In Mark 9:14-29, we read of the boy that Jesus healed, who had a deaf and dumb spirit and who often had fits. Jesus asked the father whether he believed the boy could be healed and the father cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”
Words could not express that piercing emotion—that deep-seated need for help to overcome his human frailties.
I have often thought of the pitiful concubine in Judges 19 whose frailties caused her to run away from her husband and back to her home. In her father’s house she had affection and familiar things that made life easier, but the Lord says she was unfaithful.
Did she make vows when her father sold her?
What happened that caused her to run away?
We are not told those things, but we know she was at least “unfaithful” to the covenant her father made with her new owner.
She did not run off with a lover.
She ran home!
Not only did she lack faith, but she also was not submissive. Judges 19:2 says, “And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father’s house to Bethlehemjudah and was there four whole months.”
Those strong words define the frailties that made up her character.
On the other hand, Sarah was blessed to have a “familiar friend” and a brother who became her husband. The new land and the people were strange to her, but her husband was the solid rock that brought her through it all.
“Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecc. 4:9-12).
THIS is yet another reason why one’s life companion must be chosen carefully and must be a disciple of Christ (2 Cor. 6:4). Many young people find someone who is “in the church,” but fail to realize that not all church members are children of God (Matt. 13:38-40).
And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart (Pro. 7:10).
According to the reading, this woman had the attire of a harlot, which was gaudy and flaunting to set off her beauty so that she might trap the unwary, void of understanding (Prov. 7:7). Perhaps she was painted like Jezebel or she may even have gone with her shoulders and bosom bare—showing “just the right amount of cleavage” for appeal. She does not seem to be a common harlot; because she was, according to her own testimony, a married woman, and kept house (Pro. 7:19). Whether her claims were true or false, they were calculated to prevent any suspicion that her lovers were cohabiting with a common harlot. Either way we see she was subtle of heart. In stark contrast, purity of heart will show itself in modesty which becomes women professing godliness; however, this woman had no semblance of purity (1 Tim. 2:10).
NT:907 baptizo (bap-tid’-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: KJV – Baptist, baptize, wash.
NT:908 baptisma (bap’-tis-mah); from NT:907; immersion, baptism (technically or figuratively): KJV – baptism.
NT:909 baptismos (bap-tis-mos’); from NT:907; ablution (ceremonial or Christian):
NT:910 Baptistes (bap-tis-tace’); from NT:907; a baptizer, as an epithet of Christ’s forerunner: KJV – Baptist.
NT:911 bapto (bap’-to); a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N. T. only in a qualified or specially, sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): KJV – dip.
If we follow Strong’s ‘rule,’ and take the primary word as the definition, we have the word that proceeded out of the mouth of God.
If we accept “anything” after the “i.e.,” we will come out with possible uses of the word.
The next word has 2 “i.e.”s, which makes it doubly suspect.
No doubt someone used the word figuratively somewhere at sometime in the Greek culture, which supposedly makes it a ‘possible’ meaning of the word.
Even the washing of cups, etc., refers to covering with water.
NT:911 bapto (bap’-to); a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N. T. only in a qualified or specially, sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye):
Who knows if the following exerpt from an article is right or not, but Webster’s Dictionary says it was first used in the 1200’s.
Origin and Etymology of baptize
Middle English, from Anglo-French baptiser, from Late Latin baptizare, from Greek baptizein to dip, baptize, from baptein to dip, dye; akin to Old Norse kvefja to quench
Semantical Relationship of “Baptism” to the KJV Translators
In semantics, which is the study of the significance of words and the concepts to which they refer, there is a basic principle that what a word means to its users is determined by what its users do with that word. (55) For the purpose of this study, this principle may be formulated as a question: ‘Did the words ‘baptism’ and “to baptize’ mean” “immersion” and “to immerse” to the KJV’s translators, that is, were they synonymous with each other?” There are three key sources of evidence, which practically demand an affirmative answer to this question.
Other English Bibles
The first of these decisive factors is that every Bible, from the very first English Bible written by John Wycliffe (c. 1384) to the last Bible in English prior to the KJV, the Rheims New Testament (1582), uses either the exact words “baptism” and “to baptize” or their contemporary English equivalents in their original texts. (56, 57, 58) What did the users of these Bibles take those words to mean? The study of the baptismal mode in England indicates that they understood those words to mean “immersion” and ‘to immerse.”
I tried to check on Wycliffe’s translation, and apparently he included the word baptism instead of immersion. Supposedly the entire Roman Catholic Church believed that sprinkling (pouring at that time) was OK. Whether that is right or not, I have not been able to confirm.
I also can’t confirm whether the KJV translators made any changes in that pattern.
In this article, rather than label a specific group with the charge of transliterating the word, I have found it is better to refer to ‘translators’ in general.
If the word baptism itself were in use in the 1200’s, that would predate Wycliffe.
Isaiah Chapter 14 contains great prophecies of the destruction of the Babylonian Empire and the restoration of God’s people Israel to their land. It is quite possible that the chapter also contains prophecies that would find ultimate fulfillment in the New Testament, in the Lord’s Church, which is spiritual Israel (Gal 6:15-16; Heb. 12:22-23). But there are several verses that explicitly foretell God’s judgment of one of the kings of Babylon, who was Belshazzar. Isaiah 14:4-6 says, “That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.”