The Proper Mode of BaptismFor centuries the proper mode of baptism has been a dividing point in many religious circles. Some believe sprinkling is acceptable. Others believe you may pour water on someone. In fact, many religious institutions have even divided over the proper mode of baptism. This religious subject is so important it should be considered a matter of salvation. In fact, I am convinced the evidence demands the only biblical mode of baptism is full body immersion. In this article three proofs will be presented to confirm that baptism is full body immersion. These three proofs are the Scriptures, the language of the New Testament, and church history. The phrase “mode of baptism” refers to the way or method by which baptism is performed. Concerning the baptismal mode, there are two prominent variances in Christendom: sprinkling, or pouring and immersion. In Protestantism, different religious organizations may even support both of these. In Roman Catholicism the baptismal mode is only performed by sprinkling. While there are many who claim the proper mode for baptism may be sprinkling or immersion, we must not let the majority but the Bible be our guide (Acts 17:11, Jn. 12:48, Ex. 23:2). So, the question remains, “Is there any word from the Lord” on the subject of the baptismal mode (Jer. 37:17)? Yes! The Bible is clear on the mode of baptism. The most authoritative proof that baptism is full body immersion is the Scriptures. While we believe that lexicons are an important way to learn the meaning of words, and church history gives us insight on the beliefs of the post-apostolic church, we could define baptism simply from the text of the New Testament. There are at least four passages in the New Testament that plainly define baptism as full body immersion. The first passage is Mark 1:9-10. This is Mark’s account of the baptism of Jesus. Mark records, “And immediately coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove” (Mark 1:10, emph. mine). In the first part of this verse Mark records that Jesus came up from the water. Question: What do you first have to do in order to come up out of the water? You must first go down into the water to come up out of it. It is clear from this passage that Jesus was immersed. Eminent Greek scholar Kenneth Weust comments on Mark 1:9-11 saying, “Clearly, immersion is in view here. In the next verse ek (out) is used, literally, ‘out from within.’ Jesus was baptized into the river and then came up out of the water” (23). Building on Weust’s comment, the language of this passage suggests that Jesus was engulfed or buried in the water, and that he had to literally “come out from within the water.” This passage plainly teaches that one must be engulfed in water and then come up out of it to be baptized like Jesus. There is no way anyone can say this is anything else but the act of immersion. The popular question people are asking today is “What would Jesus do?” Concerning the subject of baptism, Jesus was immersed. The question remains: “Do you really want to be like Jesus?” The second passage that proves baptism to be immersion is Acts 8:38. This is the account of the Ethiopian eunuch’s conversion. Luke records, “And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Phillip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38, emph. mine). The mode of baptism under consideration here required Phillip and the eunuch to go down into the water. Why did they both have to go down into the water? If sprinkling were used in this case there would have been no need for both of them to go down into the water. Either Phillip or the eunuch could have gone and retrieved the water. Burton Coffman gives further clarification to this verse saying, “‘down into the water…up out of the water.’ No man could frame a sentence in any language that would show any more conclusively than does this one that the baptism here administered was by immersion” (175). As Coffman emphasizes, when one envisions the picture this text paints, it is easy to see the Ethiopian nobleman had to go down into the water itself to be immersed and then arise out of the water. However, a person does not have to go down into anything to be sprinkled. Those who claim the eunuch was sprinkled make him out to be a traveling idiot. Remember, the eunuch is traveling from Jerusalem back to Ethiopia. This would be a journey of more than a hundred miles and would take several days by chariot. Without a doubt, the eunuch would have been carrying a jug of water with him for this trip. Why then did they have to find water to baptize? Could not Phillip have poured some water from the eunuch’s drinking container to sprinkle him? Again, why did they both go down into the water? J. W. Mcgarvey, A. M., former Professor of Sacred History in the College of Bible, adds insight by noting, “It is clearly seen that neither Phillip nor the eunuch would have gone into the water if the purpose had been to merely sprinkle or pour a small quantity of water upon the latter. The same reasons precisely which now keep preachers who practice sprinkling out of the water would have kept Phillip and the eunuch out of it” (160). As McGarvey suggests, people are not going to get wet if they don’t have to. Phillip and the eunuch would not have got their clothes wet while traveling on a long journey if they did not have to. Therefore, it must have been imperative for both men to go down into the water so Phillip could immerse the eunuch, or they would not have done it. A third passage that teaches baptism to be immersion is John 3:23. In this passage the Bible records that “…John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there… (John 3:23, emph. mine). When reading this passage one must honestly and ask himself, “Why did John need to be baptizing where there was much water?” Gospel Preacher Guy N. Woods has succinctly stated that this verse “…evidences the fact that ‘much water’ is essential to the act which John performed. Here is incidental mention of that which shows that baptism must have been by immersion since ‘much water’ is not needed for either sprinkling or pouring” (70). Elaborating on Woods’ statement, we can easily realize that it is not John’s purpose to tell us about the mode of baptism in this verse. However, one must account for the fact that John found it important to tell us about the “much water” where John the Immerser was baptizing. One must answer the question: “Why did John include this statement about “much water?” Surely, it doesn’t take much water to sprinkle or pour someone. John must have had a reason to go to Aenon and baptize. The best evidence suggest that John was baptizing where there was “much water” because he needed enough water to produce full body immersion. A fourth passage that proves baptism to be immersion is Romans 6:1-4. In this context baptism is likened to a burial. Stop and think back to the last time you went to a funeral. Do you remember what they did with the body after the services were over? Did they sprinkle a little dirt on the body? Or, did they bury the entire body six feet under the ground? Everyone knows they buried the entire body under the ground, completely covering it on all sides. Likewise the linking of baptism with the idea of a burial clearly shows that Paul, the inspired voice of God, recognized that baptism was by immersion. Gospel Preacher R. L. Whiteside has fitly noted, “In baptism there is a burial, an immersion in water… If there was no other source of knowledge as to how baptism was performed, this text should settle the matter beyond doubt” (130). If we would only recognize that in everyday situations a burial of anything is a submerging, a covering, and an engulfing we would have no problem understanding that baptism is full body immersion. Wayne Jackson M. A., commentator and scholar, has noted, “sprinkling is not immersion — which is necessitated in the identification with Christ’s burial and resurrection” (Online). As Jackson identifies, unless a person has been buried with Christ in water, he cannot claim to have been buried into his death or risen to a new life (Rom. 6:2-4). Sprinkling doesn’t even begin to resemble a burial. The second evidence that proves baptism to be full body immersion is the Greek language. The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptidzo. Transliteration simply means that the original Greek letters were converted into English letters to make a new word. Regarding the meaning of baptidzo, the majority of accepted scholars and lexicons of agree that it always means immersion, or to submerge. Moses Lard has boldly stated, “In not one instance where the word (baptidzo, BB) occurs, in all Greek literature, does it necessarily mean to sprinkle or pour… On the contrary, the word occurs in thousands of cases and combinations where it must of necessity be translated immerse…” (198). Lexicons, etymologists and the majority of accepted linguistic scholars back Lard’s forthright statement. Nowhere in the Greek language will you find the word baptidzo to mean anything but immerse. For example, the Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon, which is the most scholarly and widely accepted Greek lexicon, defines baptidzo as to “dip, immerse, dip oneself…in Non-Christian lit… plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm” (131). Henry Thayer, prominent Greek scholar and Professor of New Testament Criticism at Harvard University, also defines baptidzo as “to dip repeatedly, to immerge, or to submerge” (94). The one thing that both of these lexical authorities emphasize is that baptidzo, in its original first century definition, meant to immerse, submerge, or completely cover. If we claim to be like the New Testament Christians, shouldn’t we understand the meaning of baptism the way they did? With reference to baptidzo, Greek Scholar Marvin Vincent, D. D., notes, “in Classical Greek the primary meaning is ‘to immerse.’ Thus, Polybius (i., 51, 6), describing a naval battle of the Romans and Carthaginians, says, ‘They SANK ebaptizon many of the ships’” (238). Vincent’s research gives us a perfect illustration of what the Greek word baptidzo originally meant. Envision in your mind a ship sinking. What do you see? Do you see a vessel going fully under the water, or do you see a rain shower sinking a ship? The latter picture would be ridiculous to our minds. Likewise, the possibility of baptism meaning a sprinkling or pouring is both foreign and impossible in the Greek language. Greek Scholar W. E. Vine’s says baptidzo “was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl” (pg. 50). Expounding upon Vine’s definition, one can see that just as a cup is dipped into a bowl and is submerged in the liquid, so the human body must be submerged in water to be baptized properly. Most eminent linguistic scholars and prominent lexicographers agree that baptidzo means to immerse. These scholars would be A. T. Robertson’s, Word Pictures in the New Testament (322), Gernhardt Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (529), Lidell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (260), G. W. Lampe’s A Patristic Greek Lexicon (238), Colin Brown’s New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (143), and William D. Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (112). All of this lexical and scholarly evidence weighs in to portray that the original meaning of baptism in the first century was to immerse, dip, engulf, submerge, etc. Nowhere will a person find any evidence from the original language to show that baptidzo means to sprinkle. The Greeks had a word for sprinkle, which was rhantidzo. This word is used several times in the New Testament to convey the idea of sprinkling, but never is it associated with baptism (Heb. 9:13,19, 10:22). If the Greeks had a word for sprinkling, and the New Testament writers chose to use the distinct word for immersion, how can anyone say there is biblical authority for sprinkling as the proper mode of baptism? The fact is a person must go beyond the authority of the New Testament and make up doctrines and sacraments to say sprinkling is correct. In an article on the mode of baptism, Catholic scholars confess, “Fundamentalists are correct when they point out that the Greek word used in the New Testament for baptism is baptizo, and that this means immersion (dunking) only” (Online, emph. mine). If even the proponents of sprinkling recognize that baptism means immersion only, that should be the only thing we practice. We need to be reminded of the words of Paul. “Do not go beyond the doctrine of Christ” (1 Cor. 4:6). A third evidence that helps affirm full body immersion is the proper mode of baptism is church history. Although church history in and of itself is not the authority, it can help us to understand what the church did directly after the death of the apostles, and it can help us understand how sprinkling came about as an option for baptism. During the first three centuries after the establishment of the church, Christians recognized that immersion was the proper mode of baptism. The writings we have from this time period clearly show their thinking on the mode of baptism. For example, Tertullian, a 2nd century Christian, recorded that “Baptism itself is a bodily act, because we are immersed in water, but it has a spiritual effect because we are set free from sin” (Ferguson, 45). What weight this carries that directly after the first century Christians used the term immersion to define baptism. If baptism meant immersion to them, should it not mean the same to us? Cyril of Jerusalem, a 3rd century Christian, also gives insight to the mode of baptism by saying, “For as he who plunges into the water and is baptized is surrounded on all sides by the water, so were they also baptized completely by the Spirit” (Ferguson, 45). By further developing Cyril’s comment; we understand that they were dunked into a body of water wherein they were surrounded by water on all sides. Therefore, Cyril’s comments suggest that a person cannot be baptized correctly without each part of his body being plunged under the water, to the extent that not one side of his person is left above the water. Church history also helps us to understand how sprinkling became an accepted substitute for immersion. From church history we learn that there are two reasons why sprinkling began to be accepted. Sprinkling first began as an option for paraplegic or bedridden people. The first example of this takes us to the middle of the third century to a man named Novation. Novation was on a sick bed when he decided to be converted and become a Christian. However, it would have been very difficult to move Novation to enough water to be immersed. Therefore, Novation and the leaders of that day suggested that he receive sprinkling or pouring. Later in life, a rival bishop of Rome, Cornelius, held this against Novation saying that he was not truly converted (Mattux, 187). Elaborating on Cornelius’s objection, one can see that the mode of baptism was considered a matter of salvation in the early church and if it was not performed properly a person was considered as not being converted. This thinking of Novation and others that followed him is flawed for several reasons. First, it is utterly impossible to imagine any situation where a person could not receive immersion, even if it required the help of others to accomplish the act. Secondly, God’s law on salvation does not change for man’s situations. God has given us the command; whether we think we are able to keep that command or not does not alter God’s laws. God is not a situation ethics God. Thirdly, people like Novation, do not possess the proper kind of faith that God requires. If a bed-ridden man can have his friends tear down a roof and let him down by ropes to see Jesus, then surely we can get sick people to the water today (Mk.2:5). Sprinkling was further accepted as a substitute for baptism due to the doctrine of original sin. Beginning with Augustine and taking full effect with John Calvin was the idea that every person born into this word inherits the sin of Adam. Therefore, babies are born into this world as sinners, and the only way they can be saved is to be baptized. However, there were serious health-based objections to immersing babies. As one can readily see, there is no real way to immerse a baby without drowning him. Therefore, the only plausible solution to this problem was to sprinkle babies. Of this reasoning several important observations must be made. First, one must recognize that sprinkling was a substitute for baptism and was not accepted as the original meaning of baptism. If sprinkling were the accepted meaning of baptism, the spiritual leaders of that time would not have had to substitute the improper for the proper. Also, it must be recognized that this came about as the thinking of men and not as the command of God. Never do we find a passage allowing for the sprinkling of children to forgive their sins. In fact, the doctrine of original sin is not taught in the Bible at all. The following passages teach that children are innocent and each individual will give an account for his own sins: Matt. 18:3, Isa. 7:14, Ezek. 28:15, 18:20, 2 Cor. 5:10. Church history teaches us two clear lessons. Early Christians considered baptism to be full body immersion, and departure from this teaching was a direct result of man’s reasoning. If we desire to be New Testament Christians, we must abandon the thinking of men and return to the ancient order of the Apostles and early Christians. Is the mode of baptism really that important? Should we sprinkle today if people request it? When all the evidence has been weighed, it is clear that the Scriptures teach baptism is by immersion. The Greek language overwhelmingly affirms that its original meaning was immersion and early Christians practiced immersion until the thinking of man unfortunately intervened. In order to be like the first century Christians we should only practice immersion today.
Works Cited
Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, Wilbur F. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press. 1979
Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 1
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. 1986. 3 Volumes
Catholic Answers Network. “Baptism by Immersion?”
http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/bap-immr.htm (retrieved 25 March 2001).
Christian Courier Online Journal. “The Catholic-Luther Treaty”
www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/treaty (retrieved 25 March 2001).
Coffman, Burton. Commentary on Acts. Austin: Firm Foundation. 1977
Ferguson, Everett. Early Christians Speak. Abiline: ACU Press. 1987
Jackson, Wayne. From Jerusalem to Rome: A Commentary on Acts. Stockton, CA: Courier
Publications, 2000.
Kittel, Gernhardt. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1 Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans. 1964 . 10 Volumes
Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1961
Lard, Moses. Paul’s Letter to Romans: With A Revised Greek Text. Des Moines, IO:
Eugene S. Smith Publishers. 1914.
Liddell, George Henry and Scott Robert. A Greek-English Lexicon. New York: Harper &
Brothers. 1854.
Mattox, F. W. The Eternal Kingdom. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing. 1961
McGarvey, J. W. New Commentary on Acts of Apostles. Delight, AR: Gospel Light.
1892.
Mounce, William D. The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1993.
Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. 1. New York: Harper &
Brothers. 1930. 6 Volumes.
Thayer, Henry. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan. 1974
Thompson, Bert. Rock Solid Faith. Birmingham, Al: Apologetics Press. 2000.
Vincent, Marvin R. New Testament Word Studies. Grand Rapids: Kregel. 1971
Vine. W. E. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Westwood. N. J: Revell
Company. 1961.
Weust, Kennth. Weust’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. 1953.
Whiteside, R. L. A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome. Denton,
TX: Miss Inys Whiteside Publishing. 1976.
Woods, Guy N. A Commentry on the Gospel According to John. Nashville: Gospel
Advocate Publishing. 1981. |