Anthony DeNicola
Puritan Board Freshman
What’s Jesus baptized by sprinkling/ pouring ?
If so why did He and John have to go into the water ?
If so why did He and John have to go into the water ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 .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.
Same reason: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 .
It’s been a while since I read Murray’s book. I’ll have to brush up on that chapter again.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
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.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 .
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.
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.”
Not given to exaggeration I see?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.
Ready to back it up if needed...Not given to exaggeration I see?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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)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)
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.
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 mosaicrepublicationrenovation.
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.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.
You are assuming the mode of the washing spoken of there is accomplished by immersion, but the verb does not demand that interpretation.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.
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.