Before beginning your journey in this chapter, please read the short, single-paged Introduction first (the page before this one); of which contains an important message for this entire work…

 

One of the hardest things to explain away, as I’ve come to see, is the ordinance of water baptism in the modern church world. It’s very sacred to people; for, many believe it to be a necessary step for salvation. And, if so, then one would have to curiously ask why I would even want to take it away, at all. However, and despite it being ordained by God once upon a time, I’m personally not seeing it as necessary for our modern day and age. I, therefore, ask for patience as I present my case, whilst trying to anticipate every question that may arise from such a thought. So, with that, I will begin with the most relevant of biblical verses; which, I’ll quote, and then add some thoughts to them:

 

1 Corinthians 1:13-17 

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

 

Certainly, Paul had said some pretty strong words here; and, with several read-throughs, one could possibly come to the conclusion that Paul, the overseer of the Gentile Church, was not baptizing the Gentile converts in natural water. Or, that he had begun to do so at the beginning of his ministry, but then mysteriously dropped that ordinance later on. And, if that’s really the case, and if not he, then just who was baptizing the Gentile converts?

 

Certainly, many commentators are quick to help us with such problems, which many conclude that it was only the Church at Corinth that he was too happy not to service with baptisms anymore, and that men of lesser gifts would then take it over for the glory of the Kingdom. However, on the other hand (and, as I hope to show herein), I’m actually seeing a man here who, as I’ve said, was at first baptizing folks in natural water, but then began to, not only wean off, but to stop doing it altogether . . . Now, one can surely conclude that he did indeed delegate the water baptisms to his own disciples; though, that would actually be impossible to prove scripturally – lest one was to believe that water baptism is actually necessary to salvation, and would be forced to so say in order to prove it. But the scriptures are actually silent on that score.

 

We know that there are at least three biblical baptisms (Spirit, natural Water, and Fire – Matthew 3:11); and, some, even adding a fourth (into Death – Romans 6:3); or, even a fifth (into God’s Word – Ephesians 5:26).*1 But, then, Paul very cleverly says, elsewhere, that there’s actually only one:

 

Ephesians 4:4-6 

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

What can we conclude from this? That there’s really at least three main baptisms (water, Spirit, and fire: Matthew 3:11), and that they all are summed-up into one? Well, if we say that, then we might have to also say (and, according to Ephesians 4:4-6) that there’s also three bodies, three Spirits, three hopes, three Lords, three faiths, and three Fathers. Which, the calculations would get very sloppy, and there would never be an end of way-side doctrines; because, in all actuality, we should really read “one” as to being only “one.” But, if so, does that really make any sense doctrinally? Could it actually be possible to conclude from Paul’s words here that there’s only one baptism that’s necessary for salvation? And, if that’s the case, then which one should it be? Spirit? Water? Fire? Death? Or, even, into the Word?*2

 

Going back to Paul’s words in 1st Corinthians chapter one, let’s consider some of his strange statements therein; such as:

 

1 Corinthians 1:14a

I thank God that I baptized none of you…

​

Again, many commentators will say that Paul’s reaction here only meant that he wouldn’t baptize another person in the Corinth Church because they weren’t being nice about things; or, that he simply began delegating the water baptisms to his own disciples. And, yet, neither of those explanations can actually work because, first of all, it wasn’t just the Corinth Church that he stopped Baptizing in; but, by his own words, he stopped water baptizing altogether:

 

1 Corinthians 1:17a

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel…

 

Then, he admitted that through his ministry (which, by the time he wrote this letter, he was already in by at least 10 years) that he only baptized two men and one household:

 

1 Corinthians 1:14-16 

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

 

However, it could be possible, as one could argue, that he meant, with those statements, that he only baptized a few folks in Corinth, but did not mean throughout his entire ministry. Also, and as Paul continues his dialog in 1st Corinthians 1:17a, he could have meant that God didn’t send him to Corinth to baptize, but only to preach the Gospel there – again, having nothing to do with his entire ministry, but only meaning Corinth. So, therefore, we need to analyze those thoughts quickly before we can move on, for they are of extreme importance in this study.

 

John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible [Published in 1748-1763; 1809; public domain]… Crispus and Gaius . . . The former of these [Gaius] was the chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth, who hearing the apostle, and believing in Christ, was baptized by him, Acts 18:8; and the latter was a very liberal and hospitable man, and was the apostle's host, whilst he was at Corinth.

 

Romans 16:23a 

Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you…

 

Acts 18:8 

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. 

 

Again, quickly, let me say that we know, indeed, that Paul himself baptized Crispus and Gaius, but not any other in that group at Corinth (i.e. as we may consider otherwise from the end of verse 8 of Acts chapter 18: “…and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized”). Even if one were to conclude that by he simply saying Crispus only (in 1st Corinthians), that it actually meant his entire household was water baptized by Paul (especially since Acts 18:8 said that Crispus, along with all of his house, had believed) – I’d have to actually disagree with that assessment (that is, that Paul had not only baptized Crispus, but, also, his entire household); for, in the verses that we just went over (14-16 of 1st Corinthians chapter 1), Paul did not hesitate to call-out the entire household of Stephanas as to being water baptized by him, which gave Paul ample opportunity to speak the same about Crispus’ and Gaius’ households. But, since he didn’t, it shows us that it’s entirely impossible to prove that Paul had baptized any other person from those two verses in 1st Corinthians.

 

However, one of the problems with scripture is that they’re not always detailed. Even though speaking the absolute truth, they lack substance at times to make solid cases on historical matters; and, that’s certainly because the books/letters therein were not actually meant to be strictly history books, but were details concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the ministries of his apostles and disciples (which certainly includes Jesus’ own activities in the four Gospel accounts, too). Therefore, we are left guessing at many turns . . . We could look upon the latter part of verse 8, of Acts 18 (“and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized”), in several ways; either 1) Paul was mistaken on how many folks he baptized in either Corinth or anywhere else; 2) Some of those men (his own disciples) who followed him around on his missions, had baptized the rest into water; 3) the baptism that the “others” in Corinth were baptized with, despite Crispus and Gaius being so baptized into water, wasn’t in natural water but by the Holy Spirit instead; and 4) this statement was just an assessment of what had happened later-on, after the church was established, after Paul’s departure, following-on during the course of the months and years afterwards. That is, just a statement that all the others eventually got baptized later, giving legitimacy to Paul’s claim that he baptized no other person in Corinth; for, even if his personal disciples did it in his stead, then it would still have been done in Paul’s name – since they were his students (as I’ll explore further, later-on, below) . . . However, and despite all that, I do want to make the case for the household of Stephanas, of whom Paul also recollects that he baptized into natural water, that Stephanas’ household wasn’t at Corinth when he and his household were baptized, as were Gaius and Crispus; and, that when Paul baptized the folks in Stephanas’ home, that it had nothing to do with the baptisms at the church of Corinth.

 

1 Corinthians 16:15

I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints).

 

That is, despite the fact that Stephanas had eventually made his way on over to Corinth later-on to help that church:

 

1 Corinthians 16:17

I am glad of the coming of Stephanas [FROM Achaia] and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

 

For, as we had just seen in verse 15, the household of Stephanas was the firstfruits of Achaia, not Corinth; of which city (that is, Achaia), and according to Google maps – and, bearing the modern name of Achaea – is a little over 30 miles away from Corinth – which, and even though, today, one could, by car, reach within only two hours, by foot, as they had walked from place to place back then, would have taken a lot, lot longer to reach;*3 and, in turn, showing us that Paul was not only naming folks in Corinth that he baptized into water.*4 This helps us to understand that when Paul was naming the only people that he had ever baptized into natural water, that it covered more of his ministry than just at Corinth. Why? Because, he was adamant that God didn’t send him to baptize (not just to Corinth, but for his entire ministry in general); for, he was not called or sent to do so . . . Let’s see this again:

 

1 Corinthians 1:17a 

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel…

 

So then, the question has to arise of why he even water baptized at all. That’s a question that I’ll answer later herein as well. I really need to build my case a bit more before moving on to those deeper thoughts . . . We, therefore, have to conclude that Paul was absolutely correct with his memory of how many folks he baptized into water…

 

1 Corinthians 1:16b 

…I know not whether I baptized any other.

 

…or consider that the head of the Gentile church was simply kidding himself with a bad memory (which would be terrible for one who held such a high position for Christ), for we are faced with a problem right off the bat in that many say that he, indeed, baptized others in water, too; because, we cannot forget about the 12 disciples in Ephesus that he had baptized “outside” of Corinth:

 

Acts 19:1-7 

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. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] 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.

 

Most people, when they get to verse 5, will say that before they spoke in tongues, Paul had quickly baptized them into natural water first. But, can that really be the case, even if this ancient phraseology makes it appear to be so? . . . However, there are a few things wrong with that assessment. Firstly, and as I had already pointed out, these 12 disciples weren’t even mentioned by Paul in the Corinthians letter – only Crispus and Gaius (in Corinth), and the household of Stephanas (in Achaia). Secondly, the initial question of Paul to those men had nothing to do with water baptism, but of the Holy Ghost. Why would he therefore divert from the main topic at hand and do something other than what he was asking of them? That would be like me asking somebody if they had tried a certain shampoo brand, and they not having known about it beforehand, I ended up handing them, in response, a bar of bath soap instead; a total contradiction. And, lastly, with how these verses read (again, ancient Greek transcribed into old AD 1611 English), we could either come up with the conclusion that he did, indeed, baptize these disciples into natural water before praying them through to the Holy Ghost, or that verse 5 simply said that they were baptized (in the Holy Ghost, not water), and that verse 6 explained how it was done – by he laying hands on them. After all, the natural water and the Spirit of God both hold the term “baptism” with their actions; and, that specific scripture didn’t clearly specify (that is, in verse 5) that it spoke of either natural water or of Spirit*5 . . . Not only, but the Bible is no stranger at telling how something is done, and then, afterwards, giving the details. Take, for instance:

 

Genesis 1:1 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

This verse tells us what God’s plans were, and then the rest of the chapter explained how they were created. Now, that may seem a far-stretch for a modern audience, but just because it’s strange for us doesn’t mean that that’s not how the ancients spoke or wrote. In fact, and in another set of verses (again in the book/letter of Acts – and, even concerning baptism once more), we catch more similarities:

 

Acts 9:17-18 

[17] And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul [i.e. the future apostle Paul], 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. [18] And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

 

As many folks believe, verse 18 explains how Ananias baptized Paul into natural water “… and arose, and was baptized.” But, of course, that’s not how I’m reading it; for, neither did Saul (Paul) get baptized twice in these set of verses, nor even had received his sight twice-over, either . . . What do I mean? . . . Well, at the end of verse 17, we see that Ananias had only told Paul what was going to happen (in both the gaining of his sight back, and of the gaining of the Holy Ghost), but that it wasn’t the very action of those two things, which came secondly in verse 18 – just as it was the case, and as I see it, for Acts 19:5-6, in concerning those disciples in Ephesus . . . So, and concerning Paul and Ananias, let’s see this again, as I emphasize:

 

Acts 9:17c-18

[17] …that thou mightest RECEIVE THY SIGHT [the 1st gift], and BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST [the 2nd gift – as these were only the pronouncements of them]. [then, in verse 18] And immediately THERE FELL FROM HIS EYES AS IT HAD BEEN SCALES: AND HE RECEIVED SIGHT FORTHWITH [the 1st gift now received], and arose, and [then] WAS BAPTIZED [into the Holy Ghost, as was so promised in verse 17c, the 2nd gift then received].

 

Why is this a hard notion to believe? That we can see that the thing was announced firstly, and then actually done secondly? For, if we can but see that this as an actuality, then what had happened in Acts 19:5-6 (again, with those 12 disciples) can also be a reality, in that it was simply told of what was going to happen, and then, afterwards, explained the actual action of it being done. And, not only, but it would further support the documented fact that Paul had, indeed, only baptized a few folks in literal water, which did not include those 12 disciples at Ephesus.

 

However, and even so, another argument which could be put forward against my conclusions concerning them is that, in biblical chronology, Paul could have said that he baptized no other person BEFORE he ever met those 12 disciples. Meaning, specifically, that he could have written those words before even meeting them, giving proof that he did baptize other people after he had said those words in 1st Corinthians . . . However, not only would that go against Paul’s statement that God did not send him to baptize (1st Corinthians 1:17a), but it may be impossible to really determine the exact dates of those two events (i.e. of Paul “baptizing” those other men, and of when he actually wrote the letter of 1st Corinthians) – seeing as scholars (though “close” to each other in their determining) have differing dates as to when these two incidences occurred (especially since no dates were written in Paul’s or Luke’s letters); though, I am not saying that a somewhat accurate determining is totally impossible.

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/receive-Spirit-Acts-19.html: During Paul’s THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY, he encountered some men who are described as “disciples” who had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

 

When was Paul’s third missionary journey taken?

 

https://dwellcc.org/learning/essays/chronological-study-pauls-ministry#: Paul started his 3rd Missionary Journey in the spring of AD 52…

 

http://www.about-jesus.org/paul-third-missionary-journey-map.htm: Paul's 3rd missionary journey took place between 54 AD and 58 AD [i.e. beginning in AD 54].

 

https://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CPn05Acts18.htm: Paul’s Third Missionary Journey, returning to Asia Minor and Greece circa AD 53-58 [i.e. beginning in AD 53].

 

That is, it begun sometime, according to historians, between AD 52 and AD 54, and had ended in and around AD 58, or 57 as some other websites declare … When did he write 1st Corinthians?

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Letter-of-Paul-to-the-Corinthians: The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, probably written about 53–54 at Ephesus.

 

Does this, therefore, prove that Paul had baptized those disciples AFTER he said he baptized no other person in his first letter to the Corinthians? … Well, others, actually, give differing dates on this as well:

 

https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/introduction-to-1-corinthians/: The apostle Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthian church in the spring of A.D. 53, 54, or 55. This was near the end of his three-year ministry in Ephesus.

 

Again, we have differing dates being presented, making us still wonder if Paul had met those men before or after he wrote that letter (which both incidences happened at his stay in Ephesus). However, this last quoted website gives us another clue in that Paul probably wrote this letter near the end of this approximate 3-year ministry at Ephesus; and, in the book/letter of Acts, we see that Paul probably “baptized” those disciples near the beginning of his stay there – or, so it seems by Acts’ descriptions:

 

Acts 19:1-2a 

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, if this is so (that is, again, that it appears that he had met them near the beginning of his ministry at Ephesus), and though the dates of his third missionary journey (and, indeed, his arrival into Ephesus) are “close” to the time that he had written this epistle to the Corinthians, we are possibly seeing a chronology of he, indeed, having met those disciples before he wrote the letter – giving further legitimacy to the claim that he did not baptize those men in natural water; but, instead, by the Holy Ghost. In fact, and since all these dates are in such close proximity with each other, he wouldn’t have had time to forget such things had his experience with those disciples, instead, had been done some 10 or 20 years earlier.

 

http://christianityinview.com/paulstimeline.html AD 54: Third Missionary Journey – goes to Ephesus … AD 55-56: At Ephesus … AD 57: Spring: writes 1st Corinthians.

 

In a book, entitled “Paul: an illustrated documentary,” by John Drane (Harper & Row Publishers, 1976, and on page 78), the author sadly admits to how difficult it truly is to give a precise location in history for the 1st Corinthians letter; saying that it, along with 2nd Corinthians, “confront us with one of the most complicated historical puzzles of the entire New Testament.” Then, the author admits that at least Galatians, along with 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, are fairly easy to fit into the picture of Paul’s activities recorded in Acts – but, not so for the Corinthians’ letters: “In order to piece together the historical situation behind this correspondence, we depend entirely on the vague hints and allusions which Paul made as he wrote [those letters].” He then further concludes that “any reconstruction of what was going on, must be more or less imaginative” . . . However, all that has to do with his dealings with the Corinthian church itself, of which he dealt with, long distantly, from Ephesus, during his several years stay there. So, what this information tells us is that it’s really anybody’s guess as to when those letters were written – something that currently concerns us in determining if he had written at least 1st Corinthians before or after his meeting with those disciples . . . On a detailed website concerning Paul’s ministering chronology (at https:// eyewitnessbible.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Ref-2-Paul-Chronology.pdf), it paints yet another picture that 1st Corinthians was written near the end of his stay at Ephesus (which seems to be a common theme in a lot of websites’ chronology of Paul’s ministry); which, if true, shows us, again, that Paul may have “baptized” those disciples before he wrote the letter; of which activity, once more, may have been closer to when he first arrived at Ephesus . . . Not only, but that same website only gives the distance of 2 years in between when Paul was physically at Corinth (and, of when he had water baptized Crispus there) and of his arrival in Ephesus to meet those disciples. Therefore, if Paul could remember baptizing Crispus, approximately 2 years prior to arriving in Ephesus, then why couldn’t he remember baptizing those disciples when he had arrived into Ephesus 2 years later – closer, actually, to when he wrote 1st Corinthians?

 

1 Corinthians 1:16b 

…I know not whether I [water] baptized any other.

 

Therefore, and even though we cannot pinpoint specific dates for these two events (Paul’s dealings with those disciples, and of when Paul wrote 1st Corinthians), it seems more likely, with the clues at hand, that Paul, indeed, had dealt with those men before he wrote the words which described his ministry as to being an extreme limitation on water baptisms; and, to where he had ample opportunity of naming those men amongst the others, of Corinth and Achaia, of people he had water baptized . . . Therefore, if my theories are correct concerning the “baptism” of those disciples coming first, and then the letter of 1st Corinthians being written second, then this only further proves that Paul did not baptize those men in natural water, but only with the Holy Spirit; because, he again admitted that he could only recall two men and one household of whom he did water baptize (1st Corinthians 1:14-17).

 

We, too, can take into consideration about a set of scripture that I will be reviewing in detail later on concerning Peter’s travel on over to a Gentile’s home; and that before Peter could even mention to them about water baptism (which, by the way, he finally did get around to), that all of those Gentiles started speaking in Tongues whilst he was yet preaching to them – showing us that it didn’t take the “step” of natural water baptizing first before Spirit Baptism could come onto folks, as many believe. Of which situation could cause us to ask an obvious question, of: “Even if somebody spoke in tongues, with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but never did get water baptized, could they still make it to Heaven?” . . . For those who really believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation, they would have to answer “no,” that they could not get into Heaven even if they got Baptized into the Spirit of God if the natural water was never involved. For, even if you do believe water baptism is a necessary step, but say contrariwise that if somebody got the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but never got water baptized, and that they could still go to Heaven anyways, then it’s my estimation that you are contradicting yourself in saying that water baptism is still necessary for salvation.

 

But, even so, at the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter if Paul baptized in water those 12 disciples or not. Why? Because, he still declared in 1st Corinthians that there was an extreme limitation of those of whom he actually baptized into water over the course of his ministry . . . But, still, and even so, one begins to wonder (in, again, our reference to Acts 19:1-7) if Paul actually did throw those guys into natural water before laying hands on them to receive the Holy Ghost by speaking in Tongues (or, rather, that one must seriously question Paul on that action if he really did do so), because we have to ask another obvious question: “Wasn’t the water baptism of John the Baptist good enough for them?”*6 That is, being their first step before being Baptized into the Holy Ghost. Honestly, why did they even need rebaptizing once again into natural water? Well, I have heard it said that the baptism by John into water became of none effect in the New Testament World (i.e. after the Day of Pentecost), and that everybody who was so baptized by him (or, even, by any of his disciples – i.e. whether personally conducted by John himself or not) had to be rebaptized into water once again (which, in all honesty, would have made John’s calling to be absolute vanity for those folks of the 1st century!); but, to say the words, whilst doing it this second time around: “I baptize you in the name of Jesus.” And, that’s despite the Bible never saying such a thing. That is, the Bible does not specify that after we are baptized into natural water at one time, that we have to be rebaptized into natural water once again if we feel that it did not take hold correctly; and, then, to add better “wording” to the action. And, neither did the Bible specify that John’s water baptism came of no effect after the Day of Pentecost. That’s a complete assumption!

 

However, and more importantly, we still have to ask the question of why Paul stopped baptizing people into natural water altogether. And, of whether or not he had delegated that practice on to his own disciples. I mean, what really stopped Paul from continuing it himself? After all, the apostles from Jerusalem (those who sat under Jesus during the Lord’s earthen ministry) were still doing it themselves – even after the Day of Pentecost . . . Even if we can say that Paul had decided to delegate it to his personal disciples, then why make a harsh statement, as he had done in verse 14a of 1st Corinthians, to begin with? “I thank God that I baptized none of you!” I see this subject actually digging much deeper than what it has been credited for; and, we just can’t simply dismiss it with a quick wave of the hand. So, therefore, let’s jump up a few more verses and see if we can form a better picture:

 

1 Corinthians 1:11-13 

For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas [Peter]; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

 

There were certainly “cliques”*7 being formed in the Early Church, and folks were placing themselves underneath different leaderships (much the same way people form and join churches these days); and, Paul was telling all of them that they were all supposed to be under Christ alone, and not any man.*8 Let’s notice, therefore, what he said further about water baptism to make that picture complete:

 

1 Corinthians 1:14-15

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest [and, here’s the real reason why he stopped water baptizing] any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

​

Well, this statement may actually be confusing: “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name!” Afterall, if water baptism is really necessary for salvation, then why make this an excuse to stop baptizing? How many people, I wonder – if it were necessary for salvation – would then miss out on salvation if everybody just stopped doing it? And, besides, if Paul stopped doing it for the reason that it would attach his name to it, wouldn’t that be the case for any disciple of his that would begin doing it themselves, too? Even if it weren’t in their own personal name, it would still be credited to Paul since they were his disciples and students (much in the same way that water baptism attached itself to John’s name – as we had seen from our passages in Acts 19:1-7 when speaking of the baptism of John); for, water baptism (as we’ll continue to see) has always had a man’s name attached to it. Or, I should say, rather, that there’s always a name associated with baptism – no matter the kind of baptism that it is . . . Let’s see this once again:

 

Acts 19:3 

And he [Paul] said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto JOHN’S baptism.

 

And, a bit later on, in another chapter, we’ll actually see yet another man’s name attached to water baptism in scripture. That is, other than Jesus’ and John’s names . . . It must be admitted to (and, as I’ll also cover with a bit more detail in a few moments), by the disciples of Jesus, over at Jerusalem, baptizing folks into natural water, the credit (just like it would have gone to Paul) would be given on over to Jesus, their leader and teacher – justifying them, therefore, in saying that they were baptizing in the name of Jesus. But, that still doesn’t work for Paul, though, because Paul wasn’t Jesus (and, neither was Paul an original disciple of Jesus whilst Jesus had His earthen ministry*9); therefore, if Paul’s disciples had water baptized in Paul’s stead (that is, baptizing the Gentile converts), wouldn’t they be doing it in Jesus’ name, too, just like the apostles were still doing in Jerusalem?*10 Actually no, because Paul gained an understanding of what was to come in his near future (i.e. at AD 70 – stay tuned for that explanation, too!), for there was to be a huge prophecy to be fulfilled within that approaching year that would change everything in God’s Kingdom; and (again, as we’ll see), any baptizing in water after that date would not have Jesus’ name attached anymore. Not only, but as I’m also fixing to point out, the ministry committed unto Paul was not the same ministry committed to the 12 apostles in Jerusalem; and, when we find out just exactly what that was (that is, Paul’s commission), then we’ll learn with absolute assurance of why Paul knew to stop baptizing in water (as well as his own disciples, too), and of why the apostles in Jerusalem weren’t given that knowledge by Jesus when He was yet with them on earth . . . But, if all of what I say is true – including those things that I’m fixing to cover – then we’ll discover, without a doubt, that baptizing folks in water today would only be baptizing into a man’s name rather than in Jesus’ name; or, and much rather, into a denomination’s name – just as Paul had suggested with his own words in 1st Corinthians 1:15 “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.” That is, folks today would be baptized into a modern denominational name which was not in existence during the 1st century AD . . . Would that mean, then, that if we baptize a person in water today that we are doing it in “John’s” name? No; but, they will be baptizing into their own name – just exactly what Paul had feared for himself. And, if so, then why do you think that men will sometimes rebaptize folks in water into their church if the person had just left a different sort of denomination than what they are currently finding themselves in? And yet, it’ll be said, whilst doing it, that they are NOW being baptized into the name of Jesus – making their last baptism (which was also in the name of Jesus) of none-effect; which in and of itself is very strange; for, as we’ll see in just a moment, in the “complete” New Testament world (i.e. “after” AD 70, that is), Jesus’ name was no longer associated with water baptism – a baptism, we must understand, that ONLY the direct disciples of Jesus (the 12 apostles of Jerusalem) could legitimately claim as the baptism of Jesus Christ. John the Baptist himself sets us straight on this score; for, his words are a futuristic prophecy for the World that was soon to come – that is, after a 40-year period of when he had said what I’m about to quote; Of what, again, would come to pass by AD 70.

 

Matthew 3:11 (quoting from circa AD 30)

I indeed baptize you with [natural] 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 [instead] with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.

 

Again, we’ll learn in a moment of why I didn’t say that John the Baptist had prophesied of what was to come on the Day of Pentecost (which was not too long-off from his own time); for, even though that’s “technically” true, the “fullness” of his statement wouldn’t come about (just as I’ve already said) until AD 70, and just after a very significant, destructive event . . . However, and as we should notice with John the Baptist’s words, he didn’t say that Jesus would rebaptize us in natural water into His name, he said that Jesus will baptize us with a different sort of baptism than his. Rather than in natural water (which the natural water was merely a symbolism of “true” baptism), it’ll be in Spirit, and with Fire. Because, Spirit and Fire was never John’s Baptism – much the same that Jesus’ baptism is not supposed to be in natural water either . . . But, one can argue, though, on three points:

 

1) Jesus’ disciples were baptizing in water while Jesus was still with them;​

 

2) Jesus Himself was baptized in water by John;​

 

and, lastly:

 

3) Jesus commissioned the 12 disciples to baptize in natural water for their own missions.​

 

These three points, many will say, could prove all my theories to be completely wrong. So, let’s speak on them – of which topics will actually last through several chapters herein, for there is much to say . . . Firstly, while it is true that Jesus’ disciples were baptizing in water (and, even continued to do so after Jesus’ ascension), the Bible specifically says that Jesus never did so Himself (which, is very important for us to understand):

 

John 4:2 

Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.

 

Which, as I’ve said, water baptism is not His specific baptism; therefore, and even though His own disciples did so themselves throughout their own ministry, it eventually (as, once more, we’ll see in a moment) faded away as to being associated with His name. And, if that’s true, then connecting water baptism with Jesus’ name today cannot be a biblical exercise. As Paul actually stressed in 1st Corinthians 1:15, that, if he were to continue the practice of it himself (as well as delegating it to his own disciples), then the act would automatically attach itself to his own name . . . But, even so, let’s continue to speak on the other points that I had brought up; but, before continuing with the disciple’s own practicing of that act after the Day of Pentecost, let’s first speak on Jesus having John baptize Him . . . Believe it or not, the reason is rather simple; and, neither does this reason prove that it’s a sure-fire sign that we must do so in our own modern times. Jesus, believe it or not, was actually baptized during the Old Testament, and not during the New Testament. Despite our modern Bible declaring, just before the book of Matthew, that we are about to read the New Testament, the New Testament didn’t actually commence (or, that is, officially commence) until after Jesus had died on the cross; then, after that, it commenced for the rest of us on the Day of Pentecost:

 

Hebrews 9:16-17 

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

 

Also, and in another place, Paul confirms the Old Testament existence of Jesus whilst on earth:

 

Galatians 4:4 

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son [to the earth, for an earthen ministry], made of a woman, made under the law.

 

That is, made under the Old Testament Law; or, as it’s also called, the Mosaic Law . . . So saying, the New Testament did not officially begin until after He had died on the cross. Therefore, Jesus was baptized into natural water – not during the New Testament – but, during the Old. So, does that make a difference? I actually think that it makes a huge difference. Jesus came to close-out the Old Testament (of which commission He passed-on to His 12 disciples in Jerusalem to continue to do); so, the only way that He could close it out was to fulfil the Old Law – along with all of its ritualistic, fleshly ordinances – else, they would truly still stand today.

 

Matthew 5:17  (Jesus speaking)

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

Fulfil, Plēroō (play-ro'-o), G4137, from Strong's Greek Dictionary (Strong's Hebrew & Greek Dictionaries were Published in 1890, and are public domain): From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

 

Matthew 3:14-15 

But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee [i.e. in “Spirit” and not natural water – for, as we already saw, John himself declared that Jesus’ Baptism was by Spirit and Fire], and comest thou to me? [i.e. for “natural” baptism?] And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now [i.e. until the end of the Old Testament; i.e. until heaven and earth passes – of which passing I’ll speak on in an upcoming chapter]: for thus it becometh us [that is, now, before the New Testament fully comes into existence] to fulfil [to “complete”] all [Old Testament] righteousness [so that the Old Testament can come to an end]. Then he suffered him [i.e. John then baptized him into natural water so that Jesus could fulfil the Old Law in His own life, and by performing that ritual to begin its closing-out process for the rest of us].

 

And, then, we see Jesus say that it’s all over with when He had died on the cross:

 

John 19:30

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

 

The ordinances (which were “all” nailed to His cross – as we’re fixing to see in the scriptures) were any and all fleshly rituals that were performed during the Old Testament by and with the members of the Outward Man body – as is so expressed by Paul:

 

Ephesians 2:15

Having abolished in his flesh [when Jesus had died on the cross] the enmity [an enemy], even [which were] the law of commandments contained in ORDINANCES; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.

 

Not the Law itself – which is certainly one of the dictionary definitions for ordinance*11 (please see this very important Explanatory Note!) – but, we are speaking of the Law that was contained in ordinances; that is, which were mixed-in with the Old Law; a contaminant that needed expulsion, for it became the enemy (enmity) of Jesus’ New Gospel.

 

Colossians 2:14

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [i.e. written down in the Old Testament] that was against us [an enmity; an enemy], which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

 

But, now (and, before continuing with Paul’s decision to pass-up the water baptism), let’s briefly cover the heaven and earth passing away – a 2,000 years ago event! – so that we can definitely see how all the fleshly, naturalistic, ritualistic ordinances have totally vanished.