Paul, Baptism, And The Twelve At Ephesus

A few preliminary comments are in order before entering into the topic of our article.

Many people believe baptism is unrelated to salvation, that it is not necessary to become a Christian, and that one can be saved without it. Often Paul is cited from the passage in 1 Corinthians 1:14–17, where he says he is thankful he baptized none of the Corinthians except Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, and goes on to say, “Christ did not send me to baptize” (v. 17). Christ sent him “to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17, CSB). Many take this to mean Paul did not believe baptism was essential to salvation. We need to look a bit further.

Paul established the church in Corinth in Acts 18 by preaching the gospel there. He was there a year and a half (Acts 18:11). It seems many have overlooked what happened as a result of Paul's preaching in Corinth. The text says, “Many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:8, CSB). If Paul did not include baptism as a part of the gospel he preached, how did they come to know about it? Why were they baptized if it was not a part of the gospel?

Does it matter that Paul left the actual baptizing to his associates rather than personally doing it himself? Paul does not say, “I am glad none of you were baptized.” He only says his charge was to preach the gospel. His helpers could do the work of baptizing (Silas and Timothy were with Paul in Corinth; Acts 18:5). The validity of one's baptism is not dependent on who does the immersing.

If Peter preached the gospel in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, and there is only one gospel, then Paul preached what Peter preached, and that included baptism. Remember Peter's words when he preached the first gospel sermon ever on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (CSB). If men could only be led to believe what Peter preached that day, what mankind calls Christendom would look vastly different than it does.

All the Corinthians who obeyed the gospel were baptized. In writing to them later, Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13, CSB). Note that he says “all.” The Holy Spirit, preaching through inspired men, Paul being one of them, taught baptism and led men to it. That baptism was into the body of Christ, into salvation, into His church. Paul tells us where baptism puts us: “For those of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ” (Gal. 3:27, CSB). Salvation is found in Christ, not outside Him. Baptism puts one into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27).

I have said these things by way of introduction to the topic of this article, the events surrounding the twelve disciples Paul found in Ephesus. These events transpired quite a while after Paul left Corinth, for Paul did some extensive traveling after Corinth (see Acts 18:18–23). On those travels, he did stop briefly in Ephesus after leaving Corinth (Acts 18:19–21), but was not there long before moving on. The events with the twelve at Ephesus happened at a later date, on a return to Ephesus, at which time he was there for three years (Acts 20:31).

Between Paul's first brief stop in Ephesus and his return, Apollos had been there and taught, knowing only John's baptism. The events surrounding the twelve Paul found there seem to have happened upon his arrival at the beginning of the three years he spent there.

The question that arises concerning these twelve men, whom the Bible calls “disciples,” is why they were baptized again—a second time. It might be well to discuss the meaning of the word disciple. Most of the time, when one reads the word disciple in the New Testament, it refers to one who is a Christian. Certainly, a Christian is a disciple, a disciple of Christ, but the words Christian and disciple are not synonyms. The word disciple means “a learner”; it is a person who follows the teaching of another, an adherent of another. One could be a disciple of the Pharisees, of John the Baptist, of Christ, etc.

When Paul arrived in Ephesus in Acts 19, the text says he found some disciples. It is implied, correctly and with little doubt, that they were disciples of Christ. However, one can only be a disciple as far as the knowledge of his subject will allow him to be. You can only follow, as a disciple, to the limits of your understanding. The twelve men at Ephesus, obviously, had heard enough about Christ to want to follow Him, but they had not yet heard of baptism into Christ (Matt. 28:19). They were followers of Christ as far as their knowledge would take them. That does not mean they were Christians—not yet. If they were already Christians, why was Paul bothering them?

The next thing that needs consideration is what Paul meant when he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Paul clearly meant the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit that gifted the recipient with miraculous abilities. There is a listing of these abilities, or gifts, found in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11. We know he was asking about that measure of the Holy Spirit because there was no reason to ask a Christian, whom he assumed they were, if they had received the normal measure of the Holy Spirit, for that is granted to all Christians.

This promise to the Christian of the Holy Spirit is first made in Acts 2:38, but we read of it elsewhere as well: “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (CSB). “In Him you also—when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you also believed—were sealed in Him with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13, CSB). “Don't you yourselves know that you are God's temple and that the Spirit of God lives in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16, CSB). Other passages proving the point could be listed.

So we know that Paul wanted to know if these Christians, as he supposed they were, had received the miraculous gift of the Spirit. When they replied that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit, he knew something was seriously wrong. How can one be baptized into Christ, thus made a Christian, and not even hear of the Holy Spirit? The baptism Jesus proclaimed that puts one into the body of Christ (Gal. 3:27), the baptism of the Great Commission, is “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19, CSB). The word “in” in this passage should be “into”; see the side-margin note in the NAS 1963 Bible. The Greek word "eis" used here means into, signaling a change of relationship. If these men had been baptized correctly, they would certainly have heard of the Holy Spirit. In addition, they would have heard of the promised Holy Spirit given to all who are baptized into Christ.

This brings up a serious question: What must one know to be baptized correctly? That is an issue that has been debated through the years. Must one know it is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that it puts one into Christ's church (1 Cor. 12:13—the body being the church; Eph. 1:22–23), or is it sufficient to know only that God commands it and therefore it ought to be done, while being ignorant of its ramifications? One must know what he or she is doing when baptized to be baptized correctly, but to say how much one must know, I would not want to say. I have strong ideas about it, but I reserve them. I could be wrong in my thinking. However, I am informed enough from this account of the twelve in Acts 19 to know that correct understanding matters.

The twelve were originally baptized to obey God, so they thought. That was certainly a good motive, yet it proved insufficient at that time. Many today, without doubt, are baptized for the wrong reasons, and thus we can reasonably be assured their baptisms are ineffective. If I am baptized solely to become a member of a denominational church—a church that did not even exist in New Testament times—that is not the baptism Jesus authorized.

If one says, “My denomination is the New Testament church one reads about in the Bible,” then the next question is, “Why is that church not named in the New Testament?” If your church is called the XYZ Church (denomination), I do not read about a church named XYZ Church in the Bible, so baptism into it is not the same as baptism into Christ's church. But I drift from the main subject of this article, back to it.

Why was the baptism of these men into John's baptism not acceptable? Chronology seems to be the answer. John's baptism was valid for a time, but that time was prior to Jesus' death on the cross. The cross made all the difference in the world—not just regarding baptism, but in everything. Everything changed at the cross. Jesus' shed blood changed the world mankind lives in.

These twelve men had been baptized with John's baptism after Jesus' death on the cross. When Jesus died on the cross, mankind passed into the Christian Age. John the Baptist lived, taught, and made disciples in the Mosaic Age. The baptism he performed was of and from God.

“(And when all the people, including the tax collectors, heard this, they acknowledged God's way of righteousness, because they had been baptized with John's baptism. But since the Pharisees and experts in the law had not been baptized by him, they rejected the plan of God for themselves.)” (Luke 7:29–30, CSB)

But it was God's eternal plan to move on into the age of Christ, the Christian Age.

The twelve at Ephesus were not baptized by John the Baptist. Had they been baptized by John, there would have been no need of another baptism. No one baptized with John's baptism before the cross ever needed to be baptized again, for John's baptism was of God and was for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4), and once one's sins are forgiven, they are forgiven.

But John died before Christ died on the cross. It was a relatively short period between John's death and Christ's death, but during that time people were still living under the Law of Moses, and John's baptism—the one he taught—was still being preached, taught, and practiced by his disciples and remained valid. It is most likely, although not certain, that the twelve had been baptized by Apollos, who was in Ephesus before Paul. It is said of Apollos that he was “an eloquent man who was competent in the use of the Scriptures … instructed in the way of the Lord … teaching accurately … although he knew only John's baptism” (Acts 18:24–25, CSB).

To summarize and clarify, John's baptism, the baptism he taught, was valid only up until the time Jesus died on the cross. Anyone baptized with John's baptism at a later date needed to be baptized into Christ.

We now arrive at the Twelve's rebaptism, if one wants to call it that. It is clear that Paul is not satisfied with their first baptism. What is often overlooked, however, is why Paul seems to be demanding that they be baptized anew. The denominational world is overflowing with people who believe and teach that salvation is unrelated to baptism, teaching salvation by faith alone, and saying baptism is not necessary. If it is not necessary, why is Paul bothering these twelve men with it?

A second point, often overlooked, is that Paul ties belief in Jesus to baptism.

“Paul said, ‘John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:4–5, CSB).

When one believes in Jesus, what follows? Baptism. When you come to believe in Jesus, what do you do? You are baptized. Why do you do it? Because the One you believe—Jesus—taught it (John 3:3–5; Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16). You cannot believe in Jesus and at the same time doubt what He taught.

A very similar thing is recorded earlier under Philip's preaching in Samaria in Acts 8. “Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them” (Acts 8:5, CSB). “When they believed Philip … both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12, CSB). That is what happens when the true gospel is preached.

When the twelve were baptized correctly under Paul's teaching, the Bible says Paul laid his hands on the men, and the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues. This confirms what was said earlier: when Paul inquired of them about receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2), he was asking about the miraculous measure of it.

Do you believe in Jesus? If so, you know the next step. If these twelve men needed to be baptized, so does every disciple. That is the Great Commission: baptize the disciples (Matt. 28:19). God is no respecter of persons. Those who believe Jesus, believe what He said and taught, and are baptized. No exceptions.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Apollos and Baptism

There are many mysterious characters mentioned in the Bible we would like to know more about. One of them is Apollos, the eloquent evangelist. However, the fact that we know but little about him could be said equally of most of the apostles. What makes Apollos especially mysterious is what we do know about him.

Here is what we know, Acts 18:24-28 (NAS), "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

The first mystery is how could this man have been instructed in the way of the Lord and yet not known about the baptism authored by Jesus, knowing only John's baptism? It is obvious that baptism was the subject he needed to be enlightened on and that it was a part of "the way of God" explained to him.

It is relatively certain Apollos was not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached, among other things, the baptism not of John but that given by Christ in the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-19 (see also Acts 2:38). Of this baptism the text tells us he was ignorant for he knew only the baptism of John.

We can also conclude Apollos did not spend time in Jerusalem afterwards for the apostles that remained there, and the church leaders, knew clearly the differences in the two baptisms and he, in close association with them, would have soon learned the difference himself. It is thus highly probable that Apollos had never been in Jerusalem after Jesus' death.

It can also be safely assumed that he was not possessed of any miraculous spiritual gift that would have conferred this knowledge on him or else he would have known and not needed further instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.

So, one of the big mysteries concerning Apollos is how he failed to come to this knowledge long before meeting up with Priscilla and Aquila. Why did not his earlier instructors in the way of the Lord convey this truth to him? We will never know, for the Bible does not tell us.

Was it important that Apollos know this truth? Many today would say no, not at all, for baptism has nothing to do with salvation, denying what Peter taught in Acts 2:38. Yet, Priscilla and Aquila felt it was a matter so important that they drew Apollos aside to teach him this fundamental doctrine. Being well acquainted with Paul, who had lived with them for a time and with whom they had traveled, they knew the truth and why it was essential that Apollos know it as well. If you are going to be a teacher, you must teach the truth. The salvation of the men and women Apollos would be teaching was at stake. It was a part of "the way of God." (Acts 18:26)

Was Apollos lost because he had not been baptized with the baptism Jesus taught in the Great Commission and through Peter on the day of Pentecost? No, nor was he baptized after learning the truth from Priscilla and Aquila. He had already been baptized with John's baptism, which itself was "for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) When one's sins are remitted, they are remitted.

Read Heb. 10:2 from several translations. The passage has reference to sin offerings under the Law of Moses, but it also has direct application to the remission of sins under the baptism of John. The writer says, quoting from the original ASV of 1901, "Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshipers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins." When your sins have been forgiven, they have been forgiven. There is no need for a second baptism, and so Apollos, having been baptized once with John's baptism, at a time when that baptism was valid, did not need to be baptized again.

When the church first began, it already had charter members, those who had believed the preaching of John and of Jesus concerning Jesus and the need for repentance and cleansing of their sins. When they were baptized by John or one of his disciples, they were cleansed, for Jesus himself said that John's baptism was from heaven. Listen to the scriptures.

Jesus speaking, Matt. 21:25 (NAS), "'The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?' And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, "From heaven," He will say to us, "Then why did you not believe him?"'" And then Luke says, (Luke 7:30 NAS), "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John."

We also have to remember that Jesus preached and baptized during his lifetime. We can be assured that if John's baptism was for the remission of sins, so was that of Jesus. Do we believe that one who obeyed Jesus while he lived on earth and was baptized by him, whether directly or through his disciples, would need to be baptized again after the day of Pentecost? I reiterate, when your sins have been remitted, they are remitted. Yes, remission at that point in time looked forward to the shedding of Jesus' blood on the cross, which was yet to come, but they were assured of the remission of their sins, having believed and obeyed what they had been taught, including baptism for the forgiveness of those sins.

Neither were the apostles baptized again after receiving John's baptism, nor was there a need for them to do so. Jesus said they were "clean." (John 13:10-11, John 15:3) He says in his prayer to the Father "they have kept thy word" (John 17:6 NAS), "I have been glorified in them" (John 17:10 NAS), "they are not of the world" (John 17:16 NAS), and finally, "not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12 NAS)

Had they been baptized? Look at John 1:35 and compare it with John 1:40. When you do, you will see that Andrew was a disciple of John before becoming acquainted with Christ. His brother, of course, was Peter. James and John were business partners with Peter and Andrew (see Luke 5:10). It is safe to assume that if Andrew was a disciple of John's so were the others. Philip, chosen by Jesus personally, was from the same city as Andrew and Peter (John 1:44). Nathanael was said by Jesus to be "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" (John 1:47 NAS)

It is safe to assume that the men Jesus chose were godly men and men who did not shun John's preaching. If they had heard John preach, we know they were not of the camp that Luke says "rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." (Luke 7:30 NAS). Matthew was a tax collector, but even so, if you read Luke 7:29, you will see that tax collectors were baptized by John. If any of the 12 had not been baptized already, having lacked the knowledge and opportunity, we can be certain the preaching of Jesus soon taught them the truth and they were shortly thereafter baptized.

In the very next set of verses after reading about Apollos, beginning in Acts 19:1, we come to an account of twelve men whom Paul finds at Ephesus after Apollos had departed from there and gone to Corinth. These verses have caused much confusion because of what one has just read in the chapter before about Apollos, and has been part of the mystery surrounding the man. Luke says, in Acts 19:1, that Paul found there "some disciples," referring to this group of twelve men.

Because these men know nothing of the Holy Spirit, Paul begins to question them concerning their baptism. Something has to be wrong if they have been baptized and yet know nothing about the Holy Spirit, even of his existence. Now, why would that necessarily follow? Because the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19, is "in ("into" is the literal translation -- DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, there is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those thus baptized (Acts 2:38), which they should have known about.

Now here is the surprise to those who have just read about Apollos in the prior chapter. Paul takes these twelve men and baptizes them "in (the literal translation being "into" -- DS) the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5 NAS) Why was it necessary for them to be baptized with the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, but not Apollos?

Some might say that maybe Apollos was baptized again too, but the text does not say so. That might be a possibility but for one thing. The apostles baptized by John were not baptized a second time either. Why not?

The answer has to be timing. There was a time, starting with John the Baptist's initial preaching up until the Day of Pentecost, when John's baptism was valid and had God's full support behind it. Most scholars think his ministry in total lasted no more than 2 years and likely shorter than that. Obviously, this was a short period of time when if one was obedient to John's preaching and was baptized, he was saved, having received the remission of sins. Apollos would have been baptized during that time. John's baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

It seems Apollos was carrying on at least part of the ministry of John the Baptist after that ministry had ended. Did Apollos baptize the twelve at Ephesus with John's baptism or was it some other evangelist that did so? If it was Apollos why, after he learned the truth, did he not seek the twelve out again and baptize them with the baptism Jesus gave? Or, did he seek them and perhaps was unable to locate them? This again is a part of the mystery surrounding the man.

What we do know is that the twelve men at Ephesus had been baptized with John's baptism after the day of Pentecost, when the baptism authorized by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission (into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins) became effective. At that time and thereafter, anyone being baptized with John's baptism had a baptism that no longer had any validity, it having been completely replaced by the baptism of the Great Commission. John's baptism looked forward to Christ's death, while that of Jesus looked back.

In closing, I want to leave the reader with some critical thoughts regarding salvation. Luke says these men whom Paul found were disciples (Acts 19:1), and yet were not baptized. Were they saved already anyway? What is a disciple? A disciple is, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "a learner." Vine further says, "it denotes one who follows one's teaching." It does not necessarily denote one who is saved as is commonly thought (although it often does).

Please note from Jesus' own words about who is to be baptized. "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (the literal translation is "into" -- DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'" (Matt. 28:18-20 NAS)

Disciples are to be baptized. One must be a person who is learning of Christ and who is willing to follow his teaching to be scripturally baptized. No one who is not a disciple will be baptized, for they have no knowledge and/or desire to do so. One must necessarily be a disciple before one can be saved. How can you be saved without first learning about Jesus and being willing to follow him?

And, the final point. If people were commonly saved in those days by faith alone apart from baptism why did Paul bother to take these twelve men at Ephesus and baptize them?

Here is the clincher — why did Paul just assume they had been baptized? Remember, he says in Acts 19:3, "Into what then were you baptized?" (NAS) Why assume they had been baptized into anything or anyone if it was not necessary in making Christians, if it was not necessary in obedience to the gospel, if it was not a part of the gospel?

In Acts 19:2, Paul talks of that time "when you believed." Then, in verse 3, immediately following, he says, "into what then were you baptized?" He ties belief and baptism together. If you believed you were baptized is what he is saying. All of the conversion accounts in the book of Acts teach the same thing. The question all men and women must ask themselves is what am I personally going to do about it in my own life. Paul tied belief and baptism together. Do you?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Does Jesus’ Baptism Condemn You?

Does baptism matter? Most Americans seem to have come to the conclusion that it does not, a person can be saved and go to heaven baptized or not. It is such a settled conviction with most that it is a closed topic. There is no need for study.

It seems to me this is taking the same attitude the Pharisees took back in the first century. They had their settled law and there was no point in thinking there was any possibility that they might be in error. When Jesus came along and started questioning some of their beliefs and practices there was nothing to do but crucify him for there was no possibility in their mind that they could be wrong in their religious thinking. What he had to say had to be heresy.

A person ought to be cautious in reaching conclusions in spiritual matters for once this life is over and the next one has begun there is no going back a second time and getting it right. There are no second chances and eternity is eternity. I would like to look at baptism and want to start with an account that is often overlooked--the baptism of Jesus when John baptized him.

It is certainly true that the baptism of John differs from that which the Lord commanded in the great commission as given in Matthew 28 and Mark 16. If I was to be baptized with the baptism of John today it would not do me any good for its time has long since come and gone. Nevertheless, that was not the case when Jesus came to John to be baptized approximately 2,000 years ago.

Mark tells us, "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) We know that Jesus never sinned and when Jesus comes to John to be baptized John is hesitant. "John tried to prevent Him, saying, 'I have need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?'" (Matt. 3:14 NKJV)

Note carefully how Jesus responds. "But Jesus answered and said to him, 'Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.' Then he allowed Him." (Matt. 3:15 NKJV)

Why was Jesus baptized? To fulfill all righteousness for that is what he says. What did he mean by that? The answer is found in Psalms 119:172, "My tongue shall speak of Your word, For all Your commandments are righteousness." (NKJV) Jesus was baptized because it was the righteous thing to do for God had commanded it and all of God's commandments are righteousness.

In Matt. 21 Jesus is being confronted by the chief priests and the elders who want to know by what authority he is doing the things he is doing. The Bible says, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?' And they reasoned among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us 'Why then did you not believe him?' But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.'" (Matt. 21:24-26 NKJV)

Jesus is saying John's baptism has to be either from God or from man, which is it? Jesus knew it was from God and was baptized. The Pharisees did not believe it was from God and thus were not baptized. In Jesus' case belief led to obedience; in the Pharisees' case disbelief led to disobedience.

In Luke 7 Jesus has been talking about John the Baptist and the Bible says, beginning in verse 29, "And when all the people heard Him (Jesus was the one speaking -- DS), even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." (NKJV) This provides further proof that John's baptism was from God.

The counsel of God was that men receive John's message and be baptized. John's message was that men repent and be baptized, a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The Good News Bible translates Mark 1:4 as follows: "So John appeared in the desert, baptizing and preaching. 'Turn away from your sins and be baptized,' he told the people, 'and God will forgive your sins.'" This was the message of God to the people that was rejected by the Pharisees, lawyers, chief priests, and elders.

But, the Bible says "even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John." (Luke 7:29 NKJV) What does it mean "justified God," how is that done? The New American Standard translation of this verse clarifies it. It reads, "And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John."

Part of John's message was that there was to be wrath to come and the way of escape was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. When men obeyed John's preaching they were in effect saying by their actions that God was just in bringing this wrath upon them unless they did repent and obey, that it was just of him to demand their repentance and baptism.

Now, what does this have to do with you and me today, with men and women in general? There is a direct application and an argument I think no one can reject save at their own peril.

Jesus asked the question where did John's baptism come from, from God or man. Here is the question for you and me today -- where did the baptism Jesus commanded come from, from God or man?

Why would it be wrong to reject John's baptism in its time but right to reject Jesus' baptism in our time? Jesus made it clear that to reject John's baptism in its time was to reject the counsel of God against themselves. Are we not doing the same thing today, rejecting God's counsel against ourselves, when we refuse to be baptized with Jesus' baptism, the baptism of the great commission? If not, why not?

One cannot reason his way out of this dilemma but it gets even worse for those who want to reject baptism. Please note it was a salvation issue with Jesus concerning John's baptism. Are you going to say it is not a salvation issue today with Jesus' baptism?

How much difference is there in the meaning of the words, "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4 NKJV) spoken concerning John's baptism and the words "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) spoken concerning the baptism Jesus requires in our own time? The words sound very similar to me.

Am I saying that both baptisms were identical? No, but the difference lay not in the end to be achieved. John's baptism ultimately would have done no good had Jesus not died on the cross. In that sense, it looked forward and was a promise. We have this in our everyday lives all of the time. If I do this then I am promised that even though that may be down the road a ways. Paychecks are like that. We work trusting by faith the promise that we will be paid down the road in a couple of weeks. This was John's baptism.

Does this mean their actual forgiveness lay down the road somewhere in the future and was not immediate? No, for it was a certainty, not just a promise, that Jesus would die on the cross. The deed was as good as done the day it was first prophesied, actually, even before when it was first conceived in the mind of God. When Moses and Elijah met Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus had not yet died on the cross. Was their salvation hanging in the balance until he died? To ask is to answer. So it was with those who obeyed John's teaching. Their sins were forgiven then and there or else John misled them for he said it was for the forgiveness of sins.

The baptism Jesus gave humanity by way of the great commission was based on the fact that Jesus had already died and shed his blood for the remission of sins and the salvation of man. Man has to believe the gospel -- the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4). In short, for a man to receive the baptism of Jesus he must believe in the historical Jesus, the Savior of the world.

If a man today refuses to obey the command to be baptized he refuses to do what Jesus said he was doing when he said, "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matt. 3:15 NKJV) It has already been pointed out that all God's commands are righteousness (Psalms 119:172). If we have a command to be baptized today, as far as I know, all agree we have, should we not obey it and fulfill all righteousness? Why is it wrong to follow Jesus' example?

Does Jesus' baptism condemn you? It well could for when all is said and done you will either make camp with the Pharisees and other unbelievers who could not take God's word at face value, believe and obey it, or you will camp with those who did believe and did obey. You will either reject the counsel of God against yourself refusing to be baptized or else you will accept it, believe, and obey it. Make no mistake about it, for there are way too many passages that teach it, God has commanded baptism for you and me today thus it becomes a matter of either we will or we won't. We will either accept his counsel or we will reject it.

I am sometimes taken aback by how people can just blow off baptism as being an insignificant thing unworthy of time or trouble. There are so many today that want to be saved by faith apart from baptism and cannot see, as though blinded, that baptism is a part of faith, a part of the faith that saves. You are either going to believe God or you are not going to believe him when he speaks of baptism in his word. Why is it we can see this when Jesus addresses the subject of John's baptism but cannot see the direct application to our own response, in our time, to Jesus' baptism as commanded in the great commission?

I doubt any of us can fully grasp the power that tradition exerts on us when it comes to how we see things and how we think. Add to that the influence of friends and family and the desire for it to be the way we want it to be often because of family, friends, and loved ones. All that be as it may God's word stands and so what are we going to do about it becomes the question. Many have answered "I am not going to believe it," as did the Pharisees. They did not believe it because they did not want to believe it. We pretty much end up believing what we want to believe instead of what we ought to believe.

Belief is a choice. We can base what we believe on our personal feelings and emotions or we can base it on our God-given ability to reason from his word. How we come to belief, in reference to doctrine and what we will accept and obey or reject and disobey, makes all the difference in the world in our ultimate destiny. The route of the Pharisees was the route of personal feelings and desires. They could thus reject John's baptism. Much the same line of reasoning, based on deeply held feelings, leads people to reject baptism today.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]