The Meaning of Baptism

with Special Reference to the Baptist View

(Slightly modified from articles first published in the British Reformed Journal)

(I) Introduction

The Bible is the verbally inspired revelation of the Triune God of heaven and earth. Thus the meaning of its words must be carefully ascertained. Whole controversies can hinge on this. Consider Luther and the Reformation versus the Roman Church in the sixteenth century. Does the Greek word metanoein mean to do penance or to change one's mind (with respect to sin and to God in Christ)? Similarly, does dikaioun mean to declare just (a solely legal act) or does it also include a making just (an organic work)?

Here our concern is with the word baptizein, the Greek word usually translated in the New Testament as "to baptize." With the rise of the Anabaptists, this word also became a subject of debate. Its meaning is especially important since it concerns one of the two sacraments in the Christian church. One section of the church world boldly proclaims that they know the meaning of baptizein. Baptists are adamant that this word always and only means dip or immerse. Consider the following baptist statements:

"Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of the ordinance" (The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1688 29:4).^[1]

"Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer" (The New Hampshire Baptist Confession 14 [1833]).^[2]

"[Baptizein] in the whole history of the Greek language has but one [meaning]. It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has any other meaning." "[Baptizein] ... always signifies to dip; never expressing anything but mode" (Alexander Carson).^[3]

"To baptize is to immerse" (J. L. Dagg).^[4]

Baptism is "immersion and immersion only" (A. H. Strong).^[5]

Furthermore, baptists delight to quote John Calvin: "it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse."^[6] In short, the baptist argument is that God commands baptism. Baptism is immersion. Therefore, God commands immersion.

If the baptists are right then the whole Reformed and Presbyterian church world is sinning by baptizing by sprinkling or pouring, and has been guilty of this sin for almost five hundred years.^[7] This is a very serious charge. If the baptists are right we must alter our confessions, change our Form for the Administration of Baptism and begin to practice immersion in our churches, in obedience to the command of the Lord God.^[8]

Thus, according to baptists, Reformed and Presbyterian churches not only abuse the sacrament of baptism by administering it to infants of believers, but even our adult baptisms are conducted improperly, since our mode of baptism is contrary to God's command. Reformed and Presbyterian congregations are doubly condemned, having extremely few members who are properly baptized.

Therefore, although our main controversy with baptists concerns the inclusion of infants in God's everlasting covenant of grace and their right to baptism, we must also consider the baptist contention regarding the mode of baptism. The argument of this paper is not, however, merely negative. Rather it seeks to present a positive understanding of the meaning of baptism drawn out of the Scriptures and in keeping with the Reformed confessions. If a baptist asks a Reformed believer what he thinks baptism (baptizein) means, what answer ought he give? In other words, this paper asks, What is the heart or essence of baptism?^[9] This has implications for our understanding of paedobaptism and the gracious character of God's sovereignly bestowed salvation.

(II) Baptizein Does Not Mean Immerse

Baptists use two English words as synonyms of baptizein: dip and immerse. However these two words differ in four respects. First, dipping involves the movement of one object into and out of a fluid. In immersion, an object is submerged, but nothing is said of its removal from the fluid. Thus in Greek literature a person baptized in water is often one who has drowned.

Second, whereas the action of dipping is specific (entrance into and removal from a fluid), immersion can be achieved in many different ways. A man sitting in an empty bath could be immersed by the water that flows from the tap. Similarly immersion can be effected by pouring or even by sprinkling. A stone sitting in a bucket could be immersed by water from a watering can.

Third, immersion and dipping also differ regarding the time for which the object is submerged. Dipping speaks of a very brief period of envelopment in a fluid, whereas an immersion is a protracted submersion, possibly of hours, days, weeks or even many years.^[10]

Fourth, dipping does not convey to what extent the object was submerged. A man on a beach may speak of going into the sea for a dip, though he only went in to his waist. Immersion suggests a more complete submersion, though baptists often feel that the word does not convey the thought strongly enough, so they speak of total immersion.^[11]

Thus dipping and immersion differ regarding (1) the action (immersing and emerging or only immersing); (2) the means of the action (immersion can be effected in various ways); (3) their duration; and (4) the extent to which the object is submerged. To express accurately the meaning of baptizein according to the baptists, we may speak of it as a total immersion by dipping. This ought to be understood as allowing the non-dipping of the legs, since in their baptism the initiate usually wades into the water before he is dipped.

Though the baptist understanding of baptizein in the initiatory sacrament is very specific, they understand the word with a great latitude of meaning elsewhere. The baptist use of both dipping and immersion as synonyms of baptizein is very helpful for baptist apologetics. Thus baptizein, according to baptists, can refer to an act (dipping) or a state (immersion).^[12] Though dipping is a weak verb (since the object is only submerged very briefly), immersion is a strong word, since whatever is submerged in a fluid for some time will probably partake of its peculiar characteristics. Furthermore, by figure, baptizein is used with great latitude by baptists when it comes to answering biblical objections to their position, as we shall see.

Nevertheless, at the very least, the baptist has to show that the baptized object is enveloped in the fluid or that the state resulting from the baptism was through dipping or immersion. This is his one great problem, and it is compounded by his definition of baptizein as always and only to immerse or dip. This claim is exclusive. No other ways of baptism can be permitted by a baptist. Thus his theory is easily falsified. One instance of a baptism not by immersion or dipping is enough to falsify the whole theory, whether it be found in classic, Judaic, patristic or biblical usage.

Though the immersionists claim to be the only ones who faithfully obey the biblical mandate for baptism by dipping, one is surprised that they often seek to make their case for immersion primarily from sources other than the Bible. Thus J. L. Dagg, in seeking to determine the meaning of baptizein, gives many examples from the classics (from Aristotle to Aristophanes and Homer to Hippocrates) with a few biblical references thrown in.^[13] These claims are very difficult for most Christians to verify. Moreover, they are apt to be blinded by such a display of learning.

The question here is much more simple and much more easily tested: From the usage of baptizein in the New Testament, does it appear that it always and only means to immerse? The answer to this question is "No." That baptizein means to dip or immerse may be refuted in various ways:

(1) Baptism cannot mean immersion if the object to be baptized is too large to be immersed. Mark 7:4 speaks of the baptism (baptismos) of couches or beds. However, the Talmudic tractate, Kelim, and Maimonides, a Jewish scholar in the twelfth century, speak of the immersion of beds. Carson points out that "the couches might have been so constructed, that they might be conveniently taken to pieces, for the purpose of purification."^[14] Thus we cannot certainly prove that the beds of Mark 7:4 were not immersed.

(2) Baptism cannot mean immersion if there was not sufficient water for immersion. In Acts 8, we read of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, by Philip in the wilderness between Jerusalem and Gaza (v. 26). The eunuch—apparently surprised—saw some water as he and Philip talked, so they left the chariot and Philip baptized him. Are we to suppose that there was enough water to submerge a grown man?

Some have sought to strengthen the case for non-immersion by pointing out that the passage that the eunuch was reading (Isa. 53:7-8; cf. Acts 8:32-33) is only a few verses after a reference to the Messiah sprinkling many nations.^[15] It ought to be pointed out, though, that the Septuagint version, which the eunuch was probably using, does not so translate the Hebrew.^[16] Although it cannot be proved that Philip did not explain to the eunuch the proper rendering of this verse, the non-immersionist case is not necessarily strengthened by this appeal to Isaiah.

Dagg tries to turn the case around.^[17] He says that few are so stupid as to fail to bring water supplies with them in a journey across a desert. Why then, he argues, was there need for water outside the chariot? If baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, surely the eunuch could have stopped the chariot and Philip could have used some of the eunuch's supplies. Against this we must say that since water is precious to those travelling through a wilderness a sight of water outside would naturally suggest using it instead of one's own reserves.^[18]

Thus we return to the issue of water in the desert. Again a conclusive case against immersion cannot be made. One cannot rule out the possibility that there may have been a sufficiently large pool in that wilderness to submerge a man. It is, however, highly unlikely.

(3) Baptism cannot mean immersion if there were too many people to be immersed. On the day of Pentecost, three thousand converts were baptized (Acts 2:41). The five thousand new Christians of Acts 4:4 were also undoubtedly baptized. Three concerns arise for the baptists here. First, we note the relative scarcity of water in Jerusalem. Second, consider the amount of time required to baptize the multitude.^[19] Third, remember the hostility of the Jewish authorities. Are we to suppose that they permitted the despised Christians to use Jerusalem's water supplies?

The first issue is easily overcome. The baptists are quite right: there was enough water to do it. Regarding the second, they note that there were not merely one but twelve apostles and point out similar occasions of mass immersions by baptists. The third factor might make it more difficult but probably not impossible. We must admit that immersion cannot absolutely be ruled out. It is much easier, however, to think of the mass baptism on the inauguration of the New Testament church as being by sprinkling or pouring. Thus Moses sprinkled the blood of the (old) covenant on the Israelites in Exodus 24.

(4) Baptism cannot mean immersion if the one baptized is in a position unsuitable for immersion. In both Acts 9 and 22 we read of Saul's conversion and baptism. Saul, later named Paul, was praying in a house in the street called Straight, when Ananias came to him and laid his hands on him. Ananias commanded Paul, "Arise and be baptized" (Acts 22:16) and Paul "arose and was baptized" (Acts 9:18). Paul had neither eaten nor drank in the last three days (Acts 9:9) and only after his baptism does he have a meal.

The question is, How can a man standing in a house be immersed? Most baptist scholars do not address this question.^[20] John Gill makes an attempt, but it is not very successful. He says that there was probably a bath in the house since, he reckons, it was the house of a Jew. Next, he tries to derive some horizontal and not merely vertical motion from the word "arise."^[21] This does not, however, come from the word itself, but merely from Gill's immersionist presuppositions. For Gill, since baptizein means immerse, there must be a bath in the house, and "arise" must mean "get up and go to it."^[22]

(5) Baptism cannot mean immersion if one party is described as baptized, while another party is immersed. We have occasions of this in the only two Old Testament events referred to as baptisms in the New Testament: I Corinthians 10:1-2 and I Peter 3:20-21.^[23] In the former, Moses and the Israelites pass through the Red Sea on dry land, while Pharaoh and his host are immersed in the water. In the latter, Noah and seven other souls are saved in the ark, while the "world of the ungodly" (II Peter 2:5) is drowned in the waters of the flood. Thus the two great redemptive events in the Old Testament that concern great volumes of water are referred to as baptisms. However, contrary to what would follow from the baptist view of baptizein, the Bible teaches that in the flood and in the Red Sea the ungodly who are not baptized are immersed and the church which is baptized is not immersed!

Baptist attempts to prove an immersion of the godly are not convincing. Carson argues that the Israelites did have a sort of immersion, since the sea was walled on either side of them and the cloud was above them.^[24] Dagg is, perhaps, even bolder. He reckons that the English translation of I Corinthians 10:2 ought to read, "And were all immersed unto Moses."^[25]

Regarding I Peter 3:20-21, Carson says that the ark was occasionally dipped into the flood waters as they rose and swelled.^[26] John Gill reckons that "the ark with those in it, were as it were covered with and immersed in water," since "the fountains of the great deep were broken up below, and the windows of heaven were opened above." Not content with merely discovering an immersion, Gill exhibits even greater ingenuity in discovering both a burial and a resurrection in Noah's baptism. Noah and his family being "shut up" in the ark "represented a burial;" and the resurrection of Jesus Christ "was typified by the coming of Noah and his family out of the ark."^[27]

Other baptists deny that the analogy or "like figure" (v. 21) is between Christian baptism and a Noahic baptism. They say that I Peter 3:20 speaks of Noah's salvation not baptism and verse 21 of our salvation and baptism.^[28] Though we reject the sacramentarianism of the Lutheran scholar, W. H. T. Dau, he does point out the appropriate point of comparison between Noahic and Christian baptism:

Water saved Noah and his family by floating the ark which sheltered them, and by removing from them the disobedient generation which had sorely tried their faith, as it had tried God's patience. In like manner the water of baptism bears up the ark of the Christian church and saves its believing members, by separating them from their filthy and doomed fellow-men.^[29]

(6) Baptism cannot mean immersion if a baptism is effected by pouring. The risen, but not yet ascended, Christ promised His disciples that they should "be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1:5). He was referring to the day of Pentecost, as the succeeding narrative makes clear. The baptist attempt at finding an immersion here is valiant but futile. Some say that they were immersed by the Spirit who filled the room in which they were sitting. To this we must point out that it is not the Spirit but a sound from heaven that filled the house (Acts 2:2).

Carson attempts a more sophisticated evasion. He says that the baptism of Acts 2 is "a figurative baptism in which there is no literal immersion, pouring or sprinkling."^[30] "The baptism of the Spirit is ... explicable on the principle of a reference to immersion," he affirms. "To be immersed in the Spirit (sic), represents the subjection of soul, body and spirit to his influence."^[31]

It ought to be clear to all that Pentecost's baptism of the Spirit was effected by pouring.^[32] This is made clear by the account of Acts 2. The Spirit is "poured out" (Acts 2:17, 18) and "shed forth" by the ascended and enthroned Christ, who "received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:33). That this pouring out of the Spirit is described as a baptism is easily proved from Scripture.^[33]

However, Carson attempts to refute this position. He makes three fallacious arguments. First, he begs the question. He states that baptizein means to immerse, when this is exactly the point under debate.^[34] Second, he resorts to absurd accusations. To those who speak of the Spirit being poured out as the baptism of Pentecost he ascribes "the egregious and blasphemous error which teaches that God is material."^[35] Needless to say, he is unable to prove that this follows from the Reformed position. Third, he fails to make the proper distinctions. He states that our argument equates pouring and baptizing.^[36] This is not true. We hold that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was effected by pouring, but we do not say that baptizein means to pour.

On the significance of this baptism, Jay Adams writes,

If any baptism in the Scriptures is important, it is that which occurred at Pentecost. Joel prophesied it [Joel 2:28-29]; John predicted it [Matt. 3:16]; Christ promised it [Acts 1:4-5]; and Luke proclaimed it [Acts 2]. No other baptism is given as much space or prominence.^[37]

The highly important baptism of Acts 2 was most definitely not by immersion.

(7) Baptism cannot mean immersion if a baptism is effected by sprinkling. Our last example proved a baptism effected by pouring; Hebrews 9 speaks of baptisms effected by sprinkling. Verse 10 of that chapter tells us that the Old Testament economy consisted of "meats and drinks, and divers washings [literally, baptisms, baptismos], and carnal ordinances." That there were a few immersions amongst the purifications of the Mosaic dispensation, we might grant. That immersion was the only, or even the most frequent, method of ceremonial cleansing no one would be foolish enough to assert. But we are not left to search the Old Testament to see to which baptisms (baptismos) the Holy Spirit is referring.

The inspired text goes on to enumerate some of the Mosaic baptisms. In verse 13 we read of the "sprinkling" of "the blood of bulls and of goats" and of "the ashes of an heifer" (cf. Num. 19:17-18). Verses 19-20 speak of Moses' purifying both "the book and all the people" in Exodus 24. With "scarlet wool and hyssop," he "sprinkled" "the blood of calves and of goats [which was mixed] with water." Verse 21 adds that later "he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and the vessels of the ministry."^[38] Not once does the Holy Spirit refer to a baptism by immersion, but three times He speaks of sprinkling.^[39] Thus when Dagg translates Hebrews 9:10 as "divers immersions," we can only wonder at how zealously men will seek to cling to a pet theory.^[40]

One evasion would be to admit that the baptisms (baptismos) of Hebrews 9:10 were indeed effected by sprinkling, but to argue that this is not determinative for the meaning of the verb baptizein. This argument, however, will not do. Greek nouns with the suffix "-mos" indicate the abstract name for the action. If baptizein means to immerse or dip, then Dagg is correct: Hebrews 9:10 must be translated "divers immersions." Since the context forbids this, baptizein does not mean to immerse or dip.^[41]

From our consideration of baptizein in Scripture, it is clear that it does not always and only mean "to immerse."^[42] Moreover, even if it could be proved that baptism was effected by immersion in a few places, the baptist view still would not hold water. Just one example of a baptism not by dipping is enough to falsify the baptist position; and we have found several such examples. Therefore, the Word of God does not forbid but permits baptism by sprinkling or pouring. Reformed and Presbyterian churches are not disobeying the Scriptures in their mode of baptism.

(III) Baptist Arguments For Immersion

One is forced now to consider why baptists argue that baptizein always and only means to immerse. The biblical arguments they adduce for their position can be considered under three heads: places, prepositions and symbolism.

(1) Concerning places, baptists point to John's baptizing "in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (John 3:23). The baptists emphasise the last clause-"because there was much water [hudata polla] there"-but they should also consider the place, Aenon. Thayer says that Aenon is derived from a Hebrew word for spring.^[43] This helps us to understand the hudata polla, translated "much water" by the Authorised Version (KJV). Aenon was probably named after the many waters or fountains or springs that arose there. This is the way hudata polla ought to be translated. Wilbur Christy writes,

Unfortunately for those who are accustomed to find here proof of immersion, these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, as they do to this day, offer little or no facilities for immersion.^[44]

Second, baptists point out that John also baptized at the River Jordan. Why go to a river to baptize, they argue, unless you need a large quantity of water, such as is required for immersion?

First of all, it ought to be noted that John's location in the wilderness is more important than his choice of baptismal site. His wilderness setting is primary, for in this he fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa. 40:3; Mark 1:2-4).

The connection between the Messiah's forerunner and the prophecy regarding the wilderness is not arbitrary. John's mission was to prepare the way for the Christ by calling Israel to repentance. "The biblical concept of repentance, however, is deeply rooted in the wilderness tradition," writes William Lane.

Essential to the prophetic concern with repentance in Hosea, Amos and Isaiah is the concept of Israel's time in the wilderness as the period of true sonship to God, a status into which the Lord is going to lead his people once again in a future time.^[45]

Thus John's location in the wilderness was essential to his mission. Water is scarce in the wilderness, and many people came to John (Mark 1:5). People need water for refreshment and for any animals they may bring with them. Water supplies also vary according to the season. Furthermore, as James Dale notes, "It is notorious that both Gentile and Jew [cf. Lev. 14:51-52] attached a specially purifying value to running water."^[46] What better place to baptize then than at the (lower) River Jordan (which was included in the wilderness region)? Dale argues that in working here, John, who came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17) was acting in accordance with "his great prototype, Elijah." Elijah went "into the same wilderness" and made "his home by the banks of the same river." Dale adds,

The Scriptures teach us, that Elias for a long period together made his home by the brook Cherith, which empties into the Jordan (precisely the same spot occupied by John); but the only use which he made of its waters, so far as we are informed, was for drinking.^[47]

(2) Baptists argue that baptizein means to immerse or dip from prepositions. First, they appeal to the Greek preposition en (in, on, at, with, by, among).^[48] A. T. Robertson writes, "The simple narrative in Mt. 3:6 is that 'they were baptized of him in [en] the river Jordan.'"^[49] Robertson here understands en to indicate the receptive element into which the baptized person is dipped or plunged, but he cannot prove it.^[50] En may refer merely to the place where John baptized them, as it does elsewhere.^[51] For example, we read in John 1:29 that "John was baptizing in [en] Bethabara beyond Jordan." Later we find John "baptizing in [en] Aenon" (John 3:23). Mark 1:4 even records that "John did baptize in [en] the wilderness." Were people baptized into Bethabara, Aenon and the wilderness as receptive elements?

Furthermore, Matthew 3:6 says that the multitudes who confessed their sins were baptized in the Jordan. It does not say that they were baptized in the water of the Jordan. Robertson would have to appeal to other texts which speak of a baptism en udati (in water), such as Matthew 3:11 and John 1:33. The phrase, "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he [the coming Messiah] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," is found-essentially, not verbatim-in parallel passages in Mark 1:8 and Luke 3:16, as well as in Acts 1:5 and Acts 11:16. In these four passages the en is omitted; only udati is used. However, all scholars recognise that this is a dative of instrument: "I will baptize you with water."^[52]

There is, therefore, no necessity to translate the en in Matthew 3:11 and John 1:33 as "in" and then understand this as indicating the receptive element for an immersion.^[53] It is more reasonable to interpret these two verses in the light of their parallel passages, as indicating the substance (water) that John used in his baptism. Just as Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost, according to the biblical parallel, John baptized with water.^[54]

Secondly, Robertson appeals to the preposition eis (into, to, towards, for, among), especially where used in combination with ek (from out of, out from, forth from, from).^[55] He quotes Acts 8:38-39:

They went down both into [eis] the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of [ek] the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip.

Robertson reckons that this and his previous argument present a formidable case, for he wonders "if [any]one could still be in doubt about the matter."^[56] However, his optimism is ill-founded.

First, the text makes it clear that both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, but that only the eunuch was baptized. Therefore, the eunuch's baptism did not consist of going down into (eis) the water and coming out of (ek) the water. Second, since water collects in the lowest places, what else would one do but go down to it and come up from it? Third, this presents no evidence for immersion as opposed to sprinkling or pouring. The latter methods of applying water could just as well have taken place after Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. Fourth, Robertson makes no reference to the difficulty of finding sufficient water in the wilderness for two men to wade into and one to be dipped.

Probably, the most plausible argument for immersion from prepositions is based upon Mark 1:9:

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in [eis] Jordan.

The baptists argue that eis, which is stronger than en, indicates the enveloping element of the baptism. Thus Jesus, they say, was dipped into the Jordan.^[57] If the text had read eis (into) water and not eis ton Jordanen (into the Jordan) their case would have been stronger, but still it requires a solid response.

First, we have seen that water is used as the instrument of baptism. Second, the preposition eis with baptizein in the baptism by John indicates the resultant state. Thus John baptized "unto [eis] repentance" (Matt. 3:11), and he preached "the baptism of repentance into [eis] the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; my translation). This was the "baptism of John" (Luke 7:29; Acts 19:3). Similarly, eis used with Christian baptism, as we shall see later, always indicates "the receiving element (in the New Testament always ideal) into which the baptized element (verbally) passes." It expresses the full subjection of those baptized to the controlling influence of that element.^[58] Thus a baptist reading of Mark 1:9 does not fit with the established New Testament pattern.

The baptist error lies in reading motion into the verb ebaptisthe (He was baptized) and thereby insisting that eis here can only mean "into." Thus they understand the text to indicate that Jesus was dipped (a verb of motion) into-and then taken out of-the Jordan. This conceives of the Jordan not as a locality, as in the parallel passage (Matt. 3:13)^[59] and in the preceding context (Mark 1:5), but as a receptive element. However, as Lenski points out, eis the Jordan (v. 9) is equivalent to en the River Jordan (v. 5). Both are locative "stating where the baptism took place ... and nothing more."^[60]

The question now arises, Why does Mark 1:9 use eis and not en as Mark 1:4 or epi (on, upon, at) as Matthew 3:13? The answer is not far away. Mark 1:9 uses two verbs with respect to Jesus: elthen (He came) and ebaptisthe (He was baptized). It uses one preposition apo (from) to indicate that He came from Nazareth. However, it uses only one preposition to indicate both the place to which Jesus came and where He was baptized.

In his book on the baptism of John, James Dale gives biblical examples where a prepositional phrase with eis (such as eis ton Jordanen) immediately follows a verb of rest (such as ebaptisthe, He was baptized), which is preceded by and connected with a verb of motion (such as elthen, He came). He concludes that in such cases the prepositional phrase modifies both the verb of rest and the verb of motion, in a manner consistent with each verb.^[61] Thus Mark 1:9 tells us that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the Jordan and was baptized at the Jordan.^[62]

Thus there is a great deal to be said for Robert L. Reymond's position that "there is not a single recorded instance of a baptism in the entire New Testament where immersion followed by emersion is the mode of baptism."^[63] However, it must be stressed that even if the reader still thinks that the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch or Christ's baptism or the baptisms of John at Aenon were by dipping, the baptist position still falls to the ground. All the baptisms of the Scriptures must be immersions for their view to hold and for the pourings or sprinklings of Reformed and Presbyterian churches to be unlawful.

(3) Another argument that baptists adduce for immersion is derived from the symbolism of Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:3-5. The latter passage reads,

[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] 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. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

From this text, baptists argue that going down under the water (immersion) portrays our union with Christ in His burial, and that our emersion signifies His resurrection and our share in it.^[64] It is not surprising that baptists should so use this text. After all, they say that one of the Christian sacraments essentially consists of a dipping into and removal from water. In itself there is nothing at all in immersion in and emersion from water that has any particular value. Therefore they need to find some symbolism for their act. What is surprising is that so many non-immersionists think that this text supports the theory that baptizein means to dip.^[65]

First, we should note that Paul is not speaking of ritual baptism but of real baptism, as the context makes clear.

Second, Christ was not buried in the same manner in which people are today, that is by being placed in a hole in the earth. He was laid in a tomb hewn out of a rock (Matt. 27:60). This is enough to explode the baptist theory. A baptist submerged in water cannot symbolise Jesus' burial if Christ's body did not physically descend in His burial. Furthermore, what is the sense of using pure water? How can this symbolise the element into which a dead body is buried? Surely a sand solution or dirty water would be more appropriate.

Third, Romans 6:4-5 does not parallel Christ's physical resurrection with our physical emersion from water, but with our new spiritual life (v. 4) and our future physical resurrection on the last day (v. 5).^[66]

Fourth, the passage can have no reference to the mode of baptism whatsoever since, as John Murray observes:

We have no more warrant to find a reference to the mode of baptism in [sunetaphen, we were buried with Him] here in vs. 4 than in [sumphutoi, planted together with Him] in vs. 5 [sunestaurothe, crucified with Him], in vs. 6 [or in] [enedusasthe, clothed with Him] in Gal. 3:27.^[67]

John Owen’s analysis is similar:

There is not one word nor one expression that mentions any resemblance between dipping under water and the death and burial of Christ, nor one word that mentions a resemblance between our rising out of the water and the resurrection of Christ. Our being "buried with him by baptism into death" [Rom. 6:4] is our being "planted together in the likeness of his death," verse 5. Our being "planted together in the likeness of his death" is not our being dipped under water, but "the crucifying of the old man," verse 6. Our being "raised up with Christ from the dead" is not our rising from under the water, but our "walking in newness of life," verse 4, by virtue of the resurrection of Christ, I Pet. iii. 21.^[68]

What then is the apostle saying? He has just shown that justification is by faith alone and not by the works of man (Rom. 1-5). Someone might respond: "Let us sin that grace may abound!" (cf. 6:1). The apostle first states (v. 2) and then proves (vv. 3ff.) that we are dead to sin. He reminds us of our union with Christ. In Romans 5:12-21, he spoke of our union with Him with regard to blessings: justification, righteousness, life and grace. Now he speaks of our union with Christ with respect to His great redemptive acts. To which event does Paul point to show believers are dead to sin? Not to His ascension into heaven or session at God's right hand (as Eph. 2:6), but to His death and burial, of course (Rom. 6:2ff.).

Since the Christian's position is not merely negative (dead to sin) but positive (alive to God), the apostle goes on to speak of our resurrection with Christ (vv. 4ff.). Thus the apostle refers to our baptism "into Christ" (v. 3). We are engrafted and united to Christ by the Spirit. Paul puts this first. Since we are united to Christ, therefore, we share in His death, burial and resurrection. In other words, partaking of Christ's death and resurrection is through baptism into Him. It has nothing to do with our physical descent into and ascent from water, nor is it signified thereby.

Robert Harbach's analysis bears repeating:

The object of Paul's words is not to show that Christians ought to walk in newness of life because [they were] figuratively raised from a watery grave in a symbolic ritual, but because [they were] spiritually, objectively, historically, unitedly, corporately and representatively raised ... through the death [of Christ].^[69]

The correct interpretation of Colossians 2:12 runs along similar lines. In Colossians 2 the apostle teaches believers about the sole sufficiency of Christ. Through baptism into Him not only are we dead to sin, but we are also dead to the world and to the law (as a means of establishing our own righteousness).^[70] Again, mode has nothing to do with it.^[71]

I have sought to be thorough and fair in my treatment of baptist arguments for immersion from the Bible. One argument-and it is their main one-I have not yet touched upon: the use of baptizein in sources other than the Scriptures. This lies outside the scope of this brief article.^[72] I can only point the interested reader to the works of James Wilkinson Dale, a nineteenth century, American Presbyterian.^[73] Suffice to say that I am in full accord with the position advocated in Dale's works: neither in the Bible, nor in the classics, nor in Jewish nor patristic usage does baptizein always and only mean to immerse or dip.

Why then do the baptists so vehemently insist that it does? Jay Adams gives as his "studied conclusion" that "immersion is propagated as a biblical mode more by repetition and assertion than from conviction stemming from careful Bible study."^[74] Buswell points out the perennial attraction of the immersionist view:

There has always been a tendency, since the New Testament times, to regard immersion as more vivid and spectacular, and thus, somehow more holy than baptism by sprinkling or by pouring.^[75]

(IV) The True Meaning of Baptizein

Now the question comes to us again, What does baptizein mean? Does it mean to pour? No, this would not agree with the baptisms of Hebrews 9. Does it then mean to sprinkle?^[76] No, this would not fit with the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost and its "extension" in Cornelius' house (Acts 10-11). Furthermore, neither of these modes describe the baptism of the Israelites into Moses in I Corinthians 10 or Noah's baptism in I Peter 3, never mind many other instances which we could refer to in the classics.^[77]

Does baptizein, then, mean to purify? There appears to be some support for this in Hebrews 9. The "divers baptisms" (v. 10) effect ceremonial purification or sanctification (vv. 13, 22, 23). The baptisms of "cups and pots, brazen vessels and couches" (Mark 7:4) were purifications. So were the ceremonial cleansings of the Pharisees (Luke 11:38-39). Furthermore, John 3:22-26 seems to support this contention. John is baptizing in Aenon (vv. 23-24), when the Holy Spirit records a question between John's disciples and the Jews "about purifying" (v. 25). Then they came to John and asked him about Jesus' baptism (v. 26). "Without a doubt," writes Jay Adams, "the two words 'purification' and 'baptism' are equated as naturally as 'bishop' and 'elder' in Paul's letter to Titus."^[78]

However, to purify does not agree with all the Biblical references to baptism. Were the children of Israel purified into Moses (I Cor. 10:2)? Was Christ purified with a purification, by His penal sufferings on the cross (Mark 10:38; Matt. 20:22; Luke 12:50)? Nor is this definition wide enough to include many usages in the classics. For example, a man is baptized by an alcoholic drink, when he consumes too much. Origen, a third century Christian theologian, even speaks of certain persons who were baptized "by wickedness."^[79] These baptisms are clearly not purifications.

We need a definition of baptizein that includes purification but is broad enough to do justice to all the various baptisms. Dale's general definition of baptizein is sufficient:

Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state or condition of any object is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state or condition does, in fact, baptize it.^[80]

John Murray's analysis is similar:

[Baptizein], we must conclude, is one of those words which indicate a certain effect without itself expressing or prescribing the particular mode by which this effect is secured.^[81]

Thus baptizein means to change thoroughly the character, state or condition of an object.^[82] Now we must show that this understanding of baptizein fits the New Testament data.

(1) First, we shall consider the baptism on the day of Pentecost. Before Pentecost, the disciples were weak and fearful, but, after they were baptized by the Holy Spirit, they were fully equipped to serve as the apostles of the risen Christ. Now they could speak in various foreign languages—symbolised by the cloven tongues that sat on each of them (Acts 2:3)—and be used in gathering Christ's catholic church. The disciples were baptized into the apostolate. Their condition had been thoroughly changed.

(2) The Scriptures speak of a baptism into Moses (I Cor. 10:1-2). Here, we must note the prepositions. The Israelites were baptized by (en with an instrumental dative) the cloud and the sea into (eis) Moses. When the Hebrews saw Pharaoh's mighty host pursuing them they were "sore afraid" (Ex. 14:10; cf. v. 13) and doubted Moses, accusing him of bringing them out of Egypt to have them killed in the wilderness (vv. 11-12). Moses cried out to the people,

Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day ... The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace (vv. 13-14).

Then God made bare His mighty arm and moved the cloud from in front of the Israelites to between them and the Egyptians. This separated the two people. It brought darkness upon the Egyptians but it was a light to the Hebrews by night (vv. 19-20).

Next, Moses stretched out his rod over the sea which then divided before him. The Israelites crossed the Red Sea on dry ground, with the sea as two great walls on either side of them (vv. 21-22, 29). When God's people had all safely crossed, Moses stretched out his hand again and the waters returned and immersed the Egyptians (vv. 26-28, 30). Significantly the narrative ends:

And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did on the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses (v. 31).

Thus having seen God's mighty power and love toward them in His use of the cloud and the sea, they now believed or leaned upon or trusted Moses (v. 31). As Dale says,

The Israelites having been wavering, unstable and unreliable in their relations to Moses, were made (as a result of the miracles which they had witnessed) to trust, to confide in, to believe upon him, with a confidence second only to that cherished toward Jehovah himself, whose minister and representative they now fully believe him to be.^[83]

Thus Paul says they were baptized into Moses. John Murray expresses it well: "To be 'baptized into Moses' (I Cor. 10:2) is to be bound to Moses in the fellowship of that covenant of which Moses was the mediator."^[84] The Israelites were now under Moses' "controlling influence."^[85] Their condition had been thoroughly changed.

(3) For our final example, we may consider Christ's baptism by John at the Jordan. Though John did indeed baptize Jesus, Jesus did not receive "the baptism of John" (Luke 7:29). After all, John's baptism was only open to guilty penitents and Jesus was sinless. John's ritual baptism signified an inner transformation and was "into the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4; my translation). Of this baptism, Jesus could not partake. Though he suffered for us, He did not undergo vicarious repentance for us. The incongruity was not missed by John: "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" (Matt. 3:14).

What was Jesus' baptism then? John 1 puts us on the right track. In the Gospel according to John, John the Baptist is presented primarily as a witness.^[86] Not only his preaching but also his baptism served to identify and to witness to the Messiah. Thus the Baptist tells us that he came baptizing with water to manifest to Israel the Messiah (v. 31).^[87] John witnesses to Jesus as the supremely worthy One (v. 27), the One who was before him (v. 31), the One who baptizes with the Holy Ghost (v. 33) and the Son of God (v. 34).

Most significantly, the Baptist witnesses to Him as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (v. 29). "The Lamb of God" is the only title he uses twice (vv. 29, 36) and it is the only one introduced by the exclamation, "Behold!" (in both vv. 29 and 36). Furthermore, it is on hearing Jesus spoken of as "the Lamb of God" that Andrew and another disciple begin to follow Jesus (vv. 35-40). This title presents Jesus, not as prophet or king, but in His priestly role. He is the One who would bear the sins of all the elect throughout the world.

Thus Christ's role as priest is uppermost in John's baptism in John 1.^[88] It was to this aspect of Christ's work that John's baptism pointed. Other details need to be supplied to complete the picture, including the circumstances of Jesus' baptism. John, who baptized Jesus, was a priest for he was the son of Zechariah, a priest (Luke 1). Furthermore, Luke 3:23 tells us that Jesus was about thirty years old-the time when priests were ordained (cf. Num. 4:3, 35, 47)-when he began his ministry. Significantly, Luke tells us Jesus' age in the context of His baptism (Luke 3:21-23). Does it now sound unreasonable to say that Jesus' baptism by John was his initiation into His priesthood?

There remains more to be said for this position. We must also consider something of the significance of Jesus' baptism. First, unless we hold this view, we must maintain that Jesus resorted to evasive answers when asked a difficult question. In Matthew 21:23-27 (cf. Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8), Jesus is challenged by the chief priests, scribes and elders regarding his purging the temple (Matt. 21:12-14) and teaching in its sacred precincts (v. 23). At the heart of their accusations was the issue of authority (vv. 23 [twice], 24, 27). What right did Jesus have to do these things (v. 23)?

Jesus answered their questions with a question of His own: "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from man?" (v. 25). The rulers were in a quandary. The people would be enraged if they denied John's divine call. And if they affirmed it, they would condemn themselves, since they did not heed John's admonitions (vv. 25-27). They opted out: "We cannot tell" (v. 27).

If Jesus received from John the "baptism for the remission of sins," this would not give Him authority to cleanse the temple. Then Jesus merely answered a hard question with a hard question. His response, therefore, would have been equally appropriate on any other occasion when the Jewish religious leaders sought to corner him, since it did not deal with the specific issue which the chief priests raised. For their part, they did not respond by accusing Him of an irrelevant answer. They realised they were beaten by a response which perfectly explained Jesus authority to teach in and cleanse the temple. John had ordained Jesus as a priest, and priests had authority to do these things.^[89]

Second, Jesus' words to John the Baptist in Matthew 3:15 are very important: "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Righteousness, as both John and Jesus well knew, is that which is according to the law of God. Jay Adams asks a highly pertinent question:

Christ underwent the law of circumcision (Lev. 12:3 and Luke 2:21); he was presented in the temple (Luke 2:22-23); he went to the passover (Ex. 34:23 and Luke 2:42); he observed the Jewish feasts commanded by the law (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:3, John 17:10); but what law was he obeying at his baptism?^[90]

That law was that of the ordination of priests.

Furthermore, since Jesus speaks of "us" in Matthew 3:15, we must ask, What happened at Jesus' baptism that both John and Jesus fulfilled all righteousness? Or, to put it differently, if Jesus' water baptism was a purification for us, how did John fulfil all righteousness? The only satisfactory answer to these questions is that John fulfilled all righteousness in ordaining Jesus to the priesthood.

In this way, Jesus was possessed of the ceremonial qualifications necessary for obtaining our righteousness with God. He did this through His substitutionary life of obedience and death on the cross. Thus Jesus was not baptized into the forgiveness of His own sins-a blasphemous position-nor was He baptized vicariously, so that the water of His baptism washed away our sins symbolically. Instead, He was ordained our high priest, that He might obtain the righteousness of God for us by faith in His blood.

As an ordination to the priesthood, Jesus' baptism was by sprinkling. This is the manner in which the Old Testament priests were ceremonially authorized for their functions (cf. Num. 8:6-7). They were most definitely not immersed.^[91]

However, most important for our current inquiry is that Jesus' baptism by John fits with our proposed definition of baptism. Jesus' baptism was a change of state, in which He was ceremonially initiated into the priesthood.^[92]

At the time of His physical baptism, God also baptized Jesus spiritually and inwardly by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16-17). Jesus' baptism by water and His baptism by the Spirit were two aspects of the one great act of God appointing and equipping Him as the Servant of Jehovah. The former speaks of Jesus' authorization as Messiah from a formal and outward point of view, while the latter speaks of His inner and spiritual qualification for this office.

Jesus received the Spirit in full measure (John 3:34) to enable Him to fulfil His Messianic mandate (Luke 4:18-19; Isa. 61:1-2). That the Spirit descended on Christ "like a dove" (Matt. 3:16) indicates that He was anointing Him as our gracious high priest (Heb. 4:15; 2:17).

Only by the Spirit's strength was Jesus able to withstand the temptations of Satan, to cast out demons (Matt. 12:28), to proclaim the gospel of grace and, finally, to go to the cross to die as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29; cf. Heb. 9:14). The Spirit's controlling influence upon Jesus is indicated in many ways in the four gospel accounts, and especially in Luke. After returning from His baptism, Jesus "was led by [en] the Spirit into the wilderness" (Luke 4:1). After His temptation in the wilderness, He "returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee" and His fame spread "through all the region round about" (v. 14). Thus in Christ's spiritual baptism, we have another illustration of our definition of baptizein.

(V) The Meaning of Christian Baptism

Having ascertained the meaning of baptizein, it only remains to explain the meaning or significance of Christian baptism. So far we have referred to various examples of baptism in the Bible, arranged below in chronological order:

1. the baptism of Noah and his family (I Peter 3:20-21)

2. the baptism of the Israelites into Moses (I Cor. 10:1-2)

3. the various Old Testament purifications (Heb. 9:10)

4. the Pharisaic purifications (Mark 7:2ff.)^[93]

5. John's baptism into the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4)

6. John's water baptism of Jesus, ordaining Him as a priest (Matt. 3:13-15)

7. Jesus' baptism by the Holy Spirit, equipping Him for His Messianic mission (Matt. 3:16-17)^[94]

8. Jesus' baptism by penal sufferings on the cross (Mark 10:38)

9. the apostles' baptism by the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2)

10. Christian baptism into the name of the Holy Trinity (Matt. 28:19) of families and individuals in Acts and I Corinthians 1^[95]