http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1181
Is Sprinkling an Appropriate Mode of Baptism?
In their definitions of “baptism,” most modern dictionaries include the
sprinkling (and pouring) of water. Similarly, many in the religious
world teach that “baptism” by sprinkling is acceptable and sufficient,
while others disagree. Because of these conflicting messages, questions
on the issue of sprinkling inevitably arise. What does the word
“baptism” really mean? Does it, by definition, include sprinkling? The
answers to these questions have a bearing on the meaning of Jesus’
command, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” (Matthew 28:19, emp. added).
The English word “baptism” is transliterated from the Greek word
baptisma, which signifies
dipping or
immersion (Thayer,
1958, p. 94; Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, 1979, p. 132). Immersion and
sprinkling are two very different things, and the Greek language bears
that out (Jackson, 2002a, p. 31). Forms of the word
baptisma
appear in various extrabiblical Greek writings, where it consistently
carries with it the meaning of immersion. Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch,
Strabo, Diodorus, and Josephus all wrote of things that were “immersed”
in water, and they all used forms of
baptizo (Martin, 1991, pp.
208-210). In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint,
there is a passage that plainly shows the clear distinction between the
concepts of sprinkling and baptism. Leviticus 4:17 reads: “Then the
priest shall dip [
baptizo] his finger in the blood and sprinkle [
rhantizo]
it several times before the Lord, in front of the veil.” In this verse,
the word translated “baptize” (or “dip”) is mentioned in the same
sentence with the word rightly translated “sprinkle,” so it is clear
that in the Old Testament, sprinkling is not baptism. The same holds
true in the New Testament. In John 13:16, Jesus “dipped” (Greek
bapto)
a bread morsel and passed it to Judas. Every time “baptism” is
mentioned in the New Testament, it means immersion, never sprinkling. In
fact, the practice of substituting sprinkling for baptism was unheard
of until A.D. 253 (
Thompson and Jackson, 1984, p. 11).
Despite the fact that the word “baptism” has nothing to do with
sprinkling, there are several passages of Scripture that frequently are
used by advocates of sprinkling to justify their position.
LEVITICUS 14:15-16
Sometimes those who defend the practice of sprinkling claim that three
of the most common modern “modes” of baptism (immersion in water,
pouring of water, and sprinkling) are all authorized in Leviticus
14:15-16: “And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and
pour it into the palm of his own left hand. Then the priest shall
dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall
sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord” (emp. added).
Observe that Leviticus 14:15-16 was written about the process of
purification of lepers after they recovered from their disease. This
process of purification was the way by which the recovered leper could
re-enter Hebrew society (Keil and Delitzsch, 1976, 1: 385). Leviticus
14:15-16 is part of the discussion of the second act of leper
purification. This process is similar to one described in Leviticus
8:23, when Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as priests. Both
Leviticus 14:15-16 and Leviticus 8:23 are totally unrelated to New
Testament baptism (both passages are addressing guidelines of Mosaic
law, not Christian law—see Hebrews 7:22-28; Galatians 3:21-29), and thus
cannot be used to justify sprinkling as an appropriate mode of baptism.
ISAIAH 52:15
Some contend that because this passage mentions the word “sprinkle,”
the act of sprinkling must be a scriptural substitution for New
Testament baptism. We must evaluate the validity of that contention by
examining the context of Isaiah 52:15: “So shall He
sprinkle many
nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; For what had not been
told them they shall see, and what they had not heard they shall
consider” (emp. added). This verse is couched in a portion of Scripture
that discusses the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world, so it
is clear that the One Who shall “sprinkle many nations” is the Lord
Himself.
The word “sprinkle” in Isaiah 52:15 is translated from the Hebrew word
nazah. Every time
nazah
appears in the Old Testament, it is translated “sprinkle” (in the King
James Version—see Exodus 29:21; Leviticus 5:9; Numbers 8:7), but some
scholars believe that a more accurate translation of
nazah here
is “startle” (e.g., Hailey, 1992, p. 435; Keil and Delitzsch, 1976, 7:
308). Albert Barnes (1950, 2: 258) observed that the usage of “sprinkle”
in this context is either an allusion to the sprinkling of blood in the
Old Testament (and figuratively a link between that sprinkling and the
shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross), or to the ceremonial
sprinkling of water to symbolize cleansing and purity (see Leviticus
14:51; Hebrews 9:19). However, if
nazah were translated
“startle,” the emphasis of the verse would change completely. The verse
would then tell us that Christ’s suffering was going to “startle” the
nations. Many accept that interpretation because of the statement in
verse 15, “Kings shall shut their mouths.” This interpretation indicates
that many were going to be shocked or even speechless when the Word
became flesh, died as a sacrifice for sin, and was resurrected from the
dead (Hailey, 1992, p. 436; Jackson, 1991, p. 105). No matter which
translation of
nazah is correct in this context, there is nothing
contained in Isaiah 52:15 that has any connection to New Testament
baptism, so it cannot be used to justify the modern practice of
sprinkling.
EZEKIEL 36:25
Those who suggest that sprinkling is a legitimate substitution for
baptism sometimes appeal to Ezekiel 36:25 as a “proof text.” “And I will
sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; I will
cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (emp.
added). This verse, however, is not in a context concerning baptism. A
study of Ezekiel 35 reveals that the language about “washing” is
obviously metaphoric. It would have been a fitting metaphor for Ezekiel
to use in relating to his audience, because of the Mosaic system of
cleansing. Old Testament passages that use language like that used here
about “washing” are numerous. For example, Moses recorded in Exodus
30:20: “When they go into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come
near the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to the
Lord, they shall wash with water, lest they die.” Exodus 29:4 reads:
“And Aaron and his sons you shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of
meeting, and you shall wash them with water.” Numbers 19:18 declares:
“A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it
on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, or on
the one who touched a bone, the slain, the dead, or a grave.” The
concept of sprinkling and washing is prevalent in Old Testament
passages, but in such passages (like Ezekiel 36), baptism for salvation
is not under consideration. What
is under consideration in
Ezekiel 36 is, literally, the destruction of one of Israel’s enemies,
the nation of Edom, and figuratively, the future destruction of all the
Lord’s enemies (Jackson, 2002a, p. 31).
Notice Ezekiel 36:24: “For I will take you from among the nations,
gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.”
Then, immediately following the verse that mentions the sprinkling of
clean water, God said: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit
within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give
you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). These two verses present the
immediate context from which many modern religious people remove Ezekiel
36:25 in order to justify sprinkling. If we are to believe that Ezekiel
was writing about a literal sprinkling of water in this verse, then we
would also be forced to understand Ezekiel’s usage of “heart of stone”
in verse 26 as being literal. New Testament baptism is simply not under
consideration in Ezekiel 36:25. Wayne Jackson noted that many
denominational scholars who defend the practice of sprinkling as an
authentic form of baptism do
not appeal to Ezekiel 36:25, because
it does not aid their cause (2002a, p. 31). The substitution of
sprinkling for true baptism cannot be defended, based on Ezekiel 36:25.
ACTS 2:41
At times, those who accept sprinkling appeal to Acts 2 in an attempt to
justify their position. Some suggest that the twelve apostles could not
have immersed as many as 3,000 people in one day (Acts 2:41 records
that “about three thousand souls” were baptized on Pentecost), so the
apostles must have sprinkled water on the 3,000. However, if each
baptism took approximately a minute, the apostles could have done the
job in just over four hours (Jackson, 2002b, p. 32). Also, nothing in
the New Testament demands that the apostles had to do all the baptizing
themselves.
Still others claim that ample water was not available in Jerusalem to
accommodate all the immersions. However, there were many pools in
Jerusalem, some of which were large. The Virgin’s pool was about 132
feet square and three feet deep. The pool of Siloam occupied
approximately 800 square feet, and was more than three feet deep. Lower
Gihon covers more than three acres, and can hold a depth of twenty feet
of water; plus, there were other pools (McGarvey, 1881, p. 201). Without
a doubt, on the day of Pentecost, the believers were
immersed.
1 CORINTHIANS 10:2
Those who support the substitution of sprinkling for baptism sometimes
appeal to 1 Corinthians 10:2 to justify their position. The passage
states that “all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”—a
direct reference to Exodus 14:22. Baptism into Moses is entirely
different from baptism into Christ, but some who defend sprinkling
assert that, because Paul called the crossing of the Red Sea a
“baptism,” the Israelites must have been sprinkled as they crossed the
Red Sea. [Israel certainly was not immersed in water—the people walked
on dry ground (Hebrews 11:29).] What did Paul mean when he wrote that
our fathers were “baptized into Moses”?
The meaning of baptism in 1 Corinthians 10:2 is both literal and
figurative. The Israelites were baptized—in the sense that they were
literally surrounded by water, though the water did not touch them. This
is a legitimate use of the word “baptism.” When a body is buried in a
cemetery, for example, the body is “immersed” in the ground (surrounded
by dirt), though a casket prevents any dirt from actually touching the
body. In that sense, the children of Israel were immersed in the Red
Sea. Paul also wrote of baptism in a figurative sense: the children of
Israel were “baptized” into Moses in that they devoted themselves to his
leadership and, through him, God’s leadership. G.G. Findlay explained:
The cloud, shading and guiding the Israelites from above, and the “the
sea” making a path for them through its midst and drowning their enemies
behind them, were glorious signs to “our fathers” of God’s salvation;
together they formed a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), inaugurating
the national covenant life; as it trode the miraculous path between
upper and nether waters, Israel was born into its Divine estate. Thus
“they all received their baptism unto Moses, entering through him into
acknowledged fellowship with God; even so the Corinthians in the use of
the same symbolic element had been baptized unto Christ (cf. Romans
6:3f., Galatians 3:27; n.d., p. 857).
Baptism into Christ is not mandated by Exodus 14:22, though the example
of the Red Sea crossing metaphorically foreshadows baptism into Christ,
as does Noah’s ark (1 Peter 3:20-21; see Lenski, 1937, p. 391). In
Exodus 14, though, the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea in order
to save their physical lives, not to save their eternal souls, and the
“baptism” of Exodus 14 was instituted by Moses thousands of years before
the baptism of Christ came into effect. There is no identification of
the proper “mode” of baptism in either 1 Corinthians 10:2 or Exodus
14:22, so the substitution of sprinkling for baptism cannot be justified
based on either passage.
HEBREWS 10:22
This verse often is cited as proof that people should be sprinkled in
order to be saved, but a brief examination of the text reveals another
meaning. Hebrews 10:22 reads: “Let us draw near with a true heart in
full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil
conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (emp. added). This
verse seems to draw its spiritual meaning from God’s old covenant with
Israel. During that period of Mosaic law, the high priests had to wash
themselves before they entered the Most Holy Place (see Leviticus
16:3-4). Notice Hebrews 10:19-21: “Therefore, brethren, having boldness
to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way
which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and
having a High Priest over the house of God….” These verses, and verse
22, both deal with how people “draw near” to God, and the message in
verse 22 is clear: our hearts must be true. What apparently makes our
hearts true is the “sprinkling” of our hearts. If the hearts of
Christians are “sprinkled,” the “evil conscience” is removed and they no
longer bear the guilt of sin. The evil conscience is one that does not
object to evil (cf. 1 Timothy 4:2). Robert Milligan explained this:
Every act that we perform contrary to the known will of God defiles our
conscience and also our consciousness; we have them both an evil
conscience and an evil self-consciousness. And this, so long as it
continues, must seriously interrupt our union, communion, and fellowship
with God. The child that is suffering from an evil consciousness on
account of its having transgressed the known will of its father can not,
so long as the feeling lasts, approach Him with perfect confidence. But
when it repents of the evil, confesses the wrong, and feels fully
assured that the fault is forgiven, then what a change comes over it
(1950, p. 281).
The Hebrews writer did make reference to baptism, but notice how he did it. Verse 22 says our
hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience, but that our
bodies
are washed with pure water. Sprinkling is indeed under consideration in
Hebrews 10:22, but the reader must take care to observe
what, exactly, is being “sprinkled.” In this passage, the Hebrew writer illustrates the need to have our
hearts sprinkled,
so obviously the meaning is not literal, but must be understood as
figurative or metaphorical. The only portion of the verse that
potentially deals with literal water is the part that mentions a
“washing.” What is this washing? It is the same “washing of
regeneration” that is mentioned in Titus 3:5—baptism (Milligan, 1950, p.
282). However, the portion of the verse that deals with sprinkling does
not apply to the portion of the verse that deals with baptism. The
hearts of Christians are figuratively sprinkled with the blood of
Christ, but their bodies are washed (they are buried in water for the
forgiveness of their sins; see Acts 22:16; Mark 16:16). The modern
practice of sprinkling for baptism is not authorized by Hebrews 10:22.
TRUE BAPTISM
If the “proof texts” for sprinkling as a substitution for baptism do
not prove that sprinkling is a form of baptism, then what is the
authentic, scriptural form of baptism? The baptism Jesus authorized and
commanded is precisely what is indicated by the Greek word
baptizo:
immersion.
The book of Acts contains multiple accounts of baptism, and in every
instance, the candidate for baptism was immersed. In every instance,
that immersion was sufficient (see Acts 10:48; Acts 16:31-33; Acts
22:16).
REFERENCES
Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.
Barnes, Albert (1950),
Notes on the Old Testament: Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Findlay, G.G. (no date),
The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hailey, Homer (1992),
A Commentary on Isaiah (Louisville, KY: Religious Supply).
Jackson, Wayne (1991),
Isaiah: God’s Prophet of Doom and Deliverance (Abilene, TX: Quality).
Jackson, Wayne (2002a), “Did The Prophet Ezekiel Preview ‘Sprinkling’ As A Form of New Testament ‘Baptism’?,”
Christian Courier, 38:31, January.
Jackson, Wayne (2002b), “Notes from the Margin of My Bible,”
Christian Courier, 38:31, January.
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976a reprint),
Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lenski, Robert C.H. (1937),
The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Martin, Luther W. (1991) “Translating
Baptizo,”
Firm Foundation, 106:208-210, July.
McGarvey, J.W. (1881),
Lands of the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott).
Milligan, Robert (1950),
The New Testament Commentary: Epistle to the Hebrews (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Thayer, J.H. (1958 reprint),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Thompson, Bert and Wayne Jackson (1984), “That ‘Loaded’ Questionnaire,” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1181.
For
over a century, scientists have recognized that all natural phenomena
in the Universe can ultimately be divided into interactions between five
basic, fundamental “manifestations.” In 1882, staunch evolutionist
Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher, biologist, and sociologist who
was a prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian
era, recognized “likenesses and unlikenesses among phenomena…, which are
segregated into manifestations…, and then into space and time, matter and motion and force…” (Soylent Communications, 2011, emp. added). In First Principles,
under the chapter heading, “Space, Time, Matter, Motion, and Force,” he
wrote, “These modes of cohesion under which manifestations are invariably presented, and therefore invariably represented,
we call…Space and Time,…Matter and Motion [action—JM]” (1882, 1:171,
emp. added). “Though Space, Time, Matter, and Motion, are apparently all
necessary data of intelligence, yet a psychological analysis…shows us
that these are either built up of, or abstracted from, experiences of
Force” (p. 169). So, time, force, action, space, and matter are the five
manifestations of all scientific phenomena.
Recently
we received an e-mail at Apologetics Press from a skeptic who accused
God of breaking one of His own commandments. The skeptic cited Exodus
20:17, which is the final commandment in the list of the Ten
Commandments, that states: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house;
you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” The skeptic then stated that
“God most certainly wronged Joseph when He seduced Mary, the betrothed
of Joseph.” Did God violate His own laws of morality when the Holy
Spirit came upon Mary so that she conceived Jesus? Not in any way.
repeated
by enough intellectuals, it seems many will become and/or remain
enamored with evolutionary theory—even when the underlying evidence is
shown continually to be inadequate and at odds with reality. Many
evolutionary-laden science textbooks declare that natural selection
(e.g., English peppered moths), mutations, embryology, homology, the
fossil record (e.g., the horse “family tree”), etc. all prove the
General Theory of Evolution. In actuality, none of
these proves what evolutionists claim. Creationists recognize the fossil
record, similarities among living things, natural selection, and
mutations, but we have observed nothing that proves
humans descended from amphibious creatures that crawled out of the water
hundreds of millions of years ago. The fact is, evolutionists’ “proofs”
are simply assertions. Their theory is merely a twisted interpretation of the physical world. What’s more, their “story” changes from one year to the next—and sometimes one day to the next.
a
dinosaur” (Namowitz and Spaulding, p. 565, emp. added). In 1994,
Prentice Hall published a widely used middle school textbook titled Evolution: Change Over Time.
Adjacent to a chart showing how long ago birds supposedly evolved from
dinosaurs, the editors placed these words: “[B]iologists think that
birds are actually modern-day dinosaurs. Current theory indicates that
birds evolved from the most famous of the dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex”
(p. 67). Only last year, evolutionary scientists in China confidently
affirmed that “birds evolved from dinosaurs” (“Feathered Fossils...,”
2009), and just last month we reported how evolutionary scientists
writing in Nature magazine allegedly “confirmed” (yet once again) that birds evolved from dinosaurs (
Although
“many scientific and lay communities,” including countless public
school textbook editors, have been championing for decades that birds
are “living dinosaurs,” Ruben urged readers to put the brake on this
bandwagon. First of all, “very recent data suggest that many clearly
cursorial theropods [ground dwelling dinosaurs—EL]
previously thought to have been feathered may not have been” (Ruben;
cf. Lingham-Soliar, et al., 2007, 274:1823-1829; see also Butt, 2010).
What’s more, “the group that birds are assumed to have
been derived from, may not even have been dinosaurs” (Ruben, emp.
added)! Even though for many years, innumerable impressionable minds
have been taught the “factuality” of dinosaur-to-bird evolution,
evolutionary zoologist John Ruben says this was only an assumption.
Scientists have never proven that dinosaurs evolved into birds. In
fact, based upon recent model glide tests done by several scientists
around the country (see Alexander, et al., 2010), a growing number of
evolutionists appear to be “broadly at odds with one another” (Ruben).
Q.
