A non-Christian approaches a Christian concerning the matter of salvation. The non-Christian’s desire is to obey the gospel as he has heard and been taught. However, in desiring to be baptized, he requests that the Christian sprinkle him. What should a believer do in a situation like this? For centuries questions and situations like these have inundated the thoughts of religious leaders. In fact, many religious institutions have even divided over the proper mode of baptism. Indeed this is a very important religious subject, so important it is a matter of salvation. I am convinced the evidence demands that the only proper mode of baptism is full body immersion. In these articles I will present three proofs 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 support both of these or one of the two. However, in mainstream Roman Catholicism, sprinkling is the only mode of baptism. 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).
The Proof of Scripture. The Scriptures are the most authoritative evidence that baptism is full body immersion. While lexicons are an important way to learn the meaning of words, and church history gives insight on the beliefs of the post-apostolic church, a person 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 1:9-11. Mark records Jesus’ baptism by saying, “And immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him” (Mark 1:10, NASU, emph. mine). Notice how Mark records that Jesus came up out of the water. What must a person first do in order to come up out of the water? To come up out of water one has to first go down into water. 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 verse suggests that Jesus was actually enveloped in the water and had to emerge up out of the water itself. Mark’s use of the Greek preposition ek is in contrast to the preposition apo that he could have chosen to use. The writer could have used the preposition apo if he merely wanted to state that Jesus came from the water. However, Mark’s intentional selection of the preposition ek portrays the idea of an engulfing or burial in water then a literal rising “up out of the water.” The language of this account of Jesus’ baptism could not portray any clearer the act of immersion as baptism. The popular question asked today is “What would Jesus do?” Truly, God demands that a person conform himself into Christ image and walk in His footsteps in every way (1 Pet. 2:21, 1 Cor. 11:1, Rom. 8:29). Therefore, we must decide if we really want to be like Jesus in every way, including the baptismal mode.
The second passage that helps shed light on the baptismal mode is Acts 8:38-39. 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). It is important to notice that this mode of baptism required Phillip and the eunuch to go down into the water. Why did both Phillip and the eunuch have to go down into 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 suggests, the intricate parts of this sentence portray the act of immersion. Envisioning the picture Luke paints, one can see the Ethiopian being plunged into the water by Phillip and then being raised up out of the water. If Luke had in mind sprinkling as the act of baptism, he would not have used this language for one does not have to go down into water to be sprinkled. While it is true that one could go to the water, or stand in the water to be sprinkled, it must be noted that the eunuch does not go down to the water but down into the water. Also, it is important that Luke records that the eunuch came up out of water. One cannot come up out of water unless the water is above him and he is under it.
Those who claim the eunuch was sprinkled forget that he is traveling through a very dry region on a long journey. Remember that the eunuch is traveling from Jerusalem back to Ethiopia. This would be a journey of many miles and would take several days by chariot. Without a doubt, the eunuch would have been carrying a water container with him for this trip. Instead of going to the water to be sprinkled, Phillip could have just taken the Ethiopian eunuch’s water jug and sprinkled him. 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 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.
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 account for the much water John chose to go to. Why did John need 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 baptism must have been by immersion since ‘much water’ is not needed for either sprinkling or pouring” (70). Elaborating on Woods’ statement, one can realize that it is not John’s purpose to tell about the mode of baptism in this verse. However, one must give an explanation for the “much water” where John the Baptist was baptizing. Several reasons have been offered to explain why John went where there was much water. Some have suggested that John went were there was much water so the people could water their camels. However, this is not sound reasoning because a camel’s body is built to go on long journeys without water. Others have suggested that John went were there was much water so the people could have water to drink. This also does not seem to be the best reason because people aren’t going to follow a man into a dessert without thinking ahead about their own survival. John must have had another reason to go to Aenon and baptize. The best evidence suggests 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. Think back to the last time a funeral took place. Remember how the attendants buried the body six feet under the ground after the services were over. Never has anyone seen a funeral director sprinkle a little dirt on a body for the burial. A burial has always been a covering of the entire body. Likewise, the linking of baptism with the idea of a burial clearly shows that Paul recognized baptism is 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 one would only recognize that in everyday situations a burial of anything is a submerging, a covering, and an engulfing, he would have no problem understanding that baptism is full body immersion. These four passages of Scripture combined with the fact that there is no verse in all the Bible that authorizes sprinkling as baptism teach that baptism should be by immersion.
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. Regarding the meaning of baptidzo, all the accepted scholars and lexicons of our day 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 today back Lard’s forthright statement. Nowhere in the Greek language will one 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. 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 a perfect illustration of what the Greek word baptidzo originally meant. When a ship is sunk the vessel must go all the way under the water. Never has a rain shower sunk a ship. 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 observes that 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” (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.
The most eminent linguistic scholars and prominent lexicons who agree that baptidzo means to immerse are: 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 prove the original meaning of baptism in the first century was to immerse, dip, engulf, submerge, etc. Nowhere will we find any evidence from the original language to prove 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. For example, the word rhantidzo is used five times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:13, 19; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2), and in all of these passages it is symbolic of the sprinkling of the blood of bulls and goats which occurred under the Old Testament (Lev. 1-4). Since the Greeks had a word for sprinkling, and the New Testament writers chose to use the distinct word for immersion one can not appeal to biblical or linguistic authority to support sprinkling as baptism. A person must go beyond the authority of the New Testament and make up doctrines and sacraments to suggest that sprinkling is acceptable. 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 baptidzo, and that this means immersion (dunking) only” (Online, emph. mine). After making such a bold statement as this, the only imaginable way that people could approve of sprinkling for immersion is by claiming that the traditions of the church fathers and religious leaders are more important than the teaching of the Father and the Son (See Matt. 15:9; Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17; 2 Pet. 1:3). People need to be reminded of the words of Paul. “Do not go beyond that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).
A third evidence that helps prove 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 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” (Quoted in 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, it should also mean the same thing 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” (Quoted in Ferguson 45). By further developing Cyril’s comment one can understand that they were plunged into a body of water wherein they were surrounded by water on all sides. Therefore, Cyril’s comment 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. These quotes from Christians directly after the beginning of Christianity affirm that baptism was by immersion.
Church history also helps us to understand how sprinkling became an accepted substitute for immersion. Sprinkling began as an option for paraplegic or bedridden people. The first example of this is Novation, a third century Christian. Novation was on a sick bed when he decided to become a Christian. However, it would have been difficult to move Novation to enough water to immerse him. As a result, Novation and the leaders of that day suggested he receive sprinkling or pouring as a substitute for immersion. Later in life, Cornelius, a rival bishop of Rome, held this against Novation saying that he was not truly converted and unqualified to be a bishop (Quoted in Ferguson 52). Building upon Cornelius’ objection, it is very important to notice that during this time period there were considerable objections made about sprinkling being a proper mode for baptism, to the extent that Novation’s conversion was even brought into question. If sprinkling were an acceptable mode of baptism in the early church, then Cornelius would not have objected to Novation being a bishop later in life. This suggests that immersion was practiced as the standard for baptism during this time.
There are several serious problems with the thinking of Novation and those who followed him. First, it is utterly impossible to imagine any situation where a person could not receive immersion. For example, if a man in a wheel chair wanted to obey the gospel it would not be hard to find enough people to lift him into and out of the water. Even if a man were on his deathbed in a hospital it would not be impossible to immerse him. Secondly, God is not a situation ethics God. Just as it is wrong to lie at any time, regardless of the circumstances, so it is wrong to disobey God at any time concerning the proper mode of baptism. God has given us the command; whether we think we are able to keep that command or not does not alter God’s laws. Thirdly, people like Novation, do not possess the proper kind of faith that God requires. Novation needed to possess the faith of the paraplegic in Mark 2:3ff. This man, like Novation, was bed-ridden. However, the paraplegic was able to convince four of his friends to carry him to Jesus break through a roof and let him down by ropes to see Jesus. If Novation really wanted to obey the command to be immersed, he could have had his friends carry him to the water and immerse him.
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 world inherits the sin of Adam. As a result of this teaching, babies inherit their parent’s sin and are born into the world condemned eternally. To solve this spiritual problem babies had to be baptized to wash away their sins. 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 the strong probability of drowning it. Consequently, the religious leaders in the church suggested that babies should receive sprinkling for baptism.
Although it is commendable for people to search after salvation, there are several serious objections to sprinkling babies. 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. The very fact that a substitute had to be found proves that the people during this time period recognized immersion was the proper mode of baptism. It must be recognized that sprinkling babies 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. Sprinkling should not have been used for babies because they have no sin to wash away and are physically underdeveloped to be immersed. 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.
When all the evidence has been weighed the proper mode of baptism is by immersion only. The Scriptures affirm that New Testament Christians practiced immersion as the proper mode of baptism. The primary meaning for baptism in the Greek language is to immerse and Christians directly after the death of the Apostles practiced immersion for baptism. We also should stand upon this evidence and conclude that baptism is only by full body immersion. If a non-Christian were to request sprinkling from a Christian, the Christian should lovingly and tactfully show him more perfectly the way of the Lord.
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.
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.
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.