Yet again.... The jailers baptism and talk of the Holy Spirit

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

This has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread, but I did not want to revive it.

I just ran into this link, while looking for a definition, and thought it curious and interesting enough to share.
(copied in full) (CORRECTION... IT IS CUT OFF DUE TO LENGTH... CHECK THE LINK TO FINISH)
(IN THE LINK YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN TO THE FEW SCENARIOS SECTION)
(tHE DISCUSSION ON IMMERSION AS WELL AS THE MENTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT KIND OF
GOT MY ATTENTION)

What kind of baptism was administered in Acts 16:33?

Acts 16:33 KJV And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. It is said the jailer together with his family were all bapti...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

Biblical Hermeneutics

What kind of baptism was administered in Acts 16:33?​

Ask Question
Asked 1 year ago
Modified 1 year ago
Viewed 767 times

1
Acts 16:33 KJV

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

It is said the jailer together with his family were all baptized that very midnight.Seeing it was midnight and there was no pool mentioned in the prison complex where Paul was incarcerated how could the whole family be baptized without anyone noticing it if they had to go out
Is there a possibility that a different baptism was administered here?

• acts
• paul
• baptism

Share
Improve this question
Follow

asked Feb 2, 2023 at 10:32

collen ndvu
23.4k4040 gold badges170170 silver badges337337 bronze badges

• 
  No need for a pool in the prison complex as the earthquake had affected the very foundations, Paul & Silas were outside the cells, the jail-keeper had come out and after a bit they went back to his house. A bit of moonlight might have aided their way to the nearest river or pool unaffected by the earthquake, though lanterns could have sufficed. Anyway, why would they not want anyone to notice the baptisms? They weren't doing this in a corner, just as earthquakes don't happen surreptitiously!
  – Anne
  Feb 2, 2023 at 16:08

Add a comment

4 Answers​

Sorted by:
Highest score (default) Date modified (newest first) Date created (oldest first)
2
Note the comments of Gill on Acts 16:33 -

and was baptized, he and all his, straightway; by immersion, that being the only way in which baptism was administered, or can be, so as to be called a baptism: and which might be administered, either in the pool, which Grotius supposes to have been in the prison; or in the river near the city, where the oratory was, Acts 16:13 and it is no unreasonable thought to suppose, that they might go out of the prison thither, and administer the ordinance, and return to the prison again before morning unobserved by any; and after that, enter into the jailer's house and be refreshed, as in the following verse; and as this instance does not at all help the cause of sprinkling, so neither the baptism of infants; for as the jailer's family were baptized as well as he, so they had the word of the Lord spoken to them as well as he, and believed as well as he, and rejoiced as he did; all which cannot be said of infants; and besides, it must be proved that he had infants in his house, and that these were taken out of their beds in the middle of the night, and baptized by Paul, ere the instance can be thought to be of any service to infant baptism.

I also note that Philippi was coastal city with good water supply so any of these very local bodies of water would have been sufficient for regular baptism, ie, submersion..
Share
Improve this answer
Follow

edited Feb 2, 2023 at 18:17


answered Feb 2, 2023 at 10:57

Dottard
101k44 gold badges4242 silver badges146146 bronze badges
Add a comment

1
This question would not be necessary if the Greek word "baptizo" had been properly translated, rather than transliterated from the Greek. It means to be dipped, submerged, immersed. Every time the Anglicized word "baptism" appears in the English translations, you need to think "immersion".
Strong's Gr. 907 "baptizo", to dip, sink. Thayer's Gr. Lexicon, II. "...an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom;..." Source: Biblehub
Sprinkling was never a thought in their minds.
Share
Improve this answer
Follow

answered Feb 2, 2023 at 11:26

Gina
9,97722 gold badges2020 silver badges3737 bronze badges

• 
  Thank you for the insight on the word "baptizo". It seems to be a verb but does not specific an object. If take it literally, we may add water as the object. But what if it meant spiritually? The moment of receiving the Holy Spirit, may feel like a body and mind refreshment after a shower or a bath.
  – Vincent Wong
  Feb 5, 2023 at 15:40
• 
  Water was definitely the article / object used for the immersion, else there would not have been the need to deny it as a simple washing of the flesh. The prophesy of the Holy Spirit being poured forth upon that generation was from Joel 2, & that was not an automatic result of immersion / baptism. See my answer at the previous question here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/53850/…. See also my posts at my blog for Testing The Spirits - Parts Va, b, & c. Speaking the words of the Holy Spirit was not a bodily...
  – Gina
  Feb 6, 2023 at 3:57
• 
  ...possession, but a knowing. The 1st century AD disciples were given that knowledge directly & miraculously. Today we know His word by studying it. The more we know, the more we have the Holy Spirit through His word. Link to posts begins here: shreddingtheveil.org/2022/07/12/…
  – Gina
  Feb 6, 2023 at 4:00
• 
  I like your insight and I would invite you to answer my question posted hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/81262/…
  – Vincent Wong
  Feb 6, 2023 at 14:54

Add a comment
1

 

[Bill Judson]

Obviously they immediately took the jailer and his fam out to be dunked in water

And I don't see anything in scripture that says any of the jailer's family were infants.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Obviously they immediately took the jailer and his fam out to be dunked in water

And I don't see anything in scripture that says any of the jailer's family were infants.

Well, proof that men are not infallible and do lack the ability to convey full explanations.

Anyway... Just letting you know I have put you on ignore... Cartoon Snidely.

 

[Bill Judson]

Just letting you know I have put you on ignore... Cartoon Snidely

Thank you!

I was hoping you would so I can skip the nonsense.

 

[Fred J]

Verse 32; They spoke the word of the Lord unto the jailer and to all that were in his house (at first they were in jailer's house).
Verse 33; And the jailer took them the same hour of the night, to wash their stripes; and likewise he cum his household were baptised straighaway.

Apparently the jailer took them outside to where there was clean pool of water, one, to wash their stripes. Two, even for himself and his household to be baptized straightaway in the same water.

Verse 34; And when he had brought them into his house, ...........................................................................(they returned back to his house once again)

This is the same pattern, whether water is mentioned or at times not, from with Jesus to after Jesus, water baptism were conducted. From Pentecost through Peter, to Ananias, to Philip, to Peter again, to Paul and Silas as well, water baptism is carried out straighaway.

Apparently Israelites built pools of water near their homes, since according to the Law they have many water ceremonial cleansing at the end of the day. Before they present themselves clean at the temple to offer sacrifice for sins through the priests.

This also goes for those who are not Jews, where they had to collect and store water for cleaning, washing and bathing purposes. Then was not like today where we have taps around our entire homes, where water is ready at a twist of a dail or handle.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

This has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread, but I did not want to revive it.


Add a comment
1

Ezek. 36:25 – Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)

2 Kings 5:14 – Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 – the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Luke 11:38 – Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.

Acts 2:41 – at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 – because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Acts 8:39 – because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 – Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 10:47-48 – Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.

Acts 16:33 – the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.

Acts 2:17,18,33 – the pouring of water is like the “pouring” out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called “infusion” (of grace).

1 Cor. 10:2 – Paul says that the Israelites were baptized (“baptizo”) in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, “baptizo” does not mean immersed in these verses.

Eph. 4:5 – there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.

Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.

Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.

Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.” This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person).

Isaiah 44:3 – the Lord “pours” water on the thirsty land and “pours” His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.”

2 Thess. 2:15 – hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.

With all that said, total immersion, using the liturgical formula in Matthew 28:19, is a valid baptism. Lots of fuss over nothing.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Ezek. 36:25 – Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)

2 Kings 5:14 – Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 – the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Luke 11:38 – Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.

Acts 2:41 – at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 – because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Acts 8:39 – because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 – Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 10:47-48 – Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.

Acts 16:33 – the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.

Acts 2:17,18,33 – the pouring of water is like the “pouring” out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called “infusion” (of grace).

1 Cor. 10:2 – Paul says that the Israelites were baptized (“baptizo”) in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, “baptizo” does not mean immersed in these verses.

Eph. 4:5 – there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.

Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.

Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.

Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.” This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person).

Isaiah 44:3 – the Lord “pours” water on the thirsty land and “pours” His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.”

2 Thess. 2:15 – hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.

With all that said, total immersion, using the liturgical formula in Matthew 28:19, is a valid baptism. Lots of fuss over nothing.

Right... I fully agree.

And I did have a poruing or sprinkling of some such in my Presbyterian church.

But it goes beyond the sprinkling or pouring that the masses argue because the Catholics, and the Presbytrerians and some ferw others baptize babies.... SOME EVEN WILL IMMERSE THE BABES.
And the arguement goes something like ... "YOU were too young and did not understand why it was done therefore it was invalid. The excuse that the Jailer and Cornelius and Lydia had their house hold baptised
is explained away with such rot as is found Two Households At Philippi (Acts 16:6-34)

Which supposedly explains things IMO worse then when George W. Bush described Al Gore's economic figures as ''fuzzy math''

Suggesting that

1. Such households likely consisted of both family and servants...

And poor Lydia.....poor porr Lydia

1. She was evidently a successful business woman, yet one who worshipped God
   1. Her name is Greek, perhaps a convert to Judaism
   2. From Thyatira, she was seller of purple dye Lydia and her household are baptized - Ac 16:15
   3. Did her "household" include infants?
      • Proponents of infant baptism often appeal to the example of a "household" being baptized as evidence of infant baptism in the early church
      • They say it is plausible to assume infants were present, but is that the case here?
        1. Lydia was a businesswoman, with no mention of a husband
        2. She was from Thyatira, possibly in Philippi only on business (though she did have a home)
      • We can just as easily assume that her household was made up of servants, or at the least, children old enough to travel

Sorry, I digress.

Anyway... I do agree that pouring or sprinkling are proper. If it is good enough for God the Father it should be good enough for us...( Ez 36:25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.|

In any event... I have asked countless times and countless places what the "little" font was for that was discovered.
If not for a puoring or sprinkling baptism, or a baby immersion... Perhaps people had need to wash their feet before entering the church?

Archaeologists Discover Ancient Baptismal Font Hidden Inside Jesus' Traditional Birthplace

Archaeologists have discovered a baptismal font dating to the 6th or 7th century A.D., hidden inside another baptismal font in the Church of the Nativity.

www.livescience.com

Archaeologists Discover Ancient Baptismal Font Hidden Inside Jesus' Traditional Birthplace​

 

[th1b.taylor]

My only question would be, "Why all of the concern about what formula?" After a person makes a public show of Faith I find it telling when the subject of Ruah, the Holy Spirit comes up in discussions. Most Converts have a perpetual blank look of, "What?" My point here is that if Ruah is not leading and correcting your path, you, very likely, are not saved. It matters not if you are dunked, sprinkled, or like the Thief on the Cross, making a dying profession.

 

[Fred J]

Right... I fully agree.

And I did have a poruing or sprinkling of some such in my Presbyterian church.

But it goes beyond the sprinkling or pouring that the masses argue because the Catholics, and the Presbytrerians and some ferw others baptize babies.... SOME EVEN WILL IMMERSE THE BABES.
And the arguement goes something like ... "YOU were too young and did not understand why it was done therefore it was invalid. The excuse that the Jailer and Cornelius and Lydia had their house hold baptised
is explained away with such rot as is found Two Households At Philippi (Acts 16:6-34)

Which supposedly explains things IMO worse then when George W. Bush described Al Gore's economic figures as ''fuzzy math''

Suggesting that

1. Such households likely consisted of both family and servants...

And poor Lydia.....poor porr Lydia

1. She was evidently a successful business woman, yet one who worshipped God
   1. Her name is Greek, perhaps a convert to Judaism
   2. From Thyatira, she was seller of purple dye Lydia and her household are baptized - Ac 16:15
   3. Did her "household" include infants?
      • Proponents of infant baptism often appeal to the example of a "household" being baptized as evidence of infant baptism in the early church
      • They say it is plausible to assume infants were present, but is that the case here?
        1. Lydia was a businesswoman, with no mention of a husband
        2. She was from Thyatira, possibly in Philippi only on business (though she did have a home)
      • We can just as easily assume that her household was made up of servants, or at the least, children old enough to travel

Sorry, I digress.

Anyway... I do agree that pouring or sprinkling are proper. If it is good enough for God the Father it should be good enough for us...( Ez 36:25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.|

In any event... I have asked countless times and countless places what the "little" font was for that was discovered.
If not for a puoring or sprinkling baptism, or a baby immersion... Perhaps people had need to wash their feet before entering the church?

Archaeologists Discover Ancient Baptismal Font Hidden Inside Jesus' Traditional Birthplace

Archaeologists have discovered a baptismal font dating to the 6th or 7th century A.D., hidden inside another baptismal font in the Church of the Nativity.

www.livescience.com

Archaeologists Discover Ancient Baptismal Font Hidden Inside Jesus' Traditional Birthplace​

View attachment 47179

View attachment 47180
View attachment 47181

The Jews too according to Old Testament have their ceremonial washings and cleansings, even in their home.

Including during the time of Jesus, when the Law and the Prophets have not been 'fulfilled' yet.

This is what the above find is all about, on the other hand, water baptism of the Messiah and church are conducted in the 'river Jordan'.

Full immerse into the water, then rise up out of the water, done in 'faith', declaring to witnesses one is 'born again'.

That, such a person die burying his old self and rise up out alive a new creature, the significant of it all, 'faith with works'.

2 Corinthians 5:
17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

As history tend to repeat it self, or a dog tend to go back and lick it's vomit, repeatedly.

Therefore, probably blind guide church forefathers implementing other form of baptism, became traditions in certain denominations.

As the saying goes, "Get back to the basics!"

Shalom in the name of Jesus Christ.