Jesus baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Answer is that we don't know if he was baptized by sprinkling/pouring or full immersion. He was baptized in a river so it makes sense that John had to enter the river as well to baptize him.
 
if you you were to hold to baptism by immersion , you would be able to answer why Jesus and John went into the water I.e, to be immersed . But I can’t find or think of a reason as to why they would have went into the water to be sprinkled .

Btw I hold to Westminster standards, just trying to better answer objections to sprinkling
 
There were great crowds coming to him, it was in the wilderness i.e. for example no watering troughs that could have held sufficient water for either sprinkling a large number of people, nevermind immersing them.

In other words no matter what the method going down into the water would have been the sensible thing to do.

If you're after arguments against immersion, or at least favouring/permitting sprinkling or pouring you'll find better by looking at the symbolism of the Spirit etc. in the OT baptisms referenced in NT, and also at the fact that immersion is not clearly exemplified in the baptisms in Scripture and unlikely in some cases, such the baptism of the Phippians jailor and his household. Also in ambiguity that in Romans 6 Paul has anything to say about mode from the burial motif or whether he is majoring merely on the death and new life motif, especially given that Jesus was not buried at all in the Western sense.
 
An early Christian symbol for John the Baptist was a shell, supposedly the instrument he used to baptize (pouring).

Of course, that is not authoritative, but it shows that the early Christians didn't think that immersion was necessarily implied merely by them having been in the river.
 
There were great crowds coming to him, it was in the wilderness i.e. for example no watering troughs that could have held sufficient water for either sprinkling a large number of people, nevermind immersing them.

In other words no matter what the method going down into the water would have been the sensible thing to do.

If you're after arguments against immersion, or at least favouring/permitting sprinkling or pouring you'll find better by looking at the symbolism of the Spirit etc. in the OT baptisms referenced in NT, and also at the fact that immersion is not clearly exemplified in the baptisms in Scripture and unlikely in some cases, such the baptism of the Phippians jailor and his household. Also in ambiguity that in Romans 6 Paul has anything to say about mode from the burial motif or whether he is majoring merely on the death and new life motif, especially given that Jesus was not buried at all in the Western sense.
Thanks for the reply . I’m not argueing against sprinkling. I believe that Christ was baptized by pouring or sprinkining due to the reason you stated . But an objection to to a pouring / sprinkling position would be what stated, why go into the water if your not going to immerse . I think you offer a good explanation . But what about in the case of the Eunch ? He was the only one baptized and him and Philip both went into the water . How would you answer that objection .
 
Thanks for the reply . I’m not argueing against sprinkling. I believe that Christ was baptized by pouring or sprinkining due to the reason you stated . But an objection to to a pouring / sprinkling position would be what stated, why go into the water if your not going to immerse . I think you offer a good explanation . But what about in the case of the Eunch ? He was the only one baptized and him and Philip both went into the water . How would you answer that objection .
Same reason:
Acts 8:26 ESV “Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place.

No great numbers here of course. But do note: The Presbyterian and Reformed churches do no say that immersion is illegimate, but just that it is not necessary. I think John Murray probably makes the best arguments on this subject in his book Christian Baptism - see here https://archive.org/details/christianbaptism00murr
 
Same reason:
Acts 8:26 ESV “Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place.

No great numbers here of course. But do note: The Presbyterian and Reformed churches do no say that immersion is illegimate, but just that it is not necessary. I think John Murray probably makes the best arguments on this subject in his book Christian Baptism - see here https://archive.org/details/christianbaptism00murr
It’s been a while since I read Murray’s book. I’ll have to brush up on that chapter again.

An honest objection from an immersionist would be that there was no need for both
Of them to go into the water especially because it was only the Eunch that was being baptized . I think your explanation in Jesus baptism makes sense with many people coming to John to baptized .
 
An honest objection from an immersionist would be that there was no need for both
Of them to go into the water especially because it was only the Eunch that was being baptized . I think your explanation in Jesus baptism makes sense with many people coming to John to baptized .
True. However that does not imply immersion in and by itself - both went down into the water and both came out of the water - that merely locates them during the baptism but does not require immersion. It may have been immersion - the text does not tell us. It would be a poor basis for the the doctine if that's all we had to go on.

All the text requires is that they went into the water far enough to get their feet wet, nothing more nothing less, though it may have been more!
 
My position is well-known here on PB, but why not jump in again.... First I would ask, what does your own “instinct” tell you when you read Scripture? There has been an overwhelming historical consensus on the matter based on a convergence of evidence that uniformly and most sensibly points in one direction. I’ll just cite a few representative sources I’ve encountered over the years that evince the extent of this understanding (including some of the similarly described baptism of the eunuch).

I’ll also mention that historically the earliest supposition that Jesus may have been baptized by pouring that I’ve come across is from the 13th Century. In total, there were (and still are) only a very small number who entertain(ed) this view prior to some devoted Reformed and Presbyterian non-immersionists beginning in the 18th Century.


[G. Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament {TDNT}]: ...Eis may occur where one would expect en, e.g., when being in a place results from movement to it, e.g., Matthew 2:23; Mark 1:39; Mark 1:9 (dipping into the Jordan is suggested here)...​
[J. Thayer, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament]: …Baptizō...with prepositions...eis, to mark the element into which the immersion is made. ...Mark 1:9...en, with dative of the thing in which one is immersed. ...Mark 1:5. ...John 1:31.​
[Heinrich Meyer (German Lutheran; acclaimed Greek exegete), Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew - on Matthew 3:11]: ...En is, agreeably to the conception of baptizō, not to be taken as instrumental [i.e., with or by], but as in, in the meaning of the element, in which baptism takes place.​
[H. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke - on Mark 1:9]: ...[baptizō]…eis ton Iordanēn [“in the Jordan”] Conception of immersion.​
[Hippolytus (2nd Century) Discourse on the Holy Theophany] For you have heard how Jesus came to John, and was baptized by him in the Jordan. Oh wonderful transactions! How the boundless ‘River that makes glad the city of God,’ [Revelation 22:1–2] was bathed in a little water; the incomprehensible fountain that sends forth life to all men, and has no end, covered by meager, transitory waters!​
[Lactantius (3rd Century) Divine Institutes] As soon as he [Jesus] began to grow up, he was dipped by the Prophet John in the River Jordan...​
[Augustine (4th Century) - Aurea Catena, on Matt. 3:13-15]: The Savior willed to be baptized, not that He might Himself be cleansed, but to cleanse the water for us. From the time that Himself was dipped in the water, from that time has He washed away all our sins in water.​
[Second Helvetic Confession – Reformed] Baptism was instituted and consecrated by God. First John baptized, who dipped Christ in the water in Jordan.​
[John Calvin - Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles]: “They went down into the water.” [Acts 8:38] Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water.​
[Dutch Annotations – Reformed - on John 3:23] They that were baptized by John, went into the water with their whole bodies (see also Matt. 3:16; Acts 8:38).​
[Westminster Annotations – Reformed - on Matt. 3:6] ‘Were baptized.’ Washed by dipping in Jordan, as Mark 7:4; Hebrews 9:10.​
[Francis Turretin, Decas Disputationum; de Baptismo] For as in baptism, when performed in the primitive manner, by immersion and emersion, descending into the water and then going out of it, of which descent and ascent we find an example in the eunuch, Acts 8:38, 39.​
[Wilhelmus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service] The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matthew 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death” (Romans 6:4).​
[John Lightfoot (English Presbyterian - Westminster divine), Works, Vol. 11]: That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same [Levitical] manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes) seems to appear from those things which are related of him, namely: [1] that he baptized “in” Jordan; [2] that he baptized in Enon, near to Salim, “because there was much water there;” [3] and that Christ, being baptized, “went up out of the water;”...to which that seems to be parallel (Acts 8:38), “Philip and the eunuch went down into the water.”​
[Herman Venema (Dutch Reformed) History of the Church, Vol. 3]: It is without controversy that baptism in the primitive church was administered by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling; seeing John is said to have baptized “in Jordan,” and where there was “much water,” as Christ also did by His disciples in the neighborhood of those places (Matt. 3 and John 3). Philip also “going down into the water,” baptized the eunuch (Acts 8). To which also the apostle refers (Rom. 6).​
[Philip Doddridge (English Congregationalist) – Works, Vol. 8]: Baptism was generally administered by immersion. ...It would be very unnatural to suppose, that “they went down to the water,” merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many vessels in his baggage, on such a journey through so desert a country, a precaution absolutely necessary for travelers in those parts, and never omitted by them.​
[George Campbell (Scottish Presbyterian) The Four Gospels, Translated from the Greek]: Nothing can be plainer, than that if there be any incongruity in the expression in water, this in Jordan [Matt. 3:6] must be equally incongruous. The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse. ...It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus, it is en hydati, en to Iordanē.
But I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, which answering to the Hebrew beth, may denote with as well as in, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly, the baptized are said anabainein, to arise, emerge, or ascend, (Matt. 3:16, apo tou hydatos, and Acts 8:39, ek tou hydatos,) from or out of the water. Let it be observed further, that the verbs raínō and rantizō, used in Scripture for sprinkling, are never construed in this manner. ...When therefore the Greek word baptizō is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import [i.e., en Iordanē = “in the Jordan”; en hydati = “in water”].​
It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partisan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party.​
[John Gill (English Baptist) The Ancient Mode of Baptizing] If plunging is not a necessary inference from what is revealed concerning Christ’s baptism, I am sure sprinkling or pouring of water can never be; and I will leave it to any impartial man of judgment, whether there is not a greater probability of Christ's being baptized by immersion, when he went ‘into’ the river Jordan to be baptized, and accordingly was baptized there by John, than there is of his being baptized ‘in’ that river only by an affusion or sprinkling of water upon him.​
 
There were great crowds coming to him, it was in the wilderness i.e. for example no watering troughs that could have held sufficient water for either sprinkling a large number of people, nevermind immersing them.

I object to (complain about..?) this view here (second/middle part of post).
 
Same reason:
Acts 8:26 ESV “Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place.

Dr. William Thompson (1806–94), an American Presbyterian chronicler and missionary to Syria and Palestine, factually disabused this modern, translimitanus supposition as to why the eunuch could not have been immersed—namely, an imagined scarcity of water, given the event occurred in a desert during early summertime. In an extensive documentary about the region in which he personally lived and ministered for over forty years, Thompson observed:

[In leaving from Samaria] he [Philip] would then have met the chariot somewhere southwest of Latron. There is a fine stream of water, called Murubbah, deep enough even in June to satisfy the utmost wishes of our Baptist friends. This Murubbah is merely a local name for the great Wady Surar, given to it on account of copious fountains which supply it with water during summer. (The Land and The Book, Vol. 2)​
 
There has been an overwhelming historical consensus on the matter based on a convergence of evidence that uniformly and most sensibly points in one direction.
Not given to exaggeration I see? :)

However you mistake me for someone that feels strongly against immersion in any of these texts. If you read what I actually wrote you'll see that I left the issue rather open.
 
An early Christian symbol for John the Baptist was a shell, supposedly the instrument he used to baptize (pouring).

Of course, that is not authoritative, but it shows that the early Christians didn't think that immersion was necessarily implied merely by them having been in the river.

Had to go back and gather some research I’d previously done on this...

Not sure what you may mean by “early Christian” but I’ve not found where a shell was ever referred to or used as a symbol for John the Baptist prior to the 14th Century. If I’ve overlooked any credible sources that say otherwise I’m happy to reconsider. The earliest association of a shell with a person in Christian sources appears to be with James the Greater.

The earliest depiction of John using a shell for baptism is from the Orthodox Baptistery in Ravenna, Italy, from which many modern assertions of John’s “historical” shell iconography appear to be derived. The baptistry itself is mid 5th Century, but the current imagery is from a 14th Century restoration, as the Christian art historian Dr. Josef Strzygowski (1862–1941) noted.

In the existing mosaic John holds in his outstretched right hand a flat shell, out of which he pours water on the head of Christ. This mode of conception, as in the Lateran sarcophagus, is furnished by a restorer of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, who paid no regard to the original representations. The evidence of this is in the fact that there are not to be found in Italy, or elsewhere, before this period, any representation in which John administered baptism to the Redeemer by pouring water from a flat shell on his head. (Iconographie der Taufe Christi)​

Dr. Earl Smith (1888–1956), who chaired the Department of Art and Archaeology at Princeton University, believed the mosaic in Ravenna’s Arian baptistery—in which Jesus’ baptism is depicted in the traditional manner—would have replicated its slightly earlier catholic counterpart as it originally existed.

The two scenes of the Baptism on the fifth century mosaics of San Giovanni in Fonte [orthodox] and the Arian Baptistery (Santa Maria in Cosmedin) at Ravenna show a strange mixture of Eastern and Western features. The restorations of the mosaics of San Giovanni have greatly altered the iconography. It is probable, however, that the scene of the Baptism in Santa Maria in Cosmedin is a copy of the earlier scene in San Giovanni in Fonte. Such being the case, we may with Strzygowski ascribe to the restoration of the earlier mosaic the patera [shell] in the hand of the Baptist, the substitution of the cross for the pedum [shepherd’s crook], and the placing of the nimbus [halo] on John’s head. (Early Christian Iconography)​

I’ll not post pictures or links due to Second Commandment issues, but current pictures of the orthodox mosaic clearly show an area with lighter background tiles in the upper and central sections of the image, inside of which all of the mentioned replacement features are found. Dr. Spiro Kostof (1936–91), a Greek architectural historian also did an extensive study of the orthodox structure, and created a diagram showing where “modern restoration” has affected the mosaic, in which this same large area is distinctly included. (The Orthodox Baptistery of Ravenna)

Some local historical references also deserve consideration in this matter. Foremost would be various writings from Peter Chrysologus (c.380–c.451), the Bishop of Ravenna at the approximate time when the original orthodox baptistery began construction. In homiletically describing John’s baptism, Chrysologus wrote:

He [John] went to the Jordan, because a water jar could no longer wash away the filth of the Jews, but only a river could. (Sermons, 137)​

And so that this mystery of awesome mercy would be evident, Zechariah, your son [John] submerges [demergit] his Lord in the baptism of repentance... (Sermons, 90)​

As for the baptismal practice of his own church, Chrysologus wrote:

Let the faithful listen and learn how the three days the Lord spent in the grave are represented by the triple immersion [trina demersione] in baptism. (Sermons, 113)​

In addition, an ivory relief of Jesus’ baptism featured on the highly ornate 6th century cathedra of a succeeding Bishop of Ravenna, Maximianus (499–556), depicts Jesus’ baptism in the classical manner, with Jesus standing in the water (which, as in the case of the two baptistery mosaics, is waist-deep) while John’s right hand rests firmly on the Savior’s head.

In light of Strzygowski’s dating of the revised depiction, it is also interesting to recall that the first church synod to explicitly put affusion on fully equal terms with immersion was held in the early 14th century (1311)—in Ravenna.
 
Last edited:
It seems entirely reasonable and practical, regardless of mode, to go to the water for a baptism. The people are more mobile than the source of water. Even if John is using a hyssop branch to sprinkle, wouldn’t it be easier for John to stand at the river and people come to him than for John to carry around a container that he has to keep going back to refill? They both go unto the river because that’s where the water is.
 
It seems entirely reasonable and practical, regardless of mode, to go to the water for a baptism. The people are more mobile than the source of water. Even if John is using a hyssop branch to sprinkle, wouldn’t it be easier for John to stand at the river and people come to him than for John to carry around a container that he has to keep going back to refill? They both go unto the river because that’s where the water is.

The lack of historical references or descriptions of this kind of practice in any Hebrew/Jewish sources, renders it conjectural and improbable. It's a novel interpretation suggested only by a few post-17th Century Christians of a particular persuasion on baptism.
 
The lack of historical references or descriptions of this kind of practice in any Hebrew/Jewish sources, renders it conjectural and improbable. It's a novel interpretation suggested only by a few post-17th Century Christians of a particular persuasion on baptism.
I didn’t make any argument that this is what John did. I said “Even if…” Of course I would say your claim of it being “improbable” is also conjectural.
 
Not sure what you may mean by “early Christian” but I’ve not found where a shell was ever referred to or used as a symbol for John the Baptist prior to the 14th Century.

Yes, it appears my statement was less well-founded than I thought. I did read up on the Arian and Orthodox baptisteries of Ravenna, and seems there have been some editorializing in the mosaic republication renovation.
 
But what about in the case of the Eunch ? He was the only one baptized and him and Philip both went into the water . How would you answer that objection .
A reasonable question that arises directly from Acts 8 is why the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip to be baptized in the first place? He desired Philip to explain a portion of the fourth Servant Song of Isaiah (52:13-53:12) that he had been reading in his chariot when Philip came upon him. That Servant Song begins like this: "Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; so shall He sprinkle many nations..." (Is. 52:13-15a)

Makes sense to me why the Ethiopian eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" He desired the promised cleansing--a sprinkling--by the Servant Philip preached to him beginning from that Isaiah passage. There is nothing in the text that requires a baptism by immersion after Philip and the eunuch went into the water. Them going down into the water doesn't refer to the act of baptism, otherwise Philip was baptized too. It only means that they stepped from the land on the edge of the water into the pool or stream that they came upon. The Isaiah passage, which is part of the biblical context of this scene, strongly suggests that the baptism was done by sprinkling.
 
Last edited:
A reasonable question that arises directly from Acts 8 is why the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip to be baptized in the first place? He desired Philip to explain a portion of the fourth Servant Song of Isaiah (52:13-53:12) that he had been reading in his chariot when Philip came upon him. That Servant Song begins like this: "Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; so shall He sprinkle many nations..." (Is. 52:13-15a)

Unless, as some scholars suggest, he was reading from the LXX, where in verse 15 the Greek θαυμάσονται thaumazo (be amazed or astonished) stands in place of the Hebrew נָזָה nazah (sprinkle). "Thus shall many nations wonder at him; and kings shall keep their mouths shut: for they to whom no report was brought concerning him, shall see; and they who have not heard, shall consider." (Brenton Septuagint Translation)

The verses quoted here [in Acts 8:32, 33] are Isaiah 53:7-8, and are given word for word from the LXX, which it is most probable that the eunuch was reading, as being made in Egypt that version was most likely to be circulated among those Jews with whom this man would be brought into communication. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges - so too Heinrich Meyer, et al.)​

There is nothing in the text that requires a baptism by immersion after Philip and the eunuch went into the water. Them going down into the water doesn't refer to the act of baptism, otherwise Philip was baptized too.
(John Gill; The Ancient Mode of Baptizing) [But] for what purpose should they both go down into the water, if the ordinance was to be performed any other way [than immersion]? Or what need would there have been of it? But if plunging cannot be inferred from hence, I am sure it is impossible that pouring or sprinkling should.​
[Addressing the non-immersionist argument that both Philip and the eunuch are said to be involved in the same action] ...Consider, that the one went down as an administrator, the other as a subject of baptism; the one to baptize, the other to be baptized....[Now] suppose the ordinance was administered by pouring or sprinkling water, might it not be as justly inferred, that because they both went down into the water, one to perform, and the other to have it performed, and came up again out of it, when it was done, therefore they both had water poured upon them, or were sprinkled with it?​
 
Last edited:
Yes, it appears my statement was less well-founded than I thought. I did read up on the Arian and Orthodox baptisteries of Ravenna, and seems there have been some editorializing in the mosaic republication renovation.

Nice play on words

When I was looking into the matter years ago, I was surprised at how many authors took the orthodox mosaic as immediate evidence that early Christians believed Jesus was baptized by pouring, apparently without doing much research on it or realizing its much later origins. H. Old confidently calls it “the most remarkable picture of baptism. … [This] traditional picture of baptism had evolved at a time when pouring was the normal way to baptize.” (The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite)

It is also interesting that the Arian baptistery in Ravenna (as probably the original mosaic in its orthodox counterpart) shows both John's hand on Jesus' head, and fluid being dispensed on his head from a hovering dove. A few scholars have also interpreted this as a baptism by pouring (e.g. B. B. Warfield, H. O. Old, C. F. Rogers, P. de Puniet). However, other scholars (e.g. C. Bigg, P. Schaff, W. Cote, H. Stander, J. Louw, E. Ferguson) and all early Christian art historians I've browsed (J. Wilpert, F. Beltrami, G. Bottani, R. Garrucci, J. Strzygowski, E. Smith, R. Jensen) interpret the hand-on-head as the chosen pose to represent an assisted immersion.

The latter interpretation has the great advantage of aligning with early literary descriptions of baptism rather than being confounded by them. Here are two lyrical examples from writings generally contemporaneous with when the baptisteries in Ravenna were constructed.

(Problems indenting quotations again)

[Jesus speaking] “Lend me, therefore, O Baptist, thy right hand for the present administration, even as Mary lent her womb for my birth. Immerse me in the flow of Jordan [Kataduson es tois Iordanou reithrois], even as she who bore me wrapped me in children’s swaddling-clothes. Grant me thy baptism even as the Virgin granted me her milk. Lay hold of this head of mine, which the seraphim revere. With thy right hand lay hold on this head, that is related to you in kinship. ...Baptize me, who am destined to baptize those who believe on me with water, and with the Spirit, and with fire.” ...On hearing these words, the Baptist directed his mind to the object of our salvation...and stretching forth slowly his right hand, which seemed both to tremble and to rejoice, he baptized the Lord. (Homily on Christ’s Baptism; traditionally attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, 3rd Century, though now generally thought to have been written by an unknown author in the 4th or 5th century)

Blessed are you [John], even you, a barren woman’s son, whose hand was made worthy to be placed upon his [Jesus’] head. You baptized the Baptizer. ...Blessed are you, little Jordan River, into which the Flowing Sea [i.e. Jesus] descended and was baptized. ...Blessed are your torrents, cleansed by his descent. For the Holy One, who condescended to bathe in you, descended to open by his baptism, the baptism for the pardoning of souls. (Ephrem the Syrian; 4th Century; Hymns, 15.1, 3)

The most detailed first-hand description of patristic water baptism (c.390 AD) comes from a bishop in Mopsuestia (central Asia Minor) named Theodore (c.350–428), in which such a procedure is clearly indicated:

At the time I have already explained to you [the catechumens being presented for baptism], you go down into the water that has already been blessed by the bishop. ...Then the bishop lays his hand on your head with the words, ‘In the name of the Father,’ and while pronouncing them pushes you down into the water. ...You bow your head when you immerse yourself. ...Meanwhile the bishop says, ‘And of the Son,’ and guides you with his hand as you bend down into the water as before. ...You raise your head, and again the bishop says, ‘And of the Holy Spirit,’ pressing you down into the water again with his hand. Then you come up out of the font. ...Three times you immerse yourself, each time performing the same action, once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son and once in the name of the Holy Spirit. (Baptismal Homilies, 4; Edward Yarnald, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation: Baptismal Homilies of the 4th Century)

Contemporaneous sources also address the symbolism in baptism of fluid being poured down upon the head from a dove. For instance Optatus of Milevis (4th Century).

The heaven is open. When God anoints [ungente] him [Jesus] the spiritual oil [spiritale oleum] at once comes down under the form of a dove, and hovers over his head, and pours over [perfundit] him; the oil [oleo] is spread asunder; whence he began to be called Christ, for he was anointed [unctus] by God the Father. (Against the Donatists, 4.7)

Likewise, Peter Chrysologus (c.380–c.451), again, the Bishop of Ravenna at the time the orthodox baptistery there began its construction.

Today [at Jesus’ baptism] the Holy Spirit hovers in the form of a dove over the waters. ...But this dove does not, like the first, bear a mere twig of the old olive-tree [Genesis 8:11], but pours [fundit] the whole fatness of the new unction [novi chrismatis] upon the head of its creator, that it may fulfill what the prophet foretold: ‘Wherefore God, even thy God, hath anointed [unxit] thee with the oil of gladness [oleo laetitiae] above thy fellows’ [Psalm 45:7]. (Sermons, 160)

Giovanni Battista De Rossi, the Italian archeologist who first discovered and explored a number of the Roman catacombs in the 19th Century, which contain similar baptismal scenes, noted:

We ought not to confuse the imposition of the right hand with which the ministrant accompanies the immersion of the candidate, with what is done in the case of neophytes, as they emerge from the water [i.e. being anointed with oil], and are clothed in white at their confirmation. (Roma Sotterranea Cristiana)

The earliest literacy account I’ve found that portrays Jesus as having been baptized by pouring is in a homiletical sermon by Bernard of Clairvaux (12th Century – earlier I mistakenly said the 13th Century).

The King of Glory is divested of his garments, and John lays his hands on the very brightness of Light and image of God. He who wondrously took his flesh from the Virgin, stands naked in a river, and bids the blessed Baptist pour out [infundenda] from his hand. Angels descend, and the whole host of heaven hastens to attend the Creator, surrounding both the baptizer and the One baptized. A most noble creature pours [infundit] water over the head of the Creator, and the right hand of a mortal touches and is laid upon the head of God.” (Sermo in Nativitate S. Joannis Baptistae; PL 184:998)

Nonetheless, Bernard elsewhere speaks of baptism as a “trina mersio” (In Coena Domini; PL 183:271), and “mersione triplici” (Sermo XXVIII; PL 183:617). A nearly identical sermon has traditionally been ascribed to the noble Italian monk and reluctant cardinal Peter Damian (11th Century; In Nativitat S. Ioannis Baptistae; PL 144:634), but textual scholars now doubt this attribution and, as mentioned, generally ascribe its authorship to Bernard (see editorial note, PL 184:990). Militating against Damian authorship is that in two like-themed homilies of his Jesus’ baptism is portrayed as an immersion:

Then St. John heard the voice of the Father, and saw the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove; the angels trembled as his hands were placed upon the Son of God, who bowed and was dipped in the water [aquis intinxit]. (Sermo XXIV; PL 144:639)

He [John] cries out, “I am unworthy to loosen the clasps of your sandals!”—yet the Lord bids him take hold with his hands, and submits his whole body [totum corpus] to undergo the washing of baptism [baptismatis lavacrum]. (Sermo XXV; PL 144:645)

Damian elsewhere speaks of the action of baptism as an “immersi” (e.g., Sermo X, PL 144:555; Opusculum Sextum, PL 145:103, 134).
 
Unless, as some scholars suggest, he was reading from the LXX, where in verse 15 the Greek θαυμάσονται thaumazo (be amazed or astonished) stands in place of the Hebrew נָזָה nazah (sprinkle).
No doubt Philip would have given the proper sense of the verse from the Spirit-inspired original when he preached the passage to the eunuch rather than letting the LXX’s variant trump the original.
 
No doubt Philip would have given the proper sense of the verse from the Spirit-inspired original when he preached the passage to the eunuch rather than letting the LXX’s variant trump the original.

If Philip perhaps deemed that necessary, of course. Yet I don't see other citations of the LXX in the NT being "corrected" when variations occur. Also, the NT concept symbolized by sprinkling is the inner working of the spirit, the outer action administered to the body is louo, a full bodily bathing (Heb. 10:22).
 
Also, the NT concept symbolized by sprinkling is the inner working of the spirit, the outer action administered to the body is louo, a full bodily bathing (Heb. 10:22).
You are assuming the mode of the washing spoken of there is accomplished by immersion, but the verb does not demand that interpretation.

If the NT concept of the inner working of the Spirit is symbolized by sprinkling, then I assume you don't believe that baptism symbolizes that inner work of the Spirit? Or else, it would seem to me, you would be conceding that sprinkling is a valid mode of baptism.
 
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; :Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."

1 Peter 3:18-22

Peter likens our baptism to that which Noah's family experienced, (they didn't go into the water, but rather passed over it). He also explicitly says our baptism is not the putting awaly of the filth of the flesh.
 
You are assuming the mode of the washing spoken of there is accomplished by immersion, but the verb does not demand that interpretation.

No, but it is the only mode that sensibly fits the bill. We don’t have any record of Jewish ceremonial sponge baths, or sprinkling pure water, or even pouring water over the head or torso. On the other hand, bathing the entire body in pure water is prevalent. To that end, ritual immersion was unquestionably in widespread use among 1st century Jews. I just find it interesting that in the NT sprinkling is used in reference to an inner work, in complimentary distinction with our bodies being physically washed/bathed in pure water.

If the NT concept of the inner working of the Spirit is symbolized by sprinkling, then I assume you don't believe that baptism symbolizes that inner work of the Spirit? Or else, it would seem to me, you would be conceding that sprinkling is a valid mode of baptism.

Pouring, sprinkling and immersion can all represent cleansing. The question is, for me, which mode was used in NT baptisms. As concerns the best portrayal of cleansing, I’m with Calvin.

The natural use of Baptism, therefore, as regards the figure, was that one was immersed in the water. And that represented the complete washing that must be done in man. For, as we have said, we do not just need to be regenerated in part to be reformed to the obedience of God, rather, we must be wholly recast and renewed from the crown of our head down to the soles of our feet, on account of there being nothing in ourselves but what is filth and stench to God.​
Then of course I also concur with the historical consensus that baptism also represents a death-burial-resurrection. Immersion portrays both concepts most sensibly and beautifully.

--------------------------------------------------

Here are some other interesting and candid remarks by Reformed authors on the best portrayal of the concept of cleansing.

Thomas Lindsay (1843–1914; Scottish Presbyterian)

It may be admitted at once that immersion, where the whole body including the head is plunged into a pool of pure water, gives a more vivid picture of the cleansing of the soul from sin [than pouring or sprinkling do]... (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1:419)​

Rodolphe Clement (1814–76; Swiss-Reformed)

It is certain that, as a symbol, this form [immersion] addresses the senses in a manner much more striking than sprinkling does. It cannot be denied that a few drops of water spread on the forehead of a person represent very imperfectly the cleansing of the entire person.​
The necessity we are under of entering into many explanations to make the signification of this rite plain, does not accord at all with the idea of a sacrament, which ought to speak itself, represent spiritual things vividly in a way to make a lasting impression. It is beyond doubt that immersion was the primitive and ordinary form of baptism. (Etude Biblique sur le Bapteme our le Pedobaptisme et L’Eglise)​

Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920; Dutch Reformed)

It is difficult to deny that the symbolism of holy baptism would be portrayed best if, as in ancient days, baptism were performed by immersion. The stain of the soul, the pollution caused by sin, the impurity resulting from inherited depravity does not affect the child just in part, but pervades his entire being. His entire being must be washed in the blood of Christ, not merely part of it. For him to be totally immersed in the water, and to be washed from top to toe, would be the most complete symbolic portrayal of what needs to be expressed.​
...One ought to be very careful not to criticize this custom in sects that still practice baptism by immersion. If today baptism by immersion could be carried out in a proper manner and without complications, the symbolic expression of what baptism stood for would no doubt be much more complete. Sprinkling with a few drops of water never makes such a deep impression of cleansing as a complete immersion in water. (Our Worship)​
 
Last edited:
Peter likens our baptism to that which Noah's family experienced, (they didn't go into the water, but rather passed over it). He also explicitly says our baptism is not the putting awaly of the filth of the flesh.

I'm not sure how this relates to the mode of baptism.
 
My prophesy; once John the baptist entered the water he did baptize himself and all the baptizees likewise including Jesus, that is the domain of water they are in is ruled out as baptismal water, and so John must create a new domain of baptismal water with handful or jug of water to be sprinkled or poured. Here is the absurdity of Baptists, the baptizee has dipped in the water, the command unto the Baptizor to do the dipping is thus disobeyed; that is one cannot be dipped in water they already in. Once your foot is dipped in the water, the Baptizor cannot dip you again until you leave the water (and likewise the Baptizor cannot enter the water!). In other words, the Baptist Baptizor to correctly baptize by immersion (dipping) must grab the baptizee under the armpits (or by the legs) and wholesale dip that person in water whilst they are out of water like a spoon in soup; not pragmatic. Pouring is a form of dipping because the area poured upon is in the water (under the water), that is, if myself pours water on a spot on my hand, that domain on my hand is under the water whilst the water is poured, the same as if myself put my hand under a body of water. Hence immersipn is dipping, or dipping by pouring and not submersion which is congruent in some sense to drowning (the Baptism of Pharoah so to speak).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top