by Richard Mansel

Previously, we began studying proofs that baptism means "immersion." Since Greek authorities agree that "bapto" means "to dip or immerse," the word must be used the same way in other, non-Biblical, literature. If so, coupled with the verification of Greek authorities, this further validates the fact that baptism means immersion.

Polybius, born in 205 B.C., wrote about catching a fish with a large spear, "And even if the spear fell into the sea, it is not lost, for it is compacted of both oak and pine, so that when the oaken part is immersed by the weight, the rest is buoyed up, and is easily recovered." / 1

Polybius wrote about the Roman army marching through the river Tebia, "They passed through with difficulty, the foot soldiers immersed as far as to the breast."/ 2

Josephus, born AD 37, wrote about a boy who was drowned by his companions. He said, "Continually pressing down and immersing him while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist till they had entirely suffocated him."/ 3

Josephus, writing in another place, "And there, according to command, being immersed by the Gauls in a swimming-bath, he dies." / 4

Strabo, born in 60 B.C., wrote of Alexander's army, "... they marched the whole day in water, immersed as far as to the waist." / 5

Achilles Tatius, 450 A.D., "But suddenly the wind shifts to another quarter of the ship, and the vessel is almost immerged." / 6

Dion Cassius, 155 A.D., "And others, leaping into the sea, were drowned; or, struck by the enemy, were baptized." /7

Diodorus, wrote in about 60 - 30 B.C., "The river, rushing down with the current, increased in violence, submerged many, and destroyed them attempting to swim through with their armor." /8

It is crucial that when we read the New Testament we know what the words mean. We learned that the Jews had the Mikveh, which was done by immersion. Likewise, the Greeks understood "bapto" as immersion. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that they understood baptism as immersion, and when they were immersed they became "children of God" (Acts 2:38).

We must not transfer the definitions of our day back to Scripture. The Greek language had different words for sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. If the writers of the New Testament had meant one or the other they would have used the proper words (Hebrews 11:1).

God's Word does not have a controversy as to the meaning of "bapto." We need to follow suit today. Simply stated, if the word baptism meant immersion when the New Testament was written, then it is mandatory that we teach and practice the same meaning today. Otherwise, we are following men rather than God.

I can stand on the courthouse steps and claim to be the Governor until the police arrest me, but I will never be the Governor. Likewise, if baptism is immersion and I insist it is sprinkling, I can profess it the remainder of my life and it will never be so. God has already spoken (Psalm 119:89; 2 Timothy 3:16,17).

Once again, Acts 22:16 says, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (NKJV). Realizing that my sins are "washed away" when I am baptized and baptism is immersion, I must practice baptism by immersion or I have not had my sins washed away.

Next, we will examine the final proof and show that baptism means immersion contextually in the New Testament.

/ 1. History, Book xxxiv, chapter 3,7. / 2. History, Book iii, chapter 72,4. / 3. Jewish Antiquities, book xv, ch. 3,3. / 4. Jewish Wars, book iii, ch. 8,5. / 5. Geography, book xiv, ch. 3, 9. / 6. Story of Clitophon and Leucippe, book iii, ch. 1. / 7. Roman History, book xxxvii. / 8. Historical Library, book xvi, ch. 80.

by J. Randal Matheny

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life -- he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26, NIV).

"Literally, self-hatred refers to an extreme dislike of oneself, or being angry at oneself. The term is also used to designate a dislike or hatred of a group to which one belongs." --en.wikipedia.org

How to hate one's own life? Some have learned to hate themselves because they have been ridiculed, derided, or devalued by people around them. They find many reasons to hate themselves and consider themselves worthless, but Jesus isn't talking about one's self-worth.

Others hate their own thoughts or acts, which may even be heinous or perverse (compare Romans 7:15), but even these are not what Jesus refers to.

From their bashing of the brotherhood, some seem to hate their spiritual inheritance, preferring instead to laud religious departures from the Word. But that is not what Jesus means above.

Jesus uses the word "hate" for emphasis. We're told it means "love less," and indeed so, though we mustn't diminish the force or impact of the word. It's a strong word, used of the ostracism, insults, and scorn heaped upon the Christian (Luke 6:22), of the Son's hatred of lawlessness (Hebrews 1:9), of the saint's hatred of even the wicked's "garment polluted by the flesh" (Jude 23), of God's hatred of the Nicolaitans' deeds (Revelation 2:6).

This self-hatred required by Jesus, then, must be strong, or it will be nothing of the sort. It means the disowning, renunciation, rejection, and denial of all that would compete with our single devotion to Christ. There can be one center of life only, one reason to live and breathe, one principle and way and ground and goal.

So O. Michel will write, "Those who become disciples of Jesus must be commited exclusively to Him; they cannot be bound to anyone or anything else" (TDNT 4:691).

Whatever kind of self-hatred you may have engaged in to date, learn to set your life aside, to place holiness above survival, eternity before the urge of the moment, the way of the cross before the downward slide.

I can afford to hate my own life. God has enough love for us both.

(Author's note: Last week we looked at some beginner's pitfalls in studying Greek. This week we continue those thoughts along the same lines. If necessary, please review the context of last week's article for continuity.)

4. Assume That There Are No Rules to Greek, Just Exceptions

As we mentioned last week, there are those who assume that there are no exceptions to the rules of Greek. But another fallacy is to study the Greek language through the rose-colored glasses of postmodern thought and take the opposite extreme, namely, that there are no rules, just individual statements, each with its own subjective interpretation. (Truthfully, this mistake is more likely made by intermediate students than beginning, but it is mentioned here in an effort to balance out point #3 in the previous article.) Without going into an in depth analysis of postmodernism, it seems obvious that language must have some kind of rules in order for that language to be understood in another. Take for example the Rosetta Stone. That archaeological discovery was key to being able to decipher Egyptian Hieroglyphics. How were we able to decipher it if language has no rules? If such were the case, then no foreign language could ever be decipherable. However, by comparing Egyptian Hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone to other known languages and understanding that languages follow patterns/rules, Hieroglyphics become decipherable.

Languages do indeed have more or less consistent rules. One such consistent rule in the Greek language is the meaning of the present tense. Present tense verbs in Greek signify ongoing or continual action. Are there some exceptions to this? Yes, such as present tense verbs with aorist stems. However, even this exception follows its own rule in that the verb in the present tense with the aorist stem falls back to the aorist tense rule, namely, that the aorist tense signifies point action (an action that is performed and completed in a single moment). These special verbs are recognized and categorized differently from regular stem present tense verbs. To suggest that there really are no rules in Greek grammar is to make the grammar to be unknowable and to subjectivize the translation process, which many translators of modern versions are, in fact, doing today.

5. Focus Upon One Definition and Ignore Context.

Another pitfall that the beginning student may stumble into relates to vocabulary. When one begins studying Greek vocabulary, there is an emphasis upon a one-for-one translation of a Greek word to an English word. This is done in order to build a student's vocabulary in a relatively short period of time. And while it is the case that Greek words have a primary or main definition, like English, most words may also take additional, secondary (and even tertiary, etc.) meanings in different contexts.

A great example of this is the Greek word for "head," KEFALH. The word may refer to one's physical head (the one with the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, etc.). But the word may also refer to a leader, i.e., the head of an organization. These two meanings are apparent in the English language as well. The word is used in both senses in 1 Corinthians 11:4. Paul writes "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." In this passage, the first use of the word "head" means my flesh-covered skull. The second use of the word "head" however, refers to an organizational head, namely, Christ. The meaning of the passage is when a man covers up his head (skull) while praying or prophesying, his Head (Christ) is dishonored. So we have the same word, but two different meanings of the word.

Another example is the Greek verb LUW, which can mean "to loose" or "to destroy." In Matthew 21:2 the word is used in regard to loosing the colt upon which Jesus was to ride into the city of Jerusalem. The same word, however, is used in John 2:19 and 1 John 3:8 to mean "destroy." How does one know the difference between the two meanings? One must understand the word in light of the context in which it is used.

An illustration of this fallacy is to assume the word DIAKONOS (deacon, servant) has no special reference to an office in the church (as Paul teaches in 1 Timothy 3:8-13), but that it is simply indicative of one who serves whether male or female. Such an over-simplification of the Greek language is not warranted because most words have more than one definition. When such is the case, one must examine context to learn what definition is being used and not assume that there is only one definition of the word.

6. Focus Entirely Upon the Context and Ignore the Definition.

Once again, there is an opposite extreme to the above pitfall, namely, that once one begins to understand that context helps a person to determine which definition of the word is being used, one may assume that all words are defined by context and the definition has no bearing at all. Such ignores the fact that words do indeed have definitions. Context helps us construe the correct definition, but in standard writing, context does not redefine words.

One such example of imposing context upon the definition of a word so as to come up with a completely new definition of the word is the way some interpret Matthew 19:9. Jesus says, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Some look at this passage and say that Jesus was redefining adultery to mean divorce and remarriage. However, such is not the case. Jesus was not stating that that behavior was adultery. Jesus was stating that divorce and remarriage doesn't legitimize what is in actuality adultery, the definition of which is to carnally know someone else instead of one's legitimate spouse (compare Ezekiel 16:32). In other words, simply because one divorces and remarries doesn't mean that one is NOT committing adultery simply because they have gone through the process of divorce and remarriage. Those who take the context of this passage and redefine the meaning of adultery are missing Jesus' point and committing the fallacy under discussion.

More to come….

by Tim Hall

Jack can't wait to give his wife her gift on Christmas morning. Finally the moment arrives, and he excitedly hands her the beautifully wrapped box. Teresa's eyes lose their sparkle, however, when she sees the gift: boxes of ammunition that Jack will be able to use on his next hunting trip.

It doesn't take a trained marriage counselor to know that gifts like that don't fuel the fires of romance. If you really want to make a positive impression, give gifts that will benefit the recipient, even if they do nothing for the giver. Isn't that what gift-giving is supposed to be about?

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth about gifts. These gifts were miraculous in nature, unlike abilities seen before or since the first century. The most popular gift was the ability to speak languages that a person had never studied. It was designed to be more than showy. To take the gospel into all the world -- a world of many languages -- would require such an ability. God didn't bestow this gift just to make the speaker feel powerful, but that seems to have been the attitude of some Christians in Corinth.

"He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself," Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:4 (NKJV), "but he who prophesies edifies the church." Don't just think about yourself, Paul was saying. Be focused on how you can benefit others around you.

That's really the focus of our Christian faith, isn't it? It's not about me and my will, but the needs of others around me. Serving others was Jesus' theme in his ministry, and it ought to be that way with Christians.

As mentioned earlier, miraculous gifts have ceased (see 1 Corinthians 13:8-10). Is there a message in all of this for contemporary Christians?

In the heart of Paul's discussion of miraculous gifts, he presented the greatest gift of all: love. The thirteenth chapter is devoted to the potential of love to edify (build up) one another. When people are motivated by true love, they look out for the needs of others. They seek opportunities to do good for one another. They think less of themselves and more of their neighbors. They imitate the example of Jesus.

Love remains on earth. Christians may still exercise this gift if they choose. And those who use this gift will find that its effects are far more powerful than an ability to speak a foreign language without study.

"But earnestly desire the best gifts," Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:31. The gifts to which he then pointed -- faith, hope and love -- are still within our reach.

by Mike Benson

I attended a funeral recently to pay respects to a departed brother in Christ. When I looked into his casket, I noticed that one of his daughters had placed in his hands a little chrome pitch pipe. Her daddy had always loved to sing hymns, to lead singing, and had taught many a young man through the years how to lead singing in the worship assembly. As I thought about it, it seemed rather fitting that he be buried with this item.

But that little pitch pipe also set me to thinking later that day. What if someone put that which seemed most appropriate in our hands after we die? What article would be most suitable?

Would it be a cigarette? Maybe a newspaper? Perhaps a fishing rod and reel, or a golf club? What about a TV remote control? A knife and fork?

Or would a Bible look appropriate in our hands (Acts 17:11; cf. Psalm 1:2; 19:14)? It's something to think about, isn't it (Hebrews 11:4)?