Re: Why isn't BAPTIZW translated?
Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:30:28 -0400

Excerpted from Don Wilkins' message dated 96-09-19 04:36:32 EDT:

<< Andrew draws from the terminology of Rom. 6, which is common enough, but
one of my seminary theses was on this and several other passages, and I found
interesting details. For one, it may very well be that the ritual of water
baptism has nothing to do with the Rom. 6 image, which may rather concern
Spirit baptism. Peter (1 Pet 3) certainly speaks of water baptism...>>

If we have both Spirit baptism, and water baptism, distinguished only by
context, doesn't that argue against the idea of BAPTIZW or BAPTISMA being
technical terms? For my part, while other passages speak of baptism in the
Spirit, I do not believe Rom. 6 can be understood as baptism in the Spirit.
Unless we do have a technical term, it seems we should begin by assuming the
literal meaning of the word, and depart from that only when context suggests
we do so. In Rom 6, the literal meaning works nicely, immersion in liquid
(water) being the means of our being "buried" with Christ.

Jeff Smelser