Part One: The meaning of the term “baptism”, and instances of baptism
IN considering the proper mode of baptism, we aim to answer the question, How? – how should baptism be administered? It is the answer given by Scripture that we seek: “What saith the Scripture?” Now it is not unusual for Scripture’s answer to lie not on the surface of her pages, but much deeper, making it necessary for us to search the Scriptures. This is the case with the subject of this paper: there is no other way to answer the question of the right mode of baptism but by a careful examination of the Scripture evidence.
Concerning the mode of baptism, the great controversy among Protestants is between the so-called baptists and the paedobaptists. The former, whom we shall call immersionists, are united in believing with the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 that, “Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.” Notice that for the immersionist, complete immersion under the water is not simply preferable but absolutely essential. If there has been no immersion, there has been no baptism. The paedobaptists on the other hand teach with the Westminster Confession that, “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.” Notice now that for the paedobaptist, whilst affusion (whether by pouring or sprinkling) is the preferred mode of administration, nevertheless immersion is still accepted as valid. As long as there is water, it is a valid baptism as far as most paedobaptists are concerned, unlike the immersionists who so insist upon their form of immersion as to deny any other mode to be lawful.
We shall group Scripture’s evidence bearing upon the question into four categories, showing under each that not only is immersion not required by the Word of God, but also that in fact affusion (whether by pouring or sprinkling) is the preferable mode.
First: the Greek words
that are used for baptism, contrary to loud and persistent immersionist claims, do not demand that baptism must be by immersion, but rather admit affusion as an altogether acceptable mode.
The great foundation stone of the immersionist argument is laid in their insistence that the Greek words employed in the New Testament for the ordinance of baptism are so rigid in meaning that their very use demands immersion. Of course, if they are to prove their point, they must show that those words are always used only for immersion and never for mere affusion. Anything less than this, even just one instance where the words do not mean immersion, will cause the immersionist argument to fail. The point is not whether these words may be used of immersion, which we do not dispute, but whether they are used only of immersion, such that whenever we meet with them we may as easily and certainly translate them “immerse” as “baptise.” It is this that we deny.
Since the Greek word bapto is never used of the sacrament of baptism in the New Testament, we will not spend time on it, especially as immersionists themselves acknowledge with us that its use is not confined to immersion. Instead we will focus on the word baptizo and the words formed from it (baptisma, baptismos and baptistes). These are the words used for baptism in the New Testament, and it is these words that the immersionists argue can be used only for immersion. But the evidence shows that whilst these words are indeed used to speak of immersion, yet their meaning is not confined to that.
From the Church fathers in the early centuries after Christ, various quotations could be drawn to show that baptizo did not uniformly mean immersion to them. Just one example will suffice: Athanasias wrote in the first part of the fourth century, “Three baptisms, purgative of all sin whatever, God has bestowed upon the nature of men. I mean that of water, and again that by the witness of one’s own blood; and thirdly, that by tears, in which also the harlot was cleansed.” Water baptism is put alongside two others: that of a martyr’s blood and a harlot’s tears. A martyr cannot be immersed in his own blood – yet it is called a baptism. Even a repenting harlot washing the Saviour’s feet with her tears cannot be immersed in her tears however profuse her weeping – yet that too is called a baptism. So in the writings of the early Church fathers, whilst often the word is used for immersion, it is plain that it is not always so used – baptism does not always speak of immersion.
Turning to the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which is of special relevance since it was so widely used among Greek speaking Jews in New Testament times, the immersionist has to show that every usage of baptizo means to immerse. But in Numbers 19:13, we read, “Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean.” Only by the ritual sprinkling with the water of separation made from the ashes of the red heifer, could a man be cleansed from contact with a dead body – but elsewhere in this same piece of literature, the Greek Septuagint, this sprinkling is called a baptism! So that far from always meaning immersion, here baptizo expressly means sprinkling!
Now of course our immersionist friends will wish us to turn away from these human writings and translations of the Old Testament to the New Testament itself, to the inspired usage of these Greek words based on baptizo. We are very happy to do so, for the New Testament makes it clearer still that in the Greek language immersion is not always meant by baptizo. In 1 Corinthians 10:2, the children of Israel “were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” But the Israelites were not immersed in Moses – the very idea is preposterous. Neither were they immersed in the cloud – for at that time it was expressly said to be behind them. Neither were they immersed in the sea – indeed the whole miracle of the Red Sea was that they were not immersed in it, when the Egyptians were. This passage shows that the Greek word for baptism may be used without any reference to mode whatsoever; thus immersionists can prove nothing concerning mode from its use. 1 Peter 3:21 is similar. Noah’s deliverance from the flood is likened to baptism: “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” But again, the whole point concerning Noah and the others in the ark was that they were not immersed, when all the world was. So the word can be used in a context where the very opposite of immersion is spoken of!
Mark 7:4 is another testimony against the immersionist dogma: “And when they come from the market, except they wash [or baptise], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [or baptising] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables [couches or beds, upon which they would recline at meals for example].” Perhaps they did immerse their hands in water, but we cannot believe that they immersed their tables, couches and beds in water! Hodge was surely right when he wrote, “To maintain that beds or couches were immersed, is a mere act of desperation.” In Luke 11:37f., it is recorded of the Saviour that, “A certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed [or baptised himself] before dinner.” If baptizo always means immersion, then among the Pharisees it must have been the custom to fully immerse themselves whenever they would eat. We know that they bound heavy burdens grievous to be borne upon men’s shoulders, but the idea that they had to fully immerse their whole bodies just to eat is plainly ridiculous! Combining the information from these two texts we find that the New Testament usage of baptizo actually proves the affusionist argument not the immersionist – even that by the application of water to just part of the body, in this case the hands, the whole person is considered to be baptised.
In Hebrews 9:10 we read of “divers washings [or baptisms].” Immersionist doctrine demands that this must mean diverse (or various) immersions. Now in this place the apostle is comparing the cleansing efficacy of Christ’s sacrificial blood with the inefficacy of the ceremonial washings of the Old Testament called baptisms. But the Old Testament washings were by affusion, or sprinkling, as the chapter expressly states, not just once but three times over: “the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean” v. 13; “Moses . . . sprinkled both the book, and all the people” v. 19; and “Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of ministry” v. 21. The only immersion in these diverse baptisms is forced into them by immersionist preconception. At the wedding in Cana were “six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews” (John 2:6). These were pots with narrow necks for pouring, not baths for immersing – for the manner of the Jews in baptising or washing was by affusion, not immersion.
Thus, the very bedrock of immersionism is found to be only the sand of error. The only place where the Greek words for baptism always and only mean immersion is in their own mistaken dogma. On the contrary the Greek words show that those who hold to sprinkling and pouring, without altogether rejecting immersion, are building their doctrine of the mode of baptism upon the unassailable rock of truth.
Secondly: we now come to the recorded instances of baptism in the New Testament.
Immersionists maintain that all such instances without exception were by immersion. Again we have only to show that in just one case baptism was not by immersion, and then the whole immersionist argument fails since they make immersion essential to baptism.
In attempting to prove their point, the immersionists make much of the prepositions used in these cases. Consider Matthew 3:6, “And were baptised of him in Jordan.” This is enough for the immersionist: if the people were baptised by John in the river, then they must have been immersed in the river. Yet many times this same preposition is and must be translated at. But even if in is an appropriate translation, it does not demand the idea of immersion, for if they but went down to stand in the river, and there John sprinkled or poured water on them, it could well be described as being baptised in Jordan – they were in the river but never immersed in it. Indeed, Greek writings show that travellers pitched their tents “in the river Jordan” – meaning only upon the substantial dry river bed alongside the water stream that was relatively narrow for much of the year. The immersionist case is unproven. Later in that chapter, the Saviour’s baptism by John is recounted. “And Jesus, when he was baptised, went up straightway out of the water” (v. 16). The immersionists make much of the preposition translated out of, but once it is realised that it is usually translated away from, the idea is given that Christ was not in the water but only alongside it. But even had He been in it, and then come out of it, this would not prove immersion, for He could simply have been standing in the water and then sprinkled.
A favourite immersionist text is Acts 8:38f., “And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptised him. And when they were come up out of the water …” Here is baptism by immersion, they cry, for the eunuch went down into (eis in Greek) the water, and came up out of (ek in Greek) the water. What can this mean but immersion? But in fact, this should be a favourite anti-immersionist text, for careful examination suggests the very opposite. Whilst eis can mean into, it can also mean simply to, as in John 11:38, “Jesus cometh to (eis) the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.” It is certain that He did not enter into the grave of Lazarus – a stone lay upon it, so how could He? Likewise, whilst ek can mean out of, it can also mean away from, as in John 12:32f., “And I, if I be lifted up from (ek) the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.” When Christ was crucified, certainly He was not lifted up out of the earth, but on the cross He was lifted up away from the surface of the earth. Thus there is no reason whatsoever why the text in Acts 8 may not be rendered, “And they went down both to the water … And when they were come up away from the water.” How different the account sounds now! Any idea of immersion vanishes.
But although the Authorised Version’s rendering is “into the water” and “out of the water”, still there is no proof that baptism is by immersion. Why? For the simple reason that if this language demands that the Ethiopian was immersed, then it demands equally that Philip was also immersed. Four times over the text (verse 38) emphasises that whatever is said of the Ethiopian, is also said of Philip: “And they [first] went down both [second] into the water, both [third] Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him. And when they [fourth] were come up out of the water.” The one baptising was as much in and out of the water as the one baptised. Let immersionist ministers immerse themselves when they immerse others, if they would be consistent with their interpretation of the text.
The immersionists also like to mention John 3:23, “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there.” There you are, they say, because baptism is by immersion, much water is needed. But literally it is that there were many waters there. Aenon was a place of springs and fountains very suitable for affusion, not a large body of standing water necessary for immersion. And seeing that many people went out to John in the remote wilderness, it was necessary just for the sake of human subsistence that there should be sufficient water for drinking purposes, not for immersing purposes. Immersion can only be forced into this text, not drawn from it by exegetical necessity.
In fact, when New Testament baptisms are fairly considered, it is seen that immersion would often have been so impracticable as to be impossible. John the Baptist could not have baptised the multitudes by immersion. He would have needed almost miraculous strength to lower into the water and raise out of the water again the constant stream of persons who came to him. Neither could the apostles have immersed the three thousand converts on the one day of Pentecost. Where would all that water be found in a city like Jerusalem? The only reservoirs of water available within the city were for drinking purposes and strictly controlled — surely we cannot imagine that the whole city would stand back whilst thousands were plunged into their valuable water resource? How could so many have been baptised in just one day? In what clothing were they immersed — their ordinary clothes? Surely not. Whence came more suitable clothing then? Did the Philippian jailer — and his family — have sufficient water and a suitable container in the jail to be immersed in? Or did he allow the apostle to lead him to the nearest river, in the middle of the night, leaving the jail unsupervised? The very idea is a most unnatural interpretation of the account given in Acts 16:33, “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”
At the apostle Paul’s baptism he “arose, and was baptised” Acts 9:18. The more literal rendering of “standing up, he was baptised,” shows how contrary to immersion Paul’s baptism was. When he stood up, he was baptised – not when he had walked to the river to find sufficient water and a suitable place to be immersed in, but as soon as he stood up he was baptised, and that had to be by affusion. Again, when the household of Cornelius was to be baptised, Peter said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:47). The natural meaning is plainly that water should be brought and applied to them by affusion, not that they should be brought to water to be immersed in it.
The recorded instances of baptism are so far from proving universal immersion that many of them rule it out completely.
To be continued