# Baptism of the Philippian Jailer



## JML

I am reading the book "William the Baptist" currently and one proof that is given against immersion is the baptism of the Philippian jailer. The argument is presented that Paul and Silas never left the prison, 

"But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us openly, uncondemned Romans, and have thrown us into prison. And now do they put us out secretly? No indeed! Let them come themselves and get us out.” (Acts 16:37)

"Then they came and pleaded with them and brought them out, and asked them to depart from the city. So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed." (Acts 16:39-40)

However, it does say that they were in the home of the jailer in verse 34:

"Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."

The writer says that Paul and Silas never left the prison and therefore could not have immersed the jailer and his family because the prison would not have had a sufficient amount of water to do so. So my questions are:


Was the house of the jailer attached to the prison in some way? Or would they have had to leave the prison to travel to the home?
If they never left the prison, is this sufficient evidence that an immersion did not take place?


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I don't see where it says they never left the prison.


----------



## JML

It doesn't necessarily say that they never left, but they were there when the officials "brought them out" the next day. "So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia" (v. 40). So I guess the author's point is that since they were still there in the morning, they must not have left. At least, that was what I understood the author to be saying. Maybe someone else who has read the book can help me out.


Edit: By the last sentence I didn't mean to limit feedback to only those who have read the book. I am just wondering if I read that part right.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I think it is easy enough to read it that the jailer brought them to his house to have them share the Gospel and baptize then brought them back.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

AT Robertson, Baptist, of Greek Grammar fame, thinks they never left the prison/compound. Here is a portion of his notes on v34, from _Word Pictures in the New Testament_:


> He brought them up (anagagōn). Second aorist active participle of anagō. *It looks as if his house was above the prison*. The baptism apparently took place in the pool or tank in which he bathed Paul and Silas (Deuteronomy Wette) or the rectangular basin (impluvium) in the court for receiving the rain or even in a swimming pool or bath (kolumbēthra) found within the walls of the prison (Kuinoel). Meyer: “Perhaps the water was in the court of the house; and the baptism was that of immersion, which formed an essential part of the symbolism of the act.”


Obviously, I find his insistence on the mode of immersion tedious, to say the least. However, he does maintain they were still in the prison/compound.


----------



## Jack K

[MAPS][/MAPS]I'd say the whole incident, if read without any preconceptions or other scriptural background about baptism, suggests that they probably didn't go around looking for a place to immerse. But that's as far as an any-mode-will-do guy like myself ought to take it. There's not nearly enough evidence in the passage to build a firm case. At best, it is fairly weak supporting evidence for the any-mode position, which can find much stronger primary arguments elsewhere.


----------



## Phil D.

Contra_Mundum said:


> he does maintain they were still in the prison/compound.



Actually, and somewhat ironically, Robertson misrepresents Meyer's (who was German-Lutheran) preferred understanding in his paraphrase of him. Here is what Meyer said in context:


…He took and washed them…Probably he led them to a neighboring water, perhaps in the court of the house, in which his baptism and that of his household was immediately completed. [fn.]This is confirmed by the fact that [apostolic] baptism took place by complete immersion...Immersion was, in fact, quite an essential part of the symbolism of baptism (Romans 6). (_Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistle to the Acts of the Apostles_)​


----------



## JML

Would the jailer have been permitted to leave the prison area if he was in charge of watching over the prisoners? I assume there were more prisoners there than just Paul and Silas. Wasn't that what he was most worried about when he was about to take his life, that the prisoners had escaped? It would seem odd that shortly after he would leave his post and go elsewhere outside, leaving the prison unattended.


----------



## MW

I'm wondering if the questions are arising because the word "prison" is suggesting modern ideas which were not a part of life then. Remember that Paul was under house arrest as he awaited trial. This was his privilege as a "citizen." Non citizens were dealt with swiftly and severely. Alternatively, voluntary exile served certain purposes.


----------



## Phil D.

John Lanier said:


> Would the jailer have been permitted to leave the prison area if he was in charge of watching over the prisoners? I assume there were more prisoners there than just Paul and Silas. Wasn't that what he was most worried about when he was about to take his life, that the prisoners had escaped? It would seem odd that shortly after he would leave his post and go elsewhere outside, leaving the prison unattended.



Seems hard to tell with any real certainty. The sequence of events specifically given in Acts presents the following scenario: (1) Immediately following the earthquake the jailer found Paul and Silas still in their cell in the inner part of the prison. v24 (2) The jailer then brought them out of their cell and brought them to a place where he and his family heard the Gospel. vv30-32 (3) Paul and Silas were then “taken” [_paralabon_] someplace (else?) to have their wounds bathed [_louo_], whereupon the jailer and his household were also baptized. v34 (4) After all this happened, the jailer brought Paul and Silas into his house (again?) where he then fed them. v34

Exactly where the jailer took Paul and Silas isn’t disclosed. It certainly could have been somewhere on the prison grounds, but even in such a case it seems most likely that there would’ve been some type of water facilities ample enough to service the everyday needs of both the jail itself, and the households of any prison staff who may have lived on or near the premises. Given the jailer’s obvious penitent and trusting disposition toward his prisoners after realizing that they had no intent to escape, there is some reason to allow for the possibility that they could have gone somewhere outside the prison grounds to wash the prisoners’ wounds, and then baptize the jailer’s household—say, perhaps, even to the same nearby Gaggitas river where Lydia and her household had just recently been baptized. vv13-15.

All in all, this at least seems to be one of the most speculative prooftexts offered for non-immersion.


----------



## JML

armourbearer said:


> This was his privilege as a "citizen." Non citizens were dealt with swiftly and severely. Alternatively, voluntary exile served certain purposes.



Were they aware though at at that time in Philippi that they were citizens? The magistrates were surprised to hear that they were.


----------



## Phil D.

armourbearer said:


> I'm wondering if the questions are arising because the word "prison" is suggesting modern ideas which were not a part of life then. Remember that Paul was under house arrest as he awaited trial.



The fact that v24 talks about an "inner prison" and "stocks" would militate towards the idea that this was an institutional prison of some kind.


----------



## MW

Phil D. said:


> The fact that v24 talks about an "inner prison" and "stocks" would militate towards the idea that this was an institutional prison of some kind.


 
The following page might be of some help in understanding the historic scene.

Roman Prisons

The idea of an "institutional prison" is a modern idea, though it may have some traces germinating in a classical background.


----------



## MW

John Lanier said:


> Were they aware though at at that time in Philippi that they were citizens? The magistrates were surprised to hear that they were.



I'm not sure; I was only drawing attention to the idea that certain foreign concepts could easily be imposed on the narrative.


----------



## Phil D.

armourbearer said:


> The idea of an "institutional prison" is a modern idea,



I realize that ancient Roman prisons did not function in the same manner as a modern Western penitentiary. All I meant by "institutional" is that the prison in Philippi appears to have been a facility dedicated to the purpose of housing ordinary prisoners, as opposed to being a presumably less minatory place where Roman citizens were simply held under house arrest, as you seemed to suggest.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

The part of the argument that you are referring to is on page 89-90 of William the Baptist. Here is the relevant portion:



> P. ... What did the magistrates do when it was daylight?
> W. They sent to the jailer to let those men go
> P. And did they go?
> W. No, Paul refused to go, or to leave the prison, until the magistrates would come and bring them out.
> P. Do you think Paul and Silas were honest men?
> W. Why do you ask such a question?
> P. To get an answer, and thereby to make a point.
> W. Of course they were honest.
> P. Could they, as honest men, send the magistrates the word they did, refusing to go out of the walls of the prison till the magistrates would go and take them out; could they, as honest men have thus spoken and acted, if they had been outside of the prison during the night without the knowledge or consent of the magistrates?


The point being that it would be unethical for Paul and Silas to refuse to leave the prison if they had secretly left the prison in the evening earlier to fully immerse the jailor in the nearby river. Thus, the baptism of the jailor and his household must have been done in the prison. There would have been plenty of water for a sprinkling, but for the full immersion of 2 full adults as well as any children or servants in the household would be stretching the matter quite a bit.

The author points out that this is circumstantial evidence, but there is more evidence that points to sprinkling in this passage:

1) The jailor would have had to leave all of the prisoners in the jail in order to go to the nearby river to be baptized. To leave the prisoners alone without Paul and Silas to try to escape on his watch does not seem reasonable.
2) The lateness of the hour - between midnight and dawn - "Is it not an extraordinary - an unlooked for event - for Paul and Silas to take that man, and his wife, and his children, at that unreasonable hour, away to the river, and in the darkness of midnight, to immerse them...."
3) "To say nothing of the jailer providing two suits of dry clothing, one for himself and one for one of the apostles?" You might also want to add the wife, children, and servants as well. Since Silas supposedly went along it is not unthinkable that Silas also participated in the service somehow. How many sets of dry clothing would be necessary?

What we have is an amassing of circumstantial evidence that makes it more likely that the jailor and his household were sprinkled inside the jail - rather than taken out of the jail to a river or pool and immersed. Because of the questionable nature of this event Credo-Baptists cannot definitively point to the Baptism of the jailor as evidence that the jailor and his household were immersed.

I will also agree that this event does not definitively show that sprinkling was in use. But Paedo-Baptists do not point to this event as definitive in the mode. The point is not definitive in nature, but the question is which is more likely? If Credo-Baptists insist upon the definitive nature of immersion in this event, then their case has been significantly weakened.

Hope this helps,

Rob


----------



## bug

The only way to deduce the mode of these baptisms is to read a great deal of assumption into what is being sad.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

bug said:


> The only way to deduce the mode of these baptisms is to read a great deal of assumption into what is being sad.



Hi:

That may be true, Pastor, but there is definitive evidence for sprinkling in other parts of the Scripture.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Phil D.

Hey, Robert. 

Please don't take any of this personally, because it's not meant that way. But I have to respectfully disagree with much of what you've said here.



CalvinandHodges said:


> The point being that it would be unethical for Paul and Silas to refuse to leave the prison if they had secretly left the prison in the evening earlier to fully immerse the jailor in the nearby river. Thus, the baptism of the jailor and his household *must* have been done in the prison.



"Must" seems an awfully strong word to use in this connection. What's to say that the jailer didn't somehow secure the other prisoners before taking Paul and Silas - whom he obviously trusted at that point - wherever it is that he did? And we know for certain that he did take them into his house after they were baptized, right? Surely you wouldn't suggest that he also brought all the other prisoners into his house as well so as to keep tabs on them - and thus avoid the unethical behavior you suppose. 



CalvinandHodges said:


> There would have been plenty of water for a sprinkling, but for the full immersion of 2 full adults as well as any children or servants in the household would be stretching the matter quite a bit.



This is only begging the question at hand. There are plenty of respected non-immersionist Bible scholars who have thought it entirely reasonable to suppose there could have been adequate means for immersion even on the prison grounds (e.g. Meyer above), including many who stated their specific reasoning, such as the known presence of sizable cisterns and even bathing pools (_kolumbēthra_) in comparable public Roman facilities of the period. The idea that this event somehow suggests that sprinkling must have been used doesn't even come up in the historical discussion about baptismal mode until the 16th century, and then never by a Southern European or Mid-Eastern source. (Also, if there is enough water in which to immerse a single person, then there is enough to immerse a good number of others too. Even modern immersionists don't change or replenish the water after each baptism)



CalvinandHodges said:


> "To say nothing of the jailer providing two suits of dry clothing, one for himself and one for one of the apostles?" You might also want to add the wife, children, and servants as well. Since Silas supposedly went along it is not unthinkable that Silas also participated in the service somehow. How many sets of dry clothing would be necessary?



This strikes me as the imposition of an imagined, or perhaps undue modern Western convention onto the text. To me, the common reliance on this kind of argument only betrays the overall weakness of the non-immersionist case.



CalvinandHodges said:


> If Credo-Baptists insist upon the definitive nature of immersion in this event, then their case has been significantly weakened.



Sorry, but this dog won't hunt. Can you cite a single immersionist writer who initiates this account as proof (as opposed to simply defending against the purported impossibility) of immersion? Neither can I. As such it is a fallacious (straw-man) suggestion to raise. The fact of the matter is quite the opposite. The jailer's baptism has become a staple proof-text in modern non-immersionist arguments for sprinkling. William the Baptist is a prime, but hardly singular example of such usage.

I do agree, however, with your statements that "this event does not definitively show that sprinkling was in use," and conversely that it "cannot definitively point to the...jailer...[having been]...immersed."



CalvinandHodges said:


> there is definitive evidence for sprinkling in other parts of the Scripture.



Yes, there are definitely many instances of sprinkling in, or connected to the Old Testament law. However, if this were meant to extend to sprinkling being definitively evidenced in the New Testament's presentation of water baptism, then such a position would certainly be at odds with the vast majority of pre-modern theologians, including many within the Reformed tradition.


----------



## MW

Phil D. said:


> I realize that ancient Roman prisons did not function in the same manner as a modern Western penitentiary. All I meant by "institutional" is that the prison in Philippi appears to have been a facility dedicated to the purpose of housing ordinary prisoners, as opposed to being a presumably less minatory place where Roman citizens were simply held under house arrest, as you seemed to suggest.



"House arrest" wasn't suggested as the explanation in this case, but merely as an example of the way in which the prison concept might be different to the way it is being understood in the questions posed. Looking at Acts 16 itself, it is apparent that the "prison" and the "house" are a part of the one compound, so there is no need to become tied in knots in order to understand the movement from the one to the other. It is regrettable that the "immersion question" is being used to tie the text in knots in this way. If the mode had have been important I am sure we would have been told in so many words. The fact that it is not brought into the account indicates that mode is not important.


----------



## Phil D.

armourbearer said:


> It is regrettable that the "immersion question" is being used to tie the text in knots in this way.



I agree. In fairness, though, let's not forget which side tends to invoke it in an attempt to advance a favored mode.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Phil:

I have not taken your assessment of the argument presented at all personally. I think that you have actually seen what the author of William the Baptist intended. That the Baptism of the jailor is not definitive for the mode of Baptism. Allow me, then, to point out some weaknesses in your response?



> What is to say that the jailor didn't somehow secure the prisoners before taking Paul and Silas...


Nothing. We have seen, however, how seriously the jailor understood his job, 16:27. To leave the prisoners unguarded does not seem reasonable - at least to me. I will modify my statement to say, "Paul and Silas must have been on the prison grounds." I think it can be said definitively that they did not leave the prison grounds. As Pastor Winzer mentioned above: Paul was probably put under house arrest after the Baptism.



> There are plenty of respected non-immersionist Bible scholars who have thought it entirely reasonable to suppose there could have been adequate means for immersion even on the prison grounds (e.g. Meyer above), including many who stated their specific reasoning, such as the known presence of sizable cisterns and even bathing pools (kolumbēthra) in comparable public Roman facilities of the period.


I think we can rule out cisterns - since cisterns were covered and underground and used in places where there was little water (or in very large population areas like Rome or Jerusalem.) They had to be covered and/or underground mostly because the water would evaporate away. The presence of the river at Phiippi would rule out the need for cisterns. I would be interested to read about bathing pools in Roman jails? Rainwater catches is a probability, but such would not be reliable. Looking at the archaeology of the city of Philippi it seems to me that there is no mention of a large water deposit - pool or otherwise - in or near the Philippian jail.



> Can you cite a single immersionist writer who initiates this account as proof (as opposed to simply defending against the purported impossibility) of immersion? Neither can I.


When asked to prove immersion many Credo-Baptists will cite this passage - along with the baptism of Jesus, and other baptisms - as definitive in mode. John Gill supposes that immersion was the only way the jailor could have been baptized:



> ..._and was baptized, he and all his, straightway;_ by immersion, that being the only way in which baptism was administered, or can be, so as to be called a baptism: and which might be administered, either in the pool, which Grotius supposes to have been in the prison; or the river near the city, where the oratory was, ver. 13. and it is no unreasonable thought to suppose, that they might go out of the prison thither, and administer the ordinance, and return to the prison again before morning unobserved by any; and after that, enter into the gaoler's house and be refreshed, as in the following verse; and as this instance does not at all help the cause of sprinkling, so neither the baptism of infants, Commentaries, vol. 8, pg. 301.


The most common Credo-Baptist view on this is that the jailor was baptized in the river adjoining Philippi. Just about every Credo-Baptist commentary will reflect the sentiments of Gill above.

Next,



> there are definitely many instances of sprinkling in, or connected to the Old Testament law. However, if this were meant to extend to sprinkling being definitively evidenced in the New Testament's presentation of water baptism, then such a position would certainly be at odds with the vast majority of pre-modern theologians, including many within the Reformed tradition.


I would have to ask you to cite every commentary that makes the supposition that sprinkling is not "definitively evidence(d) in the New Testament's presentation of water baptism." I would ask you to consider Matthew Poole's Commentary on 1 Cor 10:2 wherein he points out the various theories of the mode of Baptism - only one being even suggestive of immersion - and, even in that one he states, "and for being baptized in the cloud, there is a great probability that the cloud did shower down rain, according to what is quoted out of the psalmist."

The variety of opinions on 1 Cor 10:2, as cited by Matthew Poole, does not substantiate your point.

I will go back to the argument in William the Baptist: The circumstantial evidence in Philippians 16 indicates that the jailor was most likely baptized by sprinkling. That there is definitive evidence in other parts of the Scripture which teach sprinkling as the mode of Baptism used by the 1st Century Church would tip the scales in favor of sprinkling as the mode used with the jailor.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## steadfast7

Just a thought, but wasn't it a common practice of the gospel writers to conflate the timing of scenes, such that events that would have taken a long time is narrated within one or two sentences? Think of Paul's conversion and his meeting with Peter. In Acts there's hardly a mention of what took place over the course of 3 years. Also, John's narrating of Jesus going back and forth from Jerusalem. Luke's main purpose is to narrate the Philippian jailer's conversion and baptism, not to give the exact play by play of the event in precise time. The time required to have all members of his household hear the gospel and be baptized may have taken a few days. Paul and Silas may have come and gone, or perhaps performed the baptism a day or two later. but, Luke's pace of his narration only allows for a conflated snapshot.


----------



## Phil D.

Robert,

Thanks for your response. Most of the comments you make in your last post show that we are already beginning to go in circles on the various points in question in Acts 16. Knowing that we all come to the table with our own (hopefully well researched) presuppositions, to belabor them here will likely only result in our talking past each other. I will comment on a couple things though.

First is where you say "when asked to prove immersion many Credo-Baptists will cite this passage." I don't think that is entirely accurate. I am not aware of any immersionists who set out to prove immersion as the NT mode (in an apologetic sense) that will appeal to this passage as providing good evidence in deciding that matter. Now, in looking at this passage some immersionist commentators will approach in in such a way as to convey their opinion that despite many stated claims by non-immersionists to the contrary, there is no compelling reason for not supposing that the normal mode of baptism (immersion in their view) was used here as well. That is all that Gill is really doing, and the sense in which I meant my original comment. I apologize for not being clear enough on that.

With regard to your citation of Poole on 1 Corinthians 10:2, accuracy again demands pointing out that after indeed noting various writers who see an allusion to pouring, or other symbolisms in this passage, he went on to state his own opinion as,


Others *more probably* think that the apostle useth this term in regard of the great analogy betwixt baptism (as it was then used), the persons going down into the waters, and being dipped in them; And the Israelites going down into the sea, the great receptacle of water; though the waters at that time were gathered in heaps on either side of them; yet they seem buried in the waters, as persons in that age were when they were baptized.​

That is a pretty serious omission when invoking his comments in the way that you have. I will be happy to provide numerous other statements by prominent Reformed leaders that are to the same effect if you would like. Allow me to offer just one of them for your consideration:


The passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea wonderfully agrees with our baptism, and represents the grace it was designed to express. For, as in baptism, when performed in the ancient manner, by immersion and emersion [_immersionem et emersionem_], descending into the water and then going out of it, of which descent and ascent we have an example in the eunuch (Acts 8:38, 39)...As by this rite, when persons are immersed in water, they are overwhelmed, and, in a manner, buried ‘together with Christ’; and, again, when they emerge, seem to be raised out of the grave, and are said to rise again with Christ...so in the Mosaic baptism we have an immersion, and an emersion; that, when they descended into the depths of the sea; this, when they went out and came to the opposite shore. (Francis Turretin, _Decas Disputationum; De Baptismo Nubis et Maris, ex 1. Cor. x, 1, 2_)​

I am already on record on the PB as saying that I don't believe immersion is necessarily the only valid (effectual) mode of baptism. I am, however, convinced that it was the apostolic, and thus the intended and preferred mode. One of my primary interests in commenting on so many threads that deal with baptismal mode it to try and present historical information and viewpoints that will hopefully challenge (meant in the best sense of the word) my non-mmersionist brethren to consider the fact that most of the early reformers actually agreed with the way most immersionists exegete the NT in this area (that is, with regard to what the normative apostolic mode was, not, obviously, the necessity of strictly continuing it). I am fully prepared to substantiate that claim if anyone so desires. I believe that if more people can come to terms with this reality, it can only have a positive effect on the ongoing discussion about mode.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

My experience with Credo's is that they will cite this passage, along with the baptism of Jesus, to prove their mode of baptism.

When I cited Matthew Poole it was to point out your statement thus:



> ...then such a position would certainly be at odds with the vast majority of pre-modern theologians, including many within the Reformed tradition.


Since Matthew Poole points out a large number of differing views on the subject, and only one of which can be reasonably referred to as immersion, then it appears, at least according to Poole, that your statement above does not apply. What I did not say was that there were Reformers who held that the ancient mode was immersion (which I believe they mistake the evidence). What I intended to show is that the consensus is not as uniform that you seem to suggest.

If you wish to discuss the Patristic evidence and the way the Reformers understood it, then please start another thread - as such a subject is contrary to the OP.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Phil D.

steadfast7 said:


> The time required to have all members of his household hear the gospel and be baptized may have taken a few days.



Hi Dennis. It's good to talk with you again. 

While I do think that the hermeneutic you are pointing to here has validity in certain cases, I think the way the narrative reads in this particular instance effectively precludes that possibility:

(v.33, emphasis added) And he took them *the same hour of the night *and washed their wounds; he was baptized at once [_parachrema_—immediately; forthwith], he and all his family.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

Just a couple of closing thoughts, Robert.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Since Matthew Poole points out a large number of differing views on the subject...your statement [regarding the opinion of the "vast majority" of pre-modern theologians] above does not apply.



Actually, in simply quantitative terms I would be glad to substantiate the fact that it does - some other time... 



CalvinandHodges said:


> If you wish to discuss the Patristic evidence







CalvinandHodges said:


> and the way the Reformers understood it, then please start another thread



Good reminder to stay on point with the OP. However, I seem to recall just who it was that brought 1 Corinthians 10:2 into the discussion...and it wasn't me


----------



## steadfast7

Phil D. said:


> Hi Dennis. It's good to talk with you again.
> 
> While I do think that the hermeneutic you are pointing to here has validity in certain cases, I think the way the narrative reads in this particular instance effectively precludes that possibility:
> 
> (v.33, emphasis added) And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; he was baptized at once [parachrema—immediately; forthwith], he and all his family.


 touche. Thanks. Does "that same hour of the night" require a 60 minute span of time, though?


----------



## Phil D.

steadfast7 said:


> Does "that same hour of the night" require a 60 minute span of time, though?



I know some commentators who think "hour" here is probably meant in the traditional Hellenistic/Jewish sense of "watch-hour", which was a span of 3 or 4 literal hours, if I recall correctly. Personally, I think that seems like a reasonable interpretation.


----------



## steadfast7

Phil D. said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does "that same hour of the night" require a 60 minute span of time, though?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know some commentators who think "hour" here is probably meant in the traditional Hellenistic/Jewish sense of "watch-hour", which was a span of 3 or 4 literal hours, if I recall correctly. Personally, I think that seems like a reasonable interpretation.
Click to expand...

 so if there were 3-4 hours to play with, that's plenty of time to find a water source if immersion was in view. It's only if we require an immediate and spontaneous baptism that sprinkling begins to be entertained, but even that is not a necessity, as argued above.


----------



## JML

Would the fact that they had been beaten with rods and received "many stripes" have hindered any travel that they would have had to undertake to find a suitable location for baptism if it was outside the prison?


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> It's only if we require an immediate and spontaneous baptism that sprinkling begins to be entertained, but even that is not a necessity, as argued above.


 
Why entertain anything with respect to the mode? Immersionists and anti-immersionists are falling into the trap of making Scripture speak to an issue it nowhere addresses. If mode wasn't important in either the didactic or historic portions of the NT, why should it consume our time and energy? The irony here is that we all agree on the practice of taking a little bread and wine in the Lord's supper without requiring a full meal for each participant. We recognise it is the element that is important, not the amount of it. There is no reason why the same can't apply to baptism.


----------



## steadfast7

John Lanier said:


> Would the fact that they had been beaten with rods and received "many stripes" have hindered any travel that they would have had to undertake to find a suitable location for baptism if it was outside the prison?


 Nope. Paul had a knack for moving in the direction of persecution rather than away from it. cf Acts 14:20


----------



## JML

steadfast7 said:


> Nope. Paul had a knack for moving in the direction of persecution rather than away from it. cf Acts 14:20



Good point. I guess the answer would definitely be a no.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Phil D. said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does "that same hour of the night" require a 60 minute span of time, though?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know some commentators who think "hour" here is probably meant in the traditional Hellenistic/Jewish sense of "watch-hour", which was a span of 3 or 4 literal hours, if I recall correctly. Personally, I think that seems like a reasonable interpretation.
Click to expand...


Are you sure "3-4 hours" is not just a poetic way of saying 3 or 4 million years?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Phil D:

Since you quoted Turretin on Baptism I thought it might be interesting to see what Turretin thought concerning the passage under question, Acts 16:27ff:



> For although immersion was the ordinary method, still that it was not so universally followed as to exclude sprinkling can be gathered from various arguments with respect to the apostolic church as well as to the primitive church. Thus where there was so great a multitude of believers, as when in one day three thousand were baptized (Acts 2:41), it can hardly be doubted that sprinkling was employed rather than immersion (which could scarcely and not even scarcely be fitly performed in so short a space of time). In like manner, when baptism was administered in the house, where there is not a quantity of water for immersion, especially if the thing should be done unexpectedly (Acts 16:27-33). In the primitive church, baptism was administered to patients sick in bed, which undoubtedly could not have been done by immersion, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, 381.


"For although immersion was the ordinary method..." I do not believe that immersion was the ordinary method in the New Testament, and that, in fact, sprinkling was not only predominant, but the only method used. 

Here is a question for you: Where in the New Testament do you find any clear evidence of immersion being performed?

Like I said before - I do not think that the Reformers are reading the Patristic (Early Church Fathers) writings correctly.

Blessings brother!

-Rob


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Rob,
Are you denying that immersion was practiced in the NT as well as the early church or simply the former? Samuel Miller in his book on baptism says that it cannot be denied that immersion was the most commonly practiced mode in the first centuries after Christ (but that effusion and sprinkling were practiced and viewed as perfectly valid as well). 


CalvinandHodges said:


> Like I said before - I do not think that the Reformers are reading the Patristic (Early Church Fathers) writings correctly.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

NaphtaliPress said:


> Rob,
> Are you denying that immersion was practiced in the NT as well as the early church or simply the former? Samuel Miller in his book on baptism says that it cannot be denied that immersion was the most commonly practiced mode in the first centuries after Christ (but that effusion and sprinkling were practiced and viewed as perfectly valid as well).
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before - I do not think that the Reformers are reading the Patristic (Early Church Fathers) writings correctly.
Click to expand...


Hi Chris:

I am denying that immersion was used in the 1st Century. I understand that after the 1st Century the use of immersion came into the Church, but I think that many of the ways in which the language of the ECF's were (and are) being interpreted could be read as sprinkling - though not all of them.

I think that the question I asked brings this out: Where in the New Testament is there any clear evidence that immersion was used in any of the baptisms?

Thanks for asking and showing me that I need to be more clear in the future.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Pergamum

steadfast7 said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the fact that they had been beaten with rods and received "many stripes" have hindered any travel that they would have had to undertake to find a suitable location for baptism if it was outside the prison?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paul had a knack for moving in the direction of persecution rather than away from it. cf Acts 14:20
Click to expand...


Great observation. How condemning to most evangelical missionary practices from the US among Muslims.


----------



## steadfast7

Rob, it seems that the only "evidence" that will satisfy is passage that reads, "such and such was dipped under water until not a single part of him remained above the surface of the deep." It was simply not the priority of the biblical writers to provide details of this sort. As with any "historical evidence", things are pieced together from available knowledge that is often fragmentary, and sure, it can often go either way. I would put it back to you to provide the proof positive that sprinkling, and only sprinkling, was the NT practice.


----------



## Phil D.

CalvinandHodges said:


> Here is a question for you: Where in the New Testament do you find any clear evidence of immersion being performed?



Robert, you admit that when it comes to mode you disagree with most of the Reformers' (and others') interpretation of many baptism passages in the NT. As I said earlier, I am convinced that they were indeed correct in their "face-value" reading of them. Therefore, the short answer to your question would be "throughout". 

I think it would be wise here to follow your earlier advice about not wandering too far from the OP. How about you start a thread concerning one or more references (whether biblical or otherwise) where immersion has historically been perceived, but with which you disagree? Then we can go from there.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 AM ----------




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Are you sure "3-4 hours" is not just a poetic way of saying 3 or 4 million years?



I think I know what you're getting at, Rev. Glaser, and I certainly sympathize (if indeed I'm understanding you correctly... ) My understanding is that there was no actual 60 minute unit in ancient Eastern timekeeping, and that the term normally translated "hour" needs to be defined by the applicable historical circumstances. That's why I think the suggested interpretation is a reasonable one. I am certainly willing to be corrected if I am mistaken about this.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Phil D wrote:



> Robert, you admit that when it comes to mode you disagree with most of the Reformers' (and others') interpretation of many baptism passages in the NT. As I said earlier, I am convinced that they were indeed correct in their "face-value" reading of them. Therefore, the short answer to your question would be "throughout".


How does this statement of yours square with the quotation of Turretin above?



> For although immersion was the ordinary method, still that it was not so universally followed as to exclude sprinkling can be gathered from various arguments with respect to the apostolic church as well as to the primitive church. Thus where there was so great a multitude of believers, as when in one day three thousand were baptized (Acts 2:41), it can hardly be doubted that sprinkling was employed rather than immersion (which could scarcely and not even scarcely be fitly performed in so short a space of time). In like manner, when baptism was administered in the house, where there is not a quantity of water for immersion, especially if the thing should be done unexpectedly (Acts 16:27-33). In the primitive church, baptism was administered to patients sick in bed, which undoubtedly could not have been done by immersion, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, 381.


In Jesus,

Rob


----------



## au5t1n

Phil D. said:


> My understanding is that there was no actual 60 minute unit in ancient Eastern timekeeping, and that the term normally translated "hour" needs to be defined by the applicable historical circumstances.



Almost. They did use "in that hour" to mean "around that time." However, the day was also divided into 12 hours (and likewise the night), so there were approximately 60-minute hours. Actually, while today we define minutes and seconds by some very precise atomic value, the 60 minute convention probably came from simply dividing an hour (1/12 of the day) into 60 equal portions, so technically their hours would have been exactly 60 minutes by the old convention, but not by the modern convention. Have I put you to sleep yet?


----------



## Phil D.

CalvinandHodges said:


> How does this statement of yours square with the quotation of Turretin above?



I'll highlight and expand on two adjectives and one pronoun that are key when reading my statement.

"...you disagree with *most* [a numerical majority, but not all, in the sense of head for head] of the Reformers' (and others') interpretation of *many* [not all, but most - and enough for them to understand immersion as being normative, intentional and meaningful] baptism passages in the NT. As I said earlier, I am convinced that they were indeed correct in their "face-value" reading of *them* [i.e. their reading of this majority of passages; there are a few verses which were sometimes seen as indicating that means other than immersion were used in the NT, usually in extenuating circumstances]. 

Hope that helps clarify.




austinww said:


> Almost. They did use "in that hour" to mean "around that time." However, the day was also divided into 12 hours (and likewise the night), so there were approximately 60-minute hours. Actually, while today we define minutes and seconds by some very precise atomic value, the 60 minute convention probably came from simply dividing an hour (1/12 of the day) into 60 equal portions, so technically their hours would have been exactly 60 minutes by the old convention, but not by the modern convention. Have I put you to sleep yet?



Good stuff, Austin. Very interesting and informative. Thanks!


----------



## steadfast7

But hour could also mean generic time, which works as well ... it's hard to absolutely certain


----------



## Constantlyreforming

surely there was a Kohler soaking tub present within the walls of the Jail?

I am reading this book as well, actually, I have read it three time in the last two months as it is the most biblical of the books regarding infant baptism I have found. I have been convinced, now, through scripture, that Jesus was also sprinkled and that it is contrary to scripture to submerse.


----------

