Through my years of pastoring in a Presbyterian context, I’ve had many conversations about the propriety of paedo-baptism versus credo-baptism. From time to time, a congregant will become convinced that paedo-baptism is the biblical practice. But baptism by sprinkling? Never! “That’s not in the Bible,” they’ll say. “The Bible clearly teaches immersion. Sprinkling must be done for practical, not biblical, reasons…right?” 

To be sure, there is a way of reading the Bible where the practice of baptism-by-immersion seems abundantly obvious. John baptized in a particular place “because water was plentiful there” (John 3:23). After his baptism, Jesus “came up out of the water” (Mark 1:10). The Ethiopian eunuch might have asked that Philip baptise him with a water jug; instead, they find water along the trail: “‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ … and they both went down into the water” (Acts 8:37-38). Add to this the fact that bapto (apparently the root from which the Greek noun and verb for baptism come) literally means “immerse.” With these and other such considerations, the case for immersion seems closed. 

Or, almost closed.

The Westminster Confession of Faith recognizes various ways of performing the sacrament of baptism: “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). Here the Confession permits baptism by immersion but commends baptism by “pouring, or sprinkling.” But on what basis, we might ask, do they commend baptism by sprinkling? 

Interestingly, the Westminster Assembly’s seventeenth century debate over the correct mode of baptism centered not on which of the modes—immersion, pouring, sprinkling—was most appropriate, but on whether or not immersion should even be recognized as a valid baptism! The Assembly was split down the middle on this question, some arguing that there is no scriptural warrant for immersion and that “there was no cogent argument that there ever was dipping [i.e. immersion]” as a baptismal practice.¹

This will come as a surprise to all those accustomed to the practice of baptism by immersion. Aren’t all New Testament baptisms baptisms-by-immersion? Doesn’t the word baptism literally mean “to dip/immerse”? Well, no. 

The claim that the Greek terms for baptism (baptizo, verb; batismos, noun) mean, by definition, “to immerse” are based on a linguistic confusion. The root word bapto does mean “to immerse.” But the manner in which these related terms (baptizo, baptismos) are in fact deployed throughout the New Testament demonstrates that they, in fact, mean to pour/sprinkle (see, e.g., Mark 7:1–5; Luke 11:38; Hebrews 6:2).² Bapto no more determines the meaning of baptizo and baptismos than “butter” determines the meaning of “butterfly.” 

Still, was not Christ’s own baptism by John a baptism by immersion? Well, no. (At least, not necessarily.) 

We do read that following Christ’s baptism, he “came up out of the water” (Mark 1:10). But it’s unlikely that this is a reference to Jesus being immersed under then coming up out of the water. Indeed, on a plain reading of this text it is equally plausible that Christ’s coming “up out of the water” refers to his ascent out of the river from which he was baptized. The process goes like this: Jesus went down into the river (where his baptism by sprinkling occurs); he then “came up out” of the river, after his baptism-by-sprinkling.³

Having addressed these two most common reasons why Christians assume that baptism is immersive, let’s now consider a few of the reasons why baptism-by-sprinkling might be a more excellent, that is, biblical, way. 

1. Sprinkling is the dominant mode of “purifying” or ritual “cleansing” in the Old Testament.⁴

At times the sprinkling is with blood, identifying the person sprinkled with the substitute death of the sacrifice (e.g. Exodus 29:21); at times it’s with water (Leviticus 14:51). Nowhere in the OT do we find “dipping” to be the way God cleanses his people.⁵ More than that, when Jesus commands his disciples to be baptized – ritually cleansed with water – we should expect that this is in fulfillment of what’s already been promised to Israel: namely, that the Messiah will wash by “sprinkling” the nations (Isaiah 52:15; Ezekiel 36:25)!⁶

2. Sprinkling is the explicit mode of purifying people for service to God.

This is why the Levites were “sprinkled” with water before being allowed to enter into God’s presence in service at the temple (Numbers 8:7). Aaron and his sons likewise were to undergo “washings” to be set apart for temple service. In fact, one of the most striking differences about the New Covenant is that not only are priests and Levites to be baptized to enter into the Lord’s presence, but all of God’s people are to be sanctified with water to live within the veil of God’s presence. As a priesthood, all believers are to receive the priestly washing of baptism (cf. 1 Peter 2:9). 

3. Sprinkling with blood is an identification with the death of the sacrifice offered.

To be sprinkled with the blood of a sacrifice is to identify with the death of that sacrifice, as though to say its death substitutes for my death. In this way, sprinkling is the biblical image of a person “dying with” that which is sacrificed. This is why the Apostle Paul sees baptism as a “death” and “burial” with Christ (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12): the sprinkling recalls the person’s identification with the sacrifice made. 

4. Every New Testament reference to an Old Testament “baptism” is explicitly a baptism by sprinkling, where “immersion” is what happens to those under judgment.

Paul speaks of Israel’s passage through the Red Sea as a “baptism” (1 Corinthians 10:2). Here, Israel is not immersed under the waters but passes through the waters “on dry land.” If Israel had any contact with water it was through the mist, or water sprinkled, as they passed through the sea. Immersion was reserved for Pharaoh’s army as the waters “covered the chariots and the horsemen” (Exodus 14:28–29). Peter similarly speaks of Noah’s passage through the floodwaters as a “baptism” (1 Peter 3:21). Again, Noah’s family is explicitly not submerged under the waters but are those on whom God’s cleansing rain pours down from heaven. It is the enemies of God who are immersed under these waters of judgment (Genesis 7:19–23). 

For these reasons, the Westminster Assembly was on solid ground in wondering whether there is any biblical evidence for baptism-by-immersion, though they found ample evidence, from Old Testament imagery through New Testament practice, that baptism is by sprinkling.

---

Lyndon Jost is Director of the Reformed House of Studies at Wycliffe College.

---

NOTES

1. See Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009), 339–343, emphasis added. ↩︎
2. The “washings” (baptismos) of Heb 6:2 and 9:10 are referred to later as “sprinklings” (Heb 9:13, 19–21).  ↩︎
3. This reading is supported by the way the same words (he “came up”) are used in another baptismal story: that of the Ethiopian eunuch. There, too, we’re told that he goes “down into” (katebēsan) the water in baptism and “came up” (anebēsan) out of the water (Acts 8:38–39). But here these verbs are applied to both the one being baptized and the baptizer, Philip. In other words, here the sense of “going down into” speaks of their descent, together, down into the water, where the baptism would be performed (again, by sprinkling/pouring), and the subsequent “coming up” out of the water speaks of their ascent, together walking out of the water (Acts 8:38–39; cf. Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10). ↩︎
4. Not all will agree that New Testament baptism has a parallel function to Old Testament washings, specifically as symbols and instruments of “purification” (Lev 14:51) or “sanctification” (Ex 29:21). Still, Paul arguably assumes the connection when he associates the believer’s “washing” with his “sanctification” (1 Cor 6:9). This connection is perhaps one he learned at his own baptism, when Ananias instructed him, “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16). ↩︎
5. Naaman the leper might be raised as an exception, as he dipped himself in water to be cleansed of his leprosy. Still, this is not an example of “ritual (spiritual) cleansing,” at least not as a norm for God’s covenant people. It also does not fit the baptismal process in that baptism is a washing administered by another, not by oneself. Naaman dips himself (2 Kings 5:14). ↩︎
6. The pouring of water also calls to mind God’s promise to pour out His Spirit (Joel 2), symbolized in the pouring of oil onto the head of the priest to anoint him for priestly service to God. And in Jesus’ words we find that the water that truly cleanses is his own blood, “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” ↩︎