On Mark 7:3-4 the manuscript evidence is pretty good for “and dining couches”.

Really? My UBS Greek NT only gives it a C! I suppose it might have been revised in a later edition. Mine is the 4th. What are you using?

I don’t think you should make too much of the difference between baptismos and baptizo. For one, the first is a noun, the second a verb. Some people have pitted baptismos against baptisma, but there is Colossians 2:12 to get around.

Yes, Heb 6:2 and 9:10 are the references. Both of them connect the word “baptism” with OT ritual washing. I understand Heb 6:2 to especially connect OT washings with the NT rite of baptism. Note the context. The writer of Hebrews is relating the OT Scriptures to NT revelation in Christ, as does the Septuagint uses of the word “baptism”.

With regard to Peter’s and Jesus’ conversation, I agree that washing your whole body could involve immersion, though I don’t think Peter was referring to that - Jesus was the one referring to a bath and that could be immersion or pouring…but was Jesus referring to baptism per se? I don’t know for sure.

I’ll be interested in what you turn up as you keep looking into this, though. You are causing me to go back and look things up again. I’m always up for a rethink!

Good points; it really is fascinating to look at the evidence/data available to study on just one aspect of God’s redemption story. cool stuff

On Mark 7:3-4 the manuscript evidence is pretty good for “and dining couches” (Alexandrinus for one). Based on context, Mark is illustrating the extent to which some observed purification, some going so far as baptising their couches (especially if the note was added for emphasis by a later scribe, Alexandrinus is from the 4th century). The list thus progresses from the reasonable cups and pots to copper vessels and finally to dining couches. On a closing note, I was reading Vines and realized the root in the second use is from baptismos, a relative of baptidzo used specifically of the ceremonially washing of articles and not the baptism of people :). The same root (baptismos) is used in Heb. 6:2 and 9:10.

(Mark 7:3-4 reads: “For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash (nipto, used of washing a part of the body) their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (baptidzo). And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (baptismos) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.”)

On John 2:6, we’re only told the vessels were used for ritual purification (baptidzo/baptism are not mentioned). These could have been used merely for washing hands or feet or, if they had a connection to baptism/immersion, poured into a larger vessel (I’ve never looked into Jewish purification practices, but will look for info, especially if I can find an English version of the Yadim!

I keep thinking of when Jesus was washing the apostles feet,

” . . . Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”
Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you (speaking of Judas)” (John 13:9-10).

It seems that Peter had already taken a “whole-body” bath and needed only his feet, dusty from the walk, cleaned. Guests coming to a wedding party, it would seem, would have taken similar steps in preparation.

As to Luke 11:38 it does seem unreasonable of the Pharisee to expect Jesus’ full immersion before eating. However, it must be remembered that the Pharisees, striving to fulfill every requirement of the law, built up a barricade of extra laws that kept them from even possibly committing an offense — in others words, they went above and beyond the Law’s requirements. Thus, if one fully immersed themselves they could in no way fall short of the required pre-meal hand-washing. Perhaps being a Rabbi it was assumed Jesus would follow these same regulations. However, I really need to spend some time studying Jewish purification before I can more than theorize

On Heb. 9:10 I’m not sure what you mean? Speaking of the inadequacy of the old covenant in sanctifying our souls it says the old covenant deals . . . “only with food and drink and various washings (baptismos), regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.” Is the other use 6:2?

I’ve got to finish a project, though it is pretty much sacrilege to not to even touch on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is a really good point. I should have time in a couple days though and will come back to it Meanwhile, what are your thoughts?

many blessings,
Jo

So, this is how I would answer:

In Mark 7:3-4, I think you have a good point. I do not read Greek fluently, so I may be missing something, but as you say, it reads naturally that the “baptising” after returning from the market would be more than washing hands.

However, if you read on to the end of verse 4, it says:

And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing [baptising] of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.

[Note, I'm a New Zealander living in Australia - neither country spells baptising with a 'z'.]

Now, it’s possible to imagine the washing of everything in that list being done by immersion, except the dining couch. Of course, the dining couch is not included in some manuscripts, but to be included at all, it must have been understood that a dining couch could be baptised, and it is very doubtful it would have been immersed.

Adding to that, John 2:6 talks about “six stone water jars there [at a wedding] for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.” That’s pretty big, but is it reasonable to assume that every wedding guest that arrived immersed themselves in one of the 6 jars to purify themselves? I think the Western concept of taking a bath biases our thinking here. Even today in Asian countries or other parts of the world, taking a bath means pouring water over oneself. So, even if Mark 7:4 means something more than hand washing, I cannot conceive of it as soaking in water. I believe it would be the normal bathing which consisted of pouring water over oneself, or, to use the Greek, baptising oneself.

If you are not convinced, then look again at Luke 11:38. Did Jesus come in from the market? Perhaps so. But then was he expected to get into the water jars that no doubt existed at the Pharisee’s house? It doesn’t make sense to me.

Now, these were not the verses that convinced me to look harder at the mode of baptism. What started it for me was the fact that the “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” was described not as immersion, but as the pouring of the Spirit upon people.

The second thing that sealed my interest was the two instances of “baptism” in Hebrews, especially Heb 9:10 that refers specifically to OT Laws. Nothing in those Laws speaks about immersion, and some of them specifically speak of sprinkling.

Does that help?

In regards to Mark 7:3-4 (translated “they cleanse themselves” NASB) the meaning “immerse” is not unlikely, especially when you consider the previous verse. “For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; (4) and when they come in from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse (baptize) themselves . . .” Verse four seems to build on verse three, going from a cleansing “with the fist” to a more complete action. Seeing them both as an incomplete cleansing makes verse 4 redundant.

Luke 11:38 seems to refer to the same practice of bathing (note that both times the Pharisees are the ones concerned about cleanliness suggesting that both instances refer to the same practice).

The non-immersion side has good arguments for most of their proposals, though, so how would they address the two passages?

Thanks for your comment. The majority of the links in these posts seem to have collapsed for some reason. I’ve fixed them now if you’re interested.

I agree that finding the meaning of the word involves looking at the context in which it is used. That is what I was trying to do in this post and those that follow. My conclusions differ from James Gilchrist Lawson for that very reason! Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:3-4 are two biblical examples.

I have also looked up historical usage of baptizo. Maybe if I get time I’ll check out Lawson’s examples.

i stumbled on your blog while researching ???????’s historical use. An interesting comment I read in William Hamilton’s “Compend of Baptism” observed that a word’s meaning (formal definition) is most accurately determined through studying its actual/historical usage (Hamilton 21). If you check out his or James Gilchrist Lawson’s “Did Jesus Command Immersion” you’ll find a wealth of classical, LXX, NT and Church Father examples to aid in your pursuit of Truth

As a teaser, Lawson at one point inserts various possible meanings (i.e. dip, wash, pour)for ??????? in various historical examples with rather telling results (Lawson 99ff). . .