The Biblical mode of baptism
Affusion (sprinkling/pouring) in the Bible:
But first, before we establish the mode of Christ's baptism, we need to take a look at the reason for Christ's baptism. Why was Jesus baptized?
Even though John baptized Jesus, we really cannot say that Christ received "John's baptism". Let me explain:
In fact, John himself felt that it was improper for him to baptize Jesus (Matthew 3:14). How did Jesus change John's mind? Why did Jesus need to be baptized?
Jesus simply told John that "it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). And we know from Deuteronomy 6:25 that righteousness has to do with obedience to the law. So Jesus was submitting to baptism in order to fulfill Old Testament law. Jesus had already submitted to the Old Testament law of circumcision (Leviticus 12:3, Luke 2:21), he went to the temple (Leviticus 12:2-8 and Luke 2:22-23), partook of the the Passover (Exodus 34:23, Luke 2:41), and observed the Jewish feasts (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:3, John 17:10). But what Old Testament law had to do with baptism?
Christ's baptism was the ceremonial act of His ordination to the high priesthood. Jesus Christ was (and is) a priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14, 5:5; 9:11). And according to Exodus 29:4, priests had to be washed with water as a part of their ordination.
Before any man could become a priest, three things were required:
How was Jesus baptized by John? What amount of water was used? Since we know that Christ's baptism was for the inauguration of his priestly ministry, we have some clues regarding the mode of his baptism. In the Old Testament, priests were "washed" with water from the bronze water basin in the courtyard of the Tabernacle (Exodus 29:4; 40:12; Leviticus 8:6) when they were ordained for ministry. And there are two reasons to believe that the priestly baptism was not by immersion:
The basin used for washing was not made for immersion. Exodus 30:17-21 says that it was for the purpose of washing hands and feet. That was it's normal use. But on special occasions when priests were ordained, their washing was apparently done by taking water from the basin and pouring it over the priest. The Bible certainly doesn't indicate that Aaron got into the basin! If Jesus was baptized in the same manner as a priest, then John poured water on Jesus, and did not immerse him.
Also, John the baptist was not located in a place where immersion was even possible. Scripture says that John was "at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water" (John 3:23). Plenty of water was necessary for pouring water on many people for baptism. But while there was "plenty of water", there still wasn't enough for immersion. "Aenon" comes from the Aramaic word which means "springs" or "fountains." Aenon is probably to be identified with a place about eight miles south of Scythopolis, west of the Jordan. In this locality there are seven springs within a radius of a quarter of a mile. But unfortunately for those who are hoping to find proof for immersion, "these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, offer little or no facilities for immersion" (Christy, A Modern Shibboleth, p. 82). Assuming that the area has changed little since Jesus' day, we are again forced to conclude that John's baptism was probably by pouring water over the body, rather than by immersion.
Therefore, in all likelihood, Jesus was baptized by affusion, not by immersion.
(Much of the above section was adapted from a portion of this baptism article).
Let's take a look at the passage:
[36] And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? [37] And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Ironically, immersionists like to quote this passage too. They think that this was a baptism by immersion, because of the going "down" into the water that occurred. However, this argument is very weak. Look closely at the text . . . it says that they both went down into the water. Does that mean that Philip was immersed too? Of course not! It is much more reasonable to simply understand that both Philip and the eunuch walked down the bank, and stepped into the water. They "went both down into the water", just as the Bible says. It doesn't say anything about both of them immersing themselves in the water.
But the real beauty of this text, as pertains to the mode of baptism, occurs earlier in the chapter. Note Acts 8:32-33. The eunuch was reading from the suffering-servant prophecy in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. And Acts 8:35 says that Philip used the "same Scripture" to preach to the eunuch about Jesus. Now if we look at that entire Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 52-53, what do we find? Look at this passage in particular:
Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: so shall he sprinkle many nations . . . (Isaiah 52:13-15)
Throughout the Old Testament, affusion was the only known form of baptism, and never immersion. And when this Ethiopian eunuch became a Christian, it was while reading the Old Testament. Philip preached the Gospel to him using the prophecy of Christ in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. And this passage explicitly says that Christ would "sprinkle" the nations. Acts 8 itself does not tell us what mode was used to baptize the eunuch. But if we are going to assume a mode at all, then should we assume anything other than sprinkling, in light of the Old Testament passage the eunuch was reading?
You have with your arm redeemed your people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. . . . The clouds poured out water: the skies sent out a sound: your arrows also went abroad. . . . Your way is in the sea, and your path in the great waters, and your footsteps are not known. You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron (Psalms 77:15-20)
Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-2)
In Psalms 77, God tells us about his deliverance of Israel, and his creation of a "path in the great waters" by which the Israelites crossed the Red Sea into safety. Somewhere in God's course of doing this, he sent rain upon the Israelites. When the "clouds poured out water", God was sprinkling them.
Regarding our salvation in Christ, and our reception of a new heart, God said:
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)
This passage mentions the "sprinkling" of water in the same context as salvation under the New Covenant. Clearly, a baptism by sprinkling pictures this the best.
Compare Romans 6:3-6 with Exodus 24:8. In both cases, the beneficiaries of the covenant are joined to the death of the sacrifice. In Exodus, it's a sprinkling. In Romans, it's called "baptism".
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. (Exodus 24:8)
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Romans 6:3-6)
The Israelites were the beneficiaries of the Mosaic covenant, and were symbolically joined to the death of the sacrifice by the sprinkling of blood.
Christians are the beneficiaries of the new covenant, and are symbolically joined to the death of Christ by the sprinkling of water.
When God redeems His people, He doesn't immerse them, but He immerses their *enemies* in water instead! God did this with both Noah's family and Israel.
As we know, Noah and his family were the only ones on earth who were not immersed in the great flood of Genesis 6. All of God's enemies were immersed in the flood, but God's chosen people were spared. And in the New Testament, 1 Peter 3:20-21 makes a clear tie between baptism and the salvation of Noah. So whatever pictures baptism best, immersion isn't it!
Similarly, when God saved Israel from Egypt, they were not immersed. By a miracle of God, the Israelites crossed the Red Sea on land, and were never immersed. But God's enemies, the Egyptians, were completely immersed, and were killed in the Red Sea. And in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 10:2 makes a clear tie between baptism and the redemption of Israel. Again, whatever pictures baptism best, immersion isn't it!
More than once, the New Testament makes explicit references to baptism, concerning godly people who were specifically not immersed!
--- article by Joseph M. Gleason - March, 2005
Disagree with me? Feel free to click here and send me an email.
When I was researching the Biblical mode of baptism, this baptism article was very helpful. Also, I highly recommend The Meaning and Mode of Baptism by Jay Adams, a helpful booklet describing the Scriptural mode of baptism:
Should infants be baptized? Or professing believers only? Click here
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.