Baptism in the New Testament

Status
Not open for further replies.

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Hi:

Taking a look at the examples in the New Testament of Baptism concerning mode.

What is the mode of Baptism being defended? In the New Testament it appears to me that Baptism was performed by wading out into a river or pool and having water poured over the head. When water is poured over the head the subject can be said to be "under" the water. This type of Baptism can be referred to as affusion, pouring, showering, or sprinkling. The wading out into the water was not necessary in order for one to be Baptized.

John the Baptist - Baptized by affusion or pouring:

Jesus said that John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets, Mt 11:11.

John's Baptism was a baptism of Purification. The Jews recognized John's baptism as one of Purification and debated with John's disciples about it, John 3:25. Since John was the one who would prepare the way for the Messiah it is natural that he would preach repentance and faith, and seek to purify the people - making them ready for "He who is greater than I."

Purifications were performed by sprinkling or affusion:

Numbers 19:13 - Whosoever thoucheth 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 purification was not sprinkled upon him, sh shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

Leviticus 14:49-51 - And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scaret, and hyssop; And he shll kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times.

Numbers 8:5-7 - And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.

Numbers 19:18-22 - And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave: and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at evening. But the man that shall be unclean and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregations, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of purification hath not been sprinkled upon him he is unclean.
Bathing and sprinkling in Numbers 19:18ff are one and the same - you are considered "bathed" if you have been showered upon by sprinkling. Most of us do this every day. When we take a shower - after we get out we are considered clean. The difference between a bath and a shower is that in a bath you are put into the water. In a shower, however, the water is put on you. This is significant when you consider the next verses:

And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of purification shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until evening. And whatosever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth it shall be unclean until evening.
An unclean person touching the water is still unclean. However, as we read before, when the water of purification touches or is sprinkled upon the unclean person the unclean person is made clean. The actions depicted here are just the opposite of immersion - touching the water and being brought out of the water. In order for the unclean to be made clean the water has to be poured or sprinkled upon the unclean person.

John the Baptist was also confused for the Messiah, John 1:19-20. This is partly due to the mode of Baptism that John was engaging in - that is - sprinkling:

Ezekiel 36:25 - Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Isaiah 52:13-15 - Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men. Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand.
The sprinkling of the nations was the work of the Messiah. If John was not baptizing by sprinkling, then the passages would not be relevant, and the Jews would not have asked if he was the Messiah.

The Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist could only have been done by sprinkling. But that will have to wait for another time, because time has limited me. Anyway, I am sure that there will be lots of comments to answer. As a means of illustrating my point here are some early church drawings of baptisms being performed - they all indicate sprinkling and not immersing:

I removed the images because I agree with Chris Colwell - that depicting the Holy Spirit as a dove is a violation of the 2nd Command. I was not thinking in that direction, but simply using them for didactic purposes to show Early Church depictions of Baptism by Sprinkling. Forgive me.

-Rob
 
Last edited:
Rob, you admit from the outset:
When water is poured over the head the subject can be said to be "under" the water.
Correct. This is the most natural (though not exclusive) understanding of the word. How then, do you shift to the assertion:
In order for the unclean to be made clean the water has to be poured or sprinkled upon the unclean person.
You seem to be implying, now, that the actual immersion of a person under water is incorrect. How do you figure?
 
Thanks, Rob. Another point to consider is the connection between baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Ghost, which is an outpouring.
 
and yet other connections are that of burial, being consumed, being overwhelmed/flooded over.
 
I have a question (primarily for Baptists and other modern immersionists), and with apologies to Rob, I hope it does not detour the thread but rather advances the discussion -- I know of no examples prior to the last few centuries where anyone practiced immersion in the form as it is normally understood -- i.e., bending a person backwards at the waist or knees, lowering the person under water, and then raising the person up again. However, in the early church, it appears that at least one form that was considered "immersion" involved a person walking into a body of water (such as a river or pool), kneeling or otherwise lower oneself in the water (though not submerging oneself), and then having a large quantity of water poor over the head and upper body, such as with a pitcher. I would assume that with the method the whole person probably gets wet, or at least mostly wet. And I believe my example is virtually the same as the one Rob gives at the beginning of the OP.

My question: how many modern Baptists would find this method acceptable and/or biblical?
 
I'm all for the forward rather than backward immersion into water, and that's how I saw it happen in at least one church in India - so it's not universal practice that people be dipped backwards. I figure if you're already kneeling chest-high in water, why not immerse completely? My growing conviction with regard to baptism is we should not only do what is minimally required, but what is symbolically most rich. It seems to me, effusionists are insisting upon the bare minimum rather than reaching for the most symbolically rich. As Rob himself admitted, wading in water and having water poured over you symbolized being "under the water." Isn't the picture most rich if one goes under completely? the sacraments are meant to be visible and tangible signs to our senses are they not?
 
and yet other connections are that of burial, being consumed, being overwhelmed/flooded over.

The last two, where? Also, how would these conflict with the pouring described in Tim's post?

The first one, I know of one reference: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6). Indeed we are. Where does it say baptism physically looks like modern burial practices?
 
I do not regard mode of baptism as essential to its validity (my own baptism was by immersion), but for the sake of discussion, I am willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and like Rob, I think the evidence points towards pouring in the New Testament. I am truly trying to be objective and this is what I see: In Hebrews we are told that the Old Covenant included "divers baptisms." A survey of relevant OT texts will reveal that these tended to be washings from above (pouring or sprinkling), and in some cases they could not have been dunkings. I see John the Baptist saying he baptizes with water; the Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Tongues of fire descend on the Apostles and the Holy Spirit is poured out. What would it mean to call this a "dunking down into the Holy Spirit"? Finally, there is the rich background of water/sprinkling references in the OT to things that baptism signifies. Rob gave a few examples.

Mode of baptism is not of very great importance to me, but I am truly trying to be fair and objective and it seems to me the evidence points to water coming down on the person baptized as the normal mode.
 
Last edited:
and yet other connections are that of burial, being consumed, being overwhelmed/flooded over.

The last two, where? Also, how would these conflict with the pouring described in Tim's post?
consume = baptism of fire (Mt 3:11). flood = 1 Pet 3:20-21
The first one, I know of one reference: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6). Indeed we are. Where does it say baptism physically looks like modern burial practices?
Well, Jesus' own burial was a going completely into a tomb, was it not?

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 AM ----------

how about that there are already Greek words which more clearly denote pouring and sprinkling that are not used in the NT?
 
how about that there are already Greek words which more clearly denote pouring and sprinkling that are not used in the NT?

If the mode were the important part of the rite it would make sense to use those words. If it is the "washing" that is important, then it makes sense to use a word that means "washing." Based on the evidence provided above, I think the mode of washing/baptism was normally not dunking. To be clear, it is not my contention that the word baptizo means sprinkling or pouring, but simply that it does not mean dunking. It refers to ceremonial washing.

Well, Jesus' own burial was a going completely into a tomb, was it not?

Yes, but where is it suggested that baptism should look like a burial? It only says we're buried with Christ by baptism into death, not that the external sign looks like a burial.

consume = baptism of fire (Mt 3:11). flood = 1 Pet 3:20-21

Both from above, and no dunkings in sight. :)
 
Hi:

Thanks for the responses.

Stedfast7 (I like the name by the way):

In regards to being "under" water - when you take a shower - you can be considered "under" the water even though you are not underwater like a submarine, but are being sprinkled by a shower. The water is above you, and you are "under" it. I hope this clarifies the point.

I will get to the burial part in Romans 6, but to whet your appetite, ask yourself how was Jesus Christ buried? Does His burial match the modern idea of immersion we see today?

Austinww:

You have touched upon a major argument for sprinkling, and one, I believe, that the immersionists cannot make an adequate reply. I also agree with you that immersion is a valid mode, but the question is - what is the Biblical mode?

Marrow Man:

As you surmised I would have no problem with the way you described baptism.

Thanks for you all for some very intelligent replies.

Now to the Baptism of Jesus Christ we read in Matthew 3:13-17:

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have nned to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jesus is sinless, and thus does not need to be baptized, and this John the Baptist recognizes. But Jesus says He needs to be Baptized in order to "fulfill all righteousness." There was a law in the Old Testament that Jesus needed to obey in order for Him to fulfill all righteousness, and this law required him to be Baptized. At this point in His life He was entering into His Three Offices - King, Prophet and Priest. He demonstrates His Kingship by His authority over the demons and miracles, He shows forth His Prophetic Office by His Preaching, teaching, and Prophesying, and His High Priestly Office by His offering up himself as a sacrifice for sins. In order for Him to "fulfill all righteousness" in these offices He had to be anointed.

Israelite Kings were anointed by sprinkling or pouring, Samuel 10:1:

Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captian over his inheritance?
Prophets were also anointed, Isaiah 61:1.

Israelite Priests were required by law to be anointed by sprinkling:

Numbers 8:5-7Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take the Levites from among the sons of Israel and cleanse them. And thus you shall do to them, for their cleansing: sprinkle purifying water on them.
Leviticus 8:30 So Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood which was on the altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron, on his garments, on his sons, and on the garments of his sons with him; and he consecrated Aaron, his garments, and his sons, and the garments of his sons with them.

Consider the NT statements concerning Jesus' baptism:

Matthew 3:16 - And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and coming upon Him.
Acts 10:37-38 - The word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.
The testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus from above - that is - Jesus was poured upon, or sprinkled, by the Spirit of God. Jesus did not go into the Holy Spirit in the modern understanding of being immersed, but the Spirit of God came down to him from above in the same fashion as Baptism by Pouring or Sprinkling. I do not know if some are going to quibble about "like a dove" but the Scriptures say "like (ὡσεὶ) a dove" it does not say that the Spirit of God was a dove.

Since the law specifically required the anointing of Priests to be that of Pouring or Sprinkling, then to "fulfill all righteousness" the Baptism of Jesus was undoubtedly that of Pouring or Sprinkling.

When the Scriptures say, "Jesus went up immediately from the water" this was after His Baptism, and He was climbing out of the Jordan when John the Baptist saw the heavens open and the Spirit of God descending upon Jesus like a dove:

John 1:32 - And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
It would be impossible for John to be pulling Jesus out of the water as the immersionists say, and, at the same time, bear witness to the heavens opening and the Spirit descending. Jesus was walking away from John the Baptist and immediately coming up out of the water of the Jordan river. John was then able to look up and see the Father anointing the Son by the Spirit of God - the Trinity in all of His Glory!

It seems more and more apparent that Baptism, as it is understood by the New Testament, is performed by Sprinkling or Pouring. Time is up, so I will continue this another time, Lord willing.

Blessings,

Rob
 
There would always be psychological perfectionist (obsessive compulsive disorder), and legalistic and superstitious, motivations for full immersion developing even although - for the sake of argument - it was not taught as being necessary by Christ and the Apostles in the first century, or by them in Scripture.

If baptism isn't done the way the baptists usually do it then some little bits of the body could be missed which in some perfectionist minds would mean that the baptism isn't perfect or complete.

We need to look at the psychology of immersion, and also the psychology of trying to baptise only believers. Of course Reformed Baptists can be free to analyse the psychology of Presbyterian practice, too.

See the lengths to which certain Jewish groups go in their zeal for complete physical purification, while spiritual purification by Christ's blood is not emphasised:

Mikveh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niddah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The classical requirement for full immersion was traditionally interpreted as requiring water to literally touch every part of the body, and for this reason all clothing, jewellery, and even bandages must be removed; in a contemporary mikveh used by women, there is usually an experienced attendant, commonly called the mikveh lady, to watch the immersion and ensure that the woman has been entirely covered in water.

According to rabbinical tradition, the hair counts as part of the body, and therefore water is required to touch all parts of it, thus meaning that braids cannot be worn during immersion; this has resulted in debate between the different ethnic groups within Judaism, about whether hair combing is necessary before immersion. The Ashkenazi community generally supports the view that hair must be combed straight so that there are no knots, but some Black Jews take issue with this stance, particularly when it comes to dreadlocks.A number of rabbinical rulings argue in support of dreadlocks, on the basis that dreadlocks can sometimes be loose enough to become thoroughly saturated with water, particularly if the person had first showered combing dreadlocked hair can be painful although a particularly cautious individual would consider a single knotted hair as an obstruction, in most cases hair is loose enough for water to pass through it, unless each hair is individually knotted

I don't think these Jews can derive all their practices in association with ritual washing as being required by the Torah.
 
John Calvin says this in the Institutes:"Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is to be only sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence; churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.”
 
John Calvin says this in the Institutes:"Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is to be only sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence; churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.”

Yes, but this doesn't take into account two things: 1) Calvin could have been wrong; and 2) "immersion" may not have looked like the modern practice (see Rob's description in the OP and my comments in post #5). To the first point, an explanatory note about this sentence in the Beveridge edition of The Institutes reads:

In this sentence Calvin makes three assertions: (1) that the mode of baptism is a matter of complete indifference (“not of the least consequence”). (2) that it is evident that the term “baptize” means to immerse. (3) that immersion was the mode used by the primitive Church. These assertions deserve thoughtful consideration. Perhaps the following observations will be helpful: (1) Behind Calvin’s complete infifference to mode lies an important distinction - the distinction between the substance or matter of the sacraments, and the mode or form of the sacraments; or to put it another way, the distinction between the essentials and the accidentals of the sacraments. For Calvin, the essential elements of the proper administration of baptism include: (a) a proper consecration, which includes the words of institution, the promises and obligations connected with the sacrament, and prayer; (b) a proper distribution, which involves the application of water in the name of the Trinity; and (c) a proper reception, which consists of faith, repentance, and an obedient spirit on the part of the recipient (or , in the case of infants, on the part of the parents). Beyond these, other aspects of the sacrament are “not of the least consequence,” but are purely matters of expediency (such as differences of national or local custom, or diversity or climate). (2) The contention that the word translate “baptize” means to immerse is true in many instances of its usage in the Greek classics, so many of which had been rediscovered in the Renaissance which preceded the Reformation period. It was no doubt in these works that Calvin found the word “baptize” to mean “immerse”. However, from a study of its usage in the Septuagient (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made about 250-200 B.C.); and from a careful examination of its usage in the New Testament; we discover that this word, during the history of its usage, enlarged its scope of meaning to include, along with its classical definition of “to submerge, to immerse, and to dip,” the further meanings of “to bathe in or with water, to wash.” It should be noted that two of the most highly regarded Greek lexicons—Thayer’s and Arndt and Gingrich’s—bear witness to this enlarged scope of meaning. As far as the New Testament meaning of the word “baptize” is concerned, it must be decided by a study, in each instance, of its usage in context. Such a study reveals that the word “baptize” does not mean immersion (although immersion could have been used in a number of cases). On the other hand, the same study reveals that “baptize” does not mean pouring or sprinkling either! The word, as used in the New Testament, does not mean a particular mode. Whenever it is used to refer to Christian water baptism, it means “to perform the Christian ceremony of initiation, with its essential elements of consecration, distribution, and reception.” (3) The contention that immersion was the mode used by the primitive Church has more recently been questioned, in the light of a comparison between the writings of the Church Fathers and the archaeological evidence that in any way relates to mode. Such a comparison appears to favor pouring the prevailing mode, with other modes also in use. Excellent studies of this question can be found in Clement F. Rogers’ work, Baptism and Christian Archaeology (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1903), and J.G. Davies’ work, The Architectural Setting of Baptism (London, Barrie and Rockliff, 1962).
 
Yes, but where is it suggested that baptism should look like a burial? It only says we're buried with Christ by baptism into death, not that the external sign looks like a burial.
Remember that Romans 6 is not the only instance where Paul pairs burial and baptism. I think the imagery of Col 2 is sharper: 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Let's see, which image comes closer: burial - going into water completely, resurrection - coming out of the water? or, burial - a sprinkle of water on the head, resurrection - (blank)?

If you can't see the imagery of this metaphor then it looks like you are trying to not see it, in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 09:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

Since the law specifically required the anointing of Priests to be that of Pouring or Sprinkling, then to "fulfill all righteousness" the Baptism of Jesus was undoubtedly that of Pouring or Sprinkling.
this is quite a statement. It would only begin to be valid if it read: "Since the law specifically required the baptism of Priests to be that of pouring or sprinkling ... then the baptism of Jesus was undoubtedly that of pouring or sprinkling.

since when is priestly anointing synonymous with Christian baptism??
 
Remember that Romans 6 is not the only instance where Paul pairs burial and baptism. I think the imagery of Col 2 is sharper: 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Let's see, which image comes closer: burial - going into water completely, resurrection - coming out of the water? or, burial - a sprinkle of water on the head, resurrection - (blank)?

If you can't see the imagery of this metaphor then it looks like you are trying to not see it, in my opinion.

Dennis, just to be clear, it would not bother me in the least to learn that immersion via dunking was a normal, or even the normal, mode of baptism in the NT. It would only make me glad I was immersed myself.

However, the problem with your interpretation of these verses, as I see it, is that you are taking a statement about what baptism is, and somehow you are leaping from what baptism is to what baptism looks like in physical motion. Paul does not say baptism looks like a burial into Christ's death; he says we are buried with Christ by baptism into death. Obviously there are important qualifications that need to be made in understanding Paul here. He is speaking holistically of the sacramental union of sign and thing signified when he says that baptism is a burial with Christ into death. This is only true for God's elect, and it is only accomplished by the Holy Spirit's application of Christ's saving benefits in God's appointed time, not tied to the moment of administration of baptism or based on any virtue in the external sign. However, with those important qualifications in place, Paul is able to affirm that baptism is for believers a burial with Christ and an identification with his death and resurrection.
 
Last edited:
I so want to join in this. The immersion thing is so...
Taking a look at the examples in the New Testament of Baptism concerning mode.

Historically?
(Heb 6:2) Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Which one? The one's at the temple or where else? I know you said New Testament but then again.

Let's see, which image comes closer: burial - going into water completely, resurrection - coming out of the water? or, burial - a sprinkle of water on the head, resurrection - (blank)?

If you can't see the imagery of this metaphor then it looks like you are trying to not see it, in my opinion.

Historically you would have to see this more in the light of death in Historical reference instances. The imagery for us wouldn't work maybe. Yes, the Hebrews insisted upon burial of bodies. I am not sure this is true for all though. Historically I think your argument is lacking. Most people have burned their dead. It was a very important understanding that from dust you came and to dust you returned.
 
Remember that Romans 6 is not the only instance where Paul pairs burial and baptism. I think the imagery of Col 2 is sharper: 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Let's see, which image comes closer: burial - going into water completely, resurrection - coming out of the water? or, burial - a sprinkle of water on the head, resurrection - (blank)?

If you can't see the imagery of this metaphor then it looks like you are trying to not see it, in my opinion.

Dennis, just to be clear, it would not bother me in the least to learn that baptism was a normal, or even the normal, mode of baptism in the NT. It would only make me glad I was immersed myself.

However, the problem with your interpretation of these verses, as I see it, is that you are taking a statement about what baptism is, and somehow you are leaping from what baptism is to what baptism looks like in physical motion. Paul does not say baptism looks like a burial into Christ's death; he says we are buried with Christ by baptism into death. Obviously there are important qualifications that need to be made in understanding Paul here. He is speaking holistically of the sacramental union of sign and thing signified when he says that baptism is a burial with Christ into death. This is only true for God's elect, and it is only accomplished by the Holy Spirit's application of Christ's saving benefits in God's appointed time, not tied to the moment of administration of baptism or based on any virtue in the external sign. However, with those important qualifications in place, Paul is able to affirm that baptism is for believers a burial with Christ and an identification with his death.
moving from what baptism is theologically and what it looks like is not an invalid hermeneutical move at all, given what baptism is in the first place - a sacrament. It is a visible picture of the gospel, which Christ has instituted to be a figure of our relationship with him. Only by assuming that the imagery employed by Paul is completely random would you conclude that we ought not make the connection. It's like saying the idiom, ".. and then it HIT me ..", or "and then it dawned on me." Well, obviously nothing actually hits the person who is having an epiphany, and actual dawn is not occurring to that person, but the metaphor gives a certain sense of that happening, and makes the figure of speech appropriate to the event.

Note also, that the act of baptism came before its theological formulation. Paul would have noticed many baptisms taking place before he wrote of the connection between baptism and burial/death. It is much more reasonable to think that he looked upon an immersion into water which helped inspire him to make the connection between baptism and burial, as opposed to a few dabs of water on the head.
 
moving from what baptism is theologically and what it looks like is not an invalid hermeneutical move at all, given what baptism is in the first place - a sacrament. It is a visible picture of the gospel, which Christ has instituted to be a figure of our relationship with him. Only by assuming that the imagery employed by Paul is completely random would you conclude that we ought not make the connection. It's like saying the idiom, ".. and then it HIT me ..", or "and then it dawned on me." Well, obviously nothing actually hits the person who is having an epiphany, and actual dawn is not occurring to that person, but the metaphor gives a certain sense of that happening, and makes the figure of speech appropriate to the event.

Note also, that the act of baptism came before its theological formulation. Paul would have noticed many baptisms taking place before he wrote of the connection between baptism and burial/death. It is much more reasonable to think that he looked upon an immersion into water which helped inspire him to make the connection between baptism and burial, as opposed to a few dabs of water on the head.

Good points, but there are a great many things that baptism represents which are encompassed by identification with Christ. It represents washing of sins, death, resurrection, ingrafting into Christ, burial with Christ, etc. It cannot look visibly like all of these things at once. So as a sign we would expect it to look like one thing which encompasses the rest. I think it is fairly evident that the primary visual symbolism in baptism is washing. Whatever the mode, it is a washing with water. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). It primarily depicts cleansing from sin. Now what all does cleansing of sin entail? Union with Christ, identification with his death and with his resurrection, and ingrafting into Christ. Now we do not expect baptism to look like an ingrafting of a branch into a tree just because ingrafting into Christ is one of the benefits of what it signifies. Same with burial. The visual symbolism is washing; ingrafting and burial are aspects of being cleansed of sin by identification with Christ, but baptism does not necessarily look like ingrafting of a tree branch or a burial and resurrection.
 
Hi:

I thank you all for your excellent posts, and I am happy to see that we are not getting heated in these exchanges.

What have I tried to accomplish (God willing) so far:

1) That the Baptism that John the Baptist performed was that of a Purification rite intended to "prepare the way" for the Messiah. That these Purification rites were required to be sprinkling according to the law of God. In order to debunk this point the immersionists will have to show that there were Purification rites in the Old Testament that commanded immersion as the means of cleansing. If they cannot produce such evidence, then they will have to submit to the teachings of Scripture and admit that John the Baptists' baptism was that of sprinkling and not immersion.

2) That the Baptism of Jesus was not done in order to "purify" or "cleanse" Him from sin - since He was sinless. But, that it was an anointing of Him by the greatest of the OT Prophets into the Offices of Prophet, King, and Priest. That the law required Jesus to be anointed, and that this anointing was performed, according to the law, by sprinkling, "in order to fulfill all righteousness." In order to debunk this point the immersionist will have to show that Israelite anointing ceremonies were performed not by sprinkling or pouring, but by immersion. Again, if they cannot prove this, then they will have to submit to the teaching of Scripture that the anointing of Jesus - called in the Bible a baptism - was performed by sprinkling or pouring.

I think it important that we nail down the two points above before going on. Therefore, I will entertain any discussion that will center on the points above. In other words, I ask the immersionists here on the Puritanboard: Where have I gone wrong on the two points above?

Blessings,

Rob
 
1) That the Baptism that John the Baptist performed was that of a Purification rite intended to "prepare the way" for the Messiah. That these Purification rites were required to be sprinkling according to the law of God. In order to debunk this point the immersionists will have to show that there were Purification rites in the Old Testament that commanded immersion as the means of cleansing. If they cannot produce such evidence, then they will have to submit to the teachings of Scripture and admit that John the Baptists' baptism was that of sprinkling and not immersion.

How about baptism beginning with John the Baptist himself? Where do we have evidence that John's baptism was an exact replica of OT purification rites? Why then in Acts 19:3, when some disciples were asked, "then what baptism did you receive?" they answered, "John's baptism." Why didn't they say, "we received the purification rites according to the law" ?

2) That the Baptism of Jesus was not done in order to "purify" or "cleanse" Him from sin - since He was sinless. But, that it was an anointing of Him by the greatest of the OT Prophets into the Offices of Prophet, King, and Priest. That the law required Jesus to be anointed, and that this anointing was performed, according to the law, by sprinkling, "in order to fulfill all righteousness." In order to debunk this point the immersionist will have to show that Israelite anointing ceremonies were performed not by sprinkling or pouring, but by immersion. Again, if they cannot prove this, then they will have to submit to the teaching of Scripture that the anointing of Jesus - called in the Bible a baptism - was performed by sprinkling or pouring.

An interesting theory, but one fatal flaw: John didn't only baptize Jesus, but hundreds of others. Were they ALL prophets, priests, and kings? Or, did John perhaps change up his baptismal routine when Jesus came along and gave him a deluxe prophet-priest-kingly baptism of some sort?

the theory fails.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

another flaw: anointings of priests and kings were not done with water, but oil or blood.

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

Now we do not expect baptism to look like an ingrafting of a branch into a tree just because ingrafting into Christ is one of the benefits of what it signifies. Same with burial. The visual symbolism is washing; ingrafting and burial are aspects of being cleansed of sin by identification with Christ, but baptism does not necessarily look like ingrafting of a tree branch or a burial and resurrection.

there is no reason for us to make the connection between ingrafting and baptism, because these two are not paired in Scripture as is burial and baptism. God did not choose to visualize the sacrament by means of branches on a tree, but a baptism of water which is commented upon twice by Paul in connection with death, burial and resurrection. To be fair, cleansing and circumcision of the heart are associated closely with baptism, but the connection is slightly looser than with burial.

Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

the verse you quoted, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16), doesn't pair the concepts as closely as the burial passages. A closer association between baptism and cleansing is probably 1 Pet 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," but it's still in the context of Christ's death and resurrection and the flood waters during Noah's time (v. 18 "Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20becausee they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.")

To me it seems pretty clear that death and burial takes prominence among the concepts that baptism figures.
 
Hi:

Martin: In answer to your unasked question: I fully believe in Sola Scriptura as it is taught in the Westminster Standards chapter 1. Because of this I am not going to cite the Early Church Fathers, Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, or any one else to prove Sprinkling - I will use Scripture Alone as my guide. What I do not believe is B.B. Warfield's re-interpretation of the Westminster Standards.

Dennis: Your citation of Acts 19:3 does not prove that John baptized with immersion. The burden is on you to prove that John baptized with immersion, and not with sprinkling. What Acts 19:3 does show is that John's baptism was one of Purification, because the men described in the passage needed to be re-baptized. John's baptism was an OT baptism that was meant to "prepare the way" for the Messiah.

Jesus did not need to be covered with oil or blood because He was sinless. Water would then be an acceptable medium of anointing. You will notice that in Numbers 8:5-7 the Purifying/Separating act of anointing a Priest was that of water. This anointing was done by sprinkling. During His earthly ministry Jesus was "under the law" - and had to perfectly fulfill the law in order to be the spotless lamb that takes away our sins. The law called for the priesthood to be Sprinkled with water, and this is what John the Baptist did with Jesus. God apparently accepted this baptism as an anointing because we have nowhere else in Scripture where Jesus was separated for His ministry.

You have missed the point: John's baptism was that of Purification for the people of Israel - to set them apart and prepare them for the Messiah. It has been abundantly shown that such Purification/Separation rites were only performed by Sprinkling. John's baptism could be nothing but Sprinkling if John is going to be following the law of God, and not the laws of men. If you want to poke holes in this theory, then you will have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that New Testament baptism was done solely by immersion. Show me Scripture to prove your beliefs, and not some speculation that John changed his mode of baptism.

I greatly appreciate your posts.

In Jesus,

Rob
 
I’ll apologize in advance for the length of this post, but the issue involved has important implications for many of the other assertions that have been made here as well. As such, it seemed thoroughness would be a good thing.


Bathing and sprinkling in Numbers 19:18ff are one and the same - you are considered "bathed" if you have been showered upon by sprinkling.


This claim has appeared in a handful of relatively recent anti-immersionist polemics, but it is squarely at odds with historical and mainstream Hebrew scholarship.

The Hebrew word translated “sprinkle” in this passage is nazah, while the one rendered "bathe" is rahas. The Dictionary of Biblical Languages gives this definition for rahas:


Wash, bathe, i.e., remove dirt and impurities using water and possibly other cleansing agents, either immersed in a body of water, or with lesser amounts of water, used both as normal personal hygiene and as ceremonial ritual...Be abundant, i.e., have an abundant amount of a quantity, as a figurative extension of washing oneself in a large mass of liquid. (#8175)​


The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament also notes that the idea of a large quantity of fluid is present in similar words used in other Semitic languages:


[Rahas] ...This root refers to ritual washings and is cognate philologically…to Akkadian rahbasu, to overflow, to flood. It is cognate to Egyptian and Ugaritic rhs with the same meaning. (p.843)​


So while in itself rahas may not definitively indicate a specific mode of washing, it certainly accords best with methods involving a large amount of water.

Nor am I aware of any Hebrew lexicon or Hebraist, Jewish or Christian, that suggests these two terms are synonymous when used in the context of various Levitical cleansings rituals, such as the one described in Num. 19:13-19. Rather, they are uniformly understood as denoting two distinct components of a larger, overall process by which a cleansing was secured.

Moreover, Jewish sources universally understand rahas in this particular context as indicating full immersion. This can clearly be seen in numerous relevant prescriptions throughout the Mishnah, which Maimonides summarized as follows:


Wherever ‘washing [rahas] of the flesh’ or ‘cleansing of garments’ from uncleanness is spoken of in Scripture, it means nothing else but the immersion of the whole person or object...And the same rule applies to others who are unclean. (H. Danby, The Code of Maimonides; Book Ten, 497)​


Many Christian Hebraists and biblical scholars have readily concurred with this interpretation. Here are some notable examples:


(John Lightfoot; English Presbyterian, Hebraist and Westminster divine) That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing [rahas] of [Levitically] unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, [1] that he ‘baptized in Jordan’; [2] that he baptized ‘in Aenon, because there was much water there’; [3] and that Christ, being baptized, ‘came up out of the water’: to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, ‘Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,’ etc. (Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, 11:63)​



(Alfred Edersheim; Anglican Hebraist) What John preached, that he also symbolized by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:273.)​



(James MacKnight; Scottish Presbyterian exegete) In the Levitical ritual many baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, were enjoined as emblematic of the purity of mind which is necessary to the worshipping of God acceptably. (A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles, 531f.)​



(Robert Jamieson; Scottish Presbyterian exegete) ‘Wash [rahas] his flesh with water’ [Leviticus 22:6] — Any Israelite who had contracted a defilement of such a nature as debarred him from the enjoyment of his wonted privileges, and had been legally cleansed from the disqualifying impurity, was bound to indicate his state of recovery by the immersion of his whole person in water. (A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, On the Old and New Testaments, 1:89)​



(Hermann Cremer; German Lutheran lexicographer and philologist) Baptizo...to immerse, to submerge...The peculiar New Testament and Christian use of the word—to denote immersion, submersion for a religious purpose; ‘to baptize’...may be pretty clearly traced back to the Levitical washings, Hebrew rahas, Leviticus 14:8, 9, 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27, 17:15...Numbers 19:7, 19...for which LXX = louesthai. (Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, 126)​



(Ethelbert Bullinger; Anglican lexicographer and philologist) Baptizo...to make a thing ‘dipped’ or ‘dyed.’ ‘To immerse’ for a religious purpose, may be traced back to the Levitical washings, see Leviticus 14:8–9; etc...which were connected with the purification which followed on and completed the expiation from sin...By ‘Baptism’ therefore we must understand an immersion, whose design like that of the Levitical washings and purifications was united with the washing away of sin. (A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, 81)​



(Herbert Danby; Anglican Hebraist) The description of these [Levitical] uncleannesses leads logically to a catalogue [in the Mishnah] of the objects which are, and the objects which are not, susceptible to them, and then to an account of the means, namely, immersion, ordained by Scripture for freeing persons and things from these uncleannesses. (The Code of Maimonides; Book Ten, xxxiv)​



(Michael Kruger; Presbyterian, Assoc. Prof. of N. T., Reformed Theological Seminary [Charlotte, NC])...Bathing (by immersion) was required for a number of Levitical impurities...Leviticus 14:8–9 ..15:13...Numbers 19...Leviticus 15:16...17:15...15:5–8, 11–12...21–22... (The Gospel of the Savior: An Analysis of P. Oxy. 840 and its Place in the Gospel Traditions of Early Christianity, 128)​


Hebraists also tend to see zoraq in Num. 19:20 – “if the man who is unclean does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD, because the water for impurity has not been thrown [zoraq] on him, he is unclean” – as being a synecdoche (a part used in representation of a whole) for the entire process laid out in its broader context. This is partly based on the fact that we can safely assume the contaminated person would not be deemed cleansed if they left out or rearranged ANY of the specified components, timing, or number of repetitions prescribed in the overall remedial process. Notably, “baptisms (baptismos)” can be understood as being used in a similar way in Hebrews 9:10.

In addition, when one checks the broader context of all of the other Levitical passages that involved sprinkling that were mentioned in the OP (or where those same situations are further described in other parallel pentateuchal passages), it can be seen that bathing was prescribed as well. One such case where the distinction between nazah and rahas is brought out quite clearly is in Leviticus 14:3b–9:


...Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person, 4 the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. 5 And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. 6 He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 And he shall sprinkle [nazah] it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field. 8 And he [the leper] who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe [rahas] himself in water [b-mayim – literally “in water”], and he shall be clean. And after that he may come into the camp, but live outside his tent seven days. 9 And on the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair from his head, his beard, and his eyebrows. He shall shave off all his hair, and then he shall wash his clothes and bathe [rahas] his body in water [b-mayim], and he shall be clean.


From this sequence of events it is especially apparent that nazah and rahas refer to two separate actions. In addition, it is interesting to consider from another Old Testament event how the command to rahas was understood and carried out in biblical times:


(2 Kings 5:10–14) And Elisha sent a messenger to him [the leprous Syrian general, Naaman], saying, “Go and wash [rahas] in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.” 11 But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash [rahas] in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage. 13 But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it? Has he actually said to you, ‘Wash [rahas], and be clean’?” 14 So he went down and dipped [tabal – “dip”<> LXX: baptizo] himself seven times in the Jordan [b-Yarden—in the Jordan (River) <> LXX: en to Iordane], according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.


Again, other than in a few modern anti-immersionist polemics, I have never found a linguist or commentator who supposes that it is natural exegesis to try and maintain that Naaman bathed himself by tabal / baptizo seven times in the Jordan River (b-Yarden / en to Iordanē), yet somehow in a manner not supposing of a physical immersion.

The frequency with which various modes were actually employed within the overall economy of Levitical cleansings (involving persons), might be quantified as follows:

Sprinkling (nazah/zoraq) various substances (oil, blood, or water mixed with either ashes or blood – but notably never pure water by itself) was used in three main circumstances: [1] In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 29:21), [2] to cleanse those with leprosy (Leviticus 14:7), and [3] in purifying persons who had touched a corpse or grave (Numbers 19:13).

Pouring (yatsaq) oil was involved in two of these same situations, namely: [1] In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 40:15), and [2] in cleansing those with leprosy (Leviticus 14:18). In addition, pouring water was almost certainly part of the regular washing of the priests’ hands and feet (Exodus 30:21; cf. 2 Kings 3:11).

Bathing (rahas) with water was prescribed in at least seven different circumstances, including all of those previously mentioned: (1) In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 29:4), (2) as part of the priests’ ongoing purifications—such as before putting on their vestments, after making certain sacrifices, and often before eating—(Leviticus 16:4, 28, 22:4–7), (3) in cleansing those who had touched a corpse or grave (Numbers 19:19), (4) in cleansing lepers (Leviticus 14:8), (5) in cleansing those with various bodily discharges (Leviticus 15:16), (6) in cleansing those who had touched a contaminated person or object (Leviticus 15:7, 26–27), and (7) in purifying those who had eaten carrion or other unclean meat (Leviticus 17:15–16).

By such an accounting it can be said that bathing (generally understood as an immersion) was actually the most prominent mode by which Levitical cleansings were administered, and was apparently the only mode involved in the remediation of each of the seven major categories of religious impurity.

As some of the previous citations alluded to (e.g. Lightfoot), the realization that “bathing” was so prominent in Levitical cleansings will rightly factor into - among a number of other important things like primary word meanings and syntax, historical setting and attached symbolisms - the way one approaches trying to understand John’s (and thus Jesus’) baptism.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly I've only just read a book on this for the first time. It's very short, and written as a narrative, very easy to read and it very plainly and simply sets out the Presbyterian mode. Takes a couple of hours to read maybe.
I'd recommend it to both camps. It adresses everything discussed in this conversation.

It is called William The Baptist.
And is available to read online here

I believe Immersion is valid but not scriptural.
 
It adresses everything discussed in this conversation. It is called William The Baptist.

Hi David. In relation to what I addressed in my post, I would categorize William the Baptist as being a modern anti-immersionist polemic.
 
It adresses everything discussed in this conversation. It is called William The Baptist.

Hi David. In relation to what I addressed in my post, I would categorize William the Baptist as being a modern anti-immersionist polemic.

Well it's 144 years old I wouldn't call it modern. The english has been updated and it's been republished if that's what you mean. Have you read it?
 
It adresses everything discussed in this conversation. It is called William The Baptist.

Hi David. In relation to what I addressed in my post, I would categorize William the Baptist as being a modern anti-immersionist polemic.

Well it's 144 years old I wouldn't call it modern. The english has been updated and it's been republished if that's what you mean. Have you read it?

I think what Phil means (or at least definitely what I would mean) is that it's from the 19th Century or later. Works from that era were often in response to Baptist polemics that by that point had become widely available. (Or at least that was often in the background.)

I don't know if James W. Dale's work was the first to argue that sprinkling or affusion was THE biblical mode, but a good many Presbyterian and Reformed writers since then have essentially followed his views e.g. James Chaney (author of "William",) Jay Adams, W.A. Mackay, Rowland S. Ward, Robert Reymond, etc. Some have charged that immersion was basically a Romish innovation that is continued to this day in the East.

Is there any Presbyterian/Reformed polemic prior to the 19th Century that argues that immersion (i.e. submersion) was definitely NOT the biblical mode? From what I've seen, earlier works tended toward what we see in Calvin's writing--that immersion was the primitive mode but that other modes are not invalid.

Immersion being the "default" mode is seen in the Didache. The earliest editions of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer also reflect this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top