Synonyms of the New Testament :: Richard C. Trench

xcix. βαπτισμός, βάπτισμα.

These are exclusively ecclesiastical terms, as are βαπτιστής and βαπτιστήριον; none of them appearing in the Septuagint, nor in classical Greek, but only in the N. T., or in writings dependent on this. They are all in lineal descent from βαπτίζειν, a later form of βάπτειν, and to be found, though rarely, in classical Greek; thus twice in Plato (Euthyd. 277 d; Symp. 176 b), where βεβαπτισμένος signifies well washed with wine; the ‘uvidus’ of Horace (Carm. ii. 19. 18); and often in later writers, as in Plutarch (De Superst. 3; Galba, 21), in Lucian (Bacch. 7), and in others.

Before proceeding further, a word or two may fitly find place here on the relation between words of the same family, but divided from one another by their several terminations in μα and μος, as κήρυγμα and κηρυγμός, δίωγμα and διωγμός, with others innumerable. It seldom happens that both forms are found in the N. T.; that in μα being of the most frequent occurrence; thus this has ἀπαύγασμα (Heb. 1:3), but not ἀπαυγασμόσ, σέβασμα; (Acts 17:23), but not σεβασμόσ, βδέλυγμα (Matt. 24:15), but not βδελυγμόσ, ῥῆγμα (Luke 6:49), but not ῥηγμόσ, περικάθαρμα (1 Cor. 4:13), but not περικαθαρμός. Sometimes, but more rarely, it offers us the termination of μος; thus ἁρπαγμός (Phil. 2:6), but not ἅρπαγμα, ἀπαρτισμός (Luke 14:28), but not ἀπάρτισμα, καταρτισμός (Ephes. 4:12), but not κατάρτισμα; ἁγιασμός (Rom. 6:19), but not ἁγίασμα. It will happen, but only in rare instances, that both forms occur in the N. T.; thus μίασμα (2 Pet. 2:20) and μιασμός (2 Pet. 2:10); and these with which we have at present to deal, βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός. There is occasionally, but not in the N. T., a third form; thus besides σέβασμα and σεβασμός there is σέβασις; besides ἀπάρτισμα and ἀπαρτισμός there is ἀπάρτισις; besides πλεόνασμα and πλεονασμός there is πλεόνασις; besides ἅρπαγμα and ἁρπαγμός there is ἅρπασις; and so too besides βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός we have βάπτισις in Josephus (Antt. xviii. 5. 2) and others. There is no difficulty in severally assigning to each of these forms the meaning which properly belongs to it; and this, even while we must own that in actual use the words are very far from abiding true to their proper significance, those with the active termination in μος continually drifting into a passive signification, as is the case with πλεονασμος, βασανισμός, and in the N. T. with ἁγιασμός and others; while the converse, if not quite so common, is yet of frequent occurrence; cf. Tholuck, Disp. Christ. de loco Pauli Ep. ad Phil. ii. 6–9, 1848, p. 18. Thus, to take the words which now concern us the most nearly, βάπτισις is the act of baptism contemplated in the doing, a baptizing; βαπτισμός the same act contemplated not only as doing, but as done, a baptism; while βάπτισμα is not any more the act, but the abiding fact resulting therefrom, baptism; the first embodying the transitive, the second the intransitive, notion of the verb; while the third expresses the result of the transitive notion of the same—this last therefore, as is evident, being the fittest word to designate the institution of baptism in the Church, as an abstract idea, or rather as an ever-existing fact, and not the same in its several concrete realizations. See on these passives in μα the exhaustive essay on πλήρωμα in Bishop Lightfoot, On the Colossians, pp. 323–339.

How far is this the usage of the N. T.? It can only be said to be approximately so; seeing that βαπτισμός has not there, as I am convinced, arrived at the dignity of setting forth Christian baptism at all. By βαπτισμός in the usage of the N. T. we must understand any ceremonial washing or lustration, such as either has been ordained of God (Heb. 9:10), or invented by men (Mark 7:4, 8); but in neither case as possessing any central significance: while by βάπτισμα we understand baptism in our Christian sense of the word (Rom. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:21; Ephes. 4:5); yet not so strictly as to exclude the baptism of John (Luke 7:29; Acts 10:37; 19:3). This distinction is in the main preserved by the Greek ecclesiastical writers. Josephus indeed calls the baptism of John βαπτισμός (Antt. xviii. 5. 2); but Augusti (Christl. Archäol. vol. it. p. 313) is strangely in error, affirming as he does of the Greek Fathers that they habitually employ the same for Christian Baptism. So far from this, it would be difficult to adduce a single example of this from Chrysostom, or from any one of the great Cappadocian Fathers. In the Latin Church it is true that ‘baptismus’ and ‘baptisma’ are both employed to designate Christian baptism; by Tertullian one perhaps as frequently as the other; while ‘baptismus’ quite predominates in Augustine; but it is altogether otherwise in ecclesiastical Greek, which remains faithful to the distinctions which the N. T. observes.

These distinctions are there so constantly maintained, that all explanations of Heb. 6:2 (βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς), which rest on the assumption that Christian baptism is intended here, break down before this fact; not to urge the plural βαπτισμῶν, which, had the one baptism of the Church been intended, would be inexplicable. If, indeed, we take the βαπτισμοί of this place in its widest sense, as including all baptisms whatever with which the Christian had anything to do, either in the way of rejecting or making them his own, we can understand a ‘doctrine of baptisms,’ such as should teach the young convert the definitive abolition of the Jewish ceremonial lustrations, the merely preparatory and provisional character of the baptism of John, and the eternal validity of the baptism of Christ. We can understand too how these all should be gathered up under the one name of βαπτισμοί, being that they were all washings; and this without in the least allowing that any other save βάπτισμα was the proper title of that λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας which is the exclusive privilege of the Church of Christ.

[The following Strong's numbers apply to this section:G908,G909.]

Return to the Table of Contents