Is Immersion required by Scripture when a baptism is performed?

[MennoSota]

IF - as the whole premise of this thread insists - the word "baptize" MUST mean ONLY to fully and physically immerse in and under water - then it is relevant to ask how couches and tables were baptized, as Scripture specifically and verbatim states.

And I'd add why no one until a Anabaptist in the 16th Century knew that (certainly those in 75 AD as we see in the Didache knew no such thing). Since there were no dictionaries in the First Century, we were asked to show how Scripture uses the word and how folks that knew and spoke koine Greek at the time understood it - and so Scriptures were presented where it obviously doesn't only mean "to fully and physically immerse in and under water" and quoted from the Didache and others to show that those who knew and spoke koine Greek obviously didn't understand it to mean "fully and physically to immerse in and under water" (among other things because they insisted it was okay to pour the water onto the receiver).







Wrong thread.....

But of course, if you are right then why would the German Anabaptists (and their followers still to this day) insist on forbidding it since as you note, Scripture does not? Kind of like forbidding people to use the internet because Scripture does not. Silly, wouldn't you agree? But again, this thread isn't about what Scriptures forbid infants from being baptized (which you agree it doesn't), it's about whether the word "baptize" in koine Greek must exclusive mean "to fully and physically immerse in and under water" and thus baptism may ONLY be administered in that way, a position invented by a German Anabaptist in the 16th Century (a man who didn't speak koine Greek and may not have even known it from school)












- Josiah




.

Indeed, many times the word baptizo is never referring to water, but instead is referring to the Holy Spirit.

 

[MennoSota]

If the original language can't be properly understood then the theology will probably state something as well that isn't understood. Tables and chairs had the same term that the baptism that Jesus instituted had. Therein lies the defense that it's not strictly mandated that a person goes under water for it to be a valid baptism.

Do you prefer lacquer rather than water?

 

[atpollard]

Tables and couches were "baptized" in scripture as I've pointed out in this thread. Those items weren't immersed. Ancient churches had baptismal fonts that weren't large enough to immerse. And the Didache says that it was okay to "pour" water since that was moving water and that was written around 75 AD.

Immersion is neither commanded nor forbidden so why would a Christian say that it was?

Where? What specific verse lists tables?
The last specific verse you presented, I did adddress as listing cups and pitchers and pots (post 36) ... all of which are easily immersed.

 

[atpollard]

If the original language can't be properly understood then the theology will probably state something as well that isn't understood. Tables and chairs had the same term that the baptism that Jesus instituted had. Therein lies the defense that it's not strictly mandated that a person goes under water for it to be a valid baptism.

Here is EVERY New Testement reference to a “table” and NONE of them seem to have been baptized. It has been claimed here several times that tables were baptized, but I have seen no Biblical evidence.

Mat 8:11. “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and [fn]recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;
Mat 9:10. Then it happened that as [fn]Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and [fn]sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples.
Mat 15:27. But she said, “Yes, Lord; [fn]but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.”
Mat 26:7. a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table.
Mat 26:20. Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
Mar 2:15. And it *[fn]happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and [fn]sinners [fn]were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him.
Mar 7:28. But she answered and *said to Him, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs.”
Mar 14:3. While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure [fn]nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head.
Mar 14:18. As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will [fn]betray Me—[fn]one who is eating with Me.”
Mar 16:14. Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.
Luk 5:29. And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them.
Luk 7:36. Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to [fn]dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table.
Luk 7:37. And there was a woman in the city who was a [fn]sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume,
Luk 7:49. Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say [fn]to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?”
Luk 11:37. Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee *asked Him to have lunch with him; and He went in, and reclined at the table.
Luk 12:37. “Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.
Luk 13:29. “And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.
Luk 14:7. And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests when He noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table, saying to them,
Luk 14:10. “But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher'; then you will have honor in the sight of all who [fn]are at the table with you.
Luk 14:15. When one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, “Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!”
Luk 16:21. and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.
Luk 22:14. When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him.
Luk 22:21. “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with [fn]Mine on the table.
Luk 22:27. “For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
Luk 22:30. that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luk 24:30. When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.
Jhn 12:2. So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him.
Jhn 13:12. So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you?
Jhn 13:28. Now no one of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose He had said this to him.

Rom 11:9
And David says,
“LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP,
AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM.

1Co 10:21. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
Heb 9:2. For there was a [fn]tabernacle prepared, the [fn]outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the [fn]sacred bread; this is called the holy place.

So all the arguments that ‘baptizo’ can’t always mean immersion because tables were baptized, appears to be an unsupported statement of opinion.

 

[atpollard]

1. Again, I don't think a case can be made that the koine Greek word means only "immerse." See Acts 11:15-16, 1 Corinthians 10:2, Hebrews 9:10, Mark 7:4, Mark 10:38, Mark 10:39, Luke 12: 50, Luke 11:38, Joel 2:29, Acts 2:17, Acts 2:18 just for starters.

- Josiah

Let’s look at the first verse and see if your claim ‘holds water’.

Acts 11:15-16 NASB And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

Let’s repeat a lesson I offered earlier from the Greek poet and physician Nicander (200 B.C.) who offered detailed instructions on how to make pickles from cucumbers. The first step is to quickly “dip” (bapto, Strong’s 911) the cucumber in boiling water and the second step was to “immerse” (baptizo, Strong’s 904) the cucumber in a vinegar solution.

Clearly there is a difference between dipping in hot water and soaking in a vinegar solution. So let’s look at Acts 11:15-16. Is there anything that made it physically impossible for John to have immersed in water? I don’t think so. There is nothing to prevent the first ‘baptizo’ from having the traditional definition. Now let’s look at the second ‘baptizo’ involving the Holy Spirit. Would you say the change wrought by the Holy Spirit is more like ‘bapto’ and a quick dip that results in just a surface cleaning, or is the work of the Holy Spirit more like ‘baptizo’ and a deep immersion that results in an irreversible change to the nature of the person (like a cucumber becoming a pickle)?

In Acts 11:16, ‘baptizo’ with the Holy Spirit is better described as immersion than dipping.

 

[Lamb]

Scriptures states in the NT that pieces of furniture were baptized...but they were big pieces and it wouldn't be practical to immerse them. So they were "washed" which is another definition of the word. (It's in Mark 7:1-4 about the tables and there is another verse that states couch but I can't find it in my notes right now).

Reposting this for atpollard who did not read it. Look in Mark, sir.

 

[atpollard]

Reposting this for atpollard who did not read it. Look in Mark, sir.

Mark 7:1-4 NASB
1 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (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 from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

No baptizing of tables is mentioned.
I did read it and I responded to it in post 36, Ma'am.

 

[Lamb]

Mark 7:4 KJV And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

 

[Lamb]

Mark 7:4 New International Version (NIV)

4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])
Footnotes:

Mark 7:4 Some early manuscripts pitchers, kettles and dining couches
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7:4&version=NIV

 

[user1234]

Infant baptism is neither commanded nor forbidden so why would a Christian say it is important?
atpollard has provided a data driven reasoning based upon the word choice used in Scripture. This is solid data, yet ultimately people gravitate to their denominational stance regardless of its biblical support.

That's right, and that's the point I was making...when you combine the explanation of meaning by atpollard with what is most reasonable and likely, immersion would seem to be what was done by John with Jesus in the Jordan River.

It makes the most sense BY FAR, and I'm willing to bet on it, (is that alliwed?) but I don't see why ppl are fighting over it and why some always go right back to turning it into a legalistic religious works-righteousness thing, and sadly, others get drawn into it who, otherwise, I KNOW they know better ... Read on... ↓

or: you got baptized in a swimming pool, but it had to be living water. Ah. A pity. I looked that up. They always used rivers and such. It had to be living water. I did it wrong!!!!!! I need to get rebaptized!

You did nothing wrong, and you dont need to get re-baptized. Dont let the religious legalists deceive you.
We're saved by FAITH in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, not getting wet.

It's a great symbolic ceremony, (it should be) but it's not a requirement for salvation, and if somebody tries to tell you you did it wrong or it doesnt count, you tell em I said they're a self righteous, legalistic, blrmnagrimchpn!

Besides, if those ppl really want to do it 'right' and exactly like Jesus, they need to go to the Jordan River and be immersed by a God-appointed, Old Covenant prophet.

I am frankly amazed that people try to make this argument. Even today when churches that practice immersion do it in a river, the minister is merely standing in the river, not covered by the water from foot to scalp! So being in the river doesn't prove a thing about immersions.

And as for the candidate, this puts the minister in the best position to either immerse him or pour water upon him. In short, none of this makes a case that baptism had to be or was done by immersion. And we know from paintings in the catacombs that John was pictured by the very early church as standing, alongside a standing Christ, in the river and pouring water upon Jesus.

Why do you suppose that the first Christians might have had that scene in mind if everyone knew that to baptize must absolutely mean to immerse???

Also, there is another reason for John to stand in the river. That is where the water is! If you are going to baptize a lot of people, it is the most convenient way to do one person after another after another as he had done on many other occasions.


.

I'm frankly amazed at how often ppl insist on twisting not only scripture, but other ppl's posts here, PLUS all the silly and divisive works-righteousness arguements that always evolve over the same two issues, (things that should be beautiful and bring unity, not division)

First it's 'proper' water-baptisms, ugh, then it'll be 'proper' communion, double-ugh, then it's back to baptisms, then back to wafers...oy, really?!

I never said 'musts' or 'absolutely' , that's YOUR legalistic twist on it, not mine....I said immersion makes the most sense, based on the definition of the word the way atpollard clearly explained it to us, and the representative symbolism that Mennosota clearly showed the ceremony to be...

yes, immersion is very likely what was done by John to Jesus and others, so it makes the most sense then, to have ppl today identify in a public ceremony with Jesus death and resurrection by getting IN and UNDER the water (death), and coming UP and OUT of the water (resurrection).

Beyond that, quite frankly, my feelings about the whole arguement thing is SOOOO WHAAAATT?!! Big deal...if you want to stand on your head in a bucket of soup and call it baptism, go right ahead, it wont affect our salvation.

For you to claim that because the word means immersion, you expect ppl to be standing in water from head to toe is a bit asinine and a childish defense for baptismal drizzling, dont you think?
But we'll let it slide, the whole debate is childish, anyway.

 

[atpollard]

The comment has been made, several times, that the early church and early church writers performed 'baptisms' by means other than immersion in a river. For the record, I do not deny this, nor am I personally opposed to other forms of baptism. However, their practice is being thrown up as 'proof' that they held a different definition for the actual words used to create the Greek manuscripts that became our Bible. This is an unfounded conclusion that ignores everything about Covenant Theology (which most of the early church held to and was a concept very familiar to Jewish Christians).

My crusade is simply to defend that the word means what it means because understanding the writer's intent demands that you understand the meaning of the words he chose. The 'Covenant Church' has a responsibility to translate the intent behind the meaning into a practical reality. I happen to think that they did a good job of it for the first few hundred years, not so much after that. The intent of scripture is a series of word pictures of complete and radical change. Into that words like 'plunge into and completely immerse' (baptizo) fit and carry the correct mental image. However, the church fathers had to deal with reality. That includes death bed conversions or slaves with no opportunity to be immersed in a river. The church fathers rightly concluded that while immersion was ideal for symbolic word-picture reasons, it was never the water that was critical to salvation. Since they also believed that the Covenant extended over the entire family, they should initiate the infants into the covenant using the New Covenant 'circumcision' ... which they concluded was 'baptism'. Since plunging newborns into a river is "problematic", they adopted other forms of 'baptism' for infants (like pouring from the laver or sprinkling) both of which were used for OTHER rituals in the Old Covenant and adapted to the New Covenant.

None of their actions intended to fulfill the mandates of scripture as they saw them should be taken as any sort of evidence that they rejected the meaning of words in scripture to redefine those words. 'Baptizo' meant immersion. Reasonable men simply adapted the exercise implied by that word to the practical situations before them.

The later 'Anabaptist/Baptist' movements spring from honest Christians following their conscience and questioning whether it was RIGHT of the early church to alter the practice to accommodate Covenant Theology. It is still a matter of conscience that Christians disagree on. Is the CHURCH made of both the saved and the unsaved (wheat and tares) or is the CHURCH only the saved (repent and be baptized). That is not the question for this topic, but it IS the root of the Covenant vs Believers baptism that is actually being debated.

As far as scripture goes, there is little doubt that any time the word 'baptizo' is used, scripture IS talking about a complete immersion of something ... hands for washing, pots for cleaning, people into the Holy Spirit for radical transformation, or into a river to be 'buried with Christ'. All of the evidence to the contrary is coming from non-scriptural sources.

 

[Lamb]

 

[Lamb]

 

[Josiah]

1. Again, I don't think a case can be made that the koine Greek word means only "to physically and wholly immerse in and under water." Just for starters, see Acts 11:15-16, 1 Corinthians 10:2, Hebrews 9:10, Mark 7:4, Mark 10:38, Mark 10:39, Luke 12: 50, Luke 11:38, Acts 2:17, Acts 2:18


2. I don't think a case can be made that the title of an act governs it. If so, communion would have to be a party, part of a supper (at supper time), and always done in common. Worship would have to be always bowing down, etc. It's silly to argue that the the title of a practice governs how the practice must be done, it's an illogical and silly argument.


3. We know from history that pouring and sprinkling were practiced very early (well established by 70 - 110 AD) - by people who actually knew and spoke koine Greek - so obviously those who spoke koine Greek did not limit baptism to immersion, those who lived at the time and who actually spoke the language did not agree with that 16th Century Anabaptist who insisted the word must mean "immerse" and that baptism thus can only be by immersion. Why did this one guy in 16th Century Germany suddenly (of out the blue) know that the word means when no one who actually spoke it and used it in the First and Second Centuries did?


4. I reject the rubric that we can only do what seems was done by examples recorded in the bible. I wouldn't be posting on the internet if I held to that.




The Didache was written A.D. 70 - 110, and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. Now friend, the writer and all the readers of that, living somewhere between 70 - 110 AD, all knew Koine Greek... and it's written in Koine Greek... so they likely knew the meaning of words in koine Greek (the language of the NT and the language of the word we are discussing. This extremely popular book (that almost got into the NTCanon) was written perhaps when many of the Apostles were still alive and when there were still eyewitnesses to Christ.... and when people knew and used koine Greek.


In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.


Now... obviously in the period of 70 - 110 AD, Christians did not at all understand the situation as was insisted beginning in the 16th Century with the Anabaptists (none of whom spoke koine Greek, few of whom knew it at all). Obviously, they did not understand that the word in question has one and only one meaning: "To physically and entirely immerse in and under water" because he specifically states that it may be by pouring (he PREFERS immersing in living water, but he ALLOWS pouring). And the Didache does NOT insist that we must do it according to the primary meaning of the word or as Jesus was Baptized. Both your points are contradicted by the Didache (written when people knew, understood and used koine Greek)


The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).


Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the people are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled." (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form.

It appears, those that knew and used koine Greek entirely disagree with you. And so did those who lived in the early age of the church. Indeed, it seems all until the 16th Century Anabaptist movement began.


.

1. Since atpollard wants to talk about none of the above except Mark 7:4.... It seems likely to me that St. Mark (who knew, spoke and wrote in koine Greek) likely knew the meaning(s) of the word here. And inspired by God probably wrote correctly. He states that tables and couches were baptized. Maybe he lied but I don't think so. How, exactly, do you think that tables and sofas were "entirely and wholly immersed in and under water?" And as we look at other Scriptures, why do the translators often translate the word as "washing" or "pouring" if it is established the word MUST and ONLY mean "to physically and wholly immerse in and under water?" What do the translators know that the Anabaptists since the 16th Century don't?


2. In the Didache, a very respected (almost got into the NT) and popular book (STILL used in some seminaries) was likely written when many of the Apostles were still alive and by one who wrote in koine Greek in the First Century - one who knew the meaning of the word at that time. And this books specifically states it's okay to POUR water..... and it appears this is already a well established practice. In fact, the "issue" in t he book is more that it be "living water" .... and there is NOTHING in it about "thou mayest ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY baptize by wholly and entirely immersing said person under and in water or it's not baptism and not valid." Nope. He says one may "POUR." Why is the didache and all who read it in the First Century - who knew and spoke and wrote koine Greek, why are all of them entirely ignorant as to the meaning of the word and what is permissible.... in fact EVERYONE until a certain Anabaptist came along in the 16th Century who didn't speak koine Greek or live in the early years of Christiantiy.... why did NONE of them know what the word they used means? No one did until a single man in the 16th Century who spoke and wrote in German?

My crusade is simply to defend that the word means what it means

Except, good friend, you haven't defended it AT ALL. In fact, you seem to have admitted the word had several meanings (of which the one you champion is just one). Friend, there are no First Century Koine Greek dictionaries, NONE written by those who spoke, wrote and used the language in the Early Church. But we can look at how it is used in the NT and we can see how early Christians (perhaps as early as 70 AD and certainly by 110 AD) used and understood it. And they specifically, verbatim, in writing, declare that this includes pouring and sprinkling. In fact, it seems NOT ONE EARLY CHRISTIAN who spoke or knew koine Greek agreed with the Anabaptist on this..... no one did until that German speaking Anabaptist in the 16th Century. Why? Perhaps because the word does not mean (exclusively anyway) what you insist it means, what your "crusade" is. Those who knew and spoke and wrote koine Greek specifically declare it's okay to pour and sprinkle. So it can't mean what you say it means. This is shown by Scripture and by very early koine-Greek speaking Christians.




Is immersion PERMISSIBLE? Yes, and I know of NONE in the entire history of Christianity who has argued otherwise.

Is the SYMBOLISM of immersion rich? Yes (Luther thought so, too, btw).

Was this the preferable praxis in the First and Second Centuries? It seems so (although the far bigger issue was "living water")

But here's the issue...

Is it the ONLY mode permitted in Holy Scripture? Does Scripture indicate that anything other that full, entire, whole immersion under and in water makes for an invalid rite/ordinance/sacrament (as the Anabaptists dogmatically insisted and many Baptists today argue)? No.

Does the word itself exclusely and solely and only mean "To fully, physically, wholly immersed into and under water?" No - as the Bible itself shows, as the Didache and early Christians (who knew and used koine Greek) obviously prove.

Did the earliest Christians (well within the time when at least some Apostles were still alive) insist the baptism could only be by immersion? No. They stated the exact opposite.



Thank you


- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

Reference Theological Quarterly copyright 1916

 

[Albion]

The comment has been made, several times, that the early church and early church writers performed 'baptisms' by means other than immersion in a river. For the record, I do not deny this, nor am I personally opposed to other forms of baptism. However, their practice is being thrown up as 'proof' that they held a different definition for the actual words used to create the Greek manuscripts that became our Bible. .

That's not correct to say. Not only has no one argued that the historic practice proves the translation, but it is you who has floated a theory of "Covenant Theology" which requires you to claim that the church of history changed its understanding of the word baptizo. Show us who changed it, and when, if you want to pursue this further.

 

[atpollard]

Mark 7:4 KJV And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Mark 7:4 New International Version (NIV)

4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])
Footnotes:
Mark 7:4 Some early manuscripts pitchers, kettles and dining couches

Thank you.
It goes a little beyond this topic [and frankly, my skill level] to debate original manuscript evidence for the correct original Greek wording of a verse. I would point out that the KJV was written before most manuscripts were actually even discovered and is limited in its accuracy of the original text for that reason. The NIV footnote says 'some manuscripts' but then placed the data in a footnote rather than the text because even they did not feel that it was likely in the original text. Most other translations have no mention of 'tables' or 'couches'.

If we are going to use a verse to show that a common meaning of a word is 'impossible' in this instance, we should probably have something better than 'some early manuscripts' that seem to be in doubt as "proof". I acknowledge your evidence, but find it weak.

However, I really do thank you for providing it.
Reading the ESV translation that pops up on this website and my NASB translation at home was leaving me scratching my head.

 

[Lamb]

Thank you.
It goes a little beyond this topic [and frankly, my skill level] to debate original manuscript evidence for the correct original Greek wording of a verse. I would point out that the KJV was written before most manuscripts were actually even discovered and is limited in its accuracy of the original text for that reason. The NIV footnote says 'some manuscripts' but then placed the data in a footnote rather than the text because even they did not feel that it was likely in the original text. Most other translations have no mention of 'tables' or 'couches'.

If we are going to use a verse to show that a common meaning of a word is 'impossible' in this instance, we should probably have something better than 'some early manuscripts' that seem to be in doubt as "proof". I acknowledge your evidence, but find it weak.

However, I really do thank you for providing it.
Reading the ESV translation that pops up on this website and my NASB translation at home was leaving me scratching my head.

Just because you personally do not like it that there were earlier transcripts that had it? Hmm. Okay.

When the Pharisees used the word describing how Jesus did not "wash" (is how it got translated) before eating there is another instance where no translation says "immerse" that I use. That was another verse I believe has been mentioned in this thread to show that baptizo also means to wash.

 

[atpollard]

image snip

You should really identify what you are posting if I am to comment on it.
How do I know this wasn't written by the Jehovah's Witnesses?

OK, somebody said something.

 

[Lamb]

Is the image showing up on your end? I am not sure if it's working. I see all 3 pages of the images. They're from reference Theological Quarterly copyright 1916 as I wrote in the last post.