negative taboo that is defilement from contact with unclean objects or events." In some instances, one may actually translate “how one may remove uncleanness.” However, this expression is likely to be understood only in the sense of “washing away dirt.”18
2. Since “holy spirit” is used adjectively here to modify the noun “baptism,” I take it to be describing a medium rather than a person, and am therefore disinclined throughout this study to follow the Trinitarian practice of capitalising the term, except when quoting directly from capitalised sources, of course.
3. Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
4. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.
5. BDAG, s.v. “βαπτίζω.”
6. BDAG, s.v. “βαπτίζω.”
7. L&N, s.v. “βαπτίζω.” 53:31.
8. L&N, s.v. “βαπτίζω.” 53:41.
9. Green, Joel B., Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition. Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013.
10. Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
11. Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–.
12. (Emphasis mine) E. Ferguson, “Baptism.” DJGSE (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 66.
13. D. S. Dockery, “Baptism,” DJG (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 55.
14. Albrecht Oepke, “Βάπτω, Βαπτίζω, Βαπτισμός, Βάπτισμα, Βαπτιστής,” TDNT, 1:545.
15. The bold italic brackets are mine. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Hendrickson, 1987), 484.
16. Dockery, “Baptism,” 55.
17. Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, vol. 25A of NAC (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 190.
18. Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of John, UBSHS (UBS, 1993), 97.
Comments
Post a Comment