Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Jan. 1, 2009
Update	: Jun. 9, 2025
Parts	: 08

Synopsis:



Continuing our discussion from part three, never once in the Gospels did Jesus say "Now ye are clean and saved through water baptism". Furthermore, as we also saw earlier in this series, there's no record anywhere in the Gospels, or in the Epistles, which indicates that Jesus water baptized anyone. On the other hand, as I point out in articles such as "The Blood Atonement: In Jesus' Own Words", Jesus most certainly spoke about the New Covenant between God and man which was sealed with the Lord's own Blood. So does it not stand to reason that if Jesus clearly said that "the flesh profiteth nothing", that physical baptism of the flesh with water also profits us nothing? The Apostle Paul went so far as to say the following:

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not."


"For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come."


Considering how both Jesus and the Apostle Paul were aware of the low state of the flesh, and knew that it only leads us to sin, and that anything we do to it profits us very little, it only makes sense that baptizing the flesh with water will not have any bearing on our spiritual condition, particularly not on our Salvation. Jesus and Paul both highlighted the spirit over the flesh, and viewed it as only a vehicle to glorify and serve God the Father. As you will see momentarily, even the Apostle Peter came to realize that cleansing the flesh by means of water baptism was a useless, unprofitable act. Even King David recognized that it is only the Word of God which cleanses us. As we also all know, Jesus is the Living Word of God, because as it is written "In the beginning was the word . . . and the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us". King David wrote the following in his wonderful Psalm 119:

"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word."


Once John the Baptist had redirected enough of his disciples to follow Jesus; once he had prepared their hearts and minds by way of preaching, and a simple act of water baptism; God knew that it was time to remove John from the picture. Thus, a short while later, John received his graduation ceremony when he was beheaded by evil King Herod, and zipped off to Heaven. God removed the old schoolmaster -- John -- in order to introduce a new Schoolmaster who would take them to even higher spiritual heights, and build upon John's foundation. That, of course, was Jesus.

Think about this for a moment. What would have happened if John the Baptist hadn't been imprisoned and beheaded by King Herod? Do you think that it would have been as easy for the disciples of John to follow Jesus? Possibly not. Maybe they would have been content to continue in the old way, hearing John preach, and watching him baptize people in the Jordan River. Obviously, John the Baptist must have possessed quite a charismatic personality. It's possible that his followers would have been blinded to God's full truth being revealed through Jesus. Their spiritual growth could have even been stunted. John probably knew this, so I suspect that he may have been glad to be relieved of his earthly duties.

Today, we possess both the Old and the New Testaments, which serve as our written spiritual guide. In a sense, we've been blessed with having the full platter set out before us. In some regards, we probably have it a lot easier, insofar as our spiritual understanding is concerned. We can browse the pages of the Old and New Testaments, turn on our computers and use our Bible programs, listen to our Bible DVD's, etc., and make a lot of interesting connections, which in earlier times would have been more difficult to do. Many Biblical truths have been opened to us like never before. Spiritually speaking, we are really stuffed with the wonders of God's Word.

Even though many of us would have undoubtedly been thrilled to be able to sit at the Lord's feet, and hear Him teach us directly, and perhaps even hear some things that were never recorded in the pages of the Gospels or the Epistles, I have to wonder if given the situation at the time, we might not have found ourselves in a situation similar to that of the first Disciples. That is to say, struggling with trying to understand everything that Jesus said and taught. You may think otherwise now, but that is because you have your full Bible in front of you. All they had back then were the books of the Old Testament. Of course, many of them were eager to understand just as we are today. As King David once wrote as he marvelled at God's Word:

"Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law."


Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it."


The Apostle Paul likewise wrote the following in his Epistle to the Roman brethren:

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"


While John the Baptist was quick to understand his place in God's overall plan for humanity, with others, such was not the case. Throughout the four Gospels, we find examples where the Twelve Apostles were sometimes slow to understand some of the lessons that Jesus was trying to teach them. Today, we take these things for granted, and sometimes think that we're so smart; but are we really?

I suspect that the necessity of water baptism may have been one of the difficult issues with which they had to struggle. At least at first. We need to remember that Jesus often chose to meet people on their mental and spiritual level, and then He would gradually lead them to deeper spiritual truths, as they were able to accept them. In the case of water baptism, I don't doubt that Jesus knew that it was not necessary. But in His loving way, He probably also knew that it would take His followers some time to arrive at this same conclusion.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Lord did not try to impede His Disciples from baptizing people. If it served to strengthen people's faith, and made their repentance more sincere, then maybe it was alright, even though unnecessary. It surely didn't hurt anything. Again, we need to remember that Jesus was dealing with spiritual babes. While this is just personal speculation on my part, I think that this may possibly be one of the reasons why the Disciples continued to baptize people, even in the Book of Acts. In other words, perhaps they just did it out of habit. The first example in the Book of Acts where we see the Apostles offering water baptism can be found in chapter two. After preaching boldly to a crowd of thousands of people, and winning their hearts to the Lord, we find the following scene occurring on the Day of Pentecost:

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."


While the above verses do not specifically mention water, we can assume that this is the kind of baptism that Peter was referring to, because we find him water baptizing people in later chapters. A more clear-cut example of water baptism can be found in Acts chapter eight, where Philip goes down into the water and baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch, as we see here:

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both 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, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."


In the very next chapter, we find Ananias being commanded by the Lord to go to the house in Damascus where a blinded Saul is currently staying. As you may recall, at this particular point, the Lord is dealing heavily with Saul, due to Saul's stubbornness, and the fact that he has been persecuting the Lord's children. Despite his obvious reservations, Ananias does as he has been commanded, and goes to heal Saul of his blindness. It is after this, that Saul is baptized, as we by these verses:

"And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."


We know for certain that the previous verses are referring to water baptism, because thirteen chapters later, when Paul is recounting his conversion experience before an angry mob of orthodox Jews, he specifically uses the word "water", as we see here:

"And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."


Now, depending on how one reads those verses, it sounds like Saul received his sight, and was filled with the Holy Spirit, the minute that Ananias laid his hands on him. We find strong evidence to support this possibility in Acts chapter nineteen, where Paul lays his hands on a group of about twelve Disciples at Ephesus, upon which they're all immediately filled with the Holy Ghost, as we see here:

"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."


We will come back to that verse in a moment, as there is more important information to share from that particular incident. But the main point is that those Disciples received the Holy Spirit at the very moment that Paul laid his hands upon them. So if my understanding is correct, it was after Saul had been healed of his three days of blindness, and after he had been filled with the Holy Spirit, that he rose up and was baptized with water. This seems to strongly suggest that water baptism was a secondary action, and was not even necessary, in order for Saul to receive the Holy Spirit. In other words, Ananias was fulfilling a physical ritual which profited Paul little. If Paul was already filled with the Holy Spirit, which means that he was already saved, then what purpose did the water serve? Ananias says that it washed away Paul's sins. But did it really, or did Ananias just think that it did due to the tradition which seems to have begun with John the Baptist?

If you still remain convinced that water baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, in order to obtain Salvation, or to receive the Holy Spirit, please keep reading, as I will be providing some additional examples. First, however, I wish to share some additional verses with you which show that, as per the example of Jesus Himself, laying on of hands was a common practice with the Disciples of the First Century Church:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."


"And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them."


"Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them."


"And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God."


"Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."


"And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."


"And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him."


Another good example of a water baptism being performed can be found in Acts chapter ten where we find Peter baptizing certain Gentile believers who were members of the family of Roman centurion, Cornelius. As you will see, Cornelius and his family and friends had just been filled with the Holy Spirit. Consider the following group of verses:

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."


What I find particularly interesting regarding these verses, is that not only did Cornelius and his household receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE actually being baptized with water, but they likewise received it without the laying on of hands, exactly as occurred to the Apostles in the second chapter of the Book of Acts. You will recall that earlier, I explained the power of the Word, and I noted that it is the Word of God which cleanses us. It is NOT water. Why is this? Because as Jesus plainly said, His words are Spirit and they are life, and we are clean by the Word which He has spoken unto us.

That is precisely what we see occurring here. These Gentiles merely heard the Word of God and they were baptized with the Baptism of Blood -- meaning they were saved -- and then they were immediately filled with the Holy Spirit. They received the baptism by fire -- in other words, Holy Spirit -- BEFORE ever receiving a water baptism. This sounds very similar to what the Apostle Paul likewise experienced with Ananias in the previous chapter.

This incident certainly seems to confirm that water baptism is not really necessary; either for the remission of sins, or for Salvation, or to obtain the Holy Ghost. As with Paul, water baptism was clearly a secondary physical ritual, which in reality, profited Cornelius' family and friends little.

To reiterate, these Gentile believers were obviously water baptized after-the-fact and definitely not before. There's no way that baptismal regenerationists, such as Roman Catholics, Baptists, and other denominations, can explain this obvious conflict with their misguided doctrine. I do not believe that God would pour out His Holy Spirit into an unclean vessel. In other words, into an unsaved individual. Therefore, it stands to reason that Cornelius and his family were saved the moment that they heard and received the Word that was being preached to them by Peter. This is because God's Word makes it clear that Salvation is a state of mind and heart that's based upon belief in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Salvation is totally independent of any physical act or ritual. The minute that we choose to accept the Word, and embrace the truth regarding the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we are in fact saved whether we've been water baptized or not, as the above incidents clearly reveal.

Paul's pride and stubbornness were smashed by God on the road to Damascus, and he humbly accepted the truth regarding Jesus Christ. That was his moment of Salvation. That is also why he was able to receive the Holy Spirit a few days later, and was then baptized in water. His belief in Christ's Atonement had already cleansed him. He was baptized in Christ's Blood even before Ananias arrived and performed water baptism upon him. In similar manner, the minute that Cornelius and his family opened their hearts, and accepted the truth of Peter's words, they were in fact saved. They received the Baptism of Blood, followed by the baptism by fire, which was the Holy Spirit. Water baptism was just a secondary ritual. So it seems to me that baptismal regenerationists don't have a leg to stand on.

A related example can be found in one of the two thieves who died on the cross next to Jesus. As you may possibly recall, one of the two malefactors began to mock the Lord. The other thief, however, was in a very repentant state, and readily admitted that he was receiving a just reward for his crimes. He then asked Jesus to remember him, and what did Jesus say to him? Did He tell the thief, "Sorry, but you've never been water baptized, so you're a hopeless case"? Of course not! He said "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise". It is rather obvious that this thief was not taken down from the cross so that he could be water baptized. Yet Jesus clearly promised him a place in His Kingdom, again proving that water baptism is NOT necessary for the remission of our sins, or in order to obtain Salvation. Following is the full story as found in the Gospel of Luke:

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."


Why wasn't water baptism necessary? Well, based upon all of the Scriptures that we have examined here, it seems obvious that this thief was baptized in Jesus' Blood, so why would water baptism even be necessary? John the Baptist's ministry clearly taught us that being in a state of repentance is the first step towards Salvation. This thief clearly recognized his sins, and he was sorry for them. In addition, he clearly recognized who Jesus was, and he accepted Him as such, as is evident by the fact that he called Jesus "Lord". In short, all of the necessary requirements for Salvation were met. He had demonstrated his faith to Jesus, and Jesus honored this, and even comforted him, by telling him that he would be in Paradise with him.

Now, some people might argue that the thief couldn't possibly have been baptized in Jesus' Blood, because Jesus wasn't dead yet. However, I would offer that the Lord's Blood had already been shed when He received the thirty-nine lashes, when the crown of thorns was placed upon His head, when He fell on the way to Golgotha, and when the Romans nailed Him to the Cross. So the thief was able to receive Salvation right then and there.

If you do not wish to accept that perspective, well then look at Jesus' words to the thief as a prophetic statement. Jesus' Death on the Cross was already a done deed. He would be dead within a matter of a few hours, and the Promise of Redemption would be fully sealed by His Blood. So the Lord possessed the power to tell that repentant thief that He would see him in Paradise. However, regardless of how we choose to look at the situation, the point still remains that the thief was clearly promised Salvation without having ever been baptized in water. That is an indisputable fact.

Let us return now to the incident which occurred in chapter nineteen where Paul laid his hands upon the Disciples in the city of Ephesus, and they received the Holy Spirit. Allow me to quote the entire story for you:

"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve."


First of all, the fact that these believers are referred to as "disciples" would seem to indicate that they have already accepted Jesus and are saved. Second, we learn that they have not yet received the baptism by fire -- that is to say, the baptism of the Holy Spirit -- but they have already received the water baptism of John the Baptist. The fact that while he is questioning them, Paul uses the phrase "since ye believed" certainly seems to support the idea that these disciples were saved Christians.

However, it could possibly also mean that they have believed in John's message of repentance, but they still do not know yet who the Savior is, because they are located in Ephesus in Asia Minor -- which corresponds to modern Turkey -- while the events surrounding Jesus' ministry occurred quite a distance away in Israel. Personally, my opinion is that they're saved, because if they weren't already Believers in Jesus, it seems to me that Paul would be asking them if they had received the Lord yet, and not if they have received the Holy Ghost "since ye believed".

But what we want to concentrate on is what happens next. Some Christians claim that the Apostle Paul water baptized these Disciples. However, I propose that this is not what happened whatsoever. They had ALREADY received John's baptism -- that is to say, the baptism of repentance -- so to water baptize them a second time would be a rather redundant act. Don't you agree?

Furthermore, while I don't support the Roman Catholic Church, even they teach in their catechism that water baptism can only be administered to a person one time. Of course, the reason why the RCC teaches this, is because it erroneously believes that water baptism is an inseparable and absolutely necessary part of receiving Salvation, and one can only accept Jesus one time, since He sacrificed Himself only one time. But the point remains that for Paul to baptize them a second time would be a redundant, pointless act.

Paul clearly asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. He was asking them about the baptism by fire, and not about the baptism by water. Spiritual baptism was clearly Paul's primary concern, which suggests that Paul believed that they had already accepted Jesus and were saved. So what does it mean when it says "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"? The very next sentence give us a clear answer. We are told that Paul laid his hands on them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost -- the baptism by fire, and NOT a water baptism -- precisely as had occurred when Ananias laid his hands on Paul.

My friends, the fact that the Apostle Paul would do this is quite consistent with what we read in his Epistles. Paul's emphasis was not on the physical rituals, but rather on the spiritual realities: namely baptism by blood -- Salvation -- and baptism by fire -- receiving the Holy Spirit. The first one saves us, and the second gives us the power to win others to Jesus Christ, precisely as Jesus said it would do, as we see by the following verse:

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."


Please understand that the main question here is NOT whether or not the Apostles baptized people with water, because it is obvious that they did, at least for a time. The real question which we are trying to answer is whether or not water baptism is absolutely necessary in order for an individual to receive forgiveness of sins, and to obtain Salvation. That is to say, Eternal Life.

We have now examined several Scriptural examples which quite clearly demonstrate that water baptism is NOT necessary for either. Furthermore, we have seen that water baptism is NOT necessary in order to receive God's gift of the Holy Spirit either. These examples plainly reveal the flawed reasoning that is embraced by baptismal regenerationists, such as the Roman Catholics, and other denominations. They're bound by a legalistic ritual and a totally unnecessary tradition, which Jesus Himself did not practice anywhere in the Gospels.

More importantly, by stating that water baptism is necessary in order to receive forgiveness of our sins, and to achieve Salvation, they are attaching a condition to the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Indirectly, such people are stating that His Sacrifice on the Cross was not enough. When Jesus died on the Cross, He clearly said "It is finished" in John 19:30. That word "finished" is derived from the Koine Greek word "teleo". In Thayer's Greek English Lexicon, this word is defined as meaning to bring to a close, to finish, to end, to fulfill, to accomplish, or to complete.

This Koine Greek word "teleo" is very similar to another Greek word which we examined at the end of part two of this series. That is to say, "pleroo". So this is precisely what Jesus did for us. The minute that He died on the Cross, He completed, He fulfilled, He brought to a close, He accomplished, His primary mission upon the Earth. And what was that? To open the way to Salvation by shedding His blood. Why? Because as we learned in part three, without the shedding of blood there's no remission of our sins. Water baptism alone just won't do it.

By making water baptism a necessary condition for Salvation, these baptismal regenerationists are basically saying, "Yes, Jesus died for our sins, and paid the Price that we might be able to obtain Salvation. But we still need to tax His free Gift to us, by adding water baptism to it. If you don't pay our tax, you are not really saved yet." Can you understand how blasphemous that sounds to a Bible-believing Christian?

How dare these people tax a Gift which has been freely given to us by God, through the Death of His Son. It is similar to the Jewish money changers sucking every coin that they could out of the worshipers who came to offer their sacrifices and tithes at the temple in Jerusalem. In his first Epistle to the brethren at Corinth, Paul tells us "ye are bought with a price, and in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus plainly tells us that He has paid that ransom price, as we see here:

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."


Once a ransom price has been paid by the negotiating parties, -- in this case, God the Father and Jesus the Son -- then the hostages -- we sinners -- are set free. There is no further negotiations or conditions, such as taxing the free Gift by adding the condition of water baptism. As we saw earlier in part three, Jesus very plainly said "to preach deliverance to the captives . . . to set at liberty them that are bruised". In the case of Jesus' Crucifixion, all true, Bible-believing Christians should simply say "Mission accomplished!"

Please go to part five for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the BBB Bible website. There are many treasures for you to discover.