No, I don't assume that. The text tells us the mode that was used. When Phillip baptized the Eunuch, they both went down into the water, and then came back up out of the water. If it was just a sprinkling or pouring, then only Phillip needed to go to the water's edge. And the Eunuch need not have even left his chariot. Again in Acts 22, Saul need not have moved if baptism were sprinkling or pouring (or simply of the Spirit). All of those modes could have been done with him sitting where he was.
Afraid not
Katabaino - went down , stepped down used to denote dismounting a chariot Josephus so uses it 12, 4, 3. Homer, Herodotus,Plato, Xenophon use it to note mounting upon a vessel, a camel, a horse etc. In verse 31 Phillip stepped up (anabaino) into the chariot. so katabaino notes the stepping down from the chariot. Thus they stepped down from the chariot into the water There is no step by step journey. They dismounted and were in the water.
No immersion here at all.
Does not show immersion the normal means of baptism Since both went down to or into the water and then the baptism proceeded
The law required whenever possible living water
Nor will the prepositions determine the case; they would have been employed properly had Philip and the eunuch gone into the water by partial or by entire immersion, and therefore come out of it on dry land; and with equal propriety, and according to the habitual use of the same prepositions by Greek writers, they would express going to the water, without going into it, and returning from it, and not out of it, for eis is spoken of place, and properly signifies at, or it indicates motion toward a certain limit, and, for anything that appears to the contrary in the history of the eunuch’s baptism, that limit may just as well be placed at the nearest verge of the water as in the middle of it. Thus the LXX say, Isaiah. xxvi, 2, "The king sent Rabshakeh from Lachish, eis, to Jerusalem," certainly not into it, for the city was not captured. The sons of the prophets "came eis, to Jordan to cut wood," 2 Kings vi, 4. They did not, we suppose, go into the water to perform that work. Peter was bid to "go, eis, to the sea, and cast a hook," not surely to go into the sea; and our Lord, Matt. v, 1, "went up, eis, to a mountain," but not into it. The corresponding preposition ek, which signifies, when used of place, from, out of, must be measured by the meaning of eis. When eis means into, then ek means out of; but when it means simply to, then ek can express no more than from. Thus this passage is nothing to the purpose of the Immersionists.
Much appeal has been made to two other Greek prepositions, ek and eis, to support, practically exclusively, the ideas out of and into, respectively, in order to teach that the baptized went down into the water and came up out of the water, and that in the very act of baptism. But when you examine the usage of eis and ek in Scripture, you find something different from this claim. In John 20 , Mary Magdalene comes "unto (eis) the tomb" to find the stone removed "from (ek) the tomb." Here it is plain that Mary went to the tomb, not into it, and that the stone was taken from the tomb, not out of it. Then Peter and John "went toward (eis) the tomb" and John "came first to (eis) the tomb … yet entered not in." Peter arriving, "entered into the tomb … Then entered in the other disciple" (vv. 1-8). Here demonstrated is the distinction between "going to" and "going into." By itself, eis means to, expressing motion toward, as in John. 20:1, 3, 4 . To express motion into, the preposition is both prefixed to the verb and added after the verb, as in v.6, eiselthen eis. (See Acts 9:6, 8, 17
Matthew 18:3; John 3:5; Mark 2:1; Matthew. 6:20). So then, Mark 1:10, 11 ought to be translated, "coming up from (ek) the water" and "a voice came from (ek) the heavens," as in John 20:1, "from (ek) the sepulchre."
The next case is the baptism of the people of Samaria (Acts 8:12-16). It is remarkable, to say the least, that here where you have baptism, water is not mentioned, yet mode is indicated (8:16)! What follows is the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. Especially verses 38 and 39 are surely to be emphasized. I call attention to "down into the water … and … up out of the water." The question is, who experienced this action? Also, which is first, in the account, the action of going down, or the action of coming up? In answer, we point out that Philip, as commanded, joined the eunuch as he was traveling by chariot in the desert. Running beside the vehicle, he heard the man reading aloud the prophecy of Isaiah. Keeping up with the lumbering chariot, Philip greeted the man with the sudden, "Doubtless so! yet understandest thou what thou readest?" (Gk.). Then the man "desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Then Philip instructed him in the Scripture he had been reading, Isaiah 53. Likely it is that Philip also gave him some insights into the immediately preceding context, 52:13-15. For since the man requested baptism, we would think naturally the baptism of Isaiah 52:15 would be in mind, "So shall He sprinkle many nations." Philip complying with the request, the man "commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." Here three things occurred: (1)
they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; (2) he baptized him, and (3) they came up out of the water. To be carefully noted is the fact that the going down into the water and the coming up out of the water did not constitute the baptism. The baptism took place between the going down and the coming up. Since the going down and the coming up are said of both of them, the words cannot imply immersion, as Philip obviously would not immerse himself along with the eunuch. That both went down, both Philip and the eunuch, that action sees them now stepping down out of the chariot where casual water immediately confronts them.
e
