Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 8:38

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

And they went down both into the water. This passage has been made the subject of much discussion on the subject of baptism. It has been cited in proof of the necessity of immersion. It is not proposed to enter into that subject here. (See Barnes on Matthew 3:6).

It may be remarked here that the preposition eis, translated here "into," does not necessarily mean that. Its meaning would be as well expressed by "to" or "unto," or, as we would say, "they went to the water," without meaning to determine whether they went into it or not. Out of twenty-six significations which Schleusner has given the word, this is one.

In John 11:38: Jesus therefore groaning in himself, cometh to eis the grave—assuredly not into the grave. In Luke 11:49: I send them prophets. Greek, I send to eis them prophets—to them, not into them. (1 Corinthians 14:36.) In Matthew 12:41: They repented at eis the preaching of Jonas—not into his preaching. In John 4:5: Then cometh he to eis a city of Samaria, that is, near to it; for the context shows that he had not yet entered into it. (Compare to John 4:6, 8.) And in John 21:4: Jesus stood on eis the shore; that is, not in, but near the shore.

These passages show that the word does not necessarily mean that they entered into the water.

1. If it did, it does not necessarily follow that the eunuch was immersed. There might be various ways of baptizing, even after they were in the water, besides immersing. Sprinkling or pouring might be performed there as well as elsewhere.

2. It is incumbent on those who maintain that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism to prove that this passage cannot possibly mean anything else, and that there was no other mode practiced by the apostles.

3. It would still be incumbent to show that if this were the common and even the only mode then, in a warm climate, etc., it is indispensable that this mode should be practiced everywhere else. No such positive command can be cited. And it follows, therefore, that it cannot be proved that immersion is the only lawful mode of baptism. (See Barnes on Matthew 3:6).