Baptism in Water

By Ian Thomason

The subject of baptism - be it in water (after the fashion of John), or Spirit (after the fashion of Jesus) - is pivotal to the Christian witness in, and message to, the world. Unfortunately, differences of theological opinion over the issue have caused rifts, schisms and separations within the Church for much of her history. It is true that many Christians do not adequately understand the ‘doctrines of baptisms’ (see Hebrews 6:2). The reasons why this is so are legion, but ultimately would appear to hinge on inadequate, or perhaps on narrowly focused, denominational teachings.

The credo relating to water baptism is considerably broader than simply establishing the mode (immersion, aspersion, effusion), and the candidature (consenting adults, non-consensual infants). Theologically, issues that address the relationship of physical baptism to spiritual regeneration, Christian initiation and eschatological transformation are the more important; not the least of these being the relationship that exists between water baptism and Spirit baptism.

This short essay will seek to address the foundational principles: modes, means and meaning, as well as the theological consequences of the biblical ‘doctrines of baptisms.’ The Scripture record will be consulted in order to do this, paying particular attention to the individual contexts of the various passages that are reviewed. Importantly, this essay will be limited to the subject of water baptism. A subsequent article will seek to address the important subject of Spirit baptism.

Perhaps the primary issue that requires addressing is in establishing the definitive meaning of the terms ‘baptism’ and ‘baptise’. Effectively, there are two principal ways in which to assess the usage of these words: (1) diachronic evaluation, and (2) synchronic evaluation. The first method considers the development of the semantic range of a given word or words over the course of the history of its use. In this way, we can establish precisely how the two words rendered ‘baptism’, and the two words rendered ‘baptise’, in our English Bibles were understood from their first recorded usage – in the 1^st century AD – to their present usage in the 21^st century AD. The second method – that which is most appropriate to the current study – is to consider how a given word or words was understood at a specific point in the continuum of time. For the purpose of this study, then, the period requiring review would encompass the century from AD 1 to AD 100.

So, precisely what does the data demonstrate1?

First, two separate Greek nouns are translated ‘baptism’ in the English Bible: ‘baptisma’, and ‘baptismos’. The former was strictly a New Testament word, having no early existence separate from the Christian Scriptures. The second, however, whilst also appearing for the first time in the 1^st century AD, is found in writings outside of Christian circles. Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian, for example, uses the word in his Antiquities of the Jews (18:117), to describe the baptism of John. Critical to our study, however, is that the two nouns, being, as they are nouns, do not describe an action, but a rite. In other words, neither ‘baptisma’ nor ‘baptismos’ (or ‘baptism’, if you will) defines the action of ‘plunging or immersing’ something into or under water. The words, properly speaking, simply define an activity - the ritual observance of a religious rite.

With respect to verbs, the ‘action words’ of language, two principle forms are encountered within the New Testament: ‘bapto’, and ‘baptizo’. The former, strictly speaking, connotes the action of "…plunging or dipping an object into water or another form of liquid." Writers as early as the poet Homer have used ‘bapto’ in this sense. And, as has been commonly discussed in more recent literature, it is a word that derives from the action of a ship plunging beneath the waves, or a garment being plunged into a dye solution. The latter word, however, the word that is used to describe the action of ‘baptising’ a Christian in the New Testament, does not share in such a narrow and limited meaning. Baptizo, properly speaking, is defined as "…the action of applying water [to the body] in order to make oneself clean, or ritually pure; to purify in a religious sense". We note that writers including Plutarch and Nicander have highlighted the clear distinction between the two principle verbal forms. In the following quote relating to the preparation of pickles, Nicander expounds the difference:

Clearly, a distinction is intended, a distinction that is also applied in the New Testament sense. We observe, for example, that the four occasions in the New Testament where ‘bapto’ appears all describe the action of dipping (Luke 16:24, John 13:26 [twice], and Revelation 19:13). However, of the eighty-four examples of ‘baptizo’, we discover that eighty-two refer specifically to the undefined action of ‘baptising’ (be they examples of immersing or not), whilst another two (Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38) refer specifically to circumstances where ‘immersion’ was clearly not intended by the context. The outcome is plain. It is the individual context in which the word is used in a given passage, which determines the intended meaning of the word within that passage.

To provide a less ‘loaded’ modern equivalent, and one that serves to reinforce the important principle of context, let us briefly consider the word ‘cool’. When viewed by itself, ‘cool’ might mean: (1) not hot, (2) not cold, (3) fashionable [as in ‘cool’ clothing], (4) distant [as in, ‘he received a cool reception from his opponent’], or even (5) affirmation [when asked if he wanted to go to the party, Joe replied ‘cool’]. Clearly, the semantic range of the word ‘cool’ is such that meaning can only be determined by the relationship that ‘cool’ effects with the other words in close proximity to it. To ignore this fact is to promote the lexical fallacy known as ‘illegitimate totality transfer’.

In a similar sense, there are clear examples in the New Testament where ‘immersion’ properly fits the context in which we find the word ‘baptise’ being used (see John 3:23 and Acts 8:38). Just as clearly, there are other examples where it does not (see Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:12.These two are important passages for the following reason: Jerusalem did not possess a standing body of water capable of accommodating the immersing of 3000 people between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm; and Samaria did not have a standing body of water capable of immersing even one believer, let alone the multitudes inferred by the text. Given that Christians did not make use of ‘tanks’ or ‘fonts’ for baptism until the early part of the 3^rd century, an appreciation and understanding of the effects of the geography of these regions is fundamentally important to properly discerning the contexts of the passages themselves).

The issue of whom it is that constitutes a suitable candidate for baptism is closely related to the issue of what it is that baptism seeks to achieve. For this reason, both considerations will be dealt with together in tandem during this part of the essay.

With respect to the ‘who’ question, two matters arise. The first relates to whether or not a personal comprehension of the issues involved is necessary prior to being baptised. This levels the argument at the preliminary stage of whether infants/children, or adults alone, comprise the proper candidates for the rite. The second issue, closely tied to the former, albeit the more important one theologically, is whether baptism is administered to believers, or to those who wish to become believers. In other words, is baptism for the saints, or to make sinners into saints? The outcome of this reasoning, obviously, impacts directly on the second aspect that needs to be addressed – the ‘what’ question. Does baptism serve as the means by which saving grace is imputed to an otherwise lost person (the concept of ‘baptismal regeneration’)? Or, does baptism serve, principally, to identify the already regenerate person with Jesus Christ as his or her Lord (the concept of ‘ordinal baptism’)? As with others matters relating to this rite, the Christian Church is fundamentally divided on what are the proper answers to these, fundamentally important questions.

In order to derive exegetically responsible results, it becomes necessary to consider, principally, the biblical writings themselves, and in the contexts in which they appear. In reviewing the sum total of the New Testament, then, we discern the following, general patterns:

1. Baptism appears to have been administered after repentance (John’s baptism ministry in the gospels, Acts 2:38, Acts 19:4)
2. Christian baptism, whilst building upon the concept of repentance, also points beyond it (Matthew 3:11, Acts 1:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 10:47, Acts 18:8, Acts 19:3-6, Galatians 3:27).
3. Christian baptism is closely linked with the reception of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12-17, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 19:3-6), and yet does not automatically precede the same (Acts 10:47).
4. Christian baptism is identified as the outward sign of a person having entered into the community of believers – the Church (John 4:1, Acts 2:41, Acts 9:18-19, Acts 10:47-48, Acts 11:16-18, Acts 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:13-15, Galatians 3:27).

As is clear from the quoted texts above, many of which are duplicated a number of times, there is a significant degree of overlap with respect to the various issues that baptism addresses. For example, whilst baptism is certainly linked, in some sense, to repentance, it also moves beyond repentance towards identification – with Jesus Christ personally, as well as with his Church corporately – and yet also seems to be linked, in some way, with the reception of the Holy Spirit as well. The complexity of baptism should prompt one to stop, and to ponder, the importance the rite played in the theology of the early Church.

Returning to the issue of candidature, the biblical material does not appear decisive in stipulating, or in prohibiting for that matter, the baptism of adults over and against that of children. However, the normative witness of the New Testament would seem to indicate that some form of articulated profession of faith is necessary. Occasionally, it appears that a vicarious profession of faith is also effectual (see Acts 16:14-15 and 30-33) To this end, it would seem that non-consensual baptism is illegitimate only under such circumstances that no profession of faith is evidenced by either the recipient, or by the person functioning as the representative head of the ‘household’, that is, of those being baptised. The general practice, however, appears to have been that a personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ was normative.

Having considered the biblical evidence, we can state with conviction the following: baptism always followed the presenting of the gospel message concerning Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Christ. To put this a slightly different way, one had to first appropriate and believe the gospel claim concerning Jesus, before one could identify with him through baptism. In simple terms, then, baptism followed belief, it did not pre-empt it.

The above summary serves to address the ‘what’ question as well: does baptism serve to save, or does it serve to identify? Mark 16:16, and Acts 2:38, are two texts which outwardly appear to enjoin belief/repentance with baptism, in order to effect salvation. We have already addressed the latter, so now it pays to consider the former.

The first point that we note is that the gospel message is delivered in order to present the recipient with a choice: either (a) believe, or (b) disbelieve. Salvation, we are assured, is given to the one who believes. The issue for us, though, is whether or not the imperative to be baptised is necessary in order to receive the salvation, which is offered. Grammatically, ‘ho pisteúsas’ (‘whoever believes’) appears first in the sentence, indicating that the emphasis of the entire command rests on the person believing. The particle ‘and’ (‘kai’), therefore, has copulative rather than cumulative force, and indicates that the believer will submit to being baptised as a result of his or her having believed. As the text then goes on to conclude, it is a person’s disbelief alone (and not a lack of baptism), which will result in him or her being condemned.

According to the biblical record, baptism in water is a rite of passage and/or identification, wherein a Christian surrenders his or her rights to self-ownership to Jesus Christ, and by extension, to the Church. The mode, and indeed, the candidature may vary, dependant upon the specific circumstances that are encountered. However, baptism was never treated as a process that one undertook in order to become a believer. Also, the significance of baptism is not ‘magical’2, it is representational – it serves to identify the Christian with Christ and his Body, the Church.

Baptism, as a rite, is not essential to being saved given that it follows salvation. Baptism, as a word, does not refer to a ‘plunging or immersing beneath water’. Revivalists err if they maintain otherwise, given that to do so is to go well beyond the biblical teaching.

The Revivalist positions on baptism may be accessed at each organisation’s official website: