20 Dimensions of Baptism
this view on the basis of the analogy between water-baptism and Spirit-
baptism.^37
In his discussion of Jewish ablutions, Robert Webb notes the distinction
made between sprinkling of persons, which is of marginal importance in
the Old Testament (Num. 8.7; 19.18), and the washing of the whole or (in
a few cases) certain part(s) of the body.^38 Clearly both immersion and
affusion would cleanse the whole body.
The most that can (and must) be said is that both modes of baptism,
immersion (certainly) and affusion (at least from the third century) were
practised, depending on local circumstances.
The possibility of some flexibility is supported in a somewhat negative
manner by the evidence of 1 Cor. 10.1-2. and 1 Pet. 3.20-21. In neither of
these passages did the Old Testament incidents which are cited as parallels
to baptism involve submersion in water; indeed in neither case did the
people concerned get wet at all!^39 In the former passage, the reference is tois possible that the river may not have been deep enough for immersion and that John
baptized by affusing the candidates as they stood in the water.
The case for immersion as the mode of John's baptism was upheld by J. Jeremias,
New Testament Theology I (London: SCM Press, 1971), p. 51; he argued that the
underlying Aramaic expression means 'to undergo immersion, immerse onself rather
than 'to be baptized' by somebody else, and that accordingly John had the function of a
witness to the self-immersion of his converts. Against this view it may be argued that
one would perhaps have expected a Greek middle rather than a passive to express this
sense, and that it does not do full justice to John's nickname of 'the Baptizer' which
suggests a more active role than that of a witness. The strongest point, however, is the
claim that Aramaic fbal must refer to immersion. See further Webb, John the Baptizer,
pp. 179-81, who notes that the baptism was done in the river and that Jesus came up
out of it; Taylor, The Immerser, pp. 49-58, holds that John practised immersion, but
recognizes that in the (Gentile) Church affusion was probably practised.
But, granted that the candidate went into the water, does the verb require that there
was a total immersion rather than a total wetting by affusion? So J. Nolland, Luke 1-
9.20 (WBC, 35a: Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. 142, while stating that the mode was
probably immersion, nevertheless adds: 'It is clear, however, that ancient bathing
practices frequently involved effusion, or effusion with partial immersion, and that in
the case of John no special emphasis should be placed upon complete immersion. In
any case, the baptized person becomes totally wet.'
- Schumann, Lukasevangelium, p. 156.
- Webb, John the Baptizer, pp. 106-108.
- In the original version of this article the Editor of the Evangelical Quarterly,
Professor F.F. Bruce, drew the attention of readers to the remark of the early nine-
teenth-century Scots divine Neil Carmichael, that at the Exodus 'the Israelites had