As a Pastor, I often keep an eye on the spiritual and religious atmosphere and views of the community in which I serve. I have found that in every community I have served, differences of view regarding baptism have surfaced. While the mode of baptism is not the most important consideration for this ordinance of our Lord,[1] it is still a weighty matter. Discussions regarding the mode of baptism should be approached in a spirit of grace and charity as there are sincere followers of Jesus who commend each mode. While advocating that the Bible presents only one right mode of baptism, I hope my respect and Christian affection for believers who differ may be seen.

The deciding factor for Christians and local churches can never be convenience, tradition, sentiment, beauty, or preference. Instead, God’s will, as revealed through Holy Scripture, must determine how we obey the ordinance of baptism regarding mode. Therefore, I set out to make a brief argument for immersion as the only biblical mode of baptism to the exclusion of affusion (pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Scripture reveals four reasons to understand biblical baptism to mean immersion.

First, the word “baptize” used in the Greek New Testament communicates immersion. Since Jesus commanded His Apostles (a command which was passed down to local churches) to make disciples by going with the gospel and then, “baptizing [disciples] in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), we need to know what exactly Jesus was commanding local churches to do and disciples of Jesus to receive. Does the command to baptize mean to sprinkle someone? Does it mean to pour water over someone’s head? Or does it mean to submerge someone under water? The word Jesus used here was a form of the Greek verb βαπτίζω (baptizō).

G. Abbott-Smith’s Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament gives the meaning of the verb βαπτίζω (baptizō) as “to dip, immerse, sink” and explains that it was used in the 2^nd Century BC by Polybius to describe soldiers wading breast-deep in water and of sinking ships.[2] Joseph Thayer provides “to dip repeatedly, to immerge, to submerge” as his first entry for βαπτίζω (baptizō) and “to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water” as his second entry.[3] Thayer explains, “In the N.T. it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ’s command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religions…an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom.”[4] William Mounce says that βαπτίζω (baptizō) “literally means ‘to put or go under water.’”[5] Finally, the most trusted lexicon for contemporary New Testament scholarship gives the following two first entries, “wash ceremonially for purpose of purification, wash, purify” and “to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establish a relationship w. God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize.”[6] Even when the term baptize is used in a different sense than Christian baptism, such as ritual washing of the hands or utensils, the context implies that the entirety of the hands or eating utensils are being enveloped in the water (Mark 7:4).

The definitions, examples, and explanations provided by the aforementioned Greek New Testament scholars for βαπτίζω (baptizō) necessitate that the object of baptism be surrounded by or submerged under water. When Jesus gave the command in Matthew 28, He was giving the command to immerse disciples under water.  

Second, the baptismal ministry of John the Baptist was one of immersion. All four gospels present John baptizing people in the Jordan River. Matthew describes John’s ministry this way, “in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea…Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River” (Mt 3:1, 5-6). Why did John set up the headquarters for his ministry in the wilderness?

If he was trying to reach the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea with his message of the Messiah’s coming, why not set up his ministry in the capital city of Jerusalem where there was a large population of Jews and where those Jews of the surrounding regions would frequent for holy days and business? These Jews of Jerusalem and Judea were, after all, those who were coming out to him in the wilderness. The answer to our question is that John set up in the wilderness at the Jordon so there would be water plenteous enough and deep enough to baptize people by immersing their entire bodies under the water. In his gospel, the Apostle John records that Jesus and His disciples went to Judea and were baptizing there and that John the Baptist was also “baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there” (John 3:22-23).

If John were merely sprinkling each person with water or pouring water over each person’s head, he could have used receptacles of some sort, even large ones such as those containing twenty or thirty gallons of water at the wedding of Cana (John 2:6). Such containers were used for ritual washings in which water was poured over the hands of the observer.[7] John could have used such containers to pour water over the heads of many people and to sprinkle even more with water. But instead, even though it limited his audience, John ministered in the wilderness at the Jordan so there would be plenty of water to immerse those who repented.

Third, Jesus set the example for us in being baptized by immersion. The baptism of Jesus by John is recorded in the three synoptic gospels (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-13, & Luke 3:21-22). Jesus was baptized in the Jordan because that is where the water was abundant for John to be baptizing, as mentioned above. When John baptized Jesus, Mark described Jesus as “[i]mmediately coming up out of the water.” To come up out of the water implies that Jesus, in the act of being baptized, had indeed been in and under the water from which He had to come up and out. This phrase would not have been used if Jesus had been sprinkled or poured over. As Christians seek to be conformed into the image of our eldest Brother (Romans 8:29), being baptized the way He was baptized, by immersion, is significant.

Fourth, the meaning baptism is to symbolize can only be rightly portrayed through immersion. Romans 6:1-13 is one of the key New Testament passages explaining the meaning of water baptism. In Romans 6, Paul makes the argument that Christians, though we were justified by faith and not by observing the Law, should resolutely avoid sin. One prong of his argument is that Christians have been baptized. He explains that when a Christian is baptized, we are baptized “into [Jesus’] death.” He describes this as being “buried with Him through baptism.” Immediately, Paul moves from the death and burial of Jesus to the resurrection of Jesus. He states, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead…we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection.”

In this Romans passage, Paul uses the term “likeness” (ὁμοίωμα, homoioma; image, similitude, resemblance) to describe baptism, showing it to be a symbol. The symbol is meant to represent death, burial, and resurrection in three instances. The first instance is from the past in that the baptism of each believer is meant to be a reminder of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to the local church who is baptizing and the Christian who is being baptized. The second instance is contemporary in that the baptism of each believer represents the regeneration of the believer being baptized. Through faith, this believer has died to sin and is walking in newness of life according to the ways of God. The final instance is future in that the baptism of each believer represents his or her union with Christ. Since Christ died, was buried, and rose again, so too, the believer being baptized, even though he or she will physically die and be buried, he or she will also be physically raised unto eternal life.

The consistency and details of symbols are important because they convey an agreed upon meaning in a community or society. For instance, a wedding band on the ring finger of the left hand communicates that a person is not available romantically because he or she is already in a marriage covenant. If a person decided to replace his wedding band with a bracelet on his left wrist or even just move his wedding band to the index finger of his right hand, it would cease to function as a symbol because the rest of the community does not understand the meaning of the bracelet or the misplaced wedding band. It is similar with baptism. Aspersion and affusion do not convey symbolically the ideas of death, burial, and resurrection. There is no similitude of dying, of being buried, or of being raised through the acts of sprinkling or pouring. In neither does the person go down as into a grave nor come up as in resurrection. Yet, in immersion, the person goes down into and under the water, representing death and burial and comes up out of the water, representing resurrection.  

While symbolic customs may change from culture to culture and age to age, with baptism, we are considering a divine ordinance of a God who does not change (James 1:17). In this brief article, I could have addressed the mode of baptism from a church history standpoint, but I felt that there was no need. The New Testament only portrays baptism, not just by immersion but as, in its very nature, the act of immersion under water. Church history shows that aspersion and affusion developed after the era of the New Testament for the sake of convenience and the ease of baptizing infants (another practice that cannot be found in or supported by the New Testament). But since God has given us the symbol of baptism by immersion and since He does not change, Scripture alone is sufficient to guide us in deciding the right mode of baptism.

As mentioned above, in the discussion of baptism, mode is not the most important concern. It is, indeed, an issue of secondary doctrinal importance. As such, I am grateful for many brothers and sisters I have in Christ even though they have not been baptized by immersion but have instead received aspersion or affusion. I enthusiastically look forward to worshipping Christ with them around His throne in heaven. I acknowledge that I have learned a great deal from fellow saints in the Lord who received aspersion or affusion instead of baptism by immersion. I do however, hope that each brother and sister in the Lord will allow the Word of God to be the sole guide in understanding the mode of baptism as a symbol that those who have not been immersed may partake in the blessing of Scriptural baptism.

---

[1] The nature, affect, and object of baptism are more important considerations. Baptism is not a sacrament but an ordinance and as such, it does not convey saving grace but instead symbolizes it. As the initiatory ordinance of the local church, baptism functions, not only to identify the believer with Christ’s death and resurrection, but to assimilate him into the church body. Holy Scripture gives no indication that anyone other than a born-again believer should receive baptism by Christ’s church (a view known as credobaptism or believer’s baptism). While pedobaptism (infant baptism) is well-meaning, the practice comes out of tradition rather than Scripture and it often brings spiritual harm by giving the unregenerate a false hope of salvation.

 

[2]  G. Abbott-Smitt, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 74.

 

[3]  Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2017), 94.

[4]  Ibid.

 

[5] William D. Mounce, ed., Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 52.

 

[6] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, eds. Frederick William Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 164. 

 

[7] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), 182.