I realize that’s a popular view, particularly among non-immersionists. But I would respectfully submit the best evidence points to
baptismois here being a synecdoche (still literally meaning
immersions, while categorically representing and thus comprehending all Levitical bodily purifications, inclusive of the subsequently mentioned sprinklings). I extensively make that case
here (pp. 95–108), primarily via marshaling a range of scholarly opinions.
Having said that, in my experience people rarely change their pre-existing position on things like this, no matter the counter-arguments. And, yes, that goes for all parties concerned…
I wouldn't expect one such as yourself, believing the true mode of baptism is specified in the term, not to argue for it from the term.
So, what follows is not strictly effort at confutation; rather to demonstrate and affirm (as you say) that these counter-arguments are not likely to sway those who don't wish to be swayed.
Since I deny the premise that the mode of NT baptism is specified in the term, and deny a second premise that baptism "literally mean(s) immersion" (the closest Eng. precise lexical equivalent is
whelm), I evidently have no issue with the term in Heb.9:10 being in some sense synecdochtal; in that I regard the term itself by the time of writing of the NT is already broadened to definitionally (per context) include: ritual washings in general, mode unspecified.
The claim I made is supported by the context, in which forms of OT baptism mentioned are specifically sprinking by mode. One must rule that reading inadmissable
a priori (because the mode in that view is specified in the term) in order to have the author Hebrews first make a synecdoche of the exclusive term; then go on to describe purifications that could not be strictly described by that term. Why choose
baptismois in that case at all?
The question only grows in complexity when one goes to the Mosaic rites, and looks for any description of ceremonial cleansings that are described as, or must be in the nature of the case,
immersions. These are lacking. The writer of Hebrews is actually compelled to use the only fulsome descriptions present in the Law, namely sprinklings; besides his evident desire to employ the prime example of the Sinai oath-ceremony. The prior existence of
baptism as a term of general reference for ritual washings makes his subsequent references to certain sprinklings particular instances of the general description.
Furthermore, taking the wilderness experience as the first-condition for the implementation of the ritual Law, given the natural scarcity of water and its miraculous provision (cf. Ex.15:22; 17:1; Num.20:2; 21:5; Dt.1:19; 8:15; Ps.107:5; Hos.13:5; Jer.2:6; Neh.9:20), and the limits of regulated worship (the laver being the sole source of cleansing waters for the Tabernacle and associated rituals, and its chief reservoir), it must be wondered whether originally there was ever conceived in Moses' day any ceremonial washings whatsoever that were not "conservative" and sparing. Such that, sprinklings would be normal even expected. Pouring out would be required to preserve the reservoir clean. Sponge or rags would be the ordinary method of personal hygiene
1) in the absence of freshwater rivers and pools of depth,
2) having a single miraculous water source,
3) with privacy available only in tents,
4) over mostly permeable ground, in contrast to cavernous pitted stone surfaces resistant to leak, and
5) facing the need of any manufactured tubs or basins to be portable along with the rest of one's camp kit.
Complete immersion of anything, especially a thing or a body of size, is nothing if not an astonishing luxury in the desert, "...a dry and arid land, a land where no one lives" (Jer.51:43); however... if one
must have
mikveh in the wastes, surely then the LORD will provide? On the other hand, the point of ritual, as a kind of
body-synecdoche, is that the part is intended to represent the whole (ala circumcision, or Jesus washing the disciple's feet, see Jn.13:8,10). Thus, for Israel to submit them to sprinkling (or any other OT cleansing or purification), though the element of it touch them but briefly, they are still beneficiaries in their whole person, an understanding of which benefit is also behind Ezk.36:25.
It's not that under alternate circumstances, perhaps in the land and with the possibility of more lavish accommodations,
additional water would never be welcomed for ceremony and more elaborate ceremony would certainly be eschewed (but mark the need for authorization). It is that in the original circumstances, and in terms of the Law, there is nothing that requires lavatory extravagance or copious amounts of water in the nature of the case, and no provisions explicitly made for such.
It requires reading-back into the Law from a peculiar NT expectation based on something the word
baptism allegedly requires, that there would be even one OT "immersion" demand, let alone multiple washings of that kind. It is the wilderness experience (not the land) and the origin of Mosaic ceremony to which the author of Hebrews appeals. He argues explicitly from the text of Scripture, whence he equates Mosaic sprinklings with OT baptisms already introduced. It is a natural and unaffected reading. It lends itself to the text-driven conclusion that "baptism" as a NT word starts its service as a
ritual term essentially
indifferent to mode.
If
baptismois is not a general term largely shorn of any derivational expectation as to mode (but allowing a mode may be specified on occasion), if
baptismois means immersion, where is immersion in the Law, per Heb.9:10? Where is it commanded or
necessary if merely implied? How would the wilderness wanderers know they must find a way to perform this ritual according to an extravagant/luxurious, rather than a conservative mode? Is this a reasonable conclusion? Is this a conclusion owing mainly to the biblical text/context, or to a lexicon of word origin?
P.S. I do realize two NT authors also draw attention to two cases of immersion, both in close connection with OT baptisms, both which predate the Sinai legislation. Actually Phil D. should take some credit--several years ago he wrote something on the PB on this perennial topic; and whatever it was, it drove me to fresh reflection on the multiple facets of baptism's import, including one that I had been neglecting or minimizing: and that is as it pertains to the topic of
judgment. As Luther (paedobaptist) is reported to have said (let me paraphrase): "Daily, wake to
drown your old
man of flesh in the waters of your baptism, and rise up to live your life today in Christ."
So I myself am proof it is possible to be provided with insight even from an opponent, bringing about agreement (though... often with qualification).