Does Baptism Need to be by Immersion?
The way in which water is used during Baptism is often referred to as the “mode” of Baptism. The Westminster Confession of faith, regarding the mode of Baptism, in Chapter 28.3 says this, “Dipping of the person into the water, is not necessary: but, baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.” Where do they get this notion that pouring or sprinkling is “right” and immersion, or dipping, is not necessary? There are many today, especially in Baptist denominations who believe the opposite, “that baptism by any mode other than immersion is irregular and unsatisfactory… there are others who regard baptism by any other mode than immersion as entirely invalid.(1)”
The truth of the matter is that the scriptures say very little explicitly about the proper mode of baptism(2), and this is why many Presbyterians churches have taken the position that as long as water is used, and it’s done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the baptism is valid. However, the scriptures do say that baptism is a sign of something. Baptism doesn’t save you but points to a greater truth. And as a sign, it should look like the thing it signifies. So what does immersion, pouring and sprinkling signify?
Arguments for Pouring and Sprinkling from Scripture
Old Testament
In the midst of their exile, God makes a promise to his people. He says to them that those who are faithful and remember his covenant, he will grant repentance and life, give them a new heart and a new spirit, forgive all their sins, and cleanse them from all their impurities(3). The OT talks about the new covenant being physically expressed in two ways, pouring and sprinkling.
Pouring
In the Old testament the priests were anointed with service by taking “anointing oil and pour[ing] it on his head to anoint him” (Exodus 29:7). Furnishings in the temple were maid ready by anointing them with oil(4). God’s blessings are represented by pouring out of anointing oil on our head throughout the Psalms(5). And when speaking of this New Covenant to come, the Prophets speak of this type of pouring that will happen. They say that God will anoint all of us by pouring out his spirit on them instead of oil:
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. (Joel 2:28-29)
And I will not hide my face anymore from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, declares the Lord God. (Ezekiel 39:29)
Sprinkling
In the Old testament sprinkling with water represented ceremonial cleanliness and spiritual purification. The Levites were commanded to, “cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them(6).” before they could be commissioned into service of the priesthood.
The sprinkling of blood also represented cleanliness and spiritual purification. During the offering Aaron and the priests were commanded to sprinkle the blood of the offering around the altar(7). Moses sprinkled blood on Aaron, his garments, and his sons, to commission them to serve as Priest to God(8). And when God makes a covenant with his people, Moses sprinkles them all with blood(9), showing their need for cleansing before entering into a covenant relationship with God.
In the new covenant God promises to sprinkle them clean:
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. (Ezekiel 36:25-28 ESV)
As Jewish believers read about the promises of the New Covenant, they would have understood that the promise would come, physically, in two ways, through pouring (anointing, the Spirit of God given) and sprinkling (cleansing).
New Testament
We see the fulfillment of these predictions displayed in the New Testament text. We are washed cleaned, cleansed, by the pouring out of the spirit:
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6)
Old testament readers would have read this verse and thought, the washing would look like the sprinkling clean, and the pouring out of the Spirit would look like pouring oil onto the heads of priests. These two images are confirmed in the New Testament.
Pouring
At the conclusion of his ministry Jesus tells his disciples about the baptism of the Holy Spirit soon to come(10). Then, at Pentecost, we see this fulfilled. Peter connects the coming of the Holy Spirit as a fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. He quotes the prophecy from Joel in his sermon at Pentecost:
Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2:33 ESV)
God promised he would pour out the spirit on his church. He fulfills that promise by pouring out the Holy Spirit onto believers. It is right then, that the physical administration of the Sacrament of Baptism match the promise. It is a sign, it visibly shows the promise and the promise was to pour out the spirit and so we often pour out water onto those joining the visible church.
Sprinkling
The coming of the Holy Spirit unto believers meant not only regeneration, it also represents the cleansing from guilt and sins(11). The scriptures connect our Baptism with the washing away of our sins, “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16 ESV). Our Baptism is a washing of sins, a cleansing.
The book of Hebrews is critical in helping us understand how the Old Testament ceremonial washings are connected to the washing away of sin represented in Baptism. The author of Hebrews even calls the Old Testament ceremonial washings baptisms(12) and explains that they symbolized the forgiveness of sins(13). Most of these ceremonial washings were done by sprinkling. The Old Testament predictions of the New Covenant (noted previously) show that in the New Covenant believers will be washed clean by sprinkling. And the New Testament church even describes our washing with this word sprinkling:
Draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22 ESV).
The Old Testament predicts the washing, cleansing and sprinkling in the New Covenant for the forgiveness of sins. Our Baptism is a sign of the fulfillment of that promise, that God will wash us and cleanse us. If our Baptism is a sign of us being cleansed, and cleansing is represented in the Old Testament as sprinkling, It is right for the sign of that promise to be shown forth visibly by sprinkling.
However, even with all these insights as to the proper relationship between Old Testament prediction and New Testament fulfillment, scripture never prescribes a specific method or mode of baptism. I merely seek to demonstrate how pouring and sprinkling have a biblical basis for their right administration.
Historical Survey of the mode of Baptism
As we take a look at how historical Christian practice, it is important to remember that it can only give us insight as to how early Christians interpreted scriptures regarding the mode of baptism and is not as an infallible source to determine how we should conduct baptisms. It can be helpful though and tracing practices back to their source, which is important with this issue. When did immersion arise and why?
The fact is, we simply do not have a lot of information from the first few centuries regarding the mode of Baptism. In his note about the early Christian practice, Michael A. Smith says, “Baptism was usually by immersion, either in a river or in a bath-house, and from the early second century, baptism by pouring of water was [still] allowed(14)”
Tertullian’s “on Baptism” is one of the earliest writings we have about the subject (from the early second century), but the word he uses, “dipped”, in Latin is “tinguimur” or “tinguo” meaning to wet, moisten, dip, or soak and so does not give us a clear accounting of the mode. Hippolutus’s accounting of baptism in Rome in the early third century uses the descriptor, “bath of regeneration” which may have indicated immersion but is still unclear. One of the best documents we have is the Didache, meaning “teaching”, it is an early second century document that outlines the practice:
Concerning Baptism, baptize this way. Having first rehearsed all these thing, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and, if thou canst not in cold, in warm. If you have neither, pour water thrice on the head in the mane, etc.(15)
The Didache seems to take an impartial stance to the mode. Preferring immersion in living, or running water, but being equally ok with other modes. Even with what seems to be a preference for Immersion in the second century there are still some who took the stance that sprinkling was to be preferred. Cyprian, a contemporary of Tertullian, defended aspersion or perfusion, i.e sprinkling, with an appeal to Ezekiel 36:25(16), as I have done in this paper. None of this settles the argument because at best the early few centuries saw mixed practices, no clear consensus.
But all this still begs the question, “If scripture clearly points toward sprinkling or pouring, why did these early church fathers seem to, potentially, have a preference toward immersion?” In his book on Historical Theology, Alister McGrath says, “Historical Theology is characterized by its particularity and an experience of God’s saving work in particular cultures, and is shaped by the insights and limitations of persons who were themselves seeking to live the gospel within a particular context.(17)” It is important to recognize that just as we exist in a particular culture, and are shaped by it, so were the early church fathers. There were some pagan rituals similar to immersion baptism at the time(18) that might likely have had some influence on them toward immersion. It also could have been likely that the early fathers would have been influenced the Jewish practice of proselyte baptism. As new converts to Judaism came in from the gentile world, the would be baptized to symbolize washings for purification. The historian Josephus comments on their practice, even indicating that there was a possibility John’s Baptism in the wilderness was influence by these types of Baptisms(19). The Mishnah, a redaction of Jewish oral traditions, which prescribed the quantity of water needed to assure that total immersion was possible(20).
It is important to note a few things about John’s Baptism. How John baptized does not necessarily provide for us insight into how we should baptize. John the Baptist belonged to the period of the Old Testament, before the coming of the kingdom, and before Christ commissioned his disciples to “go, baptize” in Matthew 18. Jesus said, “Among those born of women there has arisen no greater than John the Baptist'' (Matthew 11:11 ESV). He was the greatest Old Testament Prophet and his task was to announce the end of the period of Old Testament redemptive history, for the kingdom of God was about to break through(21). Christ's job was to submit himself to the entire law of God, to fulfill every requirement imposed on Israel. It is vital that we understand that John’s Baptism was not equivalent to the New Testament baptism which goes beyond what was signified with John’s call to repentance(22). Jesus had not yet inaugurated the time of the New Covenant with its new unique signs at the time of his Baptism.
Also, there is quite a bit of disagreement between the Qumran practice of baptism and how much it may have influenced John the Baptists baptism or Christian baptism(23). Many argue that John the Baptist did not do the same proselyte Baptism described in the Mishnah. Also, Bishop John Lightfoot, when discussing this issue during the formation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, noted that Rabbi Solomon attested to the varied of practices for a proselyte Baptism, citing that at his time sprinkling was the primary means for this type of Baptism(24). The Qumran community likely had its roots in Old Testament theology and so, if they developed the notion that gentiles needed to be cleansed before conversion they would have derived that idea from the ceremonial cleansing in the Old Testament, where we see a variety of modes for those cleansings.
From these observations, I would conclude that the early church fathers had some cultural propensity to immerse baptize because they may have been influenced by this Qumran practice. Many Gentiles, submitting to cleansing, wanted to show the fullness of their repentance, the full admission of their sin by an act of public humility, not just being sprinkled but by undergoing full immersion. So, despite the teaching of scripture which leans toward sprinkling and pouring, the cultural context of the early church fathers was full of pagan and jewish tradition stepped in symbolism with full immersion and they likely adopted the practice for much of the same reason. A humble demonstration of their full repentance, a need for deep washing.
In Conclusion, we see a mixture of practices from some form of immersion, to pouring, to sprinkling, all practiced and defended in various ways in the early centuries of Christianity. In-fact all the early creeds and confessions of the church are silent on the matter of the proper mode of baptism all the way until 1561, where the Belgic Confession states:
In this way he signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the body of the baptized when it is sprinkled on him, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit. It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transforms us from being the children of wrath into the children of God.
And it isn’t until 118 years later, in the London Baptist Confession of 1689, that we find the very first assertion that Immersion is a necessary mode for the ordinance of Baptism.
The variety of practices of baptism in the early centuries of Christianity up through the ages supports our early conclusions, from scripture, that we can have preferences for baptism, but shouldn’t prescribe limits where scripture does not limit us. Just as the Westminster Confession does not exclude immersion, nor deny its validity.
Countering “Immersion only” arguments
For those who prescribe to the London Baptist Confession of 1689 or otherwise support the notion that baptism is to be done by immersion only have three primary arguments, which I will refute in this section. They are: 1) Jesus and later the Ethiopian eunuch both “came up from the water” which implies they went “down under the water” i.e. Immersion. 2) The Greek word baptizo for baptism means only immersion. 3) Baptism represents our burial and resurrection with Christ and so this indicates immersion as its proper mode.
It is important to take a look at these assertions, because if immersion only is true, it would in effect prevent thousands of people in geographically arid desert areas and those too sick and fragile from being properly baptized. And would deem what has been the majority practice of churches invalid.
“Came up from the water”
The Baptist Confession cites two verses in support of their conclusion that immersion is the only proper mode. First is Matthew 3:16, “And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water.” The issue with interpreting this as evidence for immersion is that scripture never goes this far. In fact, this verse could have been just as easily true if Jesus went down and touched his toes in the water and then came back up out of the river(25). Going down into a river doesn’t decisively confirm Jesus was baptism by immersion, in-fact we have early Christian art that depicts people being baptized in a river, standing waist-deep scooping up water from the river onto the heads of the recipients(26). The words describing descent into water could easily match what these early art artifacts depict. A similar argument comes from the account in Acts 8:38-39 where Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch, they “both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water…” If we were to conclude that “going down” and “coming up” indicates immersion, we would have to conclude that both Philip and the Eunuch immersed themselves. Both went down into the water and both came up out of it. It is highly unlikely that Philip immersed himself simultaneously with the eunuch. To describe this baptism as immersion, adds details to the story that scripture does not describe.
The second verse the Baptist confession cites is John 3:23 which states that John the Baptist chose to baptize at Aenon “because water was plentiful there”. To conclude this means immersion simply goes, again, beyond what scripture states. We learn that large numbers of crowds were gathering to be baptized by John and it could have just as equally have been his reasoning that he chose an area with much water in order to baptize large numbers of people(27). Needing lots of water for lots of people does not “require” that we know anything about immersion’s role in the Baptisms.
Does “baptizo” exclusively mean “immerse”
The second argument is from the usage of the term baptizo in the Greek. Those who believe in Baptism by immersion only assert that the term only means immerse and therefore indirectly makes it clear we must use immersion when Baptizing. I would argue that while baptizo could mean immerse, it has a wide range of meanings, and therefore does not help us determine mode.
For example, Hebrews 9:10, 19-22; calls Old Testament washing ceremonies “baptisms”. These ceremonies sometimes use the Hebrew word for “dipping” which has multiple meanings. In 2 Kings 5:14 when Naaman “dips” in the river and in Ruth 2:14 when Ruth “dips” bread into the wine. As we see “dipping” could refer to immersion, but with some cases it is impossible. For example, in Leviticus 14:6 priests are commanded to kill a bird and to pour out its blood, they were then are to “dip” the bird in its own blood. There simply is not enough blood from a similar sized bird to immerse the other bird into it.
There are other instances where the Hebrew word “tabal”, translated baptizo in the Septuagint(28), describes priests dipping their fingers in blood to sprinkle it(29), when the priests bearing the ark dip into the brink of the water(30), when a staff is dipped into a honeycomb(31), etc.
Some who hold to immersion only baptism appeal to the New Testament text in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 as evidence for immersion. It says, “For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” However, it would be wrong to conclude that the scene where Moses flees from Egypt as evidence for Immersion. In this text, Baptism for Israel was salvation, the only immersion that happens is the drowning of the Egyptians in judgment(32). Even if the verse means that they were “figuratively” immersed by the cloud and sea as it was “all around them” it shows the use of the term in a metaphorical sense, showing its use in a manner other than literal immersion.
Probably the most clear and obvious text that prevents us from concluding that baptize only means immersion is in Mark 7:1-4. Here, Mark describes ritual “washing” done by Pharisees before meals using the word baptizo. In his description he says that Jews did not eat after being in the market until they were “baptized”. He also describes other parts of the ritual washings by saying that dining couches were “baptized”. There is no body of evidence to suggest that Jews immersed themselves and their furniture before meals(33). They probably washed their hands and possessions with “some” water. There are multiple scriptural examples of baptizo not meaning or indicating immersion and so it would be improper to allow this argument to influence our understanding of the mode.
There are some situations in scripture that present scenes that would be almost impossible to have happened if the baptisms described were by Immersion. In Acts 2:41 tells us that 3000 people were baptized in one day. It’s hardly possible that in such a dry climate the Jews would allow Christians to pollute the amount of water necessary for so many baptismal immersions. Also, in such a dry climate, many of the geographical locations of baptisms were in the desert and lacked bodies of water or bathing pools would have made immersion unlikely (Acts 9:11, 18; 10:25, 47; 16:32-33). In Acts 16:33 it seems to indicate baptism happening too quickly to have involved immersion. The Philippian jailer came to faith in the middle of the night and was “baptized at once, he and his family”. A plain reading of the text does not suggest that they went through the city to find a river or pool for baptism, rather Paul likely reached for the nearest source of water, perhaps in a bowl, explained the meaning of baptism to the family, and poured or sprinkled water on them(34). These examples present evidence that what we see in scripture was likely not immersion baptisms
Baptism signifies burial and is an indication of its mode
For this particular point, Immersion only Baptists, appeal to the imagery found in Romans 6:3-6 and in Colossians 2:1-12 of “burial” as being in indication of the mode by which we baptize. They connect immersion in water as a depiction burial. Is this what Jesus intended? We have to remember the cultural context when he instituted the sign. We have to be cautious that we are influenced by our current practice of burying the dead “six feet under” when in reality in 1st century Palestine burial was effectively horizontal(35). The rocky soil prevented this type of digging and burials were done in tombs or caves behind large rocks. They were in and out horizontally not placed down in and under the soil.
Our Baptism signifies our Union with Christ. We have been united with him in his death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism is not a perfect visual of that, especially in its 1st century horizontal burying context. The formers of the Westminster Confession of faith saw that immersion or dipping was not the best visual representation of this Union with Christ. Francis Woodcock said, “if dipping is needed to depict burial, what must answer dying?(36)” Paul also describes our union with Christ not only as being “buried together” but also “planted together” and “crucified together”. If our union with Christ must be shown visually in baptism, why not also visually show we are crucified together, for that is the way Christ died.
Conclusion
This article has shown that there is significant biblical warrant for the Westminster Confession of Faith to conclude: “Dipping of the person into the water, is not necessary: but, baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person” (WCF 28.3). There is a clear biblical warrant for us to apply a connection between the pouring out of the spirit and the cleansing ritual of sprinkling to the mode of water baptism. Since nowhere in scripture does it directly prescribe a mode for baptism, we should seek to not put limits to baptism where scripture does not limit. In fact, historically we have seen a mix of practices, indicating a lack of zealous concern over proper modes, only until some dogma regarding immersion only was formalized in the London Baptist Confession in 1689. But we find the arguments made for immersion only baptism to be weak and inaccurate when weighed against the evidence in scripture. We therefore have to conclude that while immersion is not necessary, it is still a valid form of baptism, but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling.
(1) Donald Macleod, A Faith to Live by, (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1998), 245
(2 )John Frame, Systematic Theology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 1063
(3) Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 515
(4) Exodus 40:9
(5) Psalm 23:5, 133:2
(6) Numbers 8:7
(7) Leviticus 1:5,11; 3:2, 8, 13; etc.
(8) Leviticus 8:30
(9) Exodus 24:8
(10) Acts 1:15
(11) 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5
(12) Hebrews 9:10
(13) Hebrews 9:19-22
(14) Tim Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity, 2nd edition, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 250
(15) Christ Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 4th edition, (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 68
(16) Bavink, Reformed Dogmatics, 516
(17) Alister McGrath, Historical Theology, (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 10
(18) Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds in Early Christianity, 3rd Edition, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 295
(19) Ibid., 526
(20) Ibid., 549
(21) R.C. Sproul, What is Baptism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2011), 16
(22) Ibid., 19
(23) Ferguson, Backgrounds, 547
(24) David Wright, “Baptism and the Westminster Assembly”, in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, ed. Ligon Duncan, Volume 1, (Great Britain: Christian Focsu Publications, 2005), 178
(25) Francis Schaffer, “Baptism”, http://www.fivesolas.com/fs_bapt.htm, accessed November 27, 2017
(26) Sproul, Baptism, 51
(27) Frame, Systematic Theology, 1064
(28) The Septuagint was an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.
(29) Leviticus 4:17
(30) Joshua 3:15
(31) 1 Samuel 14:27
(32) Footnoted by John Macleod in David Wright’s article “Baptism and the Westminster Assembly”, in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, ed. Ligon Duncan, Volume 1, (Great Britain: Christian Focsu Publications, 2005)
(33) Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2016), 371
(34) Ibid., 372
(35) Ibid., 372
(36) Wright, Westminster, 178
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Macleod, Donald, A Faith to Live by, (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1998)
Frame, John, Systematic Theology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013)
Van Dixhoorn, Chad, Confessing the Faith, (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2016)
Pipa, Joseph, “The Mode of Baptism”, in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003)
McGrath, Alister E., Historical Theology, (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000)
Maunder, Chris, Documents of the Christian Church, 4th edition, (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011)
Dowley, Tim, Introduction to the History of Christianity, 2nd edition, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013)
Wainwright, G., “Baptism, Baptismal Rites”, in Dictionary of the Later New Testament & its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997)
Bavinck, Herman, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008)
Ferguson, Everett, Backgrounds in Early Christianity, 3rd Edition, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003)
Wright, David F., “Baptism and the Westminster Assembly”, in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, ed. Ligon Duncan, Volume 1, (Great Britain: Christian Focsu Publications, 2005)
Sproul, R.C., What is Baptism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2011)
Noll, Mark A., Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991)
Holstrom, Bryan, Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament, (Greenville, SC: Ambassador International, 2008)
