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.

'HE COMMANDED THE CHARIOT TO STAND STILL'-The chariot had. driver. The last person mentioned in Acts 8:37 is the eunuch, therefore it was the eunuch who issued the command.

'THEY BOTH WENT DOWN INTO THE WATER..HE BAPTIZED HIM'

Points to Note:

Those who reject the idea that immersion is the only proper mode of baptism, have desperately tried to avoid the force of the above passage. Various arguments: (a) The word "into" simply means that they went "near" the water. But if "both" only went near the water, then can you baptize someone without water? (b) Others argue that if immersion is meant then it presents the ridiculous idea that both were immersed. But why doesn't the same logic apply when they argue that sprinkling or pouring are acceptable modes. Were "both" sprinkled??? (c) One writer even said, 'He came to. stream trickling along, scarcely sufficient to lave his feet, or perhaps rather to. well in the desert.' Did Philip and the Eunuch both climb down into. well? Such arguments only prove that people do see what the above text is saying.

The Greek rendered "baptism" means immersion.

Additional passages make it clear that baptism is. burial (Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12).

Why would both men need to go "down into the water", if the mode being used was sprinkling or pouring?

The eunuch's question, excited at seeing. body of water by the side of the road infers that the eunuch understood the meaning of the word "baptism". Are we to assume that this court official was traveling without personally having with him. supply of drinking water and provisions for the journey? How much water do you need to sprinkle someone?