1. baptisma (baptisma) - "baptism", consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, "to dip"). Examples – Lu.12. 50, Mk.10. 38-39.
2. baptismos (baptismos) - "ceremonial washing of articles" – Mk. 7. 4,8, He.6. 2
3. baptistes (baptisthx) - "a baptist" – only used of John the Baptist.

1. baptizo (baptizw) - "to baptize", primarily a frequentative form of bapto, "to dip", was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping a cup into a bowl (Alexis, 67) and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions (Euthydemus, 277 D) Like a sponge soaked and saturated.

It is used in Lu.11.38 of washing oneself (as in 2 Kings 5:14 – "dipped himself"), see also Is.21: 4, lit. "lawlessness overwhelms me". Examples – Mt. 28.19, Ac.1: 5, 11:16, 19:4, 22:16, Ro.6. 3-6, 1 Co.1: 13-17, 12:13, Ga.3: 27, Co.2.12.

The phrase in Mt. 28. 19, "baptizing them into the Name" (Ac. 8. 16) would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became the property of, the in whose name he was baptized.

In Ac. 22.16 it is used in the middle voice, in the command given to Saul of Tarsus, "arise and be baptized," the significance of the middle voice form being "get thyself baptized."

The experience of those who were in the ark at the time of the Flood was a figure or type of the facts of spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, Christian "baptism" being an antitupon, "a corresponding type", a "like figure," 1 Pe. 3.21.

Likewise the nation of Israel was figuratively baptized when made to pass through the Red Sea and under the cloud, 1 Co. 10. 2.

The verb is used metaphorically also in two distinct senses: firstly, of "baptism" by the Holy Spirit, which took place on the Day of Pentecost; secondly of a "baptism of fire" of divine judgment. Mt. 3. 11, Lu. 3. 16.

1. rhantizo (rantizw) - "to sprinkle" a later form of rhaino, is used in the active voice in He.9.13, of "sprinkling" with blood the unclean, a token of the efficacy of the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, His blood signifying the giving up of His life in the shedding of His blood (cf. 9.22) under divine judgment upon sin (the voluntary act to be distinguished from that which took place after His death in the piercing of His side); so again in v.19, 21; in He. 10. 22, passive voice, of purging (on the ground of the same efficacy) of the hearts of believers from an evil conscience. See also Re. 19.13, 1 Jn. 1.9.

1. rhantismos (rantismx) "sprinkling," akin to the verb, is used of the "sprinkling" of the blood of Christ, in He. 12:24 and 1 Pe. 1:2, an allusion to the use of the blood of sacrifices, appointed for Israel, typical of the sacrifice of Christ.

John’s Baptism:

John’s the Baptist was the turning point in prophetic history. He was "to prepare the way of the Lord" (Is.40.3, 4), a herald to alert the people to get ready for the coming Messiah. (Mal. 3. 1). John was preaching repentance, "the turning of the hearts" (Mal. 4.5, 6). He brought an end to the Old Covenant and prepared the way for the New (Lu. 16. 16).

He preached "kingdom", The sphere of God’s rule. To enter into God’s kingdom, you must prepare yourself by means of repentance and baptism. "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand." (Mt. 3.2, 4.17).

People were to repent of reliance upon religious traditions (dead works). He preached something "else", something "greater". They were to turn their backs on their fixed ideas and needed to become open to the new. He was sent of God. (Mt.21. 25, 26)

He baptized in the river Jordan in water (Jn.1. 33).

The people were to demonstrate their repentance of heart by submitting to baptism.

"His baptism was different than all the Jewish traditions and rites – it was a real experience of meeting God. People confessed their sins as they entered the water. They exercised faith in the coming Messiah." They faced their sins, the axe was laid to the root of sin. Hypocrisy within the Old system was exposed.

This baptism was a public confession of sin and repentance. Their sins were "remitted", aphesis, "sending away, release, forgiveness. Mk.1. 4, 5. Thus there was a real "putting away" of sins, looking ahead at the complete work that was to come in the Messiah.

John knew that there was to be a "sacrifice" as in the Temple, but he realised that Jesus was to be the "perfect Lamb of God" (Jn.1. 29). He also taught that there was to be more baptisms, his in water unto repentance, but that He, who was to come, would baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire. Mt. 3.11, Lu.3.16.

Many people benefited from John’s preaching and baptism, despite it being transitional. Jn.1. 35, 36; Ac. 19. 2-4. "I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water." (Jn.1. 31)

His baptism was an outward demonstration of repentance unto a New Hope.
 

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him."

John opposed Jesus being baptized by him, for he knew that Jesus was without sin.

‘And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptised by You, and are You coming to me? But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.’ (Mt. 3. 13, 14, 15)

What does "fulfilling all righteousness" mean?

1. Jesus needed to be washed and anointed for His ministry.

   Dr. Adam Clarke writes concerning that about the priests at their consecration (Lev. 8. 6). Now, as Christ had submitted to circumcision (as a child), the initiating ordinance of the Mosaic dispensation, it was necessary He should submit to the initiating ordinance of the Christian dispensation, instituted by the same authority (the Lord God). But it was necessary on another account. Our Lord represented the High Priest, and was to be the High Priest over the house of God; now, as the High Priest was initiated into his office by washing and anointing, so must Christ be; hence He was baptized, and anointed by the Holy Ghost.

2. Jesus needed to be made "eligible" to become the perfect Lamb offering.

   Dr. D. G. Barnhouse comments that the Lord Jesus allowed Himself to be baptized in fulfilment of the type of the ceremonial law, as we see in the first chapter of Leviticus. The pieces of the body of the lamb were washed with pure water before they were placed on the altar to be consumed as the burnt offering. And when John identified the Lord Jesus as being spotless without, the voice came from Heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Mt. 3. 17). Thus God pronounced His Son to be spotless within. By permitting Himself to be baptized, the Lord Jesus announced to the earth and heaven that He was the spotless Son of God, and eligible to be the perfect sacrifice.

3. Jesus had to become identified with His people in all things.

As the Lamb of God, He identified with those who had to make the confession of sins, His act was one of representation and identification with the sin of Israel and the World.

None of these statements alone are true, probably all three represents aspects of the truth. Jesus fulfilled the initiatory ordinances of both Covenants, Christ needed both washing and anointing (Is. 52. 11), and He was prepared to be prepared, scrutinized, and accepted as the perfect Lamb. He voluntarily identified Himself with the people He came to save (He.2. 14)

God demonstrated His acceptance of the baptism of Jesus. In the Old Covenant God demonstrated acceptance of sacrifices made to Him by the consuming of the sacrifice by fire (Ge.4. 5; 1 Ki.18. 38).

Now, with the Baptism of Jesus, the Holy Spirit remained upon Him (Jn.1. 31-34), His voice spoke and was a clear commendation (the Spirit and the Word always concur - Lu. 3. 22).

In a sense we have the full witness of God sanctioning the baptism of Jesus, Jesus Himself, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father. (1 Jn. 5. 8,9)

Sacrament from the Latin word designating the Greek word mysterion. The two outstanding "sacraments" in the Church is the Lord’s Supper, which signifies the New Bloodcovenant and Baptism, which speaks of a newness of life in Christ. Both these acts are regarded as appointed by Jesus Christ to bring the believers in the Church into communion and fellowship with His death and resurrection and thus with Himself through the Holy Spirit (Mt.28.19-20; 1 Co.11. 23-27, Ac. 2. 38; Ro. 6.3-5; Co. 2.11-12). They are the visual enactment of the word proclaimed (kerygma).

A sacrament came later to be defined as a "visible word" or an "outward visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." ‘By a large consent of the Christian Church the word is restricted to denote such Christian rites as have an immediate divine institution and a revealed connection with the conveyance of spiritual blessing.’ I have to add that like Rick Godwin, the significance is more than just and outward sign, it is an immersion into Christ and His body.

It is an act of obedience following repentance and faith. It is the burial of the "old man", having a clean break from the World and Sin, stripping away of the carnal nature (Ro. 6. 3, 4; Co. 2. 11, 12). We are then raised into a newness of life, dead to sin and alive to God, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(How is this possible for a baby?)

As Herbert Lockyer puts it, it is a badge of discipleship.

1. Water baptism is part and parcel of the symbolism essential to the new birth.

   Regeneration is a work of the Lord, this spiritual awakening results in a whole new dimension of life, the Kingdom of God.

   "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Jn.3. 5)

2. Water baptism is an expression of genuine repentance.

   "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Ac. 2. 38)

3. Water baptism is an expression of faith.

   In water baptism, the believer renounces his/ her allegiance to the World and its system, and declared himself subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

   "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mk.16. 15, 16)

4. Water baptism is the outward symbol of dying to yourself and being raised into a newness of life in Christ.

   "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in the newness of life."

5. In water baptism we are outwardly identifying with God’s Israel, the Church.

   "Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses an the cloud and in the sea," (1 Co. 10.1-2) "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ep.4. 3-6).

6. In water baptism we are separated from the World and unto God.

   The Red Sea is a type of water baptism (1 Co.10. 1-2). We are separated unto God after that the blood was applied to the two doorposts and lintel of our house (Ex. 12. 7), which speaks of faith in the blood of the Lamb. In crossing through the Red Sea three things happened. Israel could not go back to Egypt (a type of the World) and they were separated unto God in the desert. Pharaoh was drowned. This is also seen in the other type of baptism in 1 Pe. 3. 21.

7. In water baptism the hold of the Enemy upon our life is destroyed.

Pharaoh and his 600 chariots were killed in the water of the Red Sea. In type this speaks of the Devil and demonic activity (Pharaoh being the "ruler of Egypt/ this world" and his host) being "cut off" from the believer which had its power on Israel while in Egypt (the World). Again this is confirm similarly in 1 Pe. 3. 21, when we are "saved" to have a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no accusation that can be railed against us.

It is also interesting that it was here where the Lord actually had to prompt Moses to move in obedience, "Why do you cry to me? Tell the children of Israel to go forward." ‘I have commanded it, why tarriest thou?’

“Then Peter said to them, ‘repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Ac. 2. 38).

 “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Ac. 22.16; NKJV)

Even when the Holy Spirit sovereignly baptized people, the disciples required baptism in water as well. In a sense being “Christian” is not enough, they were already adopted by the Holy Spirit and yet the disciples commanded that they be baptized.

“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (Ac. 10. 47, 48; italics mine)

Although John’s baptism was for a hope in faith in the coming Messiah, the Ephesians were baptised again (re-baptized), this time in the name of the Lord Jesus. Ac.19. 4, 5.

Study Acts 2.37-41; 8.12; 8.36-39; 9.18; 10. 44-48; 16.14,15; 16.32-34; 18.8; 19.1-7.

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses."

"Some affirm that infant baptism has taken the place of circumcision, but this is not so, as the two dispensations (covenants) being different require different ordinances. As a Jewish male, Christ was circumcised the eighth day, but as Representative of sinners, He was baptized at the age of 30."

There is a circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10. 16; 30. 6; Je.4. 4; Ez.11.19, 20 and Ro.2. 25-29). Circumcision of the heart pre-dates the New Covenant in Christ, and was required on top of the Law and physical circumcision. Abraham was accounted righteous not because he was circumcised, but because of his faith. The outward sign was to confirm the inward reality of a living faith. Whereas the Old implores the Nation of Israel to do so by the Law, the circumcision in the New takes place as an act of God (the Holy Spirit – read above). The whole point of being saved by grace.

After this takes place; the "old man" is buried and we are "clothed with Christ" having been made ‘alive together with Him.’(Ga. 3. 16)

The sign of the Old Covenant was circumcision of the foreskin of the males. The sign of the New Covenant celebrated as the Passover is the celebration of the Lord’s Supper – "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Co. 11. 25). Even so, some do superimpose the one on top of the other, believing that baptism has taken the place of circumcision as the "initiation rite" into the Covenant with God. Even those who see it so has to concede that what makes us Jews, or part of Israel is the circumcision of Christ, which is being "justified by faith" (Ro.2.28, 29), then only can the outward sign have significance. This also precludes babies.

For those who do strongly believe that Baptism has replaced circumcision, Ex.4. 24-26 must be pretty scary, as not having obeyed circumcision, Moses was almost killed by God for not ensuring his son’s circumcision? This was on his way to liberate more than 3 million people!

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us – baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

This is a picture where Noah and his family were saved "through water", being in the Ark (the ark is Jesus). The point is not so much that the "filthy World" was left behind, but that by Noah’s faith and obedience, they were "resurrected in Christ" and thus have a clean conscience towards God.

As baptism is a sacrament, a command, and the way to a clean conscience toward God, being baptized is associated with a real inward and outward blessing. A touching from God, that will remove the niggle of a "bad" conscience toward God.

In whose name should you be baptized?

In the Name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the LORD (Father) Jesus (Son) Christ (Holy Spirit).

The only requirements to be baptized are true repentance, a living faith and confession in and of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

"The Great Commission" in Mt. 28. 18-20 states universally that, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’

If we imply this was only applicable to the 11 disciples who heard it, then they alone were to carry out the preaching of the Gospel too! Acts also reaffirms this as the universal command. (The 120 were with the 11 when the Holy Spirit was poured out to preach the Gospel in power). All Biblical commentators that I could find are emphatic about it being the commission to the Church (Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Adam Clarke, Alexander MacLaren) rather than to the 11 disciples only. This is also true of Mk. 16. 15, 16, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

In fact Paul was anxious that water baptism should not be linked to a particular name as such, lest it would cause division. 1 Co. 1. 12-17. In a real sense he highlights the Gospel and obedience to it, rather than being divided into camps. We also ought to remember that this was the first letter to the most mixed up church of its time, the Corinthians.

In essence, like preaching the gospel, once you have heard it and obey it, you can preach it, so too can we deduce that it is preferable that a person should be baptized by one who has been baptized (By example in Scripture). Certainly there are no Scriptural grounds for elitism.

Anywhere where the Sacrament can be symbolised properly. Water baptism although symbolic is a real experience. It is a process of identification with Christ into His:

• Death – Ro. 6. 3-5, 11.
• Burial – Co. 2. 12.
• Resurrection – Co. 3. 1; Ro. 6. 4,5.

Anywhere where this can be enacted will be appropriate. As a confession and separation it can be a very powerful testimony (also unto the unbeliever, e.g. only the baptised believer will be persecuted by the Jews, Islam and Hindus, but also unto family and friends). This would call for a public place, but it has to be weighed against the urgency in Scripture for sincere immediate baptism.

As it is the outward demonstration of renouncing the World and its sins, as well as dying to it, and being separated unto God and His Church/ community, this is best done publicly. Although Scripture does not demand it, it is inferred.

In an effort to resist re-baptism, the opponents to water baptism will quote Ephesians 4. 5. I quote from verse 1, "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Clearly like with faith, he is not saying that there is no difference in the seed of faith and the gift of faith and the fruit of faith, etc. He is heralding the focus of a single faith in Christ united unto God. So too with all of the other "unity statements". If we try to decide which baptism he is talking about (water, spirit, adoption, suffering?) they all come together in Christ. It cannot be used to restrict the proper use of baptism for those who want to rededicate their lives in such a way. Although it is true that it should all happen initially when we accept Jesus and we are "by one Spirit baptized into one body" and "have all been made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Co.12.12), there may be times when re-baptism might be appropriate, as with the Lord’s supper.

If the "old man" is still around get him/ her buried. Also as with re-enacting the marriage vows at the marriage ceremony (which also is a type of baptism), it does not obviate the marriage contract signed before the ceremony itself, it only strengthens the resolution to stick together (and can also celebrate the time already so spent). In a sense, not being baptised, but believing is like being married in the registry office, but never having had the ceremony and missing the blessing of the "Parent".

They look at covenant and want to include their children in the promise of God. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he was baptized and all of his family were baptized." (Ac.16. 33) Clearly those who heard the word and believed were baptized in harmony with the rest of Scripture. So too of Cornelius’ household, "all those who heard the word". Rather than the assumption that there were possibly three babies with pink and white dresses.

So too do they quote 1 Co. 7. 14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy." Yet it is very clear from the passage that if the unbelieving spouse is "holy" (sanctified - agiazw, hagiazo – " to make holy, purify, consecrate, or set apart unto God) yet remains unsaved, how is it that they read salvation into the same process for the children (agiox - hagios – holy, sacred, or consecrated)? Even if you do, which is speculation in the first instance, they cannot be baptized per se, as they cannot repent, make a confession and be raised into a newness of life, which is what baptism primarily represents.

The Church only started infant baptism 200 years after its inception. At best it is a rite to "sprinkle" or "wet" babies in an effort to "save" them or bring them before God. However, this is also done in Churches that uphold the proper Scriptural basis for baptism by "dedication" of children unto God. They do not rob the believer of a blessing by obeying God’s command unto baptism. Prof. H.F.Stander and Prof J.P.Louw states that the first reference to infant baptism in the Early Church was by Tertullian, and then he condemned the practice saying, "He as a lawyer, was very much concerned about a person’s responsibility in making decisions, and therefore advocated that children should be baptized when they could be taught and could understand what it requires to be a Christian. In their summary they remark, "In the first four centuries of Christianity, the literature on baptisms clearly shows how, in the majority of cases, it was persons of responsible age (generally adults and grown children) who were recipients of baptism...It is also remarkable that the link between baptism and circumcision became relevant only when the issue of age of the one to be baptized became crucial. And even then one should not assume that the third and fourth centuries saw a fully developed doctrine of baptism replacing circumcision. It was more a matter of analogy than dogma. This also explains why the Abrahamic covenant is hardly mentioned. These aspects belong to a later stage of development for which the theologies of the fourth century laid the foundation.

Finally, it needs to be remarked that the contention often found in modern literature, viz. that adult baptism in the early Church entailed a missionary situation, cannot be substantiated by the relevant patristic literature, since the transition from adult baptism to infant baptism occurred at a time when Christianity was already a widespread phenomenon in the ancient Church. Therefore, it is also unsound to scrutinize the New Testament writings for allusions to infant baptism, since the latter involved a historical development. (Italics mine) Moreover, no distinction was ever made between persons coming from a heathen or Christian family. In fact, the reason for the transition to infant baptism was one of theological perspective and had nothing to do with a missionary situation."

Bibliography:

W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985,  p. 50, 597.
James Lee Beall, Laying the foundation, Bridge Publishing Inc., 1976, p. 132.
Handley Moule quoted in Herbert Lockyer, All the Doctrines of the Bible, Zondervan Publishers, 1964, p. 254.
Herbert Lockyer, All the Doctrines of the Bible, Zondervan Publishers, 1964, p. 255.
Prof. H. F. Stander & Prof. J. P. Louw, Baptism in the Early Church, ISBN 0-620-13183-7, Didaskalia Publishers, 1988, p. 3.
Also read A survey of Biblical Doctrine, Charles C. Ryrie, Moody Press, 1972,  p.153.  As well as Know the Truth, Bruce Milne, InterVarsity Press, 1982,  p.232-235.