Water Baptism Part 1

Water Baptism.

by James H. Moon.

"THE COMMISSION"

Did Christ command his disciples to baptize with water?

Let us search the New Testament and see what it says.

We find the four evangelists and Peter each render Christ's command to his apostles in very different language.

Matthew's version[1] is generally adduced to support water baptism.

We cannot a.s.sume that in Matthew, our Saviour's words are quoted verbatim, while Mark, Luke, John and Peter are all in error or less reliable, particularly as this part of Matthew claims for itself to have been written a long time after, as appears by the statement that "This saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."[2]

Seven different accounts of the "apostolic commission" are given in the New Testament.[3]

Did not each of these writers express in his own language what he understood to be Christ's command to his disciples and will not these seven different records all agree in substance if genuine?

Let us seek that interpretation which harmonizes them all and not pin our faith to the popular conception of one version alone.

We will turn first to the one only recorded allusion which our Saviour ever made to water baptism.[4]

We here find that he commanded his apostles not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father which, said he, ye have heard of me; for John truly baptised with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the earth.[5]

These are given as the last words of our Saviour before his ascension.

He speaks of John's baptism as the water baptism of the past, and of Holy Spirit baptism as the baptism of the future. By this Holy Spirit baptism his apostles are to receive power to become his witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth. There is nothing whatever which implies a command to baptize with water. This whole context militates against the belief that Christ ever gave such command.[6]

This version of the "apostolic commission" stands prominent and is worthy of double consideration because it is sustained by the testimony of Peter, [7] who remembered these words of our Lord, and quoted from them as being fulfilled when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the household of Cornelius as he preached.[8]

According to John's account of the commission, Christ said to his apostles, "As my Father hath sent Me even so send I you," and we read that He was sent to baptize with the Holy Spirit. Again, He commanded them to feed his lambs and feed his sheep.[9]

John never intimates that they were sent to baptize with water.

Had Christ commanded his disciples to baptize all nations with water, John would certainly have known it, and could not have failed to report a command of such world-wide application, John's silence is further evidence that no such command was given.

There can be no baptism in the commission other than the baptism of the Holy Spirit according to John's record as we have it.

According to Luke[10]: Christ commanded his apostles to preach among all nations repentance and remission of sin in his name, after they should be endued with power from on high.

Luke does not mention baptism, only as power from on high. Nothing which even suggests a command to baptize with water.

If such command was given Luke surely knew it. He tells us about Christ's own baptism of the Holy Spirit and his command to preach among all nations;[11] why does he not tell us about this command to baptize these nations with water? Is it not plainly because there was no such command?

According to foot-note in our revised version,[12] and other authorities, the two oldest known copies of Mark's record omit the twelve last verses, and another ancient ma.n.u.script, lately found, also omits them and states that they were by Aristion the elder. As the authenticity of the account of the commission in Mark's record is questioned, we omit comment, altho' we see nothing to conflict with the other six versions.

According to Matthew Christ commanded his disciples to go, teach all nations, baptizing them (not _in_ the name, but) _into_ the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[13]

No water is mentioned. He commanded them to baptize into the Divinity, not in water.

This harmonizes all the evangelists with both Peter and Paul.

If we reject this view and a.s.sume that in Matthew[14] water baptism is intended to be understood, then we are compelled to believe that this interpretation of Matthew, with its formula for baptism, was conceived after the apostles' time; was unknown to them, and is a human conception and not a correct rendering of the teachings of Jesus. Because with water introduced, it stands alone and is out of harmony with the whole of Christ's teachings upon other occasions, and because it conflicts with all our other six versions of the commission; and because (as we read), the apostles and first Christians never did baptize with the formula prescribed in Matthew, which is conclusive evidence that to their understandings Christ never commanded them to do so. And again, because the apostles and first Christians did continue to baptize with water, sometimes without formula but mostly in the name of Jesus Lord or Christ. This they would not have done in defiance of Christ's command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Upon these and many other grounds we claim that Christ never did command his disciples to baptize with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nor in any way whatever.[15]

According to Peter's account of the commission, Christ commanded his apostles to preach to the people. He mentions no command to baptize.[16]

Peter did preach to the people and the Holy Spirit fell upon them as it had fallen upon others of them in the beginning, at Pentecost.[17] Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he said "John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Here Peter [18] was made instrumental in baptizing with the Holy Spirit through Gospel preaching, and he recognized this to be the same baptism which his Lord [19] had promised should supercede John's water baptism [20] and the same as that with which they were filled eight years before, in the beginning at Pentecost, and the Pentecost baptism[21] he said was that which the prophet Joel foretold should be poured out upon all flesh; upon sons and daughters,[22] servants and handmaidens, and that they should prophecy.

Can anything be plainer than that this Pentecost baptism[23] and that the baptism which was poured out upon the household of Cornelius as Peter preached[24], and the baptism which our Lord promised in the place of John's water baptism and the baptism which Joel foretold should be poured out upon all flesh are all one and the same baptism, and does it not follow that this is the baptism of the commission, the one baptism of the Gospel, and that this is Christian baptism and that there is no water in it?[25]

Because Peter and others continued to baptize with water is no evidence to the contrary. They continued their old Jewish customs generally. They p.r.o.nounced it necessary to abstain from certain meats. They insisted that Paul should adhere to circ.u.mcision. They refused to eat with Gentiles. With such Jewish proclivities how could they at once abandon water baptism?[26]

Some evidently realized that John's water baptism had ended at Pentecost, but they were not prepared to drop it entirely, so sought to perpetuate it by repeating the words, "In the name of Jesus, Lord or Christ." They claimed no divine authority for using this formula and the disciples of water baptism in our day mostly discard it.[27]

Baptism with the formula, "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"[28] is not to be considered in connection with the apostles and first Christians, as they never mention it and evidently never practised it. Such formula was unknown at that time. It came in as an afterthought; a human invention of later date.

The great diversity in the form of expression used by each of the evangelists and Peter in defining Christ's commission to his apostles is positive evidence that they understood him to prescribe no formula for baptism and it is confirmation that no formula was given that they and the first Christians for ages adhered to no one set form of words when baptizing with water.

"In His name," as Christ is quoted by Luke, and in substance by Mark, John and Peter, always implies in, into or with his Spirit or power, and not a common given name which mortals may utter. In this name or power Christ commanded his apostles to preach.[29]

"Into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," as in Matthew[30]

alone Christ's command is interpreted, has the same implication and not a mere name or formula which human lips may sound. To repeat these words in connection with baptism is to subst.i.tute the voice of man for the power of G.o.d.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Mat. 28.19]

[Footnote 2: Mat. 28.15]

[Footnote 3: Mat. 28.19; Mark 16.15; Luke 24.47; Jon. 20.21; Acts 1.8; Acts 10.42; 1 Cor. 1.17]

[Footnote 4: Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 11.16]

[Footnote 5: Acts 1.8]

[Footnote 6: Acts 1.5; Acts 11.16; Acts 1.8]

[Footnote 7: Acts 11.15, 16]

[Footnote 8: Acts 10.42, 45]

[Footnote 9: Jon. 20.21; Jon. 1.33; Jon. 21.15, 17]