Posted on 12/19/2006 9:32:45 AM PST by xzins
There's a couple of problems with your interpretation here.
1. Do you really believe that the Pharisees, who were so paranoid about being unclean, would actually neglect to wash the inside of their cups and bowls in any fashion? I'm not a Pharisee, but even I know that it's a pretty good idea to throughly wash something as opposed to just sprinkling it with water if you want to get it clean.
2. This isn't a statement about the exact means of ritualistic washing that they did, but rather a statement about their hypocrisy. Else why would they be filled with "extortion and excess"? The meaning is that they took great pains to make sure everyone knew they outwardly cleaned their vessels, but inwardly they (the Pharisees) were full of extortion and excess. This thought is summed up in the next two verses:
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
3. It may be nitpicking, but "baptizo" or "baptismos" aren't even used in these verses.
3. the KJV has "tables", the Douai Reims has "couches". Can you immagine trying to eat reclining on a wet couch!
They weren't what we would call "couches" today. They could have been small benches, pillows, whatever. Or as pointed out, that phrase is disputed and doesn't appear in the majority text. Either way, there are scholars who point out that they would have immersed it anyways.
They were EXTREME. They made God's laws a burdens. That means they went above and beyond what was really required. A "sprinkling" of eating and drinking utensils seems like so much underkill for them.
I wouldn't go so far as to say you're being dishonest, but you're really grasping to maintain that the term "baptizo" or "baptismos" means anything but immersion.
***I wouldn't go so far as to say you're being dishonest, but you're really grasping to maintain that the term "baptizo" or "baptismos" means anything but immersion.***
Thirty five years after the death of John the apostle they were using the word baptize to mean immerse, sprinkle and pour. I have merely pointed out that it was also used in these verses 95 years earlier.
***1. Do you really believe that the Pharisees, who were so paranoid about being unclean, would actually neglect to wash the inside of their cups and bowls in any fashion?***
This was not washing to remove old food. This was ceremonial cleansing to make them "legal" for meal use.
As the verse said, they made the outside "clean" but ignored the inside.
The only way to do that would be to either sprinkling or a minor "dip" in a larger bowl of water just to let the outside of the pot touch the water, but not immerse it fully.
Much like a dove was "dipped" into the blood of another dove, or a finger "dipped" into the palm of the hand just to get a few drops of blood or oil on it for sprinkling purposes. Christ is using this as an example of the lives of the Pharasees. clean on the outside, rotten on the inside.
**3. It may be nitpicking, but "baptizo" or "baptismos" aren't even used in these verses.***
They don't have to be. But they WERE used in the other verses about ritual cleansing. And both of these deal with ritual cleansing before meal time.
***They weren't what we would call "couches" today.***
They ate in the Greek fashion, reclining on their side on a couch, with a low table in front of them.
Just because a word is used, doesn't mean it is used properly in accord with its meaning. And when it is used improperly, that improper useage does not change its objective meaning.
Just 10 years after the death of Christ, heretics were using the word "Christian" to describe their heresies. Did that make their heresies "Christian"?
Just because people call themselves "Christian" doesn't mean they are, and just because people call sprinkling "baptism", doesn't mean it is.
If as you say, the word has evolved, why are the two words: "baptize" and "sprinkle" defined differently in the dictionary. Why have the definitions not evolved?
The only place sprinkling means baptism is in the minds of those who want it to and who use the word improperly.
Thanks for posting this.
BTW, the Christmas Markets in Koln, Rothenburg, Dinklesbuhl and Freiburg were lovely this year. We're hitting some of the French Markets later this week.
What do you mean? I don't understand you. By "slang" do you mean the dictionary meaning or what someone down the street means by it or what I mean by it or someone else? Do you mean its objective meaning or a subjective one? ---- Do you understand now what I mean?
Do you not think that the ancient speakers of Greek or Aramaic didn't have their slang also.
We're not talking about a theoretical them, we're talking about what the authors of Scripture meant by the word "baptizo", nothing else.
The word "bapize" was obviously a form of slang for "ritual cleansing".
Obvious to whom? Where is your evidence? The word "baptize" and what it means originates with John the Baptist, both its useage and what he was doing, and it certainly was not a ritual because he refused to baptize the Pharisees.
Why else would the word "baptize" be used to refer to the Pharisees' ritual cleansing of cups.
It was a ritual "baptizing" [dipping, plunging, immersing, dunking, pouring on of enough water to get them thoroughly wet.] The Pharisees believed that demonic forces were picked up by contact with Gentiles during everyday activities, but by getting their hands thoroughly wet and then letting the water drip off of them, the demon forces flowed off and out of their hands with the water. Now how would sprinkling serve that purpose? It wouldn't.
And again, the NASB has a margin note that the Pharisees "sprinkled" (baptizo") themselves when returning from the market.
Note that it is in the margin which means that the majority of the translators of that version did not agree with it.
***Note that it is in the margin which means that the majority of the translators of that version did not agree with it.***
But enough translators DID agree with it (sprinkle) so it could not be completely ignored and was put in the margin as an alternate meaning.
****It was a ritual "baptizing" [dipping, plunging, immersing, dunking, pouring on of enough water to get them thoroughly wet.]****
Yet I have shown you in Matthew how Jesus used this ritual cleansing as a parable of their uncleanliness because they only wet the OUTSIDE of the pot and not the inside. Definitly not a complete immersion. And in Mark the word "baptize" is used for the same ritual.
I must also point out that those whom the first Apostles taught were sprinkling, pouring and immersing after the deaths of the first Apostles.
Let's peel this onion down to it's core: Sprinkling is convenient for those who wish to call their infant dedication rituals "baptisms." But we all know that the child has no understanding of the event, and thus it is not really a baptism as it is called out in the scriptures. Certainly they are not going to immerse the infant in a pool of water, and sprinkling is their only realistic option. If they did their dedications in a more scripturally affirmed way, this thread would not even exist.
You are grasping at straws. Pretty soon you will have enough for another straw man.
***Sprinkling is convenient for those who wish to call their infant dedication rituals "baptisms." ***
Just for the record, I don't believe in infant baptism by any method.
Amen. We are on the same page.
On a side note, I wonder if there are churches or groups that sprinkle adults in lieu of baptism, or if they just sprinkle the infants.
That's cool, but where do you think the sprinkle cakme from? It's pagan.
***That's cool, but where do you think the sprinkle cakme from? It's pagan.****
Actually, Moses took scarlet thread, tied hyssop to a stick, dipped it in blood and water and sanctified the BOOK and the People.
Check the OT their are many other references to sprinkling.
Do you mean straw men like that Constantine made Christinainity a state religion" (proven false), that Constantine presided over Eccumenical councils? (proven false) That Jews is and around Nazaerth spoke predominatly Hebrew? (proven false, including with quotes from jewish Scholars no less) That the Septuagint was written by Origen? (proven false by at least 5 archaological finds that predate Christ, whom Predates Origen)).
You'd know straw men all right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.