The Shepherd's Truth      Homepage

Pour, Sprinkle, Splash, Squirt or Immerse? Is the Method or Mode of Baptism Important? And Why was John Called, The Baptist?

WIPING WITH A MOIST THUMB	SPRINKLING  CAN	WIPING WITH A MOIST THUMB
	And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
SPLASHING	IMMERSING	POURING

Vocabulary info
    When considering liquids used for religious purposes, the Bible seems mostly interested in only three kinds: blood, oil and water.  The anointing oil used in such a special way was not just any ordinary oil  (Lev 24:1ff).  Only the Levitical priests had authority to make it, possess it or use it.

    As a concordance will easily show, in the Old Testament all three liquids were sprinkled or poured upon something.  However, only blood or water had something immersed or dipped into them.  Almost always, the purpose of using any of the three liquids, separately or in combination, was to purify, sanctify and make holy.  God's instructions as recorded in Moses' Law were quite specific about how a particular liquid was to be used for a stated function, even stating which finger was to be dipped into which liquid and how the liquid was to then be distributed.  Given the examples of Moses (Num 20:8-12; Deut 32:51-52), Korah (Num 16), Uzzah (2 Sam 6:6-7) and Saul (1 Sam 15) among others, we can justifiably speculate about the outcome of the priest who varied from the Lord's command.  We may wonder, for instance, whether or not Naaman (2 Kings 5) would have been cured of his Leprosy if he had only six times dipped himself in the Jordan, or if he dipped himself seven times in some other river, or if he merely splashed water on his head from the Jordan seven times.  Similarly, it never seems to have occurred to any of the Patriarchs to wonder how using these liquids in the specified manner could possibly produce the result promised by God.  One never finds a statement explaining that the power to accomplish the promised result did not reside in the blood or oil or water, or somehow in the finger of the right hand rather than the left hand.  From the examples listed above, they had very good reasons to believe that if they did not do exactly as God commanded, not only would they not receive the promised blessing, but dire consequences might follow.

Now, in the New Testament, we find that the Greek language contained several words for using liquids.

• Rantizo was used when sprinkling was meant (only six examples:  Heb  9:13,19,21; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Pet 1:2).
• Brecho was used when the idea of liquid (or fire, Lk 17:29) falling in droplets (rain, tears, etc.) was meant.
• Cheo with various prepositional prefixes meant to pour (out, in, on, etc.).
• Chrio and chrisma were used when anointing was meant.
• Bapto was used when the idea of a brief, temporary dipping or plunging was meant.
• Baptizo was used when a longer period of immersion or submerging was meant, usually to effect a permanent change.  Washing used a number of words, depending on the action.
• Louo and nipto appear to be synonyms and commonly meant bathe or wash in general.

    There is also an added problem when we consider the passive "voice" of a particular verb.  Although we may be sprinkledwith something (water, blood - Heb 9:19; 10:22), in order to be the subjects of the sprinkling (or pouring) we would first have to be minced or liquefied.  But such semantic problem does NOT occur if we are to be baptized (immersed, dipped, etc.) or be washed.

    Some modern writers have also proposed that water is not strictly necessary nor intended by the New Testament writers since in many baptismal passages it is not explicitly mentioned.  They suppose that the Spirit is of primary importance, rather than some physical medium.  However, it may be shown that, even when water is not clearly mentioned (river, water, much water, etc.) the ancient people understood water to be the physical medium used--and therefore necessary.  How shown?  By the simple fact that every instance known where water is not intended, there is a qualifying word or description provided by the writer or speaker.  Thus, we find Jesus specifying "fire" and "Spirit" of his special baptism (Mat 3:11; Lk 3:16).  Since Jesus seems to in some way combine "fire" with "Spirit" in these passages, and distinguish them from "water", then--following these modern writers--we would be justified in understanding baptism to mean "with fire" whenever water was not specifically mentioned.  (Actually, some Pentecostal and "holiness" groups do so understand the matter.)

Euphemistic Meanings of Bapto & Baptizo
    Liddel and Scott's Greek Lexicon gives a number of contextual examples from Greek documents outside the Bible.  These uses demonstrate clearly the normal idea associated with the words bapto and baptizo in the minds of the people of that time.  Bapto was used in the contexts of dyeing cloth, plunging red-hot iron into water to "quench" it, or dipping a cup into a bowl of wine.  Likewise, the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament consistently used bapto to translate the Hebrew word meaning dip (e.g. Ex 12:22; Lev  4:6,17; 9:9). Baptizo was used to describe a ship that sank, a man that drowned, a person over head and ears in debt and the city of Jerusalem as being overwhelmed by crowds at the time of the siege.  Can the ideas of pouring or sprinkling be substituted in these contexts and have them still make sense?

Pouring and History
    In a number of books and web pages, the authors cite images from the Roman catacombs to support their idea that Christian baptism was originally performed by pouring.  However, most such authors fail to note the date when these images were made. According to Philip Schaff  (History of the Christian Church), the earliest of any of the catacomb images dates to about the middle to late 2nd Century.  However, the first case recorded in the early Church's writings about baptism by pouring concerned a man named Novation.  This event happened in 251 a.d.  The case was recorded because it represented a conundrum for the bishop in charge.  Novation was sick, possibly unto death, but confessed Jesus and requested baptism.  But his health was such that it was feared immersion might kill him.  Correspondence was made with Rome and permission finally granted to "pour" three large barrels of water over the man instead.  The record states clearly, that although this act had "official" sanction, the common local believers accepted it with great hesitation, questioning his later candidacy to hold church office on this aberration of procedure.  If baptism by pouring had been an original, or even long established, practice, this case would likely not have been mentioned at all, let alone been given such prominence.  For these reasons, it seems unlikely that the catacomb images of baptism by pouring could have been earlier than 251 a.d.  Rather, they most probably began to appear late in the 3rd Century at the earliest.

From Command & Promise  to  Symbol & Confusion
    In spite of what many Baptist and post-Reformation (i.e. Presbyterian, Anglican, etc.) authors have written, Christian baptism was always understood from the first in a sacramental way (as also the Eucharist).   The record of the Ante-Nicene Fathers leaves absolutely no doubt about that fact.  By sacramental is meant the idea that performing a specific act or rite in some way effects or results in obtaining forgiveness for sins committed against God.  This then results in peace with God and avoidance of deserved punishment.  Thus, when Paul applies the word "sacrifice" in his contrasting discussion of the Eucharist and food offered to demonic idols (1 Cor 10), he thereby attaches the idea of sacrament to the Eucharist.  A sacrifice is from ancient times a means of obtaining peace with an angry god--if the sacrifice is satisfactory!  Calvin also spoke of Christian baptism as being a sacrament, but he redefined the meaning of "sacrament".  Believing that God must perform everything pertaining to our salvation--that the individual could perform no acceptable act, (water) baptism became merely a symbol of what he believed God already had accomplished.  Submission to being baptized then became an act indicating the individual's (or their guardian's) acknowledgment and acceptance of what God had done.  In modern times, the semantic emphasis of this symbol has shifted from an acknowledgment by the believer (or their guardian), to being a witness to the audience of what God already accomplished in the one being baptized.  This may seem a subtle difference, but it is a significant one.  It completes Calvin's intent of removing entirely any participation of the believer in their salvation.  And, if the act itself is only an indication of what is already done, then it accomplishes nothing and produces no subsequent, dependent result.  Therefore, logically, whether or not we are baptized cannot affect our salvation.  Failure to comply with Jesus' command (Matt 28:19) is no more serious than to omit any other action (e.g. sharing one's excess possessions).  It may be an indication of a careless obedience, but it cannot mean that we are not saved.  So say the moderns.
    Therefore, one may understand a (Regular) Baptist preacher's consternation over a believing worshipper of a Baptist congregation who refuses to "be baptized".  Regular Baptists officially insist that water baptism is not necessary to be a Christian, meanwhile maintaining that one must be baptised--by immersion (a redundant idea) in order to be a Baptist.  How confusing!  Are Baptists then some sort of super Christians?  And if it is only a symbol, what possible importance could the "mode" be?  Why not have some sanctified fun and have a mud wrestling contest and call it "baptism"?
    Similarly, among the Calvinistic paedobaptists (baptizers of infants), while denying that baptism in any way remits sin, still maintain that it is by this means that the infant is admitted to the Church and joins with Christ and receives the Spirit.  Generally, they are critical of believing parents who refuse to present their children for "baptism" (actually, the action should be called, "rantism" or "brecheism" or maybe, "excheism").  And, while affirming that such a ceremony places the infant into the Church, the body of Christ, yet they still require a following, confirming statement of faith by the grown-up member.  If it is God alone who saves, what need is there for such a "Confirmation"?  Neither do they practice the same concern for grown individuals who are fellow members of the human family.  If by "baptism" and the faith of the parent(s) or guardian(s) the infant may enter the Kingdom, why not drag everyone to the Fount to comply with the ordinance and by the faith of the person doing the dragging and the power of God, enter them also into the Kingdom?  Also confusing is this insistence on the act of "baptism" yet without any concern for the "mode".
    Most recently, I've heard a Lutheran pastor resist a person's request for immersion on the basis that if we are striving for "authenticity" we need also journey to the Jordan (or Aenon) river.  Indeed, if a person's request for immersion was motivated by a desire for authenticity, such a reason would be inappropriate and the pastor's comments justified.  However, if the person's request was based on a desire to be obedient to the exact command of Jesus, they could hardly be faulted.  Yet, while most modern church leaders are usually willing to cooperate with such a request, most also try to argue the candidate out of it, usually on the basis that the "mode" doesn't matter ("it's only a symbol") or that it would be very inconvenient ("we don't have a baptistry").

Only a Symbol?
    If baptism were only a symbol, then many of the frequently repeated arguments against its importance would be valid.  However, if it is more than a symbol, then perhaps closer look needs to be given to the subject.  Certainly, the Fathers believed and taught that it was more than a symbol.  Even Calvin, in the 4th book of his Institutes of the Christian Religion finally joined the ranks of the orthodox by affirming his belief that there were three blessings not obtainable by means other than water baptism:  remission of sins, entrance into the Church (the body of Christ), and the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf Acts 2:38).  It's too sad that most Calvinists choose to ignore this final word of the man whose teachings they claim to follow.
    But, what if it is only a symbol?  What would be the result?  The answer is quite simple.  The modern interpretation of Rom 6:3-6 is that Paul's words are to be understood figuratively...symbolically.  Therefore, we  symbolically die, symbolically are buried and symbolically raised to new life.  We are only symbolically in Christ so our sins are likewise only symbolically forgiven.  For if we have not truly died with Christ, if we have not truly and really been raised to new life, then neither are we a "new creation" and our sins are still upon us.  For Paul asserts that it is by baptism that this change of status takes place (A.T. Robertson notwithstanding).  So also did the Fathers claim.
    Further, if we ignore the importance of the "mode" of baptism...if we "baptize" by sprinkling water, or pouring water, or spraying water or even using squirt guns, we remove the imagery of death, burial, cleansing and resurrection which is inherent in the act of immersion.  "Baptism" then becomes merely a symbol of a symbol.  This is as detrimental to our understanding and our faith as Calvin's claim that the Roman church's practice of conducting the liturgy in a language (latin) not understandable by the believer invalidated the "sacrament".  Calvin asserted that there must be both an action and an understandable explanation of the action for a sacrament to be valid, i.e. for the believer to have faith in God's provision through the sacrament.  It was on this basis that Calvin accused the Roman church of teaching a doctrine of baptismal regeneration.   By their practice, they were teaching that the water itself--apart from any hearing, understanding and belief  (Rom 10:9ff) produced forgiveness of sins--by God's grace and Christ's blood.  This would only be a logical consequence of following Augustine's basic premise.  However, from that time until now, anyone asserting that there is anything about baptism that results in a remission of sins (or any other blessing) has been attacked by the same accusation.  But, as was pointed out above, then Calvin also is guilty of such teaching.
    Finally, we should consider that, according to the New Testament, the revelation of Jesus Christ and of God's secret plan (Grk >> mystery) put an end to symbols, for now we are taught and brought to understand  the fullness of reality.  Once Jesus came, there was no more need for God to use symbols and types.  Old Testament objects and ideas are symbols and types of New Testament realities (cf Heb, Col, Eph).  Adam was a "type" of Christ (Rom 5); the Temple was a "type" of the holy of holies in Heaven (Heb); the Passover was a "type" of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God;  the Flood and the passage through the Red Sea were "types" of baptism.  But while the action of baptism is similar to the image of someone being dead and buried, it is never called a "type" or symbol anywhere in the New Testament or the Fathers' writings.

     The early Fathers' descriptive comments clearly show they believed that, by obedience to God's command to be baptized into Jesus, the promises offered by the Holy Spirit could then be obtained.  Far from being merely a symbol of what had already been done to the believer, they wrote that without being baptized, a person could NOT POSSIBLY be saved, because they could not obtain the three essential promises:  entering Jesus, forgiveness of sins, sanctification by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

    In Luther's Table Talk, "On Baptism" it is recorded that, "In 1541, Doctor Menius asked Doctor Luther, in what manner a Jew should be baptized?  The Doctor replied:  'You must fill a large tub with water, and, having divested the Jew of his clothes, cover him with a white garment.  He must then sit down in the tub, and you must baptize him quite under the water.  The ancients, when they were baptized, were attired in white, whence the first Sunday after Easter, which was peculiarly consecrated to this ceremony, was called dominica in albis. This garb was rendered the more suitable, from the circumstance that it was, as now, the custom to bury people in a white shroud; and baptism, you know, is an image of our death.'"
    Note Luther's explicit description of baptism as being "quite under the water" and requiring "a large tub of water".  If Luther's view of baptism's form was such, how should we understand his follower's practice of sprinkling or pouring?

    The problem is, that the meaning of the word was not translated in the Vulgate (Latin) translation of the Greek New Testament.  Instead, the word was transliterated.  Basically, Roman letters were substituted for the Greek letters.  That practice was continued when the scriptures were translated into other languages, even until today.  Thus, over time, by changing the action performed but keeping the same label, the exact meaning was lost, except to lexicographers and students of ancient writings.  The same sort of shift was reported by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity.  There he states that in the past in England, the word "gentleman" referred to anyone who owned land.  The person could be an evil scoundrel and still be a "gentleman".  But as the social standards and expectations of those with land changed, the term became a synonym for someone with good manners, even though they owned no property at all.  Lewis expressed concern over the observed shift in meaning of the name: "Christian".  We should be equally concerned over similar shifts in meaning of biblical words relating to our salvation.  If Moses could be excluded from entering the Promised Land for a single act of non-exact obedience, if Saul could loose the Kingdom for a single act of non-exact interpretation of the prophet's instruction, if Uzzah could be incinerated because of a single act of disobedient good intentions done out of ignorance and the sons of Korah swallowed up by the earth because of presumptuous and non-exact obedience, then what shall happen to those in the age of grace who fail to follow even more closely to the Lord's command?

Typical reasons not to immerse
>> The thousands of people at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost could not possibly have all been immersed.  There wasn't enough time and there wasn't enough water.
Ans.  Archeologists and historians have both determined that at the time of Jesus, there were baths in most wealthy homes and wells throughout the city, as well as outside the city.  In short, there were plenty of places where baptisms could have taken place.  (see Jn 5:2ff; 9:7ff; 2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chr 32:2-3)

>> To baptize by immersion (again, a redundancy:  to immerse by immersion) is inconvenient!
Ans.  This is worldly reasoning!  Frequently, to obey Jesus is to inconvenience our normal and customary way of life.  "Love your enemies."  "Do good to those who persecute you."  "Give up your life for my sake."

>> Our church doesn't have a baptistry.
Ans.  One might ask the obvious question:  Why not?   But even so, there are plenty of churches nearby who probably do have a baptistry and would be willing to share for such a purpose.  Even if this were not so, most of the world is not covered by desert!  Let us travel as did the Ethiopian eunuch until we can say, "Look!  Here is water.  What prevents me from being baptized?"  There are also companies who make portable or collapsible baptistries at only a small cost.

>>  Our denomination has done it by sprinkling (or, pouring, anointing, etc.) from its beginning.  We'd get in big trouble if we changed now.
Ans.  The main question is:  Who would you be in big trouble with if you did NOT change now?  In other words, Who is Lord and whom do you fear?  And just because something has been done a certain way for years, decades, or even centuries does not mean it was ever right.

>>  The early catacomb paintings in Rome depict baptism by pouring.  This indicates it was a very early practice.
Ans.  As noted above, the episode of Novation indicates that actually, it wasn't common at all until after 250 a.d. else Novation's bishop would not have needed to write to Rome for special permission.  The reaction of the local fellowship of believers confirms this conclusion.  Therefore, however early some of the catacomb pictures may be, it is highly improbable that the ones depicting a pouring style "baptism" were very early at all.

>>  The Didache teaches a conditional baptism by pouring.  This document has been dated to around 120 a.d. making this teaching and practice very early.
Ans.  It is true that the Didache describes this.  However, some studies have shown that those portions are later additions.  This is based on a comparative study of many available manuscripts and the particular styles of the letters and the vocabulary used in those sections.

>>  What about someone who is very ill or confined to bed?
Ans.  Of course, during the Apostle's time and that of those who followed when the gift of healing was still manifest, this would not have been a problem!  However, two matters serve to guide us.  The first is, again, the case of Novation which turned out very badly.  The second are the numerous cases recorded by the various Fathers (esp. Augustine) in which the sickness was often perceived to be an attack by Satan to dissuade the person from obeying Jesus.  In the several cases recorded, when the person demonstrated their faith and obeyed by being immersed, the sickness was gone when the person arose from the waters.  Though it is often feared, particularly in the case of an older person, that the immersion might kill them.  we need to remember that life is from God and in His control, and sickness is from Satan and/or our sin, and physical death is not the worst thing that can happen to us!  Should we, out of fear of physical death, disobey the Lord's command and risk spiritual damnation?  There is also nothing that prevents us from praying for the person's prior recovery, but we also need to remember that the scripture teaches that forgiveness of sins and healing are closely connected (1 Pet 2; Jam 5) and that it is by faith and baptism that we obtain forgiveness and cleansing (Acts 2:38; 22:16;  Tit 3:5).

There may be other excuses found to not obey exactly the Lord's command:  "Repent, and be immersed into the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..."!   (For that was the meaning of the word when Jesus caused Peter to speak them and that is how the people hearing him would have understood him.)

If you have some other reason which you believe justifies not following Jesus' instructions, please email me and tell me about it.  I will do my best to respond.