Repent and Be Baptized

Repent and Be Baptized

By Mark Clarke

Copyright 2014 Mark Clarke

Smashwords Edition

All Scriptures quoted are from the King James Version unless otherwise indicated.

This is largely for the sake of familiarity on the part of those who are from a similar background.

It in no way implies a belief in the superiority of one version over another.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

_Definition of the Problem

_The Words ‘Baptism’ and ‘Baptize’

Chapter 2: Primary Issues

_Water vs. Spirit?

_Ceremonial Washings

_Repentance and Baptism

Chapter 3: Examining the Scriptures

_The Gospels

_Acts 1 & 2

_Acts 8

_Acts 9

_Acts 10 & 11

_Acts 19

_The Epistles

Chapter 4: Historical Considerations

_Supposed Origins of Baptism

_Development of Doctrines

_Reformation Controversies

_Development of Water/Spirit Dichotomy

Chapter 5: Baptism and the New Birth

_Once Saved Always Saved?

_Are We Born Again Yet?

_Rebirth and Regeneration

Chapter 6: Why Be Baptized?

_Is Baptism Just a Sign?

_An Outward Ordinance

_Can One Be Saved Without Baptism?

_A Commandment of the Lord

Chapter 7: Textual Evidence and the Great Commission

_Matthew 28:19

_Mark 16:16

_Jesus Commanded Baptism

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusion

Appendix: Occurrences of Baptize/Baptism

_I. Categorized

_II. By Order of Appearance in the Scripture

Endnotes

Chapter 1: Introduction

Definition of the Problem

Jesus Christ preached the Gospel, or good news, about the Kingdom of God. He challenged his hearers to repent and believe that Gospel, for the Kingdom was at hand (Mark 1:15). After Jesus ascended, the response to the Gospel according to Acts 2:38 was to Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Jesus said in Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. The Scriptures clearly indicate that the proper response to hearing the Gospel is to believe it, to repent, and to be baptized. The exact nature, purpose and significance of this baptism have at times been misunderstood.

In some Christian circles today, there is a belief that the baptism which is an integral part of our response is a baptism in the holy spirit, and that baptism in water is no longer necessary or even desirable. For many years I was involved with a ministry which held to this belief.

In other words, with the coming of the greater (holy spirit), the lesser (water) came to an end. This replacement was initiated on Pentecost. On Pentecost the replacement first applied.[1]

In more recent years, some groups that started as offshoots of that ministry have espoused similar beliefs.

Scripture shows that the old, ceremonial, outer washing in water prescribed in the Mosaic Law for Israel pointed toward, and has now been superseded by, the new, actual, inner cleansing in holy spirit (the divine nature of God).[2]

Another variation of this doctrine says that baptism in water is obsolete because we are to be baptized figuratively, into the name of Jesus Christ.

Water baptism of any kind is irrelevant and obsolete. The only relevant baptism to those who profess Christ today is the figurative term ‘baptism’ which is used of being immersed into Christ’s work, teaching and commandments via the working of the holy spirit and faith.[3]

Although there may be certain differences among the various versions of this doctrine, they all have the same basic premise in common: Baptism in water has been replaced by a spiritual, or figurative, baptism, making water baptism obsolete and unnecessary.[4] The problem with this idea, however, is that there is no clear Scripture that indicates this. The normal accepted meaning of baptism is a baptism in water. Let us begin by considering the word itself.

The Words ‘Baptism’ and ‘Baptize’

Part of the difficulty in understanding the meaning of ‘baptism’ and ‘baptize’ is that they are simply transliterations of Greek words. There was no corresponding English word at the time of translation. The noun ‘baptism’ is from either of two Greek nouns, baptisma or baptismos, while the verb ‘baptize’ is from the Greek verb baptizo (from the root baptein). According to The Encyclopedia of Religion, this root is defined as follows:

"…to plunge, to immerse or to wash; it also signifies, from the Homeric period onward, any rite of immersion in water. The frequentative form baptizein, appears much later (Plato, Euthydemus 227d; Symposium 176b)."[5]

The verb baptizo is a derivative of another verb, bapto, which means to dip, which appears in Luke 16:24, John 13:26, and Revelation 19:13. The Online Bible Greek Lexicon describes the distinction between bapto and baptizo like this:

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 BC. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.[6]

The verb was common in secular Greek, but the related nouns are confined to the vocabulary of the New Testament, according to Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible.

[The noun] does not occur in the LXX [the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament], neither is the verb with which it is connected ever used of an initiatory ceremony [in the LXX]. This verb is a derivative from one that means to dip (Jn 13:25, Rev 19:13), but itself has a wider meaning, = ‘to wash’ whether the whole or part of the body, whether by immersion or by the pouring of water (Mk 7:4, Lk 11:38).[7]

Because there was no English equivalent, these Greek words were merely transliterated into English. Like our English word ‘wash,’ the Greek verb in its normal usage implies water. When I say I washed my hands, it is implied and understood that I mean ‘in water.’ If washing or immersing in another substance is spoken of, then it is explicitly stated, whether it be a literal fluid other than water, or a figurative use of the word. But if the substance is not mentioned, water is assumed or implied.

There are a handful of occurrences in the Bible where the words are used in a way not referring to the rite of baptism, but for the most part the usage of baptism in the New Testament falls into one of three categories: John’s baptism, baptism in the name of Jesus, and baptism with the holy spirit. Much of the misunderstanding regarding baptism comes from the fact that both the noun and the verb are sometimes used in the Bible without qualification or definition; that is, the verse does not explicitly use the words ‘water’ or ‘spirit.’ It might seem that in these cases, the word ‘baptism’ could be either water or spirit, and the meaning is often thought to be ambiguous. Therefore the interpretation is often read into the passages based on the preconceived ideas of those doing the interpreting. To avoid misunderstanding, we will examine how ‘baptize’ and ‘baptism’ are used in the Bible.

When used of the baptism of John, it is obviously referring to water. Beyond that, the word ‘baptize’ or ‘baptized’ appears by itself (i.e. not specifically designated as ‘water’ or ‘spirit’) twenty times[8] and the word ‘baptism,’ four times[9]. As we examine the Scriptures, we shall see that there is a clear pattern which differentiates the various kinds of baptism, and the context defines that pattern.[10]

We will begin with a broad discussion of the primary issues regarding baptism, and then examine the occurrences in detail after that. We will also look at the historical development of the doctrine of baptism, and consider its meaning and significance in relation to the new birth. Finally we will look at the reasons why one should be baptized, including a detailed examination of the textual evidence for Jesus’ commandment to baptize.

~~~~~~~

Chapter 2: Primary Issues

Water Vs. Spirit?

The Scriptures that are usually cited as proof that spirit baptism replaced water are the ones that say, John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with holy spirit. Let’s look at these Scriptures.

Matthew 3:

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:

8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3:

16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

In the Gospel of John, similar words are used, but the two halves of the statement are separated over two days.

John 1:

26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

In Acts, Jesus uses similar words as well, which Peter later recalls.

Acts 1:

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 11:

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Notice that none of these passages says that Jesus would baptize with the holy spirit instead of water. To interpret these passages as saying that spirit would replace water is to read into it a false dichotomy that does not exist. It is assuming that spirit is set against water, as being antithetical and mutually exclusive, but that is not the point at all. The point is to contrast the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus, and to contrast the nature of each, showing the differences between the two.

Furthermore, interpreting these verses as ‘spirit vs. water’ assumes that these are the only two baptisms spoken of in the Bible. But there are actually three. John baptized in water, there is a baptism in water in the name of Jesus, and there is the baptism of the holy spirit, which Jesus would accomplish. The baptism in the holy spirit is truly a spiritual baptism, but in the book of Acts we also see instances of believers baptizing other individuals. This can’t be the baptism of the holy spirit, because only Jesus does that, according to Acts 2:33. But the baptism in water that the disciples perform in Acts is still distinct from the baptism of John.

The verses in John 1 show that John the Baptist was contrasting not just water and spirit but his ministry and Jesus’ ministry. (I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you …who coming after me is preferred before me…) Later, after Christ’s atoning sacrifice, it was in the name of Jesus that baptism was performed, and baptism in his name is said to be superior to the baptism of John (Acts 19:4, among other verses). But it was still water baptism, as seen from the records in Acts. Nowhere does it say that spirit and water are mutually exclusive, and nowhere does it say that one replaces the other or makes the other obsolete. That is being read into the verses that we’re considering.

When the word ‘but’ is used to set two things in contrast, it doesn’t automatically follow that they are mutually exclusive. In fact the Greek word used in these verses is de, which is used to mark a transition between phrases, or a contrast that is not a strong one. There is another word, alla, which is used to mark stronger contrast, such as in Matthew 4:4, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but [alla] by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

An example of such a transition can be seen in I Corinthians 8:1 where Paul writes, "Knowledge puffeth up, but [de] love edifieth." This verse doesn’t mean you should have love without knowledge. It is simply contrasting the aspects of each. In fact, in this case, it is implying that knowledge without love is insufficient, and that one should have love in addition to knowledge. Similarly, John’s baptism involved water, while Jesus’ baptism would involve spirit. But it doesn’t automatically follow that spirit and water are mutually exclusive. Reading through the records in Acts, one sees that the disciples baptized with water in Jesus’ name, and Jesus baptized in holy spirit, usually at the same time (though not always). In fact on the occasions where one was present without the other[11], it was considered unusual, and the apostles got involved to rectify the situation. Certainly John’s baptism in water alone could not produce a change on the inside, as the holy spirit could do. But there was also a purpose for the outward