Introduction
What is the proper mode by which
baptism is to be administered? Three different modes are attested in the
history and contemporary practice of the Christian Church: sprinkling, pouring
(affusion), and immersion. Yet Christians are sharply divided over the proper
administration of baptism. Those who practice sprinkling or pouring will also
accept, and sometimes also practice, baptism by immersion. But those who only
practice baptism by immersion typically reject sprinkling or pouring as no
baptism at all. So which is it? Can baptism be rightly administered by
sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, or is immersion the only proper mode of
biblical baptism? This paper will attempt to answer this question, briefly and
in layman’s terms so as to benefit the average church member. We will
demonstrate that baptism in the Bible is associated with a variety of modes of
administration and that sprinkling, pouring, or immersion will suffice for
biblical baptism so long as the other elements of valid baptism are present.[1]
Definition of Terms
Those who contend that baptism can
only rightly be administered by immersion usually begin their argument by
pointing to the lexical definition of the relevant Greek terms. It is true baptizo means “to dip repeatedly, to
immerse, to submerge”[2]
and baptisma means “immersion,
submersion.”[3]
But this is not the end of the debate. Indeed, it is only the beginning. While
these terms can certainly mean immersion
and frequently do in classical Greek texts, the ways these terms are used in
the New Testament must ultimately determine their meaning there. Context is
important to the debate. If it can be demonstrated from the New Testament these
terms apply to baptism by some means other than immersion, then we cannot
rightly argue that immersion is the only proper mode of baptism.
Baptism as Washing or Purification without Immersion
In the New Testament the Greek words for
baptize or baptism are used several times to describe ceremonial washing or
purification that did not include immersion (Mark 7:4; Heb. 6:2). When a
Pharisee invited Jesus to a meal “he was astonished to see that He did not
first wash before dinner” (Luke 11:38). The word for wash in this verse is baptizo,
the same verb used to describe Christian baptism repeatedly in the New
Testament (cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15, 33;
18:8; 22:16; Rom. 6:3; etc.). Did the Pharisee expect Jesus to take a bath
before eating, or is baptizo being
used to describe ceremonial washing that did not involve immersion? Similarly
in Hebrews baptism (baptismos) is
used to describe Old Testament rituals of purification that were administered
by sprinkling, not immersion (Heb. 9:6-22). The writer uses baptismos to describe “the blood of goats
and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer”
(9:13; cf. Num. 19) as well as the time when Moses “took the blood of calves
and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book
itself and all the people” (9:19; cf. Exod. 24:5-8) and when “in the same way
he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship”
(9:21; cf. Exod. 40:1-16). All of these washings were a type or shadow of the purification Christians receive under
the priesthood of Christ in the New Covenant (Heb. 9:22-26). So clearly baptism is used in the New Testament to
describe forms of ritual purification that did not involve immersion.
Baptism as Symbolic of Identification or Union
without Immersion
Baptism is also used to describe
Israel’s identification with Moses and their salvation from Egypt when they
crossed the Red Sea. Paul parallels Israel’s exodus and the New Testament
Church by noting, “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through
the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all
ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they
drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ”
(1Cor. 10:1-4). Once again, the text has baptizo,
the same word used throughout the New Testament to describe Christian baptism.
Paul says Israel was baptized in the cloud and in the sea, but clearly they
were not immersed (Exod. 14:22, 29). It was the Egyptian army that was immersed,
and they drowned when God closed the waters on them (Exod. 14:28, 30).
If Israel was not immersed in the sea,
in what sense were they baptized? The point of the passage is that crossing the
Red Sea was a type or shadow of Christian baptism. The Israelites passed
through the water on dry ground and were identified with their Savior-figure,
Moses, who was a forerunner and type of Christ. When the Israelites passed
through the sea they left slavery in Egypt and the power of Pharaoh behind.
They were identified with a new leader, they were united to their Savior, and
Paul says that Savior who led them, watered them, and accompanied them through
the wilderness was Christ. Baptism does the same for believers today. In
baptism we leave behind our slavery to sin and the dominion of Satan. We are
identified with a new Leader and united to our Savior, Jesus Christ. He is the
one who leads us through death and will bring us safely to the Promised Land.
Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea was a form of baptism, but it was not
administered by immersion.
Baptism as Metaphorically Overwhelmed without
Immersion
There are at least two passages
where baptism is used to describe a great ordeal or being metaphorically overwhelmed
without literally being immersed in any way. Jesus said, “I have a baptism to
be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!” (Luke
12:50) The Lord was not referring to His baptism by John or the practice of
baptism administered by His disciples. He was referring to the trial of
suffering He would soon undergo to redeem the people of God. This is the same
experience he seems to have in mind when He asked James and John, “Are you able
to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I
am baptized?” (Mark 10:38) James and John would, indeed, be baptized with a
baptism of suffering like Jesus’ own (Mark 10:39; cf. Acts 12:1-2; Rev. 1:9),
though clearly not with its atoning effect. In both passages Jesus uses baptism
to describe an overwhelming experience, but one that did not involve actual
immersion. While it may be observed these verses have nothing to do with the
ritual of baptism prescribed by the Lord, they help us understand how the term
is used in the New Testament.
Additional Observations
There are a number of practical
considerations that must be taken into account as we determine whether baptism
requires a particular form of administration. These considerations are not
determinative in themselves, but they appropriately caution us from too quickly
deciding that immersion alone is biblical baptism. None of these will be
developed in detail, but the reader is encouraged to weigh them carefully in
studying this question.
First, there are the examples in the New
Testament. Are we certain every example of baptism in the New Testament is an
example of immersion? Can we even be certain that any of the baptisms described
in the New Testament actually involved immersion? Immersion-only advocates
typically appeal to passages like John 3:23 which says, “John also was
baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there.” Also Acts
8:38 which relates, “They both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch,
and he baptized him.” But do these passages prove that John fully immersed those
who came to him for baptism? Was Philip immersed along with the eunuch since
“they both went down into the water”? The truth is neither passage is
conclusive. God could certainly have provided enough water for Philip to
immerse the eunuch, but since they were in the desert, it is also possible they
used a small pool where immersion was not possible. It is possible the 3,000
baptized on Pentecost in Jerusalem were all immersed (Acts 2:41), but it is
questionable whether enough baths and pools would have been available for them
to do so. If baptism signifies ritual purification in the Bible, then it is
just as possible the 3,000 were baptized by sprinkling or pouring, rather than
immersion. The same could be said of the Philippian jailer and his household who
were baptized in the city in the middle of the night (Acts 16:33, cf. v.25).
The fact is all of these cases appear to indicate immersion if we assume that
is how baptism is performed. But none of them actually describe immersion. It
is entirely possible some or all of these baptisms were performed by some other
means.
Second, there is the symbolism of
baptism in the New Testament. Immersion-only advocates will frequently point to
Romans 6:3-4 and suggest that only immersion can truly symbolize death and burial
with Christ. But this argument overlooks two important facts. The Jews in
Jesus’ day did not bury in the ground, as we most often do in western culture.
Jesus’ body was placed inside a tomb, not buried underneath the earth. Baptism
identifies us with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, whether or
not the rite visually portrays it. Additionally we should note that baptism
symbolizes many other things besides burial with Christ, none of which are
effectively portrayed by immersion. Baptism is symbolic of being washed (Acts
22:16), clothed (Gal. 3:27), circumcised (Col. 2:12), and sprinkled (Heb.
10:22). It is also associated with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (Acts
2:16-21, 38-39). I personally prefer the mode of immersion, and would recommend
its use in most cases. It does visually depict a union with Christ that
overwhelms and buries and the rising from water to a new life. But the question
is does the Bible require immersion? Is it the only proper mode by which
baptism can be administered? Despite my personal preference for the imagery of
immersion, the weight of New Testament evidence seems to clearly say no.
Third, there is the testimony of Church
history. Scholars debate when sprinkling and pouring first came to be used for
baptism, but there is no doubt they were the preferred forms for much of the
Church’s history. Tradition is by no means determinative for those who believe
in sola Scriptura. But we should not
quickly discount the weight of that tradition. If immersion is the only
acceptable mode of Christian baptism, then most of the fathers, theologians,
and teachers throughout the centuries misunderstood it. Moreover, we would be
compelled to say most of them were never properly baptized, if immersion is the
only proper mode. All of us should be willing to stand on the word of God
regardless of history and tradition, but we must be very certain of our
arguments before we decide so many believers through so many centuries were
wrong on this issue and were actually disobedient.
Fourth, there is the question of
Christian fellowship. Every congregation of God’s people must take seriously
the question of who should be admitted and who should be excluded. No one
wishes to erroneously exclude a true believer (Acts 9:26-28), but we should be
careful not to welcome those clearly rejected by the Lord (2Jn. 9-11; 3Jn.
9-10). The immersion-only view of baptism has significant implications for the
question of Christian fellowship. Should we refuse conscientious, God-fearing
disciples who believe their baptism by sprinkling or pouring was sufficient? We
are not suggesting there should be no standards for proper baptism.[4] We
are suggesting that because of the biblical evidence against a single mode of
baptism, Christians should not be divided over this question.
Conclusion
The debate over the proper mode of
baptism will continue. Nothing new has been said in this brief essay, nor is it
likely these arguments will convince those strongly committed to an opposing
point of view. But I pray these observations will be helpful for those
open-minded enough to reconsider their position and re-examine the Bible’s
teaching on the proper mode of baptism. Baptism is very important (Matt.
28:19), but it is not the gospel (1Cor. 1:17). Each of us must be obedient to
the word of God insofar as we understand it, but we must never lose sight of
the fact that Christ’s work alone is the basis for our salvation (Gal. 6:14). We
are not saved by a perfect theology or even a proper practice of baptism. We
are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, or we are not
saved at all (Eph. 2:8-9). Therefore, let us approach this issue with humility,
with charity, with patience, and with deep gratitude for the fellowship we have
as believers and members of the Body of Christ.
[1] The elements of valid baptism
would include water (Acts 8:36-38), a Trinitarian faith (Eph. 4:4-6; cf. Acts
19:1-7), and the intention of the parties to actually administer true baptism
(Acts 2:36-41). These elements are not discussed or defended in this paper, but
the author would welcome the opportunity for further explanation of these
elements.
[2] Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 94.
[3] Ibid., 94-95.
[4] For example, Mormons baptize “in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” But because their view of God is
non-Trinitarian and their doctrine of Christ is clearly heretical, virtually
all Christian churches refuse to accept their baptism. This is not only
appropriate but necessary, in my judgment (Acts 19:1-7).
