Basic HTML Version
612
immersion in the New Testament.[For the various possible meanings of baptizo consult, besides
the treatise of Wilson, already referred to, such works as those of Armstrong, The Doctrine of
Baptisms; Seiss, The Baptist System Examined; Ayres, Christian Baptism; Hibbard, Christian
Baptism.]
It is quite evident that both words, bapto and baptizo, had other meanings, such as “to wash,”
“to bathe,” and to “purify by washing.” The idea of washing or purification gradually became
the prominent idea, while that of the manner in which this took place retired more and more
into the background. That this purification was sometimes effected by sprinkling, is evident
from Num. 8:7; 19:13,18,19,20; Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 9:10. In Judith 12:7 and Mark 7:3,4
we cannot possibly think of dipping. Neither is this possible in connection with the following
passages of the New Testament: Matt. 3:11; Luke 11:37,38; 12:50; Rom. 6:3; I Cor. 12:13; Heb.
9:10 (cf. verses 13,14,19, 21); I Cor. 10:1,2. Since the word baptizo does not necessarily mean
“to immerse,” and because the New Testament does not in any case explicitly assert that
baptism took place by immersion, the burden of proof would seem to rest on the Baptists. Was
John the Baptist capable of the enormous task of immersing the multitudes that flocked unto
him at the river Jordan, or did he simply pour water on them as some of the early inscriptions
would seem to indicate? Did the apostles find enough water in Jerusalem, and did they have
the necessary facilities, to baptize three thousand in a single day by immersion? Where is the
evidence to prove that they followed any other method than the Old Testament mode of
baptisms? Does Acts 9:18 indicate in any way that Paul left the place where Ananias found him,
to be immersed in some pool or river? Does not the account of the baptism of Cornelius create
the impression that water was to be brought and that those present were baptized right in the
house? Acts 10:47,48. Is there any evidence that the jailor at Philippi was not baptized in or
near the prison, but led his prisoners out to the river, in order that he might be immersed?
Would he have dared to take them outside of the city, when he was commanded to keep them
safely? Acts 16:22-33. Even the account of the baptism of the eunuch, Acts 8:36,38, which is
often regarded as the strongest Scriptural proof for baptism by immersion, cannot be regarded
as conclusive evidence. A careful study of Luke’s use of the preposition eis shows that he used it
not only in the sense of into, but also in the sense of to, so that it is entirely possible to read the
relevant statement in verse 38 as follows: “and they both went down to the water, both Philip
and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” And even if the words were intended to convey the idea
that they went down into the water, this does not yet prove the point, for according to pictorial
representations of the early centuries they who were baptized by effusion often stood in the
water. It is entirely possible, of course, that in the apostolic age some were baptized by
immersion, but the fact that the New Testament nowhere insists on this proves that it was not
essential. Immersion is a proper mode of baptism, but so is baptism by effusion or by sprinkling,
since they all symbolize purification. The passages referred to in the preceding prove that many