Immersion of the eunuch by Philip

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

l. They both went down to the water.] Considering how frequently bathing was used in those hot countries, it is not to be wondered that baptism was generally administered by immersion, though I see no proof that it was essential to the institution. It would be very unnatural to suppose that they went down to the water, merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many vessels with him in his baggage on such a journey through so desert a country, a precaution absolutely necessary for travellers in those parts, and never omitted by them. See Dr. Shaw’s Travels, Pref. p. 4.

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751), “Philip Baptizes the Ethiopian Eunuch,” The Family Expositor; Or, a Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament, With Critical Notes, London: Frederick Westley and A. H. Davis, 1831, p. 403.

Today Philip Doddridge is perhaps best remembered as a hymnwriter. However, he was an important Non-conformist (Congregationalist) pastor, author, and educator in his day. The above quote from his comments on the baptism of the eunuch supply an oft-needed corrective to modern pedobaptists who would deny the early practice of immersion. Doddridge himself did not see immersion as inherent or essential to the ordinance, but nevertheless was able to read the immersion of the eunuch performed by Philip – without wearing pedobaptist glasses that saw it as a sprinkling or pouring.

His reference to “Dr. Shaw’s Travels” is as follows:

“We took Care in the first Place, to provide ourselves with a sufficient Quantity of Goat’s Skins, which we filled with Water, every four or five Days, or as often as we found it.” Travels; or Observations, Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the Levant, Thomas Shaw, Oxford: At the Theatre, 1738, p. iv.

Baptists and Baptism Lite

“Baptism has been secularized; God, for all intents and purposes, is shuffled to the sidelines. The entire focus is on what those being baptized are doing. They are taking a step of obedience to God, and they are publicly professing their faith. But what, if anything, was God, who we know best in Jesus Christ, doing? Was God involved at all? Was God even present? If so, how, and what was he doing? Did baptism do anything? Or is baptism a matter that is entirely human, without any significant divine involvement?” Mark G. McKim, The Secularization of Baptism: How Baptists Took God out of Baptism, and How to Fix the Problem, Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2025

“The ordinances are a crucial part of what makes a church a church. When rightly understood, they present to the eye and the mouth a sensible gospel—a gospel that can be felt, seen, and tasted.” Josh Manley in “Who Should Administer the Ordinances?”

How singularly strange that many of the churches identified as “Baptist” possess an anemic and ambiguous view (and practice) of their most defining characteristic, baptism of believers by immersion!

It is theologically important. The Bible is our rule of faith and practice, and therefore the source of instruction on the meaning and practice of baptism. Baptism should follow the Bible, not modern secular philosophy. Baptism of the believer is important, but the God of the baptism of believers is the most important focus of biblical truth. Cf. Romans 11:36; 1 Peter 5:11; Revelation 4:11.

It is practically important. If the God of all the universe, who commanded baptism, is not involved in each baptism, then we become weak and sickly in the importance we place on it. Many modern Baptists try to “de-stress” baptism as much as possible – it doesn’t matter, it is not that important, it is okay for a believer to go through life unbaptized, and such like. This is ridiculous! Many professing Baptists live by a secular and deistic pattern, as if God has little involvement in the day-to-day matters of their lives. Acts 8:37-39; 1 Peter 3:21; Hebrews 8:5.

It is relationally important. The right heart, the right response, the right sincerity that moves the believers to identify initially, objectively, and publicly with their redeeming Lord. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity, with the Lord of the baptism and in the mode of baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Cf. John 4:24; Ephesians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

In The Secularization of Baptism, McKim theorizes and demonstrates that “four factors led to the symbolic-only position becoming dominant. These were suspicion, in reaction to Roman Catholicism, of the idea of God revealing himself through the physical; the influence of the Enlightenment (and ‘embarrassment’ with claims that God could be acting in the world today); reaction against the Oxford Movement; and reaction against the understanding of baptism advocated by the Disciples of Christ (‘Campbellites’).”

Let me be clear. We Baptists believe that baptism is symbolic rather than salvific. I believe there is a bad tendency among some to go into a kind of sacramentalism on this issue. However, the it-is-only-a-symbol-and-does-not-matter-much is not the true Baptist position. Consider historically that the early American Baptist language on baptism was so strong that many of them initially mistook Alexander Campbell to be saying the same things they were. (Boy, were we fooled!) I fear that often modern Baptists just find it easier to adopt the it-is-only-a-symbol-and-does-not-matter-much attitude rather than do the hard work of carving out the middle position where the Bible stands. It is easy, and it fits the spirit of the age. And it is or can be hard work to explain it correctly. If you veer too far one way, it sounds like salvific sacramentalism. If you veer too far the other way, it sounds like anything, everything, and (mostly) nothing! It leads to many of the errors of modern day Baptists, from careless (e.g., not carefully requiring a sound profession of faith) to indiscreet (e.g., fire engine baptisteries and water slide baptisms). May God help us seek the old paths and walk therein.

Romans 6:3-6 ;Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Debaptism; who knew?

Debaptism, noun. The (so-called) practice of “reversing” a baptism.

I guess on this I’ve been living under a rock, ignorant in my bliss. Who knew “debaptism” was a thing? You probably did. I didn’t. I read about some nuts going through a blow dryer ceremony. I would suggest that if they were immersed they need to get in an oven!

To me there is some irony here, in a person thinking they need to be debaptized. Part of the craziness of modern society, perhaps? It seems that the folks who are being debaptized are in effect saying that de baptism dat dey had actually did something dat dey must undo. But their other testimony is that God and Christianity is nothing. If it is nothing, why undo nothing?

Finally. Do the debaptized join De’Baptist Unchurch?

Credobaptism

Introduction.

“Us simple folk” are more likely to refer to “believer’s baptism” or “believer’s immersion” than to credobaptism – but credobaptism is good terminology, and sits well across from the more common or popular term “pedobaptism.”

Credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing only those who make a conscious credible profession of faith. Believer’s baptism.

Pedobaptism, or paeodobaptism (from the Greek word paido meaning “child” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or small children (usually on the credit of their parents being believers). Infant baptism.

More important than the right terminology is the right theology. Credobaptism is right biblical orthodoxy (right belief), biblical orthopraxy (right practice), and biblical orthokardy (right heart). Orthodoxy is always essential for Orthopraxy (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 3:4; James 1:22-25); Orthopraxy is always essential to Orthokardy (Hebrews 8:5; John 14:15); Orthokardy is always essential to Orthodoxy (John 4:24; 13:35; I Corinthians 13:1-3). 

Credobaptism is Biblical.[i]

The biblical theology, orthodoxy. Credobaptism fits the doctrine of salvation, soteriology, and the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology. Salvation is by grace through faith, with a good confession required prior to baptism. The church is a congregation made up of a regenerate (born again, believing) membership. No fuzzy math is needed to fit credobaptism with these theologies.

The biblical example, orthopraxy. Throughout the New Testament there are clear examples of the baptism of adults who responded in belief to the preaching of the gospel. This is indisputable, even by those who practice pedobaptism. Infant baptism is at best inferred – but the inferred passages do not stand up to scrutiny. See “Household Baptisms” and “Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children.”

The biblical unity, orthokardy. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and much of the Protestant tradition, there are multiple baptisms – baptism of unknowing infants and baptism of professing believers; baptism by sprinkling, baptism by pouring, and baptism by immersion. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity.

Biblical theology and practice settle the matter. However, there are two supporting legs that fit properly into the biblical theology and practice.

Credobaptism is Practical.

The believing person submitting to baptism acts in a manner in response to God, answering a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).[ii] That person will understand the purpose of baptism (Acts 8:37), encounter the rite in an experiential way (Acts 8:38), and remember the experience (Acts 8:39). Both the conscience and conscious are involved. There will be no mental void where baptism is concerned. You will not have to be told by someone else that you were baptized. The baptism of believers is meet, fitting, “suited to every sinner’s case.”[iii]

Credobaptism is Historical. 

Credobaptism is the historic New Testament practice – and the historic practice of the early churches before the rite was corrupted. It continued to be historical in churches that practiced it, even when most others had departed from biblical faith and practice. 

In some of the early sources such as the Didache, believer’s baptism can be seen, even though little additions were beginning to creep in.[iv] For example, that the persons being baptized are volitional believers is assumed, in that they are commanded to fast before they were baptized (Didache, 7.4).

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus shows the build-up of non-biblical practice, while still maintaining a general baptismal base practice that arises from believer’s baptism. The catechumens were asked about their belief in God the Father, their belief in God the Son, and their belief in God the Holy Spirit.[v]

“That the churches of the post-apostolic age did not long remain faithful to apostolic precept and example in all respects [not just baptism, rlv] would be generally admitted.” (A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609, Albert Henry Newman, page 1)

Conclusion.

“Infant baptism was an inevitable consequence of the acceptance of the magical efficacy of water baptism itself to impart salvation. One countervailing error that slowed its introduction was the idea held and taught by some that ‘mortal sins’ committed after baptism could not be forgiven. Quite a reason to delay baptism to the expected end of life!”[vi]

This is not to say that every denomination that practices pedobaptism believes there is magical efficacy of salvation in the water. However, the origins of it are inexplicably tied to such superstitions, and the maintenance of the practice reveals a deficiency in applying sola scriptura to an extra-biblical, emotional, incremental, and traditional practice.

Credobaptism stands on solid ground. The Bible supports it. It is, unsurprisingly, universally recognized as scriptural by all Christian churches that practice some form of baptism. All other forms are on shifting sand.

---

[i] Most Bible students are forced to admit this – unless they have jettisoned baptism altogether. Baptism of believers is obvious, exampled, and necessary. Baptism of infants has no biblical example, is unnecessary, and must be extrapolated (after a fashion) from the old covenant circumcision.
[ii] The person about to submit to baptism or the person who has just been baptized is called a “baptizand.” That terminology is not in common use among most Baptists, at least in my experience.

[iii] Baptism is delayed until a credible profession of faith (credobaptism vs. pedobaptism) but not delayed after a credible profession of faith.
[iv] However, the additions likely were not in the original document.
[v] The three questions before baptism were: “Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?” “Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost, etc.?” “Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost…?” The baptizand was required to answer in the affirmative, “I believe.”
[vi] Source lost, unknown (Or else I wrote this, but I do not remember that I did.)

Baptism and the thief on the cross

Hebrew 9:15-17 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Baptist preacher David Kingdon (1934–2021) makes an argument against the Campbellite position that the thief on the cross was saved under the Old Covenant. Regardless of what you think of the argument by Kingdon and the response by Allen, Kingdom clearly made Jimmy Allen shift from forcefully identifying the time of the death of Jesus to that of the time of probating the will (which he claimed happened on Pentecost). So much for being silent where the Bible is silent (for in the context of Hebrews, it is the offering of his blood that seals the new testament, 9:23-28, rather than the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost).

David Kingdon: “The argument of our friends is that the thief on the cross was not saved under the New Covenant because the New Covenant was not yet in force, on the basis of Hebrews chapter 9, namely that the Covenant or Testament comes into force on the death of the testator – in this case Jesus Christ. So he’d not yet died; therefore, the thief on the cross was not saved under the New Covenant. Right?”

Jimmy Allen: “That’s correct.

David Kingdon: “Well, now could I ask you the question, ‘who died first, the thief or the Lord Jesus Christ?’”

See John 19:31-33.

This is a 60-second loop clip, but you should be able to shift from it to the entire video by selecting watch full video.

Some thoughts on 1 John 5:6

1 John 5:6 - This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

What meaneth “he that came by water and blood”?

The meaning of “by water and blood” (δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος): Is related to his coming (v. 6). Therefore, historical over symbolic interpretation.[i] Was witnessed by the Spirit (vs. 6, 8). Was witnessed by man (the lesser witness, v. 9). John the Baptist was a witness of the baptism (Matthew 3:16-17; John 1:32-24). John the Apostle was a witness of the crucifixion (John 19:25-27; 1 John 1:2-3). The Spirit of God gives testimony to both.

“By water” refers to the first act of Jesus’s public earthly ministry by baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist (Mark 1:1, 9-11). At his baptism in water, he received the testimony of the Spirit, and well as the Father’s testimony of his divine Sonship. Compare 1 John 5:5, “believeth that Jesus is the Son of God,” with John 1:32-34 (as well as 1 John 5:9).[ii]

Luke 12:50 connects the ideas of baptism and death, his suffering and death a coming baptism Jesus is yet to be baptized with.

“By blood” refers to the finish of Jesus’s personal earthly ministry by shedding his blood in death on the cross (John 19:30). He came by the blood of his cross (cf. Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 9:12-14) Commentator Henry Alford wrote, “But these past facts in the Lord’s life are this abiding testimony to us, by virtue of the permanent application to us of their cleansing and atoning power.”[iii] See Acts 5:50-32.[iv] Additionally the resurrection is a witness of the Spirit to the approved ministry and death of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God (cf. Romans 1:4; 8:11).[v]

---

[i] he that came/ ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν is past tense (aorist active) referring to an historical event.
[ii] In memory of and corresponding to this witness is the Spirit-led immersion in water (1 Cor. 12:13) which is instituted as the initiatory rite for believers identifying with Christ.
[iii] The New Testament for English Readers, Volume II, Henry Alford. London: Rivingtons, 1872, p. 909. “They represent,—the water, the baptism of water which the Lord Himself underwent, and instituted for His followers,—the blood, the baptism of blood which He Himself underwent, and instituted for his followers. And it is equally impossible to sever from these words the historical accompaniments and associations which arise on their mention” (p. 908).

[iv] True faith (1 John 5:4-5) is rooted and grounded in real events that changed the course of history – Jesus lived a sinless life, died on the cross for sinners, and rose again for their justification. It was witnessed by both men and the Holy Spirit. The men have died, but left their witness in the inspired record. The Holy Spirit is alive and actively witnesses in the world and the hearts of men.

[v] With Romans 8:11, cf. also John 10:17-18. Regarding the Holy Ghost and the crucifixion, consider the presence of the Spirit at work in convicting the thief (Luke 23:42-43) and the centurion (Mark 15:29). Cf. Luke 23:46.

Some interesting connections of blood and water; though not necessarily shedding light on the text, interesting nevertheless.

• God turned the waters of the Nile and Egypt into blood, Exodus 7; Psalm 105:29.
• The blood of a bird and running water associated with cleansing the house of a leper, Leviticus 14.
• God made the Moabites see his miraculous water as if it were blood, 2 Kings 3:22.
• Pilate washed his hands in water to signify his claim that he was innocent of the blood of Jesus, Matthew 27:24.
• Blood and water came from Jesus’s side when pierced by the spear, John 19:34.
• The two witnesses had power to turn water into blood, Revelation 11:6.
• The third angel’s vial turned water into blood, Revelation 16:4.

Philip and the eunuch, Acts 8:26-40

Reaching out: Philip and the eunuch, 26-40

Direction through Spirit and Providence

Verse 26: “the angel of the Lord” speaks to Philip and directs him where to go (cf. v. 29). “south unto the way that goeth down” to Gaza. The Old Testament mentions Gaza several times, but only here is it mentioned in the New Testament. According to Bock, this was the last water stop before desert.[i]

 

Verse 27: “behold” – a remote pathway, a returning pilgrim, a roving preacher, all brought together in God’s providence. The eunuch was “of Ethiopia,” but not necessarily an Ethiopian.[ii] He was probably a Jew – or at least a Jewish proselyte – because he “had come to Jerusalem for to worship.”[iii] He was “an eunuch of great authority.” He held a high rank in the queen’s court. Jews often rose to high-ranking posts in foreign courts, such as Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:39-45), and Daniel in Babylon (Daniel 2:48-49). Some think this man was an eunuch positionally (under the authority of the queen) rather than physically.[iv] However, there seems little reason for Luke to mention that he was “an eunuch” if he simply meant he was an officer. The Bible teaches the apostle Peter first took the gospel to the Gentiles (later – in Acts 10, not Philip here in Acts 8). It is likely, nevertheless, that this eunuch did share his good news with Gentiles after he returned to Ethiopia.[v]

 

“Candace queen of the Ethiopians” – Candace was evidently a royal title of queens in Ethiopia, as Pharaoh was for the kings of Egypt (Genesis 12:15; 41:15; Exodus 1:11; I  Kings 3:1; Jeremiah 37:5), Abimelech for kings in Philistia (Genesis 20:2; 26:1), or Caesar for the emperors of Rome (Luke 2:1; 3:1; John 19:15; Acts 11:28; 28:18-19).[vi]

 

Verse 28: “sitting in his chariot” Considering the following circumstances, the chariot probably had stopped. “read Esaias the prophet” The eunuch of Ethiopia was reading a portion of text from the prophet Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 34:16). He read aloud (cf. v. 30). Providentially, this portion of text contains a prophecy of the suffering Messiah. The honest seeker is profitably employed when reading the word of God.

 

Verse 29: “the Spirit said unto Philip” Sent here by an angelic messenger, the Spirit guides Philip’s next move. “Go near.” This is why he is here, and this is the one whom he is to see. There should be no apprehension, and obedience is expected.

 

Verse 30: Philip obeys the Spirit’s command with haste – he “ran thither.” The eunuch read aloud from the Scriptures, and Philip heard him read. God’s providence places them in the right place at the right time. Philip traveling in his manner from the city of Samaria, and the eunuch traveling in his manner from the city of Jerusalem, converge on this one point on the same road at the same point in time.

 

Verses 30-31: Philip asks a question and the eunuch responds, “How can I, except some man should guide me?” He invites Philip to come up into the chariot and sit with him. God is at work on the evangelist and the evangelized. He has brought Philip here “for such as time as this,” and he had prepared the eunuch for his witness. The eunuch had been to Jerusalem to worship, and was reading Isaiah. Doubtless God combines these two elements in preparing him for the message of Jesus.

 

Verses 32-33: the eunuch reads, from Isaiah, what we recognize as Isaiah 53:7b-8a:

 

…he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living…

 

A common modern Jewish interpretation is that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel. Synagogue calendar readings leave it out. “Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter [53rd of Isaiah, rlv] by Christians, it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons (Haftarot) for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths. These seven lessons are called the ‘Seven (Chapters) of Comfort’, and are taken from the preceding and following parts of the book: the omission is deliberate and striking.”[vii] According to Rachmiel Frydland, “Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God’s Anointed One, the Messiah.”[viii]

 

Verses 34-35: The eunuch does not understand the reading, whether the prophet speaks this “of himself, or of some other man.” Philip launches from this question and preaches Jesus. He is the “other man” of whom the prophet speaks – the Messiah, the longing of Israel. He is the man who became obedient unto death. Now the worshipper at the Temple recognizes the one – the One whose temple was destroyed and raised again in three days.

 

Verse 36: the question of baptism comes up. The preaching of Jesus does not exclude the preaching of baptism, which is a testimony of his death, burial, and resurrection according to the scriptures. The believer does not delay to obey. Compare Psalm 119:60 “I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments.”

 

Verse 37: ειπεν δε ο φιλιππος ει πιστευεις εξ ολης της καρδιας εξεστιν αποκριθεις δε ειπεν πιστευω τον υιον του θεου ειναι τον ιησουν χριστον “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest [i.e., be baptized].” “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” The great profession of belief before baptism, as found here in the King James Version of the Bible, is left out of many, if not most, modern Bible versions.[ix] This is based on claims that the “earliest and best” New Testament manuscripts (their words) do not contain it, and that the earliest with it dates from the sixth century (Codex Laudianus, or E). Nevertheless, Irenaeus quotes part of the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession of faith in Christ. The quotation is as early as the latter part of the second century, showing it was in the scriptures he used. See Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), III.xii.8.

 

[Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.”…[x]

 

Irenaeus references the great confession, and about 70 years later Cyprian (circa AD 250) mentions the first part of what we know as verse 37 (found in The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise 12, Book 3.43).

 

That he who believes can immediately obtain (i.e., pardon and peace).  In the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If you believe with all your heart, you may.’[xi]

 

Pontius, a deacon at Cyprian’s church, also mentions Philip’s words to the eunuch (If thou believest with all thine heart) when writing about the life of Cyprian of Carthage (Vita Cypriani, or Life of Cyprian, paragraph 3).

 

For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart, this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah…[xii]

 

Pontius the deacon wrote Vita Cypriani after Cyprian’s death, which occurred circa AD 258. Cyprian of Carthage wrote circa AD 250. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote Adversus Haereses circa AD 175-185. It is clear, then, that the words recorded in Acts 8:37 were in the manuscript of Luke’s writing used by Pontius, Cyprian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus (ca. AD 135-AD 202) was born within about 40 years of the writing of the last book of the New Testament. He was born in Smyrna, and grew up under the tutelage of Polycarp, who knew John the apostle. All three of these writings that mention the words of Philip and the eunuch (Acts 8:37) are older than the so-called “earliest and best” New Testament manuscripts that do not contain this verse.[xiii] J. A. Alexander stated, “This verse is excluded from the text by the latest critics, because wanting in several of the oldest manuscripts and versions.” He however suggested a reason for its early exclusion: “it may be argued that the verse, though genuine, was afterward omitted as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the third century.”[xiv]>

 

The eunuch of Ethiopia makes “The Great Confession” that must be made by all, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Romans 10:10 – “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Ultimately, every tongue shall confess, Romans 14:11.

 

Verses 38-39a: Baptism by immersion – Philip and the eunuch “went down both into the water” and both “come up out of the water.” Paedobaptists would have them only go “to the water,” – or even if they went “into the water” that “they went perhaps up to the ankles or mid-leg into the water, and Philip sprinkled water upon him” (Matthew Henry). Yet, even the Protestant Reformer John Calvin (who did not hold to immersion only) sensibly includes this note on Acts 8:38: “Hence we see what was the manner of baptizing with the ancients, for they plunged the whole body into water.” Immersion was the universal practice of the New Testament and early churches.[xv]

 

The baptism of the eunuch indicates these elements:

 

• Proper authority 26-27
• Proper candidate 36-37
• Proper mode 38-39

 

Verses 39b-40: The Spirit of the Lord removed Philip to points beyond. Even though “the eunuch saw him no more,” he nevertheless “went on his way rejoicing.” Whatever manner God used to take Philip, he was next “found at Azotus.” Azotus is the same as the Old Testament Ashdod.[xvi] The history of the Maccabees locates Azotus “in the land of the Philistines” (I Maccabees 5:68). Philip initially traveled north from Jerusalem to Samaria. From Samaria, he traveled in a southwest direction where he met the eunuch of Ethiopia on a road going to Gaza. Afterward he is found north of there at Azotus. From there he probably traveled northward up the coast through an established route. As he traveled, Philip “preached in all the cities” through which he came, until he finally settles in Caesarea. Though mentioned in the telling of the story in Acts 8:40, it is nevertheless correct to understand he arrived there chronologically after Peter had gone to Caesarea (Acts 10). Acts 21:8 mentions Philip again; he had established residence in Caesarea (cf., “the house of Philip the evangelist”).

---

[i] Bock, Acts, p. 341.
[ii] The land of Ethiopia was to the south of and borders with Egypt (Ezekiel 29:10; see also Esther 1:1; Psalm 68:31; 87:4; Zephaniah 3:10).
[iii] Religious Jews came up to Jerusalem at least three times in the year – the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16:16. Cf. Exodus 23:14-17). In this incident, we may see some fulfillment of Isaiah 56:4-5 and Zephaniah 3:10 (Cf. also Psalm 68:31). For eunuchs under the law, see Deuteronomy 23:1.
[iv] For example, see comments on Acts 8:27 in Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible.
[v] Irenaeus writes, “This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him.” http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html Accessed 16 October 2020 9:45 am. According to John Gill, Damianus a Goes related in Fides, Religio, Moresque Aethiopum (Ethiopian Faith, Religion, and Mores, 1540) the following tradition, “we, almost before all other Christians, received baptism from the eunuch of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, whose name was Indich.” In Ecclesiastica Historia (2. 40), Nicephorus Callistus relayed the tradition that the apostle Matthias preached in Ethiopia and died there by stoning.
[vi] “As for the building within Meroë, there were but few houses in it: that the Isle was subject unto a ladie or queene named Candace, a name that for many yeeres alreadie went from one queene to another successively.” Holland, translator of Naturalis Historia by Pliny the Elder, p. 146.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny6.html Accessed 18 November 2020 7:20 pm.
[vii] Claude G. Montefiore & H. Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology: Selected and Arranged With Comments and Introductions by C. G. Montefiore and H. M. J. Loewe, with a prolegomenon by Raphael Loewe. (London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd., 1938) p. 544.
[viii] Frydland, quoted in Issues: A Messianic Jewish Perspective, 13:6, p. 3. See also Jintae Kim, “Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement,” in Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, Volume 5, 2008, pp. 81-98.
[ix] For example, the Revised Standard Version leaves out verse 37, with this note, “Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37, ‘And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”
[x] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html Accessed 7 October 2020 12:02 pm.
[xi] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712c.htm Accessed 7 October 2020 12:25 pm.
[xii] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0505.htm Accessed 7 October 2020 12:15 pm. In the “parallel” Pontius is speaking of Cyprian “coming from the ignorant heathens” as opposed to the eunuch being a Jew or Jewish proselyte.
[xiii] Whatever value or lack thereof we find in the doctrine and interpretation of the writings by Ante-Nicene or Church Fathers, they are useful for historical discovery concerning the biblical manuscripts. Their writings help determine “whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day.” According to E. W. Bullinger, “There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices.” (Companion Bible, Appendix 168, page 190).
[xiv] Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 349–350.
[xv] Even those who do not believe immersion is required for scriptural observance of this rite nevertheless should not foolishly deny that the ancient and universal practice of the rite of baptism was for believers by immersion in water.
[xvi] And the same as the modern village Esdud, located in the boundaries of Israel.

Repent, and be baptized

Acts 2:38 - Two imperatives (“repent,” “be baptized”) and a promise (“ye shall receive”). Those who teach baptismal regeneration – that is, that obedience in the baptismal waters gains eternal salvation – use this text as a primary support for their view. If an interpretation of Acts 2:38 does not match the teachings of the New Testament (or even the rest of the book of Acts), then something is wrong with that interpretation. In the next recorded sermons following Pentecost, Peter connects repentance with blotting out of sins (3:19-20), proclaims salvation in Christ alone (4:11-12), and associates repentance and the forgiveness of sins with the acts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (5:30-31).

Repentance in Acts 

• Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted
• Acts 5:31 to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
• Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness
• Acts 13:24 John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance
• Acts 17:30 God...now commandeth all men every where to repent
• Acts 19:4 John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance
• Acts 20:21 Testifying...repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ
• Acts 26:20 they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance

Some interpreters labor to unite “for the remission of sins” with both “repent” and “be baptized.” Others labor to separate “for the remission of sins” from “be baptized” to modify only “repent.” However, the grammatical structure of Acts 2:38 shows that “for the remission of sins” only modifies “be baptized” and not “repent.” Peter commands his hearers, “Repent, and be baptized.” In both Greek and English, the verb μετανοησατε/ “repent” is in the second person plural; the verb βαπτισθητω/ “be baptized” is in the third person singular. The words that follow “be baptized” – “every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” – match the singular tense of “be baptized.” The final verb, “shall receive,” returns to the second person plural.

The question “in what sense does baptism remit sins is the real core of the controversy on Acts 2:38.”  Is baptism for the remission of sins? Yes, baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, according to Acts 2:38. In what sense does baptism remit sins, or, in what way is it “for” the remission of sins? Those who find eternal salvation here assume “for” means “in order to obtain” the remission of sins. However, “in order to” does not exhaust the range of meaning of either the Greek preposition eis (εις) or the English preposition “for.” Baptism answers to the remission of sins because it is a sign of it. The words in Acts 2:38 are “eis aphesin ton hamartion/for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28 includes the same phrase: “for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (eis aphesin ton hamartion).” The similarities are compelling.  It is not the blood of the grape in the cup that gives remission of sins, but the shed blood of Jesus on the cross that the cup represents. We metaphorically receive the body and blood of Jesus in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. We metaphorically receive the death and resurrection of Jesus in the element of water baptism. Paul uses “likeness” (ομοιωματι, a figure, image, likeness, representation; cf. Hebrews 9:24) in Romans 6:5. He says we are baptized “into death” and then raised to “walk in newness of life.” Baptism does not literally put us in the death and resurrection, but “in the likeness.” Peter uses “like figure” (αντιτυπον, a thing resembling another, counterpart, antitype) in I Peter 3:21. Baptism saves similarly to the way the water saved Noah and his family. Water saved Noah by the ark, and baptism saves us by the resurrection. The conscience calls and baptism answers (επερωτημα).

Jesus actually, literally, and really put away sin by his sacrifice on the cross. Sins are remitted literally, in the death of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:22); experimentally, in the exercise of faith (Acts 10:43); and ceremonially, in baptism (Acts 2:38). 

The Good Confession and Baptism

Acts 8:36ff. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

For the eunuch and to Philip, the question of baptism comes up. The preaching of Jesus does not exclude the preaching of baptism, which is a testimony of his death, burial, and resurrection according to the scriptures. The believer does not delay to obey. Compare Psalm 119:60 “I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments.”

The eunuch of Ethiopia first makes “The ‘Good’ or ‘Great’ Confession” that must be made by all, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Cf. Matthew 16:16; Romans 10:10 – “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Ultimately, every tongue shall confess, Romans 14:11.

Baptism is immersion. Philip and the eunuch “went down both into the water” and both “come up out of the water.” Paedorantists would have them only go “to the water,” – or even if they went “into the water” that “they went perhaps up to the ankles or mid-leg into the water, and Philip sprinkled water upon him” (Matthew Henry). Yet, even the Protestant Reformer John Calvin (who did not hold to immersion only) sensibly includes this note on Acts 8:38: “Hence we see what was the manner of baptizing with the ancients, for they plunged the whole body into water.” Immersion was the universal practice of the New Testament and early churches. 

The baptism of the eunuch indicates these elements:

• Proper authority vs. 26-27
• Proper candidate vs. 36-37
• Proper mode vs. 38-39 

The Spirit of the Lord removed Philip to points beyond. Even though “the eunuch saw him no more,” he nevertheless “went on his way rejoicing.”

Acts 8:37 again

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

On Re-Baptism (Anonymous) 3rd century?

Just as the Ethiopian eunuch, when he was returning from Jerusalem and reading the prophet Isaiah, and was in doubt, having at the Spirit's suggestion heard the truth from Philip the deacon, believed and was baptized...

On Baptism, Chapter 18 (Tertullian)

The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. 

Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews (Ad Quirinium), Cyprian, Book 3, Treatise 12, chapter 43 (written in the 250’s, in Latin)

In the Acts of the Apostles: “Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

A Greek scholium attributed to Irenaeus

Philip...easily persuaded him to believe on Him, that He was Christ Jesus...

[This can be found in Catenae Graecorum Patrum, Volume 3, edited by John Anthony Cramer, on page 144.]

Review of “Does the Book of Acts Teach Spontaneous Baptisms?”

Review of Caleb Morell’s “Does the Book of Acts Teach Spontaneous Baptisms?”

The author, Caleb Morell, is a graduate of Georgetown University and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as a pastoral assistant at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. Morell gets down to business and promptly arrives at a definition of spontaneous baptism: “A baptism is spontaneous in (sic) when it happens without forethought or planning.” I would say that this phrase and its definition is somewhat skewed by our modern ideas and practices – more so than being a “biblical definition.” In writing on the topic, I preferred the words “urgent” (very important and requiring attention) and “immediate” (accomplished without delay) over spontaneous. Nevertheless, there are those who promote a similar practice who use the word spontaneous to describe their view. For example J. D. Greear writes, “After all, every single baptism recorded in the New Testament, without exception, is spontaneous and immediate.” Those who believe, as a matter of faith and practice, that baptisms should be immediate do not believe them “spontaneous” in the sense of “without forethought or planning.” They have studied the Bible, thought about what it teaches, and plan to put that biblical teaching into practice at the proper time. Yes, for the baptizand, it might be as spontaneous as his unexpected and unplanned repentance and belief. It should not be for the church[i]

You readers who know me know that I am a lover of history in general, and church history in particular. In the end, though, church history proves history. It proves what has been done historically in churches and by Christians. However, we must go to the Bible itself, our only rule of faith and practice, to prove and know what is to be our faith and practice. This brings us to his next section, “The Pattern of Acts.”

Considering the baptismal instances in Acts, Morell must admit, “Assessing the data, this seems to be largely accurate”[ii]  that the baptisms were immediate. Morell finds nine “Instances of Baptisms of Acts.” I would add a tenth “generic” reference.[iii]  After tentatively agreeing with the data, Morell quickly cordons off four of the nine, leaving “five instances of baptism as possible models for spontaneous baptisms.” He thinks the timing of the baptisms of Lydia and her household in Acts 16, and the Corinthians in Acts 18 is “ambiguous.” While we might spot a little bit of ambiguity in the description about Lydia, there is no reason to suppose any in regard to the Corinthians, who heard, believed, and then were baptized.[iv]  He excludes the other two because they “involve the delayed reception of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:12ff; Acts 19:5).

After cordoning off these four baptisms, Morell attempts to build an exclusionary, somewhat theological hermeneutical, case that the baptisms in Acts are not normative.[v]  That “Luke records surprisingly few baptisms in Acts” Morell thinks “suggests that the baptisms actually recorded are unusual or even inimitable.” What a strange conclusion for a Baptist, and for anyone who believes the Bible is our rule of faith and practice, the inspired word that is profitable, completely, “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” For this project of exclusion, the author stresses “Three features characterize the baptisms in Acts.”

1. The baptisms recorded all involve “first converts” in a historically-redemptively significant setting.
2. Nearly every baptism is accompanied by supernatural acts of the Holy Spirit.
3. Each baptism takes place in response to believing the Apostolic message.

To the first, Morell concludes “one of the main reasons baptisms are recorded in Acts is to highlight God’s work in pioneer settings as the gospel advances to new regions.” That, in itself, seems reasonable, and hardly any reason to reject the practice of baptism in these cases as normative.

Morell believes Luke connects baptism “with the visible work of the Holy Spirit” in order to highlight “that the Spirit of God is driving the expansion of the gospel and the growth of the church.” Again, not unreasonable, and hardly any reason to reject the practice of baptism in these cases as normative. In fact, the author thinks “these visible manifestations of the church help its unity because they signify the movement of the same Spirit.” Yet he then oddly argues for a disunity of baptismal practice.

His third point is similar to the second. 

“The point of each recorded baptism is to highlight how the expansion of the gospel doesn’t result in the fragmentation of the church. Rather, the church remains firmly united despite their diversity because of the Holy Spirit and the consistent apostolic message.”

This is confusing. Morell thinks many baptisms are not recorded, and the ones that are recorded serve a purpose (that is, for their being recorded in Scripture). I agree. Surely the purpose is not to teach us that the multitudes of unrecorded baptisms are different from the recorded ones! And that we should therefore practice differently than what is written.

Writing on the anomaly of receiving the Holy Spirit after baptism, this author misses several points. He in unclear on what he thinks this reception of the Holy Spirit is, and gratuitously assumes the disciples at Ephesus are “John the Baptist’s disciples.”

Morell comes back to the cases of Lydia’s household and the Corinthians, as these will now serve his purpose. They “leave out any mention of visible supernatural work” and (according to Morell) “leave out any mention of the timing of baptism.” He acknowledges “it’s possible to read this as taking place immediately,” but wishes it to be otherwise. If otherwise, it allows the naysayers to insert “some period of instruction” before baptism.[vi]  Concerning the practice in Corinth, Morell appeals to Peterson (probably David Peterson)[vii] that in this account “the use of the continuous tenses in the Greek (‘hearing’ and ‘believing’ and ‘being baptized’) suggests an ongoing pattern of responding to gospel preaching.” I fail to see any reason why this “ongoing pattern of responding to gospel preaching” excludes immediate baptism. On the face of it, it does not, and perhaps even supports it.

Interestingly, Morell included the baptism of the eunuch of Ethiopia among those associated with supernatural acts, because Philip is told by angel of the Lord where to go. On the other hand, he did not include the baptism of Lydia and her household, even though Paul went to Macedonia because of a vision that appeared to him in the night.

After setting the stage, Morell is ready to answer whether we should practice “spontaneous” baptisms. He concludes that “The claim that Acts demonstrates a uniform pattern of spontaneous baptisms is overstated.” The data really is not all that complex, as regards the timing of baptism. Furthermore, those of us who believe that the book of Acts provides patterns for us to follow do not have a problem agreeing that “Luke’s purpose in recording baptisms in Acts was not simply to provide a model to follow.” But does that purpose also include providing a model to follow? Why would it exclude it?

To finish his arguments, Morell condescendingly takes us all to “Hermeneutics 101.” Yes, some of us barely passed the class, but others passed with flying colors. We know that you cannot make a pattern of everything described in the New Testament. The word must be rightly divided. What the apostles taught and practiced, and that the churches received very well could be establishing practices for us. Inquiring minds want to know. Morell suggests applying two principles for discerning whether or not a pattern is binding. 

• “First, we should assume the principle of non-contradiction: however complex the issue, we should assume the unity of Scripture and draw widely from Scripture to discern which principles are binding.” 
• “Second, we should look for reinforcement for the doctrine or practice in question in other parts of the New Testament. As John Stott puts it, ‘What is descriptive is valuable only in so far as it is interpreted by what is didactic.’”

Then in two “slam-dunk” sentences, Morell vanquishes “positive warrant for baptizing immediately.” Or does he?

There is nothing in the principles or unity of Scripture that opposes immediate baptism, neither does the didactic contradict the descriptive. Morell cannot just wave his hand and make it all disappear. In fact, he is aware that “baptism is so closely connected with conversion that Paul can speak of them as one and the same event” – and at the same time wishes to put some contrived distance between the closely connected. In fine, the difference in modern practice and New Testament practice becomes “we live in different days” (my words for their words), or as Morell puts it, “Our context today is simply not analogous.” This is a deadly doctrinal trend, which, if not used sparingly, allows us to dismiss most of the Bible as neither commended nor critical for our current situation.[viii]

In many ways I appreciate the conservatism of 9Marks folks much more than some of the progressive Southern Baptists who are advocating “spontaneous” baptisms. On the other hand, I think they are somewhat lacking in their ecclesiology and orthopraxy, causing them to weaken biblical Baptist practice as I see it.

Ultimately, folks like Morell ask us to reject the models of Acts as “not a model” and rather adopt their own practically developed models as the models we ought to follow. On biblical grounds, I protest.

Baptism, a rite of immersion in water, is important, urgent and should not be unnecessarily delayed because:

• It is commanded [to both converts to proclaim (Acts 2:38; 10:48) and to the church to perform (Matt. 28:18-20)].
• It is the believer’s first act of obedience (Acts 2:33-39; Acts 10:47-48; Matthew 10:32).
• It pictures the gospel and testifies of new life (2 Corinthians 5:17).
• It signifies a spiritual commitment, that we who are born again are now free to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).

The unity of the command, precept, and example braid a three-fold cord that is not easily broken – and that should not be readily discarded.

 I strenuously object to the easy-believism and pseudo-evangelistic methods often associated with “spontaneous” baptisms. Nevertheless, New Testament command, precept, and example must govern and we must submit. I am not urging our rushing professors into the baptismal waters like driving dumb dogies through a dip. But I am saying this – if a church accepts a person’s profession as genuine, there is neither doctrinal reason nor biblical example to delay baptizing that person.

---

[i]  A “baptizand” is a person who is about to submit to baptism.

[ii] He must needs insert “largely” as a weasel word, since he will not allow the biblical data to affect his practice.

[iii]  In Acts chapter 2, we are told believers were added to the church in Jerusalem daily. If the Lord was adding to the Jerusalem church daily such as should be saved; then they were also baptized daily – since baptism precedes church membership.

[iv]  Of course the same is true of Lydia and her household, so not so ambiguous in my opinion.

[v]  Morell here comes close to a precipice. If the record of baptisms, though consistent, are not normative for his purposes, why should one allow them to be normative for believers’ immersion, for example?

[vi]  If the same Peterson, in his commentary he also allows that “some period of instruction intervened” between the belief of the eunuch and his baptism by Philip. I cannot speak with certainty concerning Peterson, but I have read the 9Marks philosophy. They do not just mean the instruction between professing faith and teaching them they then need to be baptized. They mean putting a person in a class and teaching/catechizing that person over several weeks or months before he is baptized.

[vii]  Morell does not give a good citation, but apparently this is David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (The Pillar New Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009.

[viii]  Polar opposites Morgan Edwards and William Whitsitt understood this, though for different reasons and with different concerns.