Baptism in the Septuagint

In your letter in reply to my last you say: “If, as you state, and as Dr. Carson affirms, and as you seem satisfactorily to prove, the classic baptizo carries in its own intrinsic meaning no water, how do you account for such a definition of the word as my Greek lexicon gives? It is thus defined: ‘Baptizo: to dip, plunge, or immerse in water.’”

I answer that such a definition is a mere matter of carelessness on the part of the lexicographer. I have in my library the lexicon from which you quote: and I have also half a dozen others which define the word more exactly. I do not doubt that the lexicographer to whom you refer would, upon cross-examination, immediately correct himself.

An exact definition may always be substituted for the word itself; but this definition will bear no such test. Were you a teacher of Greek, as you are of English, and were a boy to translate a sentence from his Greek reader thus: ‘‘The ship, being immersed in water in the sea, soon sank to the bottom,’ you would say to him, “In the sea? Where do you get that?” “From the text, en thalasso.” “Very well. ‘Being immersed in water’ — where do you get that?” “From baptizomenos: the dictionary tells me that baptizo means immerse in water.” “But is there not water enough ‘in the sea’ for immersing a ship? Why do you compel baptizomenos to furnish you any more? Is it not very bad rhetoric to say ‘being immersed in water in the sea’?” “Yes; but that is not my fault; I translate according to the dictionary!”

Were you as competent a teacher of Greek as you are of English, you would say to the student: “Dictionaries sometimes make mistakes; the men who make them are sometimes careless. The dictionary should have defined baptizo something like this: ‘To dip, plunge, or immerse; for example, in water, oil, vinegar, or something else, as the case may be.’ Neither the water, oil, nor vinegar is any part of the definition of the verb: the water no more than the oil or the vinegar.”

The student, possibly, would not be entirely satisfied with your teaching; for a boy in the Greek reader is very apt to be suspicious of a teacher who disputes the dictionary. So you wait, until three days after there is another sentence, which he translates thus: “The man dipped the spoon in the' melted wax;” and you say to him: “Why do you not translate, ‘He dipped the spoon in water in the melted wax’?” “Because that would be absurd.” “True; but does not the dictionary say that baptizo means to dip in water? You did not get any water into your translation — nothing but melted wax!” The student by this time discovers that the dictionary is at fault. And you go on to say to him: ‘‘You will find that whenever in classic Greek you meet baptizo in any of its voices, moods, or tenses; in any of its forms of number or person, the word itself carries neither water nor oil nor vinegar: but you will find that the thing into which the dipping, plunging, or immersion takes place is distinctly expressed, or so implied in the context, that it is equivalent to expressing it. Whether it be the sea or a lake; ointment or oil; milk or molasses, — it will be found to be stated. The verb itself implies nothing whatever as to that.”

Perhaps you will take occasion to say to the young student also another thing, and that is that dictionaries are not the highest authority as to the meaning of words: there is always an appeal to actual usage as the court of final resort.

Some dictionary makers are very exact in definitions. As a teacher of English you have found Webster to be one of the very best in this regard. And if you will turn now to this definition of the word “immerse,” you will notice the contrast between his accuracy and the loose inexactness of your Greek dictionary in defining baptizo. Here is his definition of immerse: “To plunge into anything that surrounds or covers, especially into a fluid; to dip; to sink; to bury; to overwhelm.” No mention of water particularly as a part of the definition: “Anything that surrounds, or covers.” One sinking in a quagmire; or buried in melted lava; or plunged into filth; or dipped in water, — all alike are immersed. And this is the word, you will remember, which is chosen by the Baptist Union to express the ordinance of baptism. “Repent and be immersed, every one of you.” Now there is no more water in “immerse” than in the classic baptizo: and if the use of pure water is implied in Christian baptism, then this translation fails to give it to us; but if the word baptizo in connection with the Christian ordinance has the signification of “ceremonial cleansing in the use of water,” then all is plain and easy.

What is the matter of historic fact? Had this word at the time of Christ taken on any such secondary meaning; and is it used in the New Testament in any such sense?

My first appeal is to the Septuagint: and I think it can be shown most conclusively that the word baptizo was understood by the Jews at the time of Christ, and had been so understood for a long time before, to convey the idea of ceremonial cleansing in the use of water, whether it was applied by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

You will not need to be reminded that the Greek translation of the old Testament Scriptures known as the Septuagint was made from one hundred and thirty to three hundred years before Christ: that the Apocryphal books, generally bound up with the rest in the Septuagint, are of unquestioned antiquity, at least as old as the dates above given; that although these books may not be regarded as canonical, yet some of them have been highly esteemed; and whether so or not, they illustrate the usage of words among the Jews none the less.

The word baptizo is found three times in the Septuagint in its literal sense; once figuratively. The first case of its occurrence is in 2 Kings 5:14 and is familiar. Here the word is used of Naaman’s cleansing himself in the Jordan for the cure of his leprosy.

In the Hebrew the word is tawbal, which ordinarily means to “dip,” or “immerse,” without question. Gesenius, Buxtorph, and Fuerstio give no other definition. Others give also “cleanse” or “wash.”

But even if we admit that it never means anything but dip, plunge, or immerse, it matters not, because it is not at all with the Hebrew word that we have to do. And this must be distinctly borne in mind. Baptist writers have often seemed to overlook that fact and assume that because the Septuagint uses the word baptizo it must be, of course, that it is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word tawbal. This is a mistaken assumption, as we shall see. We have only to do with the Greek word which the Seventy have employed in translating it. This word, as you know, is baptizo.

What these translators meant to express by it may be better understood by observing carefully all the various cases in which tawbal is found in the Hebrew, and the different ways in which they have rendered it. It is used sixteen times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Fourteen times it is translated into the Greek by bapto, once by molimo, once by baptizo.

Was this a mere matter of accident? If not, why did they make such a difference?

The answer to this question may throw light on the whole subject. Already this word baptizo had come to be used in a peculiar sense — a religious sense — to signify water cleansing, and not merely to express the mode of it by dipping or immersion. In the case of Naaman, the main thing was the cleansing — not merely the cure of the leprosy, but the ceremonial cleansing; and as it was wrought by miracle, by the command of a prophet of the Lord, the Seventy thought it more fitting to use baptizo than bapto. It was not simply the healing of a repulsive disease, it was cleansing from a disease which symbolized sin — which shut him who had it from the congregation of religious worshipers. It was, in a certain sense, and a very important sense, expressive of ritual purification.

When Joseph’s brethren dipped his coat in the blood of the kid, some other word must be used. The Seventy recoiled from employing baptizo.

Dipping the bread in vinegar, dipping a rod in the honeycomb, dipping the feet in water or oil, or in the blood of one’s enemies, — even Aaron’s dipping his finger in the blood of the calf, — in all these cases bapto is employed; for although Aaron’s dipping his finger in the blood was part of a religious service, yet there was no religious cleansing of his finger or of his person at all suggested.

But when Naaman, in obedience to the word of the prophet, and for his cleansing from a disease which made him who had it unfit for religious service, dipped himself in the Jordan, baptizo might be used. And then it was used, not to express the dipping, but the resultant cleansing. This is made obvious by the only other case in which they translated the Hebrew word tawbal by any other word than bapto. That instance is found in Genesis 37:31: “And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood.” Here the Seventy have translated by moluno, which means, not “to dip,” but “to defile.”

Our translators — translating directly from the Hebrew — have given us two words which accurately represent tawbal: — “dip” and “plunge.” The Seventy have given us three, two of which represent their own ideas of the effects in the two cases; and if any one should be called to the work of translating the Septuagint into English, he would never for a moment dream of translating moluno by anything else than “defile.” That the Hebrew original meant “dip” or “plunge” would make no difference. It would constitute no argument to prove that moluno was understood by the Seventy to mean “plunge.” So the use of baptizo in the other example is no proof that they understood that word to mean “dip” or “immerse.” In the fourteen instances where they wish to say “dip,” without implying either cleansing or pollution, they translate by bapto. In one case implying defilement they used a word which means “defile”; in the one implying cleansing, they used a word which they understood to mean “cleanse.” We cannot believe that they translated the same Hebrew word fourteen times by bapto and once by baptizo, by mere chance and without a reason. When the dipping expressed by tawbal implied defilement, they used moluno to express defilement. In doing so it may be said that they mistook their proper office as translators. I think they did; but that fact does not weaken the force of my argument; it gives strength to it. They were men of learning in the Greek. They knew that tawbal did not mean “defile,” but simply “dip,” as we have it in our translation. But the effect of dipping Joseph’s coat into blood was defilement. Wishing to give expression to that effect they used moluno.

One other instance they found in which the dipping expressed by tawbal resulted in cleansing: they knew that tawbal did not mean to cleanse; but wishing to give expression to that effect, they employed, not bapto, which was the proper word for translating tawbal — but baptizo, which meant “cleanse,” just as moluno meant defile.

They knew that baptizo was understood by the Jews to mean “cleanse,” and for that reason, and for no other, they used it in this one solitary case.

This understanding of the matter makes everything plain and intelligible. They did not use bapto fourteen times, and then use baptizo once, because it meant the same thing as bapto (as Baptist writers generally maintain) but because it did not mean the same thing. Had they employed the two words bapto and baptizo indiscriminately — sometimes one and sometimes the other, by mere chance — for translating the Hebrew tawbal, then there would be reason in the Baptist argument. But they did not use the two words indiscriminately. They used bapto everywhere to express simply dipping or immersion. The solitary instance in which the dipping resulted in ceremonial cleansing was that of Naaman: and in that case, and that only, they used baptizo to express the cleansing. No other explanation of their use of it explains anything, but simply darkens counsel by words without knowledge.

Were this the only instance of the use of baptizo, it would be wellnigh impossible to avoid the sure conviction that at the time of this translation (say, about two hundred years before Christ) baptizo was as well understood to express the idea of ritual purification by water, as moluno was understood to express the idea of defilement.

But this is not the only case nor by any means the strongest to prove that baptizo was understood in this sense. Other examples will be given in my next letter.