Is the proper from of baptism to sprinkle / pour or immerse? I've been researching this lately, and have found that in the old covenant the blood was sprinkled. The prophets spoke of the Messiah who would sprinkle the nations. I believe there is a reference to this in Hebrews as well. I looked up the word baptise using a lexicon and the common definition is to immerse; however, I read somewhere that the word, when applied to a person means to sprinkle or to pour. This makes sense to me because the early Christians didn't have running water, and many were baptised in their homes. It seems odd that they would draw a bath or something in order to immerse. Another point is that John the Baptist was in the river Jordan, but does that mean he was immersing people or was it the source from which he performed the sprinkling or pouring. It says Jesus came up out of the river. Does this mean he was immersed and came up or that he came up the bank? Just wanted some other opinions. I apologize if this has been covered, I'm new to the board.
I understand that some of you may come back with what baptism means or the form doesn't matter. That's not what I'm looking for, I really want to know what the biblical method of baptism was - sprinkle / pour or immersion.
Thanks
Sprinkle vs. Immerse
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
Acts 8:38,39 describes Philip baptizing the eunuch. They both went "down into the water" and "came up out of the water". Even if "going down into the water" meant leaving the river bank to walk into the water, and "coming up out of the water" meant leaving the water to ascend the river bank, the question still remains as why they went INTO the river. If baptism was sprinkling or pouring, why would the eunuch go into the water? Why did Philip not simply take a container to the river's edge, scoop us some water, and sprinkle or pour it over him?
And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
Both "baptō" and "baptizō" are used in the New Testament. They both mean "immerse", and yet there is a difference.
The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizō is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (baptō) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizō) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizō is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (baptō) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizō) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
Thanks for the replies Paidion. How do you think this fits with the scriptures that speak of the Messiah coming to sprinkle the nations. Also, if sprinkling (the old covenant form of the ritual) was changed to immersion under the new covenant, why wasn't there more dispute over the issue. It seems like whenever a radical change was made between the old covenant and the new covenant there was always a lot of discussion.
Final point, read Luke 11:38: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner." "Washed" here is the word baptizo. My understanding is the traditional way of washing before dinner was to hold the hands over a bowl and have water poured on them, not to immerse the hands. Therefore, when baptizo is used as an act on a person it doesn't necessarily mean immerse.
Thank you for the discussion.
Final point, read Luke 11:38: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner." "Washed" here is the word baptizo. My understanding is the traditional way of washing before dinner was to hold the hands over a bowl and have water poured on them, not to immerse the hands. Therefore, when baptizo is used as an act on a person it doesn't necessarily mean immerse.
Thank you for the discussion.
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
wwalkeriv,
I think if you combine the meaning of the Greek, as Paidion has shown, with a simple study of the scriptures where baptism is mentioned, you can easily come to an understanding of what the biblical mode of baptism is. Consider the following:
(All quotes from New King James Version)
Matthew 3:5-6
5. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6. and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
We find baptism was done in the Jordan
Mark 1:5
5. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins
They went to the river to be baptized.
Mark 1:9-10
9. It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.
Jesus was baptized in the River of Jordan, and came out after His baptism.
John 3:23
23. Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.
If sprinkling was the proper or acceptable mode, why the need for "much water"?
Acts 8 (New King James Version)
26. Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is desert. 27. So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.” 30. So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31. And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 36. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37. Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40. But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.
Here again they are clearly shown to have gotten into the water and come up out of it. And why, it might be asked, would Philip not have taken some water and simply sprinkled the man? Surely there was some water in the chariot, taken along to drink as they travelled through the desert.
Romans 6:3-4 (New King James Version)
3. Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4. Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
And here Paul shows that baptism is a burial.
Colossians 2:11-12
11. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12. from the dead.
buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him
And here again we see Paul writing of baptism as a burial and resurrection. Now if you combine these scriptures with Paidion's explanation regarding the making of pickles, the biblical mode of baptism is no mystery. It should be plain enough just reading the scriptures. We are much hindered by our Engish translations and their failure to translate bapto and baptizo. They would have had no choice other than "dip" or "immerse".
What puzzles me is why anyone would make an issue of it? If a person is baptized by immersion (that's a tautology if there ever was one), there is no doubt whether it was properly done.
Hope you see this; just noticed it this morning.
I think if you combine the meaning of the Greek, as Paidion has shown, with a simple study of the scriptures where baptism is mentioned, you can easily come to an understanding of what the biblical mode of baptism is. Consider the following:
(All quotes from New King James Version)
Matthew 3:5-6
5. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6. and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
We find baptism was done in the Jordan
Mark 1:5
5. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins
They went to the river to be baptized.
Mark 1:9-10
9. It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.
Jesus was baptized in the River of Jordan, and came out after His baptism.
John 3:23
23. Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.
If sprinkling was the proper or acceptable mode, why the need for "much water"?
Acts 8 (New King James Version)
26. Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is desert. 27. So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.” 30. So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31. And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 36. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37. Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40. But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.
Here again they are clearly shown to have gotten into the water and come up out of it. And why, it might be asked, would Philip not have taken some water and simply sprinkled the man? Surely there was some water in the chariot, taken along to drink as they travelled through the desert.
Romans 6:3-4 (New King James Version)
3. Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4. Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
And here Paul shows that baptism is a burial.
Colossians 2:11-12
11. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12. from the dead.
buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him
And here again we see Paul writing of baptism as a burial and resurrection. Now if you combine these scriptures with Paidion's explanation regarding the making of pickles, the biblical mode of baptism is no mystery. It should be plain enough just reading the scriptures. We are much hindered by our Engish translations and their failure to translate bapto and baptizo. They would have had no choice other than "dip" or "immerse".
What puzzles me is why anyone would make an issue of it? If a person is baptized by immersion (that's a tautology if there ever was one), there is no doubt whether it was properly done.
Hope you see this; just noticed it this morning.
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
Paidion wrote:Both "baptō" and "baptizō" are used in the New Testament. They both mean "immerse", and yet there is a difference.
The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizō is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (baptō) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizō) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
Hi everybody,Homer wrote:wwalkeriv,
I think if you combine the meaning of the Greek, as Paidion has shown, with a simple study of the scriptures where baptism is mentioned, you can easily come to an understanding of what the biblical mode of baptism is. Consider the following:
(All quotes from New King James Version)
Matthew 3:5-6
5. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6. and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
We find baptism was done in the Jordan
Mark 1:5
5. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins
They went to the river to be baptized.
Mark 1:9-10
9. It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.
Jesus was baptized in the River of Jordan, and came out after His baptism.
John 3:23
23. Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.
If sprinkling was the proper or acceptable mode, why the need for "much water"?
Acts 8 (New King James Version)
26. Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is desert. 27. So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.” 30. So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31. And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 36. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37. Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40. But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.
Here again they are clearly shown to have gotten into the water and come up out of it. And why, it might be asked, would Philip not have taken some water and simply sprinkled the man? Surely there was some water in the chariot, taken along to drink as they travelled through the desert.
Romans 6:3-4 (New King James Version)
3. Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4. Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
And here Paul shows that baptism is a burial.
Colossians 2:11-12
11. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12. from the dead.
buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him
And here again we see Paul writing of baptism as a burial and resurrection. Now if you combine these scriptures with Paidion's explanation regarding the making of pickles, the biblical mode of baptism is no mystery. It should be plain enough just reading the scriptures. We are much hindered by our Engish translations and their failure to translate bapto and baptizo. They would have had no choice other than "dip" or "immerse".
What puzzles me is why anyone would make an issue of it? If a person is baptized by immersion (that's a tautology if there ever was one), there is no doubt whether it was properly done.
Hope you see this; just noticed it this morning.
This is a very interesting thread! I appreciated reading everyone's questions, scriptural references, historical evidence and answers. Once again, I see that going to the original word meanings, one can gain clear understanding of the writer's intent!
Thank you...
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
Homer,
Thank you for your response. I think you raised some very good points, especially the John 3:23 quote.
I'm really not trying to make an issue of this, but I am still curious about the sprinkling done under the old covenant, and why does Isaiah 52:15 say, "he will sprinkle many nations"? Or what about the use of the word baptizo in Luke 11:38?
Honestly, I'm searching for the truth here because I'm interested.
Thank you for your response. I think you raised some very good points, especially the John 3:23 quote.
I'm really not trying to make an issue of this, but I am still curious about the sprinkling done under the old covenant, and why does Isaiah 52:15 say, "he will sprinkle many nations"? Or what about the use of the word baptizo in Luke 11:38?
Honestly, I'm searching for the truth here because I'm interested.
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
wwalkeriv, just because we can find examples of sprinkling in the OT, doesn't imply that the Hebrews did their baptizing that way. They did baptize converts.
However, the Greek word "baptizO" occurs only once in the Old Testament Septuagint, and that not in the context of making converts:
Isaiah 21:4 (LXXE) My heart wanders, and transgression overwhelms me; my soul is occupied with fear.
The word is translated as "overwhelms". The literal meaning of being "overwhelmed" is to be engulfed, submerged, inundated. What would it mean if it were translated, My heart wanders, and transgression sprinkles me?
However, the Greek word "baptizO" occurs only once in the Old Testament Septuagint, and that not in the context of making converts:
Isaiah 21:4 (LXXE) My heart wanders, and transgression overwhelms me; my soul is occupied with fear.
The word is translated as "overwhelms". The literal meaning of being "overwhelmed" is to be engulfed, submerged, inundated. What would it mean if it were translated, My heart wanders, and transgression sprinkles me?
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
A few weeks back a friend of mine introduced the idea that sprinkling or pouring was the biblical form of baptism. I've been researching it ever since and am stumped. That's why I decided to post the topic here. I, myself, was baptised by immersion, and have always believed that to be the proper form. However, I'm really stumped now. I think everyone has made very good points and I appreciate the feedback. I guess I just don't see it as clearly as some of you. The bible does speak of the Holy Spirit being poured out (which seems to be a parrallel). It speaks of the coming Messiah sprinkling the nations. It uses the Greek word baptizo when referring to washing the hands (i.e.: pouring water over the hands). Early Christian art depicts baptisms as people standing in basins having the water poured over their heads.
I feel confident that I have fulfilled the command to be baptised, so it's not an issue personally. I'm just curious because so many people are baptised in this manner, for example, in the Methodist church. Which I now attend.
Thanks again for the input. I look forward to discussing other issues with you guys on this board.
I feel confident that I have fulfilled the command to be baptised, so it's not an issue personally. I'm just curious because so many people are baptised in this manner, for example, in the Methodist church. Which I now attend.
Thanks again for the input. I look forward to discussing other issues with you guys on this board.
-
paulespino
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:02 am
Re: Sprinkle vs. Immerse
Paidion Wrote:
Your explanation is very clear: Since I take baptism as a symbol therefore Baptism is a symbol showing the public that we have changed in the name and presence of Christ.Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.