Not the Biblical mode of baptism
Please understand me . . . I do not think that immersion is evil. Years ago, I was baptized by immersion, and I do not plan to be re-baptized. But if I had it to do over again, I would not choose immersion. The truly Biblical mode is affusion (sprinkling / pouring).
Alleged Immersion (dunking) in the Bible:
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what hinders me to be baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 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. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:36-39)
Note that Philip and the eunuch both "went down both into the water". If that is a reference to immersion, then we must conclude that Philip was immersed too! Afterwards, we see that "they were come up out of the water". Since they both came "up out of the water", does that mean that they were both immersed? I don't think so!
It is much more reasonable to understand that Philip and the eunuch walked down the bank and into the water. They were standing in the water, but they weren't immersed in it! Then Philip baptized him by either sprinkling or pouring. Then, they both came "up out of the water", by walking up the bank out of the water. --- (By the way, if sprinkling was done here rather than pouring, I still think Philip sprinkled a lot of water on him. I think many churches have made a mistake by assuming that only a little bit of water should be used. Whether a baptism is done by sprinkling or pouring, the recipient should truly get wet! That's why they walked down "into the water".)
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17)
When this passage says that Jesus went up "out of the water", is that a reference to immersion? Not necessarily. Similar language is used in Acts 8 when Philip baptized the eunuch. But that passage is more specific. It tells us that they both went down into the water and they both went back up out of the water. Were they both immersed? That would be nonsense! All they did was walk together down the bank, and they stood in the water. Then the baptism was performed. Then they both walked back up out of the water and up the bank. Similarly, Jesus and John the Baptist were both standing down in the water. John baptized him by either sprinkling or pouring a lot of water on him, and then Jesus went up out of the water.
Of course, if Jesus was immersed, the passage could still read the same way. The point is that the phrase "went up straightway out of the water" is inconclusive. Baptists don't want to consider that anything but immersion is possible here. But affusionists, on the other hand, turn to Acts 8, and point out that the same kind of language is used there, where immersion is not a reasonable inference from the text. At the end of the day, we have to go elsewhere to figure out how Jesus was baptized. Fortunately, we can certainly do that, and can figure out the most likely mode of Christ's baptism.
Was Jesus immersed? That is highly unlikely. Christ's baptism was for the purpose of inauguration into his priesthood, and in the Old Testament, this was never done by immersion. Only sprinkling or pouring would have fit the occasion. For a detailed discussion about this fact, please take a look at this article.
Does "baptism into death" and being "buried with him in baptism" imply immersion?
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 (Romans 6:4-5)
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead (Col. 2:12)
First, we need to notice that there is no water whatsoever mentioned in either of these passages! In these passages, Paul isn't talking about water baptism at all . . . he is talking about spirit baptism. Consider what Paul says in 1 Corinthians:
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)
All Christians are Spirit-baptized. When a person becomes a believer in Christ, Jesus baptizes that person in the Holy Spirit, and joins the person to the body of Christ. Water baptism only symbolizes spirit baptism. In Romans 6:4-5, Paul speaks of the baptism that makes us truly "buried with him" in death, and that guarantees we will receive the "likeness of his resurrection". Which baptism is this? Obviously, this only applies to spirit baptism, not water baptism. Water baptism itself doesn't guarantee us anything, because it only symbolizes spirit baptism. In Romans and Colossians, Paul was talking about the same spirit baptism he talked about in 1 Corinthians. Water baptism has nothing to do with it.
Second, we need to take off our 21st century goggles. What about the fact that Romans 6 and Colossians 2 says that we are "buried" with Christ in baptism? Burial in the ground is common now, but that is not the way Jesus was buried 2000 years ago! I agree that immersion is a fairly good picture of being buried in the ground, and then rising again. But that is not what Jesus did! Jesus was placed above ground in the tomb of a rich man, and a stone was rolled in front of the tomb. And immersion is not a good symbol of that at all. Once we realize how Jesus was actually buried, we can see that immersion is not such a good symbol after all.
Finally, consider the comparison to be made between these passages and the record of Moses and the Israelites:
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words. (Exodus 24:8)
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.
In both cases, the beneficiaries of the covenant are joined to the death of the sacrifice. In Exodus, it's a sprinkling. In Romans & Colossians, it's called "baptism". Sprinkling, not immersion, is the best picture of our connection with the death of Christ.
And John also was baptizing in Ae'non near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized (John 3:23)
If we do our homework, we find that John the baptist was not located in a place where immersion was even possible. Scripture says that John was "at Aenon" because there was "plenty of water" there. 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 must conclude that John's baptism was probably by either sprinkling or pouring water over the body, rather than by immersion.
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.
Now, please click here to see many Biblical proofs that baptism should be by sprinkling or pouring.
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.