A PAGAN AND JEWISH RITE,
BUT NOT CHRISTIAN
PROVEN BY SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY
CONFIRMED BY THE LIVES OF SAINTS WHO
WERE NEVER BAPTIZED WITH WATER
JAMES H. MOON
FALLSINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA
Copyrighted, 1902
Press of
The Leeds & Biddle Co.
1019-21 Market Street
Philadelphia
"THE COMMISSION"
Did Christ command his disciples to baptize with water?
Let us search the New Testament and see what it says.
We find the four evangelists and Peter each render Christ's command to
his apostles in very different language.
Matthew's version[1] is generally adduced to support water baptism.
We cannot assume that in Matthew, our Saviour's words are quoted
verbatim, while Mark, Luke, John and Peter are all in error or less
reliable, particularly as this part of Matthew claims for itself to have
been written a long time after, as appears by the statement that "This
saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."[2]
Seven different accounts of the "apostolic commission" are given in the
New Testament.[3]
Did not each of these writers express in his own language what he
understood to be Christ's command to his disciples and will not these
seven different records all agree in substance if genuine?
Let us seek that interpretation which harmonizes them all and not pin
our faith to the popular conception of one version alone.
We will turn first to the one only recorded allusion which our Saviour
ever made to water baptism.[4]
We here find that he commanded his apostles not to depart from
Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father which, said he, ye
have heard of me; for John truly baptised with water, but ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.
Ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and ye
shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and
Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the earth.[5]
These are given as the last words of our Saviour before his ascension.
He speaks of John's baptism as the water baptism of the past, and of
Holy Spirit baptism as the baptism of the future. By this Holy Spirit
baptism his apostles are to receive power to become his witnesses to
the uttermost parts of the earth. There is nothing whatever which
implies a command to baptize with water. This whole context militates
against the belief that Christ ever gave such command.[6]
This version of the "apostolic commission" stands prominent and is
worthy of double consideration because it is sustained by the testimony
of Peter, [7] who remembered these words of our Lord, and quoted from
them as being fulfilled when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the
household of Cornelius as he preached.[8]
According to John's account of the commission, Christ said to his
apostles, "As my Father hath sent Me even so send I you," and we read
that He was sent to baptize with the Holy Spirit. Again, He commanded
them to feed his lambs and feed his sheep.[9]
John never intimates that they were sent to baptize with water.
Had Christ commanded his disciples to baptize all nations with water,
John would certainly have known it, and could not have failed to report
a command of such world-wide application, John's silence is further
evidence that no such command was given.
There can be no baptism in the commission other than the baptism of the
Holy Spirit according to John's record as we have it.
According to Luke[10]: Christ commanded his apostles to preach among all
nations repentance and remission of sin in his name, after they should
be endued with power from on high.
Luke does not mention baptism, only as power from on high. Nothing which
even suggests a command to baptize with water.
If such command was given Luke surely knew it. He tells us about
Christ's own baptism of the Holy Spirit and his command to preach among
all nations;[11] why does he not tell us about this command to baptize
these nations with water? Is it not plainly because there was no such
command?
According to foot-note in our revised version,[12] and other
authorities, the two oldest known copies of Mark's record omit the
twelve last verses, and another ancient manuscript, lately found, also
omits them and states that they were by Aristion the elder. As the
authenticity of the account of the commission in Mark's record is
questioned, we omit comment, altho' we see nothing to conflict with the
other six versions.
According to Matthew Christ commanded his disciples to go, teach all
nations, baptizing them (not _in_ the name, but) _into_ the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[13]
No water is mentioned. He commanded them to baptize into the Divinity,
not in water.
This harmonizes all the evangelists with both Peter and Paul.
If we reject this view and assume that in Matthew[14] water baptism is
intended to be understood, then we are compelled to believe that this
interpretation of Matthew, with its formula for baptism, was conceived
after the apostles' time; was unknown to them, and is a human conception
and not a correct rendering of the teachings of Jesus. Because with
water introduced, it stands alone and is out of harmony with the whole
of Christ's teachings upon other occasions, and because it conflicts
with all our other six versions of the commission; and because (as we
read), the apostles and first Christians never did baptize with the
formula prescribed in Matthew, which is conclusive evidence that to
their understandings Christ never commanded them to do so. And again,
because the apostles and first Christians did continue to baptize with
water, sometimes without formula but mostly in the name of Jesus Lord or
Christ. This they would not have done in defiance of Christ's command to
baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Upon these and
many other grounds we claim that Christ never did command his disciples
to baptize with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
nor in any way whatever.[15]
According to Peter's account of the commission, Christ commanded his
apostles to preach to the people. He mentions no command to baptize.[16]
Peter did preach to the people and the Holy Spirit fell upon them as it
had fallen upon others of them in the beginning, at Pentecost.[17] Then
Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he said "John indeed baptized
with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
Here Peter [18] was made instrumental in baptizing with the Holy Spirit
through Gospel preaching, and he recognized this to be the same baptism
which his Lord [19] had promised should supercede John's water baptism
[20] and the same as that with which they were filled eight years
before, in the beginning at Pentecost, and the Pentecost baptism[21] he
said was that which the prophet Joel foretold should be poured out upon
all flesh; upon sons and daughters,[22] servants and handmaidens, and
that they should prophecy.
Can anything be plainer than that this Pentecost baptism[23] and that
the baptism which was poured out upon the household of Cornelius as
Peter preached[24], and the baptism which our Lord promised in the place
of John's water baptism and the baptism which Joel foretold should be
poured out upon all flesh are all one and the same baptism, and does it
not follow that this is the baptism of the commission, the one baptism
of the Gospel, and that this is Christian baptism and that there is no
water in it?[25]
Because Peter and others continued to baptize with water is no evidence
to the contrary. They continued their old Jewish customs generally. They
pronounced it necessary to abstain from certain meats. They insisted
that Paul should adhere to circumcision. They refused to eat with
Gentiles. With such Jewish proclivities how could they at once abandon
water baptism?[26]
Some evidently realized that John's water baptism had ended at
Pentecost, but they were not prepared to drop it entirely, so sought to
perpetuate it by repeating the words, "In the name of Jesus, Lord or
Christ." They claimed no divine authority for using this formula and the
disciples of water baptism in our day mostly discard it.[27]
Baptism with the formula, "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit"[28] is not to be considered in connection with the apostles and
first Christians, as they never mention it and evidently never practised
it. Such formula was unknown at that time. It came in as an
afterthought; a human invention of later date.
The great diversity in the form of expression used by each of the
evangelists and Peter in defining Christ's commission to his apostles is
positive evidence that they understood him to prescribe no formula for
baptism and it is confirmation that no formula was given that they and
the first Christians for ages adhered to no one set form of words when
baptizing with water.
"In His name," as Christ is quoted by Luke, and in substance by Mark,
John and Peter, always implies in, into or with his Spirit or power, and
not a common given name which mortals may utter. In this name or power
Christ commanded his apostles to preach.[29]
"Into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," as in Matthew[30]
alone Christ's command is interpreted, has the same implication and not
a mere name or formula which human lips may sound. To repeat these words
in connection with baptism is to substitute the voice of man for the
power of God.