Thinking About the Family (2)

By Greg Litmer

Over the years there have been many occasions when I have been asked to talk to different married couples who were experiencing problems in their marriages. On many other occasions my input was not sought or wanted, yet I could stand on the side lines and watch as another family disintegrated. Even those who are Christians are not immune to these kinds of problems and it seems to be happening more and more all the time. Very few congregations of any size and that have existed for very long have escaped the heartache that comes from watching a beloved married brother and sister decide to go their separate ways in violation of God’s word. Very few congregations have escaped the pain of watching a family that is loved by all degenerate into unhappiness, bitterness, and disharmony. These kinds of things take place rather frequently. Sometimes you can see it happening. Other times there is no obvious indication that something is wrong until it is too late to help.

What kind of problems seem to come up most often? I would have to agree with most experts (and I do not put myself in their company; I simply have the benefit of being able to read what they say) that the number one problem in marriages is money. Sometimes problems arise that have to do with the intimate side of marriage. At other times moral issues come up, when one or the other desires to engage in activities that are sinful. There are problems with the children and how they are to be raised. Sometimes couples just don’t talk to each other and when they do talk, it is not about things that really matter. There are a host of different problems that can and do come up.

It has been my experience that in each and every situation that has led to an unhappy marriage, or even to the dissolving of a family, there has been a failure to abide by Ephesians 5:21 where Paul wrote, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” The word translated as “submitting” (hupotassomenoi) has an interesting etymology. Originally it was military in meaning, describing the coming together of troups for battle under a commanding officer. Each individual soldier was to understand and stay in his proper place in the formation as instructed by his superior. Eventually the word came to mean subordination in any relationship under discussion. If a person was “submitting,” he was placing himself under the influence of authority and that could be a person or a position, as far as obedience was concerned. There was the subjection of one’s will to that of another.

This could be either voluntary or involuntary. If I were to be captured by an enemy and forced into a life of slavery, there would be submission, but it would not have been entered into voluntarily. But when we talk about the kind of submission required by the gospel of Christ, we are talking about submission entered into by choice. I voluntarily submit myself to Christ. I voluntarily submit myself to the oversight of the elders of the congregation of which I am a member. Indeed, I voluntarily submit myself to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

There is another aspect of hupotassomenoi that needs to be considered. In some instances, and context would make this determination, it goes beyond authority and involves the “motive” behind the submitting. It involves as unselfish concern for the desires and the wishes of another, even when that other person has no real authority over you. It is the antithesis of selfishness. Paul, in Ephesians 5:21, was instructing the brethren to voluntarily “submit” to one another, meaning to always take the needs and feelings of others into consideration even more than ourselves. He was telling them and us not to be selfish, not to always demand our own will and our own way. That kind of attitude was necessary one to another in the body of Christ; can we not see how important it is in the family relationship at home? In fact, Paul goes on in Ephesians 5, and shows how it works in the home. In verses 22-25, we find, “Wives, submit yourselves unto you own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.” In verse 28 we read, “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.”

Whenever there is a failure to “submit” one to another in the home, problems will arise, and this lack of submission is selfishness. Yes, money often creates major problems in a marriage, but how? Several different scenarios related to this have been played out in families over the years. Sometimes there is a wife who is not satisfied with what the husband is able to provide monetarily and she becomes bitter. Sometimes there is a husband who will not work to provide for his family. Sometimes both of them work and live way beyond their means or their needs, hence there is constant pressure to make more money. If one of them gets sick or loses his job, then they are in deep financial trouble. You don’t have to look too hard to see that selfishness plays a role in each of these situations.

I have been aware of times when, through no fault of their own, families have gotten into significant money problems. There may have been an accident, sickness, a layoff, or some other unfortunate occurrence. Even as the situation became very difficult, it did not create problems between the husband and the wife because each one was more concerned about the feelings and needs of the other. They were submitting one to another. So instead of fussing and fighting, they pulled together to confront their difficulties.

On occasion, problems will arise in a marriage that have to do with the intimate side of the relationship. If there is no physical cause creating the difficulty, then it seems that most often it is possible to trace the disturbance back to a failure to embrace and abide by Ephesians 5:21, “Submit- ting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

In 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, some very basic principles dealing with this side of marriage are set forth. Paul wrote,

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto her husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence.

There have been instances where the intimate side of marriage has been used as a weapon. What I mean by this is that one or the other will defraud the mate, depriving him of his God-given right, until the other one gets his own way about some matter. Surely we can all see that such behavior is as ungodly as can be and in direct violation of the principle of Ephesians 5:21, and many others.

I have had people tell me over the years that they no longer find their mate physically attractive or appealing. Sometimes the mate, thinking only of himself, has allowed his physical appearance to deteriorate, no longer even trying to make himself particularly clean, much less attractive to his spouse. Sometimes it is just that the complainer thinks the grass is going to be greener on the other side. They don’t stop to think that maybe the stretch marks came from the bearing of children or that little bit of a belly, no matter how hard you try to hold it in, is just nature’s way of saying you are getting older. Instead of thinking of what a joy it is to go through all of those stages of life together, they think only of the physical things which are not what true love is all about anyway. So often this kind of complaint and problem has its birth in just plain selfishness and a failure to understand Ephesians 5:21.

How many marriages of brethren over the years have been torn asunder by adultery? More than I care to think about. When all of the rationalization has been done and all of the excuses have been given, 99.99% of the time it boils down to selfishness. How can there possibly be unselfish concern for the desires and the wishes of the spouse when adultery is committed? How can the one guilty of such a thing be considering the feelings and the needs of his mate? This is all part and parcel of “submitting one to another,” and the Holy Spirit through Paul used marriage to illustrate how it is supposed to work in Ephsians 5.

I have known of marriages among brethren destroyed because of moral issues. One or the other decides he wants to engage in some activity that is contrary to God’s word. It might be drinking, or gambling, or pornography, or any one of a number of other things that Christians should stay as far away from as possible. When the one spouse refuses to violate God’s law to placate the selfish and unholy desire of the other, trouble comes. But who causes the trouble? Is it the one who refuses to sin or the one who demands his own way, even to the extent of trying to lead his spouse into sin with him? These kinds of things are the result of a failure to apply Ephesians 5:21.

Problems with the discipline of the children? Why is it that some couples refuse to sit down and talk out their differences about how certain parental responsibilities should be handled? Could it be that one or the other is determined that it will be his way or no way? I understand that the man is the head of the family, yet at the same time I recognize that Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another” also applies to his relationship with his wife: and not just hers to him. The woman was created as a help “meet” for man. That means complementary and compatible in every way. If her opinion isn’t worth anything, than neither is the man’s. When there is genuine submission, real concern for the desires and the wishes of the spouse, these kinds of problems won’t prove to be problems for very long.

The Constant Battle With Immorality

By Andy Alexander

We must not get comfortable in a world of sin. We must be like Lot who was “oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds) . . .” (2 Pet. 2:7-8).

The world in which we live, late 20th Century America, is morally deteriorating. Technologically, physically, and economically society seems to be advancing, but spiritually we are declining. Immorality abounds. Deviant behavior and actions that once were rarely mentioned in public, except to condemn, are now openly discussed, joked about, and promoted. Filthy language (cursing, sexually explicit, etc.) is frequently used by both men and women. Satan is working non-stop to encourage all these evils and he especially works to bring these evils into the lives of Christians.

We want to notice various forms of immorality that are present in the world, how Satan works to bring these evil acts into our lives, and what we must do to combat this error.

Various Forms of Immorality

Many forms of immorality are socially acceptable and to oppose them is to be narrow-minded, unloving, or worse yet, an extremist. The term “extremist” is used to prejudice the minds of the general population. It is a term similar to the term “anti” used by liberals in the church to paint those of us who demand Scriptural authority for all practices as hate-mongers and orphan-haters. Let us notice some of these socially acceptable forms of immorality.

Homosexuality is emerging, not only as acceptable, but almost the “in thing” to practice. A recent segment on 20/20, an ABC news magazine show, interviewed a number of older women coming out of their marriages claiming they were lesbians and did not realize it till later in life. Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters portrayed them as mixed up, perhaps confused, and sympathized with them in their situations (aired 12-4-97). The television show “Ellen” openly defends and promotes the gay/lesbian lifestyle. Men kissing men and women kissing women is now spot-lighted on prime- time television. Among those of us who are older, few would have ever thought such would occur!

The President and Vice-President of our country are very supportive of the homosexual lifestyle. Many public schools in larger cities are catering to the homosexuals. Classes are offered which promote the lifestyle as normal and anyone who would oppose it on moral grounds is generally castigated. An Indiana school recently allowed a poster promoting sympathy and understanding for homosexuals to be displayed in a high school classroom. Regardless of society’s acceptance of it, homosexuality is and always has been wrong. From the beginning God created man and woman for one another (Gen. 2:18-24). Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and homosexuality was one of the sins that led to their destruction (Gen. 19; Jude 7). This sin is also condemned in the New Testament and only those with a dishonest heart would deny that these plain teachings from God’s word condemns their sexual deviancy (Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). Homosexuality is a present evil and making great inroads into our society.

Sin has consequences. It is addictive in nature, takes us farther than we want to go, and keeps us longer than we want to stay. When we sow to the flesh we will reap a harvest (Gal. 6:7-8).

The sin of adultery is also very prevalent in America today. Those in the world act as if it is no sin at all. They see it as a freedom given to them by the courts of the land. Many divorce and remarry at will, never giving thought to the fact that they are committing the sin of adultery. So prevalent is it that some preachers in the conservative churches of Christ are promoting it by twisting the Scriptures to accommodate those living in it. Other preachers are encouraging this sin by accepting those who teach this error and looking on these false teachers as faithful brothers in Christ while casting out those who oppose and expose the teachers of error. Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Divorcing your mate and marrying another is a sin (Rom. 7:2-3). God calls those who do so “adulterers” and “adulteresses” and they are plentiful in our society today.

Another commonplace sin in twentieth century America is the sin of drunkenness. Everywhere we turn in this land there is some reference to drinking and usually it is placed in a positive context. Commercials, billboards, and television shows picture drinking alcohol as the socially acceptable thing to do. The elite in society enjoy it. The up and coming generation all drink intoxicants and are portrayed by the media as having no trouble with it.

It is taken as a given that people drink intoxicating beverages and when someone turns down a drink he is considered strange or thought of as “the designated driver.” Teenagers watch their parent or parents drink, learn from them, then quickly put into practice what they have learned. Some parents are now renting their graduating sons and/or daughters rooms in motels for drinking after special events like homecoming game dances and proms. They claim their children will drink with or without their approval, so they want them to be safely off the streets while they do it. Such illogical think- ing pervades much of society today, but it illustrates how far our society is getting from biblical principles that were instilled two or three generations before.

The Bible condemns the recreational drinking of all modern intoxicating beverages (1 Pet. 4:3). The Proverbs warn of the dangers of alcoholic consumption (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-35). Disease, divorce, abuse, death, and misery accompany those who drink, but still there are preachers in the church who will encourage and condone its use by their weak and compromising preaching on the subject. Immodest dress is commonplace in the world today and especially in the United States. Commercials, television programs, retail stores, ad campaigns, magazines, various types of uniforms (sports, cheerleading, twirling costumes, swimsuits, etc.) and fashion designers all promote this sin. We are constantly bombarded with immodest and indecent dress. Both males and females are guilty of this sin. However, God’s word speaks clearly of the type of dress that Christians are to be seen in, modest, seemly apparel which befits people professing godliness (1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:1-6; Gal. 5:19-21; Matt. 5:16).

Abortions performed in mass quantities is another abomination in this land. About half the people of the United States believe that a woman has the right to choose an abortion. Among the other half of Americans is a large group that does not care either way, thus they lend their support to the abortionist. Bible principles condemn the practice of abortion.

Jeremiah says that he was known by God before his birth, while he was still in the womb (Jer. 1:5). David proclaims the Lord knew him before his birth and that he was “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13-16). Abortion is the murder of an unborn baby and many are hardened to the point of unconcern toward this evil. Why? The reason is likely twofold. One, because it is so prevalent; secondly, they are so far removed from a knowledge of God’s word which enlightens us to know that it is a moral evil.

Another common and growing sin in our day is the sin of gambling. This sin comes in many forms. Casino gambling, wagering on horse and dog races, state lotteries, raffles, bingo games, and employees in businesses and offices betting on the outcome of various sport’s events are some of the ways that this sin is committed to- day. The promoters of this sin include schools, governments, denominational churches, and many charitable organizations as well as those in the gambling industry itself.

Principles contained in God’s word prove gambling to be sin. It survives off of greed and is nothing more than theft by consent. Just as killing someone in a duel is murder, taking someone’s money in a poker game is stealing. Stealing and greed are both wrong and should be abstained from by every Christian (Eph. 4:28; Col. 3:5). Because so many “reputable” organizations use gambling as a source of revenue, it is generally seen as a harmless form of recreation.

One last common sin of our day that we want to notice is dancing. The dance comes in many different types and some appear to be innocent and even healthy. Schools promote dancing at very early ages and culminate with the Jr./Sr. Prom in the spring of the year. There are sweetheart dances, homecoming dances, and birthday parties where dancing is practiced. Satan begins breaking many people down at very young ages to accept this evil. Parents encourage their children not to be shy, but get out on the dance floor as if the dance is something that is good for bringing young people out of their shell. Dancing is a lascivious act and is condemned as a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21).

Satan’s Tactics To Promote Immorality

We have noticed various forms of immorality that are frequently practiced in the world. Homosexuality, drunken- ness, immodesty, dancing, gambling, abortion, and adultery are not only practiced by many people, but also most of these sinful acts are looked upon as normal and healthy for all ages and both sexes. These sins are also accepted by many people who claim to Bible-believing Christians.

How does Satan work to bring these sins into our lives? His primary tool is the lie (John 8:44). He deceives us in various ways and uses those close to us to aid him in his battle.

One of his methods of destruction is familiarity. Why did we spend so much time looking at these various sins? Because they are so common. Since this is so, there is the danger that we can reach the point where we are not upset or disturbed by any or all of these perverse acts. Seeing these sins from day to day, we can become accustomed to them or become comfortable around them. They can then more easily worm their way into our lives or the lives of our loved ones and souls will be lost. This is one of the hideous schemes of Satan. Familiarity causes relaxation. Our guard drops and we fall into Satan’s trap.

We must fight back. We must not get comfortable in a world of sin. We must be like Lot who was “oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds) . . .” (2 Pet. 2:7-8). Preachers, elders and Bible class teachers must teach the truth on these evils and do whatever possible to keep Christians from relaxing in this sin-filled environment. Satan will also use our family, friends, and loved ones to soften our attitude toward worldliness. Sometimes children or grandchildren become involved in one or more of these sins and attitudes that once stood firm begin to weaken. Satan is making headway among God’s people especially in the sins of dancing and immodest dress through this avenue. We must not let the world become our standard. The modern dance is a lascivious act whether performed by one of my family members or not. Compromise in this area will not help bring them out of this sin, but rather, will encourage them to continue in it. Immodesty is wrong no matter whose friends or loved ones participate in it. The fact that sports are involved does not change this sin, it only makes it more public and more damaging to the cause of Christ. Teachers of God’s word must not fail to send a clear signal so all may be warned and souls may be saved. We must use principles and examples contained in both the Old and New Testaments to establish what is modest and immodest, then urge all members of God’s family to abide in the teaching and to discipline those who refuse to adhere to the divine standard (Gen. 3:21; Exod. 28:42; Isa. 47:2-3; 1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:1-6; Gal. 5:19-21; Matt. 5:13-16; Luke 17:1-2).

Another tactic used by Satan is time. He leads us to believe that we have plenty of time; therefore, if we choose to engage in some particular sin, we will have time to repent. In fact, some people commit sin with full knowledge of what they are doing, but intend to participate for only a little while, then they will repent and leave it alone. Satan deceives them into thinking that what they are doing is not all that harmful and that they will be able to participate for a little while, then quit. Consequences and influence are forgotten.

King David could have had this attitude when he com- mitted adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11). However, sin has consequences. It is addictive in nature, takes us farther than we want to go, and keeps us longer than we want to stay. When we sow to the flesh we will reap a harvest (Gal. 6:7-8). One fact about sowing and reaping is that we reap more than we sow, and another is that the fruit is not fully realized until sometime in the future. When parents allow their children to sow wild oats, they seldom think about the fruit that those wild oats will produce. Often the fruit is drunkenness, fornication, unwanted pregnancy, death due to drug overdose, and in the end — a lost soul.

Categorizing sin is another maneuver used by Satan. He deceives us into thinking that the sins we or our loved ones commit are trivial. We tend to categorize sins much like the Catholics. Those viewed as less harmful are tolerated while more harmful ones are condemned. Of course, the sin that we are committing is a “trivial” sin and we truly do not like to refer to it as sin. Watching filthy movies or television shows is acceptable, but if a brother goes to a strip bar or nude club, then he is a vile reprobate. What is really worse, watching someone strip on a screen or on a stage? We must recognize sin for what it is and seek to destroy its influence in our lives and the lives of those around us (Rom. 12:1-2).

Conclusion

Local churches of Christ should not tolerate these sins. These sins ought to be exposed as sin and the brethren warned about their destructive nature. Those who refuse to heed the warnings and rebukes of faithful Christians should be disciplined for their own good and the good of the congregation (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-14). Preachers must cease not to warn. We must “preach the word” and be faithful in our work as ministers of Christ (2 Tim. 4:2-5).

“Religious” Infidels Are Still at Work

By Lewis Willis

The Akron Beacon Journal (May 8, 1998, A6) reported that the Jesus Seminar has spoken again. Their latest statement might prove to be far more controversial than their previous utterances.

The Jesus Seminar, founded in 1985 and based in Santa Rosa, California was originally reported to include 100 scholars who worked on their projects, but the latest infidel pronouncement says that only 75 scholars were involved in their newest hatchet job on God’s Word. You will remember that in 1993, the group issued their conclusion that Jesus said only 20% of the 1500 statements attributed to him in the Scriptures. The remainder were supplied by his friends, according to these religious giants.

Now, after five years of analysis, the Jesus Seminar has issued its findings on the actions attributed to the Lord during his earthly ministry. Not surprisingly, they are of the view that very few of the things Jesus is said to have done in the New Testament actually occurred. To be exact, they say “of the 176 events catalogued , . . . only 28 actually occurred with any historical probability.” Among the events ascribed to Jesus which “did not make the cut” are: most of his miracles, the historical accuracy of his arrest, trial, and passion, and his resurrection.

The Jesus Seminar found no historical basis for Gospel stories such as Jesus walking on the water, his rebuking of the wind which calmed the sea, his multiplying of the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude, and his changing water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. They assert that the miracle stories “are forms of propaganda used in those days to advocate or promote a figure” and they are nothing more than “storytelling.”

About the only things this group agreed on in their votes on the various incidents are: Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, his home was Nazareth, his mother’s name was Mary, and his name was Jesus. “Everything else is fiction,” according to Robert Funk, former president of the Society for Biblical Literature. There are few accurate historical details, according to these infidels, in the accounts “that a person named Jesus was executed during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26 to 36); that Jesus was arrested after some incident at the Temple and that some Jewish officials, probably the high priest and his associates, urged Pilate to execute Jesus; that he was crucified at a place called Golgotha; that he was flogged in accordance with Roman practice; and that his disciples fled when he was arrested.”

The Seminar further reported that “the notion that the disciples of Jesus discovered an empty tomb . . . to be unlikely.” Funk reported that “the empty tomb story was actually created by Mark 40 years or so after Jesus died and probably had nothing to do with the original experience.” In fact, they believe the story of the end of Christ’s life on earth is “dangerously anti-Semitic.”

The Consequences If This Assertion Is True?

There are some serious consequences if the Jesus Seminar is to be believed.

1. The most obvious consequence is that the biographers of Jesus — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — were liars! They told these incidents as fact! If they are not true, these men lied about these matters and are totally untrustworthy as witnesses of the life of the Lord (Acts 1:21-22).

2. Since these liars wrote the first five books of the New Testament, their testimony is tainted, to say the very least. How can we believe anything they wrote? John also wrote 1, 2, 3 John and the book of Revelation, all of which must now be challenged as valid, if these people are to be believed. That’s a total of nine New Testament books that are in dispute.

3. The apostle Peter, in his Pentecost sermon, preached that Jesus was approved among the Jews by miracles, wonders, and signs (Acts 2:22); that Jesus was delivered by the Jews to the Romans who crucified him (2:23); and that he was raised from the dead and that Peter was an eyewitness of this event (2:32). All of these facts are disputed by the Seminar. Therefore, Peter cannot be trusted and 1 and 2 Peter must also be questioned as truthful. Added to the nine New Testament books previously called into question are two more books which are wrong in their most fundamental message. Eleven (11) books should be removed from the New Testament if these people are to be believed.

4. Neither can we believe the apostle Paul because he also taught the story “of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18ff), some- thing the Seminar disputes. Not only must we reject Paul’s testimony to the church at Corinth, but how can we believe anything else he might say? He wrote 13 other books of the New Testament, and their truthfulness is also now in question, if the Seminar is to be believed! Let’s see, now, we add these 13 books to the 11 previously cast in doubt — that’s 24 books in the New Testament that cannot be trusted.

5. The writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) also wrote of the signs, wonders, and miracles of the Lord. So now we add Hebrews to the list of unreliable books, making a total of 25 of the 27 New Testament books now in dispute.

6. James was a servant of the Christ (1:1); he called him the Lord of glory (2:1); James believed in the devil (2:19, 4:7); and believed in the second coming of Christ (5:8). If James wrote of these false things, neither can the book of James be trusted. That’s 26 of the 27 books of the New Testament which teach error according to the Seminar.

7. That leaves only the little book of Jude to consider. Let’s see now, Jude was also a servant of Jesus Christ (v. 1); he warned about ungodly men who deny the Lord (v. 4) — My, I hope he wasn’t talking about the Jesus Seminar! Jude further wrote about ungodly men and their ungodly speeches, their great swelling words, their mockery (vv. 15-18). (Could that also be true of newspaper reports that ungodly men issue?) And Jude believed the words which the apostles spoke about Jesus (v. 17). The author of this book also believed in the very things the Jesus Seminar said are not true, so we must question this book also. That’s 27 of the 27 New Testament books that cannot be trusted!

Is this possibly what the Jesus Seminar is trying to get folks to do? Are they discrediting the New Testament? Are the Scriptures wrong simply because the Jesus Seminar does not believe them? Do they perhaps desire to be the voice of religion — setting forth obligations and declaring liberties — in the place of the Gospel? Can we trust them more than the writers of the New Testament?

What’s going on here? This is just another effort to pervert God’s word (Gal. 1:6-9), and it will end with the same result: these heretics and infidels have consigned themselves to the curse of Hell which is appointed for perverters. They simply cannot please God and go to Heaven for they are unbelievers (Mark 16:16; John 8:24; Heb. 11:6). Friends, don’t fall for this unfounded, false testimony of mere men who are on their way to Hell!

What Does it Mean to “Baptize”?

By Tom Hamilton

When we want to know what a certain word means, we have to look at how the word itself is used by the people that speak the language in question. Of course, we could look in a dictionary or lexicon, but these reference works themselves are merely cataloged listings of how the word has actually been used.

Therefore, in regard to a theological word like baptizo — “baptize”, we could look in the standard Greek lexicons, which affirm the word means to “dip, plunge, immerse,” but we should also double-check for ourselves by looking at the actual usage of this word in existing Greek literature. This is especially important for theological terms, because there is always the temptation to bend the meaning of a word to support our own peculiar interpretation or theology.

The truth is to be found in how the word was used itself, whether in classical Greek, the Greek of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT), the Greek literature contemporary with the NT, or the Greek NT itself.

Classical Greek

The literal meaning of baptizo is evident from its common usage in classical Greek, long before there was any biblical connection to the word. The word is used, for example of ships sinking: “Attalus observed one of his own pentere (a type of ship) which had been rammed by an enemy ship and was sinking (lit. ‘was being baptized’) . . .” (Polybius, Histories 16.6.2; see also 1.51.6). In an ancient medical text, one patient’s labored breathing is described in this way: “. . . she breathed like a diver (lit. ‘one who has been baptized’) who has surfaced” (Hippocrates, Epidemics 5.63).

This image of burial, especially in water, came to have figurative uses as well. It is often used to describe the greatest degree of drunkenness, the idea being that one is immersed in wine. For example, in an appeal for more moderate drinking as opposed to the previous day’s excesses, one speaker identifies himself as “one of those who was soaked (lit. ‘baptized’) yesterday” (Plato, Symposium 176b). Similarly, Plato also uses the term to describe a youth being overwhelmed in a philosophical argument, “I, knowing the young man to be going under (lit. ‘being baptized’) and wanting to give him some breathing-space . . .” (Plato, Euthydemus 277d). We read that the rulers of Egypt enjoyed a sufficient income such that “they do not bury (lit. ‘baptize’) the people with property taxes” (Diodorus Siculus, 1.73). Likewise, Plutarch comments that the Roman emperor Galba was hesitant to declare Otho his successor, because he knew him to be “unrestrained and extravagant and buried (lit. ‘baptized’) under a debt of five million (sesterces)” (Plutarch, Galba 21).

Septuagint Greek

In the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, one finds baptizo used in reference to Naaman. This Gentile had lep- rosy, but was sent word through Elisha’s servant to go and wash in the Jordan River seven times. Although Naaman at first refused to obey these instructions because they were too beneath him, he humbled himself and complied. In accordance with Elisha’s instructions, Naaman “went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kings

5:14). The picture is that of a full bath of the entire body repeated seven times.

Other Greek versions of the Old Testament use baptizo in Job 9:31 (“plunge me into a pit”), Psalm 9:16 (“the nations have sunk in the pit”), Psalm 69:2 (“I sink in deep mire”), Isaiah 21:4 (“lawlessness overwhelms me”), and Jeremiah

38:22 (“your feet are sunk in the mire”).

Contemporary Greek

In the secular Greek literature written at the same time as the NT, we find several examples which objectively demonstrate the real meaning of baptizo. The voluminous writer and Jewish historian Josephus uses the term figuratively to refer to one sinking into a deep sleep, just as we do: “sunken (lit. ‘baptized’) into unconsciousness and a drunken sleep     . . .” (Josephus, Antiquities 10.169). In reference to the crowds of refugees that flocked to Jerusalem during the time of the siege by Rome, Josephus says that they “flooded (lit. ‘baptized’) the city” (Josephus, Jewish War 4.137). In the Jewish War 2.476, Josephus gives a rather graphic account of a certain Simon who took his own life on the battlefield when it became apparent that his cause was lost — “he buried (lit. ‘baptized’) the sword into his own throat.” Finally, we might note Josephus’ account of the drowning of eighteen-year-old Aristobulus upon orders from his father, Herod the Great. In a swimming pool at Jericho, Aristobulus’ “friends” were “weighing him down continuously and keeping him under (lit ‘baptizing’) as if for sport, and they did not let him up to swim until they had completely drowned him” (Josephus, Antiquities 15.55).

New Testament Greek

In the NT we find that the usage of baptizo remains unchanged. It invariably bears the same meaning it did in classical, Septuagint, and contemporary Greek — to dip, plunge, submerge or immerse.

First, we see that its literal meaning is preserved in texts that deal with the ritual washings practiced by the Pharisees. In Luke 11:38 Jesus’ Pharisaic host is shocked that “Jesus was not ceremonially washed (lit. ‘baptized’) before the meal.” In Mark 7:4, Jesus refers to the Pharisees’ traditional practice of “the washing (lit. ‘baptizing’) of cups and pitchers and copper pots.” In both cases, a complete cleansing is envisioned, not the mere sprinkling or pouring of a small amount of water.

In fact, the work of John the Baptist (or “Immerser”) also required more than this small amount of water. We are explicitly told that John was “baptizing in Aenon near Salim because there was much water there” (John 3:23). At the baptism of Jesus by John, we read in Mark 1:9-10 that Jesus went into (eis) and came up out of (ek) the water. The same point is made in Acts 8:38 with Philip and the Ethiopian. Some want to interpret this merely as being a trip to the waterside or a wading in the water. However, the Greek prepositions “into” and “out of” demand that we understand that the baptized persons actually went into and came out of the midst of the water.

The symbolic usage that Paul makes of the word settles the issue. Not just once, but twice, Paul emphasizes that being baptized is like burying a dead body (Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 2:12). Therefore, just as Christ’s corpse was buried and afterwards resurrected, our old dead bodies of sin are buried in baptism and then raised to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). While this affirms that spiritual resurrection takes place after the burial (i.e., baptism), and not before, as most people wrongly teach, the primary point for our present study is that baptism is indeed a burial. Just as pouring a small amount of dirt or sprinkling a few grains of soil over a corpse does not qualify as a burial, so also a few drops of water can never properly be considered an immersion, which is what “baptism” means.

There can be no real doubt or dispute that this is the real meaning and usage of “baptism,” or that the New Testament’s use of this word is intended to require a person to submit themselves to a full bodily immersion in water for the forgiveness of their sins. You can see for yourself from every time period or area of the Greek language, this has always been the usage and meaning for baptizo. Anyone who disagrees can very easily prove his point by offering even one example where this is not the case, but the detractors have yet to be able to find even one example out of its hundreds of occurrences.

With all of this abundantly clear and indisputable evidence, one is made to wonder why there is even any controversy at all over the proper form of baptism. What is the theological axe these folks have to grind who wish to reject the plain meaning of the word? Why must people be like Naaman and refuse to simply do what they are told — be immersed?

Current Usage

I would be the last person on earth to try to convince people that the English word “baptize” only meant “immerse.” This is clearly not the case. Baptism is defined as an action in which water is either sprinkled or poured over someone or the person is immersed in it — immersion is merely one option. Likewise, baptism is defined as a Christian sacrament to symbolize purification and initiation into a religious organization. While I cannot dispute these English definitions of the word, I can affirm that neither definition is applicable to the NT, that is, neither one is what the NT is talking about when it uses the word baptizo.

It is this difference between the meanings of the English word “baptize” and the Greek word baptizo which creates all of the confusion. This confusion can be removed one of two ways.

On the one hand, we could insist that baptizo does, in fact, refer to a Christian sacrament administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, and our English word “baptize” is a perfect translation. One well-known lexicon attempts to settle the issue in this manner, defining baptizo as “to employ water in a religious ceremony designed to symbolize purification and initiation” (Louw & Nida, §53.41). But you can check the usage of the word itself, as we have done in this article, and objectively and honestly determine whether any passage supports this definition. One cannot help but suspect that this is a prime example of theological bias imposing itself upon the text in an utterly arbitrary and baseless manner.

On the other hand, we could acknowledge honestly that our English word “baptize” was created after the ecclesiastical establishment had already adopted several forms of “baptism” which the NT does not mention. When the time came for the first English translations of the Bible to be made, baptizo was forbidden to be translated into its true meaning, “immerse,” because this would explicitly condemn and expose the practices of the ecclesiastical establishment. Instead, baptizo was transliterated, and it was implied that the theological meaning for “baptism” which had developed over the centuries, was intended by the NT wherever baptizo occurred.

It is only because people have been convinced that baptizo has this theological meaning that they can say such things like, “Sprinkling is just another, equally acceptable way of baptizing.” If they said, “Sprinkling is just another, equally acceptable way of immersing!” they would see this statement for the silliness it is.

Let us understand honestly and clearly what the NT is talking about when it speaks of “baptism.