Defense of sprinkling

[Jerusalem Blade]

I've spent years learning to defend – and defending – various aspects of paedobaptism, though I haven't, until recently, focused on sprinkling or pouring rather than immersing as the Biblical mode of baptism. I'm going through some books I have that are very helpful, though if anyone has a fairly brief, easy to understand and easy to communicate presentation of sprinkling, I'd love to hear it – and would be most grateful.

The tack I'm presently exploring is that in the OT sprinkling of blood, and also of water, was for cleansing from the defilement of sin, and this would have been a clear sign of cleansing – also logistically quite viable with large crowds and/or little water – for John the Baptist, and the Jerusalem baptisms after Peter preached in Acts 2:37, 38, 39, 41; and also likely after Acts 4:4.

Two passages that are very interesting are Ezekiel 36:25, 26, 27; and also, speaking of the suffering servant / Messiah, is Isaiah 52:15.

At any rate, anyone one who is exercised in this matter – I'm all ears!

 

[Eyedoc84]

Apart from resorting to the mandatory “baptize=immerse” etymological argument from the immersion-onlyist, there isn’t actually evidence of immersion anywhere in the NT. It is often assumed, but never shown. Given the all the OT baptisms/washings (referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews) that were performed by dipping an object in liquid and applying the liquid to the thing “baptized”, I think it’s quite easy to think that’s how it was done in the NT. Many of the circumstances surrounding NT baptisms would have made immersion incredibly difficult and impractical.

 

[Andrew35]

I do tend to think the strongest historical evidence supports the "standing in water while water is being poured over top of you" view.

I saw an early church baptistry recently (approx. 2nd century?) in an old Roman colony. It was shallow and wide. Definitely something that held a lot of water; but similar to other ancient baptisteries, it didn't look ideal for immersion. At least not how we do it today. Notice how the focus of the semicircle draws attention to the center. Other ancient baptisteries I've seen are cruciform, etc, with a similar focus on the center. This fits the art from the era (and earlier?) showing someone standing in water with water being poured.

 

[Grant]

The Anabaptist just got so much wrong

More seriously, I think it was Calvin in his institutes that believed it rather obvious that the original mode was immersion. I still remain convinced that Westminster handled mode the best in allowing for more than 1, while showing preference to the pour/sprinkle!

 

[Eyedoc84]

As much as I agree with Calvin on most things, I think he was guilty of the same etymological fallacy on this.

 

[Taylor]

Geerhardus Vos has a really helpful discussion in his Reformed Dogmatics:

11. What word in the New Testament is used for baptizing, and what is the force of that word?​

Βάπτω (baptō) means “to dip,” “immerse,” for to baptize and to immerse are related to each other (cf. the English “to dive,” “to dip”). In John 13:26 it is used for the dipping of the morsel by Jesus that he gave to Judas. See also Ruth 2:14 [Septuagint] for dipping the morsel in vinegar by Ruth; Luke 16:24 for dipping Lazarus’ finger in water. In all these passages, the word used is βάπτω, so that positively no doubt need exist about the original meaning. When a Baptist says that baptō means “immerse,” then one should grant him that without reservation.​

A strengthened form of baptō is baptizō (βαπτίζω), and this is the usual word in use for “baptize.” This, too, is originally “immerse.” Actually, baptizein means “immerse repeatedly”; it is an iterative form. Hence it is used instead of baptō in 2 Kings 5:14 [Septuagint], which recounts how Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan. But this iterative meaning is not always maintained, so that often enough baptizein is equal in meaning to baptein. Now, however, this baptizein appears at the same time to have been the usual Greek translation for the Levitical washings and purifications, which again may be connected with the fact that this took place generally by bathing—that is, by immersing the body in water. One may compare, for example, Matthew 15:2, “For they do not wash their hands when they eat” (οὐ γὰρ νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας), with Mark 7:4, “unless they first wash” (ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται).​

​

With this, the concept of baptizō is placed directly under the viewpoint of “washing,” a fact of the highest importance. That this “washing” was in most instances a washing by immersion appears as something accidental that could also be something else, and that, if it had been something else, nothing of substance would have changed. The Levitical purifications were washings of the whole body, also where a sprinkling accompanied them (Num 19:19; see also v. 18; Lev 11:24–28 and following; 17:15; 14:2–8; 15:16–18, 19–24, 25–29, 2–15). That in all these purifications the whole body had to be washed and not just a part had to do with the ceremonial and burdensome character of the Old Testament dispensation. If an easy sprinkling had been sufficient, then perhaps it would have quickly become an outward form. The bathing of the whole body did not easily become a meaningless custom. Then one should also not forget that for the Levitical purification its symbolic character came to the fore. It was therefore in all respects fitting that in the case of uncleanness the whole body was subject to a washing. By that was certainly pictured how the entire person is polluted by sin and how complete renewal is necessary. However, from that it may not be inferred that at baptism as a sacrament, too, complete immersion of the body is necessary. With baptism, not the sign but the seal is surely in the foreground. The New Testament sacraments are not in the first place symbols; they are above all seals of the covenant. Thus it is in no way necessary that the entire symbolism of the purifications of the Old Testament be transferred to the baptism of the New Testament.​

​

The error the Baptists make when they insist that baptizein is immersion and nothing else lies in overlooking the fact just mentioned. Words have their meaning by their use, not by their etymology. One can safely grant not only that originally baptizō means to immerse; indeed, one can even go so far as to say that initially immersion was the customary mode of baptism, without playing into the hands of the Baptists. The point at issue between them and us surely lies in this: whether immersion constitutes the heart and essence of the symbolism of baptism, so that abandoning it would be the same as abandoning baptism itself. When one asks a Baptist, “Why did Christ institute the sacrament of incorporation into the Christian church in this way?” then his answer is: “Because it had to be portrayed by descending into and emerging from the water.” That thereby washing takes place at the same time, since one cannot immerse someone without the water at the same time washing his body is, according to him, something incidental. Baptism would be baptism, and its essence preserved, if one could immerse someone in something else that does not have a cleansing quality. If one poses the same question to us, then we answer: The sacrament was instituted by Christ in this way because He intended to have washing and purification portrayed. The fact that this ordinarily took place in a land like Palestine and according to the Jewish law by immersion or bathing was something incidental and subordinate. If a washing takes place without immersion, then baptism retains its essence.​

​

Thus the issue between us and Baptists is not at all whether baptizein means to immerse or to sprinkle. One can grant, and probably will have to grant, that nowhere in the New Testament has it completely lost its original meaning of “immersing” or “dipping.” The issue is simply whether immersion was the main point or something incidental. And then we say the latter. It was immersion with the purpose of washing, and in order to portray purification. We rely on this when we claim that baptism by sprinkling is just as much the ordinance of Christ as baptism by immersion. From their side, Baptists believe that the Reformation has taken half measures, that Luther and Calvin did not fully clean out the Roman Catholic leaven, and that on them the duty rests to restore original Christianity in its purity.​

​

One should preferably not combat Baptists with weak historical arguments from the New Testament. One can appeal to Mark 7:4: βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν, “washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and couches.” It is said that cups and pots and copper vessels could be immersed, but not couches. It is a question, however, whether these words (kai klinōn) belong in the text. Westcott and Hort omit them. The Revised Version does also. One can also point to Acts 2:41–42. There were 3,000 people added to the church, who for the most part were also certainly baptized. Was that possible in so short a time if baptism took place by immersion? It is not impossible. An equally large number of converts have been baptized in a relatively short period of time by immersion. The appeal to Acts 10:47 is also not strong, since we evidently have to do there with a figurative expression. Peter intends to say: the Holy Spirit has already come upon them; can anyone still forbid water, by which they are signified and sealed? From Acts 16:33 it has generally been inferred that the jailer and his family were not baptized by immersion but simply by sprinkling. But Baptists say that the jail, like most of the large buildings in the Middle East, had a fountain and a cistern. First Corinthians 10:1–2 states that all the fathers were under the cloud and passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. The fact that they went through the water, and that certainly with dry feet, can, it is said, be called already being baptized. They were simply sprinkled with the spattering drops. But there is no mention of sprinkling in the account of these events. The apostle apparently conceived of them such that the sea and the cloud surrounded the people, and so became an element in which they were located. The sea was on both sides, the cloud was over the Israelites; that was their baptism.​

​

Appeal is also made to passages that speak of a baptizing with the Holy Spirit: Matthew 3:1 (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί); Mark 1:8 (ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὑμᾶς ὕδατι, αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ); John 1:33 (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ); Acts 1:5; 11:16 (ὑμεῖς δὲ βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ); 1 Cor 12:13 (καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν). The question is how this “in the Holy Spirit,” as it literally stands in all these passages, is meant. Is the Holy Spirit the element in which one is baptized, in which God, as it were, immerses, or is it to be understood as a being baptized with the Holy Spirit? In the latter case, ἐν, equivalent to בְּ in Hebrew, would be an instrumental preposition. In Mark 1:8 it is without doubt “by means of water … by means of the Holy Spirit.” But from this it does not yet follow that sprinkling is thought of, for one can also call baptism through immersion a baptism by means of water. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, the translation “by means of one Spirit” appears to us the most natural, but sprinkling is not proven by it. By all of these things one can only deprive Baptists of proofs, not obtain proofs for his own views. See the commentaries on these passages.​

​

—Geerhardus Vos, Ecclesiology, ed. Kim Batteau and Allan Janssen, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 5, Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 121-124.​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

First Corinthians 10:1–2 states that all the fathers were under the cloud and passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. The fact that they went through the water, and that certainly with dry feet, can, it is said, be called already being baptized. They were simply sprinkled with the spattering drops. But there is no mention of sprinkling in the account of these events. The apostle apparently conceived of them such that the sea and the cloud surrounded the people, and so became an element in which they were located. The sea was on both sides, the cloud was over the Israelites; that was their baptism.

It is true that in the Exodus account of these events there is no mention of the dropping of rain; however, neither is Moses and St.Paul the only inspired testimony, interpretation, or commentary pertaining to the event. The cloud was more than simply "over" them.

Ps. 77
15 By Your power You have redeemed Your people,
The sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah
16 The waters saw You, God;
The waters saw You, they were in anguish;
The ocean depths also trembled.
17 The clouds poured out water;
The skies sounded out;
Your arrows flashed here and there.
18 The sound of Your thunder was in the whirlwind;
The lightning lit up the world;
The earth trembled and shook.
19 Your way was in the sea
And Your paths in the mighty waters,
And Your footprints were not known.
20 You led Your people like a flock
By the hand of Moses and Aaron.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Understanding the substance-accidents distinction is helpful when dealing with this issue. Even if we grant that most/all baptisms in the New Testament were carried out by immersion, it does not follow that all baptisms today have to follow the same mode. Why? Because washing with water in the name of the Holy Trinity is of the substance of the ordinance, whereas the precise mode of washing is merely accidental to it.

 

[chuckd]

I agree with Daniel. What does baptism do? It washes. Shower, bath, sprinkling, dunking. Make the person clean.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

For consideration:

Dr. James Anderson (1678–1740; Presbyterian):

As in the three preceding verses the deliverance of the chosen people from Egypt, and the drying up of the Red Sea, to make a way for them to pass through, are the subjects celebrated, it is very natural to suppose that the 17th and 18th verses [of Psalm 77] refer to the tempestuous rain, the thunder, lightning, and earthquake, by which God testified his wrath against the Egyptians, and by which that ruthless host were filled with dismay, when they went into the midst of the Red Sea after the Israelites. Of these particular circumstances, we have indeed no distinct information in the narrative of Moses; but from a comparison of what is here stated, with what is said in Ex. 14:24: ‘And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,’ it seems highly probable that they took place on that occasion.​

​

With this corresponds the representation given by Josephus of this part of Jewish History [Antiquities of the Jews, 2.16.3] . "As soon as ever the whole Egyptian army was within it, the sea flowed to its own place, and came down with a torrent raised by storms of wind, and encompassed the Egyptians. Showers of rain also came down from the sky, and dreadful thunders and lightning, with flashes of fire. Thunder-bolts also were darted upon them; nor was there any thing which used to be sent by God upon men, as indications of his wrath, which did not happen at that time; for a dark and dismal night oppressed them.’​

(editorial note; Commentary on the Book of Psalms, by John Calvin, James Anderson, ed., [Edinburgh: 1849], in loc. cit.)​

This proposition seems most consistent with the psalmist’s statement that the judgment visited on the Egyptians included a storm from the “clouds” (עָב֗וֹת - plural), whereas Paul states that the Israelites were baptized “in the [supernatural] cloud [νεφέλην - singular];” cf. Exodus 13:21, 22,14:19, 20.

Calvin himself posited another possible explanation of the text, suggesting this part of the psalmist’s description may be in reference to an earlier judgment event:

What history is here referred to is involved in some degree of uncertainty. Perhaps it is that which is recorded in Ex. 9:23 where we are informed, that hail mingled with thunder and lightning was one of the dreadful plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians. ‘The arrows which went abroad’ are, no doubt, to be taken metaphorically for lightnings.” (Ibid.)​

Again, why do we want to reduce or eliminate water from a baptismal text?

I should think we'd expect the Israelites got a little wet at least; though how, since the soles of their feet were dry? Instead of using our imagination about sea-spray, or what it might have "looked like" if only we could have seen the event according to a sea-level camera-eye perspective from the side (down under and back up!), instead we have a text that actually talks about rain from the clouds.

But Ex.14 and 1Cor.10 only refer to cloud, singular? What's that got to do with whether there was rain? Ps.77 indicates there was rain, and thunder and lightning. The text tells us the Egyptians were discomfited by the shekina cloud's presence that day into the night, making it "cloud and darkness" to them, vv19-20. They were huddled down, prevented from spying on the breach opening in the waves, and seeing Israel surging across the sand.

How does Israel know there's rain upon the Egyptians? Do they only see/smell it at a distance in the twilight, hear the swoosh of deluge, attend the thunder and lightning? Or might well they have felt the felt the fringe of the storm (being so close to it as they were)? God spares his people, and overwhelms their enemies. Everybody was baptized that day: Egyptians in the depths, Israel in the cloud.

The whole latter third of Ps.77 is focused on the singular event of the Red Sea crossing, every line of the poetry evokes the moment. Why should we think Josephus gives us a safe rendering (replete with more detail than any biblical text provides)? Ex.14 teaches that the Egyptians were relieved somewhat of the storm, and were able to see Israel was escaping, so pursued them. The cloud had to have risen, though (v24) it remained above. What wetness was there on the (previously dry) sea floor to take off their chariot wheels, if not the rain? Only then, the storm passed and the sun just risen, seeing Israel secure on the far side and Moses with his rod uplift, as they panicked to turn back the sea waters returned to finish them.

Calvin doesn't nail the exegesis, scrounging back into the plagues for the proper reference (no hail in Ps.77), instead of sticking with ch.14 (though, he certainly gets it right about the lightning/arrows).

From the text, I think Israel probably felt a sprinkling of that rain.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The thread author has requested this be moved to where he had originally intended it, paedobaptist answers only. Please note this and because of the rules, debate contra Paedobaptism is not allowed.

 

[JM]

Sorry, I thought this thread was about spanking. My bad.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Back to seeking a cogent defence of sprinkling as a primary mode of NT baptism. I’ve been reading on this, and a couple of books have a wealth of knowledge – Leonard J. Coppes’ The Baptism Debate, and James W. Dale’s 4-volume set on the Greek word Baptizo, and the meaning of that word in its various usages.

Some of the things I understand are: there is the real baptism, which is that effected by the Holy Spirit, whereby we are united with Christ and with His church, and the ritual baptism, which is the outward, symbolic sign of the real baptism.

Also, in the OT the sprinkling of blood was a type – a priestly ritual – of cleansing from the pollution of sin, looking forward to the antitype of Christ’s blood cleansing from sin (Exodus 29:21; 24:6,7,8). The sprinkling of water was another of the Levitical rituals (Num 19:17-19), the water also signifying – and in the place of – blood, and the Jews were familiar with these forms of divinely ordained cleansing.

It is said of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:15, “So shall he sprinkle many nations…”, a reference to the blood of Christ, as in 1 Pet 1:2, the “sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”, Heb 12:24, “to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling”, Heb 10:22, “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience”, and elsewhere.

Ezekiel 36:25,26, 27 speaks on the same wise, saying, “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 an 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.” Except in verse 25 it is the LORD speaking of what He will do, and water here replaces blood as a symbol of it.

One of Dale’s foremost points – and upon which he rightly insists – is that we must abide in the historical context. When beginning to comment on John 3:5, he says, “These words were spoken in the midst of Judaism. The entire life and death of the Lord Jesus were within the Jewish economy. All of its rites and ceremonies, as divinely appointed, were in legitimate existence” (Christic Baptism, p 360). To bring in, then, a sort of “baptism” and its effects unheard of in Judaism – and this while talking with a Pharisee steeped in the law and the various rituals of cleansing – would have been a grossly ignorant anachronism spoken by the Lord of glory, the fount of all wisdom and knowledge.

There were legitimate uses of water for purification of sin in the Jewish economy, but, as with John’s baptism of repentance, and Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit, the spiritual realities of moral renewal and regeneration were the antitypes to which the types of the various sprinklings and pourings pointed, concerning which the Pharisees were mostly oblivious, with their desire to make the outside of the cups and platters clean while leaving the insides filthy (Matt 23:25-26).

It does appear that so much of contemporary Christianity’s idea of baptism pertains simply to immersion – even if they rightly see it as an outward sign of an inward reality – yet anachronistically imposing this mode completely alien to the divinely ordered system of typical cleansing from the pollution of sin in Jesus’ day.

At any rate, I am looking for a simple and concise summation that will enable me to both understand and present why sprinkling / pouring is the Biblical way, both as regards the real baptism effected by the Holy Spirit, and the outward symbol or sign – the ritual baptism – that points to or reflects the real. Bruce @Contra_Mundum, can you help me out here?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Not sure what you're looking for, Steve. Our Confession says negatively (against Anabaptist affirmation), that full-body immersion is not required, that is there is no scriptural insistence on mode. As for the Holy Spirit himself, he is said to be "poured out," Joel 2:28-29/Act.2:17-18, cf. Is.32:15; 44:3; Ezk39:29; Zech.12:10; Tit.3:6. Ezk.36:25 connects the sprinkling pattern of OT ritual cleansing to the calling of the Gentiles; Act.10:45 takes note the Spirit is poured out on them also. Heb.10:22 ties "sprinkling clean" the heart with bodily washing the external body using water--to me, it's an obvious allusion to the rite and import of baptism, the mode being essentially indifferent; but why not an external sprinkling matched to an internal? Seems reasonable, perhaps even obvious.

I'm not sure (though once a long time ago I waxed more dogmatically) that there is an indubitably superior mode to others; although, I personally find dunking both unsuitable for public worship (which I think is the place for baptism); as well as an extravagance/luxury requiring furniture or facilities beyond the simplest NT worship demand. Naaman is the only example I can think of in the Bible plainly testifying of that mode; while there are many alternative purifying examples, modes and practices spelled out in the law and life of God's OT people; see many places in the law, and compare with Heb.9&10.

In Act.10:47, we have doubt expressed that any should "forbid water" for baptism. To me, it implies that water would be brought, unless it was deliberately held up. And to bring it would (typically) call for something handy in which to carry it; and not a major undertaking. The chosen term doesn't fit well (in my judgment) with bringing a person to a font or a pool. In Act.22:16, Paul rehearses how he was told to "Arise and be baptized." While the command does not necessitate depiction of the posture he assumed for receiving baptism (and if dunking is imagined, clearly it cannot be); for anyone who is not predisposed to immersion as the sole mode, the command is not a call to get-up-and-go someplace, but is in fact ordering a more suitable posture than sitting/reclining in the room where the men met (Ananias standing, Paul looking "up" at him, v13). I don't think there was any need to move beyond the command: "Arise!"

Probably, there is more to say. But I think that uniting the outpouring of the Spirit himself, or the fact of cleansing the heart via a "sprinkling"--these realities--ought to be considered a proper antitype for a ritual type that aims to teach or express the truth by means of a corresponding external act.

 

[Christopher Robin]

In the New Testament, baptism is compared to Noah's flood (1 Peter 3:20-21) and the Exodus from Egypt. In both examples the justified are said to have been brought through the water, thus my Baptist friends conclude that the word "through" also indicates immersion.

I'm not so sure we can hold Noah's flood and Israel's exodus across the Red Sea as good examples, though, since in both instances the people of God were sprinkled, and their enemies, well... immersed.

 

[Eyedoc84]

In many of the OT rites that Hebrews calls “baptisms” there was indeed a dipping that took place, but it wasn’t of the object cleansed. It was a finger or a hyssop branch or whatever. The object undergoing the rite was then sprinkled.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I'm still pondering this topic, and I have come to think that compilations of scholarly testimonies and lexical studies, which both sides – the immersionists and those who sprinkle or pour – can produce in abundance, will not solve, at least to the others' satisfaction. So I will continue studying it, and will share what I come to here as regards "a fairly brief, easy to understand and easy to communicate presentation of sprinkling" – if the thread does not close first! I am still "all ears" to any help that may be given!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thread reopen after normal autolock.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

Here are my notes from my church membership class on this topic while going through the Westminster Confession of Faith (had to rework footnotes into parenthetical notes so hopefully I didn't miss anything):

WCF 28:1: ... “ … baptism basically has to do with a ‘merging’ or ‘identification.’”; so in 1 Cor. 12:13, “The baptism is … into the body of Christ.” (Jay Adams, Meaning & Mode of Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1976) , 34-35.)

WCF 28:3: Dipping (or dunking) a person is “not necessary”; this does not mean immersion is an option, but rather that the practice is only “rightly [or correctly] administered by pouring or sprinkling”. While not directly addressing the WCF here, John Murray’s comments seem to reflect this interpretation, if not of the Confession, of the Scriptural doctrine on mode: “ … there are numerous instances in which the action denoted does not imply immersion and which prove that baptism does not mean immersion (cf. Lev. 14:6, 51; Matt. 15:2 Mark 7:2-5; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor. 10:2; Heb. 9:10-23) … the ordinance is properly [correctly] administered by sprinkling or affusion.” “Baptism” in Collected Writings, vol. 2, 373. Jay Adams explains: “ … mode cannot be separated from meaning. The sacraments are symbolic. If so, then ‘mode’ and ‘symbol’ are one and the same … Mode and symbol, and therefore mode and meaning, cannot be divorced.” (Jay Adams, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism, vi.) A number of considerations are in order about baptism’s mode and meaning:

a. Christ’s baptism was related to His anointing to office as with the sprinkling or pouring of oil over the head of priests and kings (Ex. 29:7; Num. 8:6-7; 1 Sam. 10:1; Ps. 2:2: King Jesus is “my anointed”). As well, the sacrament represents the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which in Acts 2:17-18, 33, is said to be “poured out” on the Apostles, and later to have “fell on them” (and so they were “baptized”) in 11:15-16 (Adams, 23). Van Dixhoorn says “ .. the actions of sprinkling and pouring repeatedly symbolize the divine work of salvation in the Bible in a way that immersion simply does not.” (Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 371).

b. The Greek word for to baptize (βαπτίζω) has a broad usage, but primarily means to dip, to purify, to wash; it is used interchangeably with another Greek word that means “to wash” (baptism represents inner cleansing and purification by the regenerating and renewing washing of the Holy Ghost that unites us to Christ). Ward explains, “The root idea of the Greek word baptize is not total immersion but an intensive dipping which involves a transformation (cf dyeing) …” (Rowland Ward, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 76). So, in Mark 7:4, “wash” and “washing” is the Greek “baptize” and “baptizing”, including a table (not immersed). In Lk. 11:38, the Pharisees marveled that Jesus had not “washed” (“baptized”) before dinner (see Mt. 15:2 of His disciples), and they didn’t mean diving into a lake, but using a utensil.

c. Heb. 9:13, 19, 21, and 10 refer to the OT “sprinklings” of blood to ceremonially cleanse, atone, or sanctify the people and the tabernacle and its ceremonial tools as “baptisms” (translated “washings”; see the connection with 10:22, 24 related to sprinkling of Christ’s blood to cleanse consciences.)

d. Moses and the OT Church were “baptized” under the cloud (Christ) and by the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1-4), just as Noah and His family were “baptized” by the flood waters (1 Pet. 3:20-22); they were savingly sprinkled by merciful mist while God’s enemies were immersed with judgment.

e. Paul was baptized standing up by a bedside (Acts. 9:18, 22:16), and, “In the case of Saul’s baptism, the baptism of the household of Cornelius, and that of the household of the Philippian jailer, since each of these acts of baptism was carried out within a home (Acts 9:11; 10:25; 16:32), and in the last case sometime after midnight (Acts 16:33) but before dawn (v. 35), it is virtually certain that these baptisms would not have been by immersion, since few homes in those times would have had facilities for such an act …” (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 933).

f. When it is said of outdoor baptism events that they were “coming out of or up from the water” (Mark 1:9-10; Acts 8:36-39), note that Luke says such of Philip and the eunuch, but Philip was not baptized—he did the baptizing; and, the Eunuch had just read Isaiah 53, which is preceded by 52:15: “So shall he sprinkle many nations …” (see also Ezek. 36:25) (Reymond, 932). They came up from out of the water location (not out from under the water). So when Israel crossed the Jordon River into the Promised Land, the priests stepped their feet into water, but then the waters were blocked up and they crossed over on dry land, of which they then were said to “come up out of” (Josh. 3:13; 4:16-19). R.C. Sproul points out that with where the Ethiopian and Philip were (Acts 8:26), “It is doubtful that in that ‘desert’ between Jerusalem and Gaza … there was enough water for an immersion.” (R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess, vol. 3, 119). David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error, 219-220: “ ... we read of three thousand baptized in one day, in the streets of Jerusalem, by twelve apostles at the most, where there was no river to dip them into (Acts 2:4I). And was not Jerusalem and all Judea and the region round about Jordan baptized by John the Baptist alone, which could not be done to all and every one by dipping (Matt. 3:5-6)?”

g. Van Dixhoorn cites these other considerations: “ … there were times when too many people were baptized to permit immersion. Acts 2:41 tells us that 3,000 people were baptized on one day in Jerusalem. It is hardly possible …” Also, “ … there were times when baptism happened too quickly … at once … (Acts 16:33). The language of immediate baptism [with the Philippian jailer and his family] does not suggest that they went through the city and were baptized at the river, or a pool. Paul probably reached for a jug or a bowl and, after explaining baptism, poured or sprinkled water on these new converts.” As well, “The only plausible picture of immersion in baptism is that of Romans 6 or Colossians 2, but arguably it is plausible to us because we think of burials vertically, six feet under the ground, whereas in hard Palestinian soil burials were often effected horizontally, behind a rock in a cave.” (Van Dixhoorn, 371, 372). More importantly, Rom. 6 and Col. 2 are figures of speech for union with Christ.

h. “Total immersion lacks Old Testament precedent or clear New Testament justification.” (Ward, 176).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you, Grant – that's very helpful, saves me some work, as I'd not dealt with the uses and meanings of the word baptizo in the NT.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I deleted an earlier post in lieu of this revised and polished version (aided in the first few paragraphs by pastor Grant's Scripture references above).

Sprinkling as True Baptism

A brief mention, first, of numerous New Testament instances in which the action spoken of is “washing”, “wash”, or “baptized” all from the underlying Greek βαπτίζω – baptizō or its cognates – and do not involve immersion, and which shows that “baptize” in the NT does not mean immersion. A few examples: Mark 7:4, 8; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor 10:1-4 (the Israelites “were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea”); Heb. 9:10. βαπτίζω – baptizō is used interchangeably with another Greek word, νίπτω – niptō, that means “to wash”, Matt 15:2. There are more examples, these just a few.

In Acts 9:18; 22:16 Paul was told to arise – stand up – and be baptized, most likely having water poured or sprinkled on him right there. The Jews were familiar with such “baptisms”!

The baptism of Christ by John at the Jordan River, as well the many thousands who came to John there for baptism, Phillip’s baptism of the eunuch in the desert, the baptism of thousands in Jerusalem on Pentecost and afterwards, the Philippian jailer, Cornelius and his people – were by sprinkling or pouring, as can be demonstrated, but not here, due to space limitations – this just an introduction.

A supposed Muslim convert once told me Jesus was immersed in the Jordan by John, and when I asked him how he knew that, said, “I saw it in the movies.” So much error is due to popular imagination.

This is the result of my seeking a simple and concise summation so as to both understand and present why sprinkling / pouring is the Biblical way, both as regards the real baptism effected by the Holy Spirit, and the outward symbol or sign – the ritual baptism – that points to or reflects the real:

It is clear that sprinkling or pouring is the right mode of baptism for adults and infants, although immersion is allowable but “not necessary” or rightly done as the Westminster Confession says at 28:3.

After king David sinned terribly (the incident with Uriah and Bathsheba –2 Sam 11-12), in his cry to the LORD for mercy and cleansing in Psalm 51, in verse 7 he says, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” David may have had the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb in mind (Exod 12:22), or the cleansing ceremony of Lev 14:4, 6 ff admitting the cleansed and healed leper back among the people, or the making of the water of separation and purification (Num 19:6, 18), or all of these where hyssop is the means whereby the sprinkled blood or water is applied to the sinful and unclean (see Plumer’s BOT Geneva commentary on the Book of Psalms, on Psalm 51:7, p 558).

Charles Spurgeon, though a Baptist, beautifully captures the sense of Psa 51:7, saying “Sprinkle the atoning blood upon me with the appointed means. Give me the reality which legal ceremonies symbolize. Nothing but blood can take away my blood-stains, nothing but the strongest purification can avail to cleanse me. Let the sin-offering purge my sin. Let him who was appointed to atone, execute his sacred office on me; for none can need it more than I.” (Treasury of David).

In Isaiah 52:15 it is said of the Messiah – Jesus Christ – “so shall he sprinkle many nations”, which, over a century later, is reiterated by the LORD Himself speaking through Ezekiel regarding the New Covenant He shall establish with God’s people,

“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 an 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” (Ezek 36:25, 26, 27).​

The sprinkling of water symbolizes the sprinkling of blood:

Heb 10:22 “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

Heb 12:22, 23, 24 “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”

1 Pet 1:2 “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”​

The blood is referred to in Zechariah 13:1, “In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness”, but we do not sprinkle the blood referred to for that has been abundantly shed upon the cross of His death, a propitiation for sinners offered by our now risen and living High Priest, and by faith we receive from Him its life-giving power, in the figure of sprinkling. The Holy Spirit makes this real in our lives and consciousness. On earth we receive the sprinkling of water, signifying the spiritual reality of the death and resurrection of the Atoning Sacrifice, the Lamb of God, and us joined – united – together with Him by the Spirit.

By this baptism of sprinkling we are given an outward washing, a ritual purification, symbolic of the inward reality, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, of which Paul speaks when he says,

Romans 6:3, 4, “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.”​

We are purified, as David asked of the LORD, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” He asked this of the LORD directly, not for the ceremony with hyssop, but by faith looking forward to the slain Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, giving to us what He promised: “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isa 1:18; Cf. Psa 32:1,2).

Purification by sprinkling or pouring, both in the outward symbol or type, and the inward reality of the Holy Spirit’s baptism (1 Cor 12:13; Acts 2:17, 18), is Biblical.

It is a sacred rite – a sacrament – the sprinkling of baptism, which echoes back millennia among the people of God as His appointed rite of purification and cleansing from sin and uncleanness, its spiritual reality working in the hearts of His elect. In the sound Presbyterian and Reformed churches of today we hear that joyous echo, and rejoice in it ourselves, giving thanks to our triune God through the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of all typical atonements, reconciling us and uniting us to the God who loves us with so great a salvation!