To immerse or not to immerse? That is indeed an important question. No matter what position a person takes concerning this aspect of salvation, he is definitely going to upset someone. There is so much debate concerning baptism that it would take an entire book to explain all the different ideas that have been debated on this topic. Since it is such a lengthy topic, this article will only concern the mode of baptism, its definition, its history, the way it was practiced in the first century, and finally how it was practiced after the first century.
What Does βαπτιζω Mean?
The word baptize is not a word that was translated from the Greek New Testament; it was transliterated. For example, the Greek word ‘υιος is our word for son; so that is how we translate it; other words, such as βαπτιζω, were not translated into English, they were transliterated; that is, they took the letters of the English alphabet and substituted them for the corresponding Greek letters, giving us the word baptize. But if they had simply translated it into an English word, which word would they have picked? Well, it depends on the context and the variation of the word itself.
This word can be used in reference to clothes being dyed a certain color (Kittel 1:529), a ship sinking, or a person drowning. It can also be used figuratively to describe bringing a city to the border of destruction, to “go under” or “to sink” into sleep, intoxication, or impotence; or to be “overwhelmed” by faults, desires, sicknesses, or magical arts (Kittel 1:530). If it is used in a literal sense, involving an individual or item, it refers to the subject being overwhelmed by a particular liquid, usually water. If it is used in a figurative sense it refers to a person being overwhelmed by a particular foe, vice, or sickness.
Now the important question is, how was it used in reference to people coming to God? Consider its history.
Proselyte Baptism
Religious washings are not unique to Christianity. Washings of many kinds have been in practice before and after the establishment of Christianity. But to understand how this Christian washing is implemented, one must start by understanding the baptism of Judaism that was in practice 2000 years ago.
If a Gentile desired to dedicate themselves to God, by submitting their life to the teachings of Moses, they were to first be immersed. This seems to be a practice developed after the close of the Old Testament and before the preaching of John the Immerser. If a man wished to become a Jew, he would be circumcised; after he healed from the procedure, he would strip off his clothes to be baptized. This act would require the presence of a Rabbi, and he would recite heavy and light commands of the Law. The candidate, at the hearing of these laws, plunged himself entirely in the water and then would come up from the water. After he came out of the water, he would then be seen as a newborn child, an Israelite in all things! However, the procedure for women would be slightly different. They clearly would be not circumcised, and they would be attended by those of their same sex, with the Rabbi waiting outside (ISBE 1:386).
This was more than an act of washing; it was an act of dedication to God (Flemington 348). The individual was now seen as an infant who was obligated to keep the Torah (Kittel 1:536). This idea of immersion seems to have been so common that there are comments recorded from both Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel in the Mishnah.
One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave (Mishnah Eduyot 5:2).
It is plain to see that immersion was the accepted form of proselyte baptism.
The Baptism of John and Jesus
When John the Immerser came on the scene, he baptized for the coming of the kingdom (i.e., the church) (Matt. 3:2). For one to be admitted to this baptism, he had to confess and repent of his sins. He then received forgiveness of his sins (Luke 3:3). How was this baptism administered? Some suggested that since it was not specified, John perhaps brought them out to the water and simply poured water on their head, as is depicted in many paintings and statues today. But first, the customary baptism of that day was immersion; second, the word here is βαπτιζω, which in the Jewish context, refers to a person, item, or body part being immersed or dipped. Since John was baptizing people, it is clear they were being immersed.
Third, if John was doing something other than immersing his followers, there would have to be a different Greek word used to describe the act of pouring and sprinkling, but only βαπτιζω is used. Fourth, historically speaking, immersion is the norm, and only years later would a new model be introduced.
Another thing to consider is John’s need for “much” water. John the Apostle writes, “John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized” (John 3:23, NAS). If sprinkling or pouring were fair alternatives, John’s need for much water would have been superfluous.
In reference to the baptism authorized by Jesus, beginning on the Day of Pentecost, the only thing that made itself distinct (in reference to its mode) was the authority by which it was done (Matt. 28:19; Acts 19:5). There is no authoritative command given which authorizes anything besides immersion.
Changes Introduced
Historical records indicate that immersion was the common practice in the early church. The earliest document that suggests a person could be saved without immersion comes from the Didache (an early 2nd century document), which suggests that under extreme circumstances, in which immersion was impossible, a person could have water poured on their head three
times (Didache 7). However, there is no record that this was practiced until the 3rd century when a certain man named Novetus (Novatian), though extremely ill, sought to be baptized; thus, they poured water upon him (Shackleford 43).
Affusion (pouring) was confined to extreme cases until the late 9th century. This was sometimes referred
to as clinical baptism. Eventually it was declared by
the council of Ravenna in 1311 that sprinkling and
pouring were acceptable forms (Shackleford 44).
Christianity Today
Are we still required to practice immersion? Is this what was commanded by Jesus? Yes (Mark 16:16). Is this what was practiced by the disciples of Jesus? Yes (Acts 2:41; cf. Acts 8:35-39). Do we have any authority to sprinkle or pour? No. The reason people are drawn to the church of Christ is that it teaches Apostolic Christianity—the theology and practice of the church established by Jesus Christ. The church teaches the basic principles of speaking where the Word speaks and being silent where it is silent (Deut. 4:2). As Paul commanded all Christians, we should not go beyond that which was written (1 Cor. 4:6).
If Jesus had commanded us to take a bath, will He only be satisfied if we choose to wash our hands? No, I can’t say He will. If one wishes to be obedient to the teachings of Christ one must submit to immersion. Of course, there are still many objections made to immersion, often due to the unwillingness to criticize the current practices of their own church.
Common Arguments Against Immersion
- The Didache approved pouring; therefore, immersion is not necessary. Just because a noninspired source says something, it does not make it true. People only cite the Didache when it is convenient, without desiring to practice its other teachings. Most who support its teachings on “pouring” will not support its teachings on church hierarchy or church discipline (Didache 15). Some of the most unorthodox writings appeared soon after the New Testament was completed. Just because it’s from the early church, does that make it reliable? No, of course not. Unless any teaching can be found in the Scriptures, it cannot be substantiated.
- The church never had any defined formula of baptism. This doesn’t really make sense, since it is like pulling teeth to get away from immersion. Everett Ferguson points out that non-immersive “baptism” was only confined to emergencies for the first 900 years of the church’s existence (Shackleford 44).
- Certain scenarios in Scripture would have made it impossible to immerse, such as the case of the 3,000 saved on the day of Pentecost and the Philippian jailer. This is preposterous. There were multiple pools in Jerusalem such as the pool of Bethesda (John 5:2) and the pool of Siloam (John 9:7), not to mention all the ceremonial pools in private residences that would have been present. And in reference to the jailer, why wouldn’t there be enough water for baptism? It seems that some assume he was baptized in the jail. But why would that be necessary? We know that he left the prison. Thus, he and his whole family were baptized (Acts 16:33-34). Any pond or river could have been available. The jailer was not confined to the jail. Besides, he trusted Paul and Silas; they could have already escaped if that was their intention.
- Baptizo does not always mean “immersion”; therefore, a person does not have to be immersed. It is true that baptizo does not always mean “immerse.” But it depends on the subject and the context. For example, when used in a figurative sense, its meaning may vary. But it still carries with it the idea of something being overwhelmed by something positive or negative. But the baptism of an individual is not something figurative; it’s a literal action, which was administered through immersion. Words always change the meaning, depending on whether or not they are used figuratively or literally.
These arguments are not substantial in any way, nor do they respect the Scriptures, as they ought. The best approach is always to ask, “What saith the Scriptures?”
Works Cited
Flemington, W. F. “Baptism.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962. 348–53.
Kittel, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979.
Shackelford, Don. A Survey of Church History. Montgomery, AL: Amridge University Press, 2010.
ISBE. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.
[Editor’s note: The following exchange took place between Brother Boyer and a Catholic enthusiast. The arguments belong to the Catholic; Brother Boyer simply responds to them. Some edits were made—GWS].
Does the Catholic Church contradict the Bible with its practice of celibacy for Catholic bishops?
Catholic enthusiast’s first argument: Paul was a bishop and not married. We know he was a bishop because the Apostolic office is described with the Greek word episkope (Acts 1:20).
Connor: Was Paul a bishop? There is no doubt that Paul was an apostle. In fact, he often introduced himself at the beginning of his epistles as an apostle. He would refer to himself as such to demonstrate his authority: “Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (Titus 1:1). We know that Peter was both an apostle and elder because he said so, “I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). But is there evidence to say that Paul was a bishop? Broussard says that they are one and the same, but did Paul treat these offices as one and the same? Paul, when he writes to the church at Ephesus, makes a clear distinction between the office of a bishop and that of an apostle: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). In the first century, the term pastor was used interchangeably with the office of bishop or elder (see 1 Peter 5:1-4 [shepherd is the verb form of the noun pastor]. If the term apostle and bishop referred to the same office, why would Paul separate them distinctly in his list? Wouldn’t it have made sense and been easier to just say apostles or bishops? But Paul didn’t.
Though the offices are clearly seen as separate in Scripture, Broussard’s claim must be answered. The word episkope is used in reference to the office of the apostle, but it must be translated based on the context. Just as elder refers to an older man or an office, so episkope has more than one meaning. In Acts 1:20, Young’s Literal Translation says, “And his oversight let another take.” The very literal American Standard Version has: “His office let another take.” The vast majority of respectable translations simply translate it as “office.” And that’s what the word means in this context. It is referring to the work of an apostle, not a bishop (for which Paul gives qualifications in 1 Timothy 3).
It might surprise you to know that Greek words in the New Testament are like ours: some have one usual meaning, but others can convey different ideas, depending on the context, the gender, and the prefix or the suffix attached to the root word. The root here is episkopos. The word episkope is translated in four ways in the NASB—twice as “visitation,” once as “bishop,” and once as “office.”
To help prevent any potential confusion, think of some English words that sound the same, but vary in meaning depending on the context. For example, I might say, “I’ve been running,” and you would take this to mean I’ve gone for a jog, likely to exercise. However, I might say my refrigerator is running; this does not mean my refrigerator likes to jog with me, but that it is functioning properly. I might also say that my nose is running, which does not mean my nose likes to jog or that it is functioning properly. It actually means the opposite and likely indicates that I am experiencing a cold or, at the very least, allergies. However, you know what I mean, based on the context. The same applies to Greek words; the context determines the meaning.
Another issue with this argument is that the Catholic church does not apply this logic across the board. For example, some translations erroneously call Phoebe a deaconess instead of a servant (Rom. 16:1). Even if an inferior version were right, would that mean she holds the office of a deacon because the same root is used in both Greek words? This is the same logic Broussard uses to prove that Paul was a bishop. However, both the churches of Christ and the Roman Catholic church would agree that no office of a deaconess existed in the first century. The churches of Christ appeal to Scripture as evidence while Roman Catholics appeal to records concerning early councils.
Paul gives clear instructions concerning the office of a deacon, and in those qualifications he states that they must be men and also have wives (1 Tim. 3:8, 12). The church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church both understand that everyone is required to be a servant (deacon) of God, but only certain individuals can hold the office of a deacon. Just because a similar word was used with Phoebe that is also used with deacons does not mean Phoebe held the office of a deacon. Likewise, just because a similar word is used in connection with apostles and bishops does not mean they are of the same office—especially since Paul lists them as separate offices (Eph. 4:11).
Catholic enthusiast’s second argument: Denying Paul’s bishopric also denies that Jesus is the guardian of our soul, because the Greek here for guardian is episkopos (1 Peter 2:25). Jesus was and is still celibate, and yet he is still the episkopos of our souls.
Connor: This argument has no merit. The word translated “bishop” has virtually lost its meaning in today’s world and is often only referred to men of high rank in certain “high churches” such as the Catholic, Anglican, and Episcopal church. Of course, there is the chess piece that can only move diagonally. The Greek word, episkopos, simply means “overseer.” One can be an
overseer in various respects. It is wonderful that Jesus is the overseer of my soul; as God, I expect Him to be. Just because He is an overseer in a heavenly sense, does that mean he is an overseer in an earthly sense? This is what is called in logic the false equivalence fallacy.
Catholic enthusiast’s third argument: The husband of one wife does not mean the husband of a wife. This is simply a limit of how many marriages a bishop can have in his lifetime.
Connor: So, if a man is widowed, then he cannot marry again and be qualified to be a bishop? Marriage is for life, but death terminates a marriage. If he marries again, he is still the husband of one wife. Also, a divorce of one’s spouse is allowed if she commits fornication (Matt. 19:9). If a man had an unscriptural divorce and remarried (which is unscriptural), he cannot even be in fellowship with the church, let alone be a bishop. But he can be a bishop with a Scriptural divorce. His first marriage was terminated, and he now is the husband of one wife.
Broussard says that, if Paul was trying to say that a bishop must be married, he would have written “the husband of ‘a’ wife.” This is an odd argument; Paul wrote precisely what he meant. He never indicated that this is a suggestion and not a requirement. In fact, nothing else in this list is a suggestion. As Paul begins the list, he says, A bishop must be…” (1 Timothy 3:2). The Greek word for must is dei, meaning, “it is necessary.” Paul makes it clear that these qualifications are necessary.
If a bishop could or could not have a wife, how do we account for the fact that his children must be “in subjection in all reverence”—and that this is a test to see how he will manage the church of God (1 Tim. 3:4-5)? It should be obvious that a bishop must be married.
Catholic enthusiast’s fourth argument: Paul’s strong encouragement of celibacy equates to making the marriage of a bishop optional.
Connor: Paul does encourage celibacy—because of a present distress (1 Cor. 7:25-38). But at the same time he makes it clear that no one sins in marrying. He writes: “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2, ESV). Marriage is a healthy outlet for sexual desires; in fact, most men and women need this outlet. Marriage is the institution, designed by God, to express this aspect of our humanity (Gen. 2:24). Paul even condemns those in a marital relationship who deprive their spouses—except by consent—for a short time, in order to guard against temptation (1 Cor. 7:5).
Paul does say that if one has the gift (of not having a strong need for sexual fulfillment), he would experience certain spiritual benefits by remaining unmarried. They include surviving the “present distress,” in which things were going to be very difficult for married couples. This could be a warning against upcoming persecution or perhaps refer simply to the hostile environment at Corinth. We know that the Jews in Corinth were hostile to the Christians, attempting to use the government to interfere in their spiritual walk (Acts 18:12-17). Whatever the distress was, Paul said at that time it would be better to remain unmarried because one’s attention can be wholly given to God (1 Cor. 7:32-34). A Christian could suffer much when distress comes upon him; however, when it came upon his wife or kids, it could be truly difficult to endure. For this reason, Paul says it would be best that they remain single for the current time, but he makes it clear that this is not a command but a suggestion (1 Cor. 7:38).
But are there benefits to not being married at all—even if one is not in a distressing situation? Yes. Jesus also seems to indicate that remaining unmarried is difficult and rare. But He mentions that some “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God,” though not literally, but in the sense that they abstained from marriage (Matt. 19:11-12). This seems to have been something that Paul chose to do as a missionary. Paul moved from place to place all over the Roman empire in order to preach and teach; having a wife tag along would have been difficult, considering all the opposition he endured (stoning, imprisonment, et al.).
But does this have anything to do with bishops of the local church? No. Paul made it clear that not marrying was optional for single people. In reference to being a bishop, however, he chose the word dei (“it is necessary”) in reference to the qualifications for the office.
Can a Christian make a great missionary, preacher, or evangelist being celibate? Yes, of course. He can make himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of God! But that is not the role of a bishop. One thing to consider is that in the first century bishops worked in cooperation with other bishops in that congregation. In fact, they were selected from the same congregation they oversaw (Acts 14:21-23). These bishops would not be traveling from place to place or have the same difficulties a missionary would.
The second and main thing to consider involves the benefits of having a wife and children. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, three of these seven verses are concerned with him being married or having children, which seems to (1) demonstrate to the church he is eligible to be a bishop. As Paul writes, “but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?”
(2) Peter says that bishops must rule as examples (1 Peter 5:2). Would it not be important for bishops to lead the families in the church as to the way to be a proper husband and father?
Finally (3), would not the bishop be able to teach better, if he had the experience of being husband and father who had to raise children and be faithful to God? Why else would Paul emphasize bishops being married men with children in both letters to Titus and Timothy? Why else would Paul make it a necessary qualification?
