James H. Moon - Water Baptism
J >>
James H. Moon >> Water Baptism
Transcriber's Note: A number of typographical errors found in the
original text have been corrected in this version. A list of these
errors is found at the end of this book.
WATER BAPTISM
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.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Mat. 28.19]
[Footnote 2: Mat. 28.15]
[Footnote 3: Mat. 28.19; Mark 16.15; Luke 24.47; Jon. 20.21; Acts 1.8;
Acts 10.42; 1 Cor. 1.17]
[Footnote 4: Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 11.16]
[Footnote 5: Acts 1.8]
[Footnote 6: Acts 1.5; Acts 11.16; Acts 1.8]
[Footnote 7: Acts 11.15, 16]
[Footnote 8: Acts 10.42, 45]
[Footnote 9: Jon. 20.21; Jon. 1.33; Jon. 21.15, 17]
[Footnote 10: Luke 24.47, 49]
[Footnote 11: Luke 3.16; Luke 24.47, 49]
[Footnote 12: Mark 16.9, 20]
[Footnote 13: Mat. 28.19 R.v.]
[Footnote 14: Mat. 28.19]
[Footnote 15: Mat. 28.19; Acts 8.12, 13; Acts 8.38; Acts 9.18; Acts
16.15, 33; Acts 18.8, 25; Acts 2.38; Acts 8.16; Acts 10.48; Acts 19.5]
[Footnote 16: Acts 10.42]
[Footnote 17: Acts 11.15; Acts 10.44; Acts 11.16]
[Footnote 18: Acts 10.44]
[Footnote 19: Acts 11.16]
[Footnote 20: Acts 2.4]
[Footnote 21: Acts 2.16]
[Footnote 22: Joel 2.28]
[Footnote 23: Acts 2.4]
[Footnote 24: Acts 10.44, 45]
[Footnote 25: Acts 1.5; Acts 10.16; Acts 2.16, 18; Joel 2.28]
[Footnote 26: Acts 15.28, 29; Acts 21.21, 24; Acts 11.2, 3; Gal. 2.12,
14]
[Footnote 27: Acts 2.38; Acts 8.16; Acts 10.48; Acts 19.5]
[Footnote 28: Mat. 28.19]
[Footnote 29: Luke 24.47; Mark 16.17; Jon. 16.23; Acts 10.43]
[Footnote 30: Mat. 28.19 R.v.]
PAUL'S "COMMISSION."
Paul said of his own commission: "Christ send me not to baptize but to
preach the gospel" and that "the gospel is the power of God unto
salvation to all who believe."[31]
Paul's commission was essentially the same as that given to other
apostles to preach among all nations repentance and remission of sin in
his name with power from on high; for there can be no salvation without
repentance and remission of sin.[32]
Had our Saviour ordained water baptism to the end of the world the four
evangelists would certainly have all known it and would have testified
to it as they and Peter all bear testimony to Christ's own baptism of
the Holy Spirit. Paul would have known it and would not have denied it.
Peter would not have said "Christ commanded us to preach to the people"
without making any allusion to water baptism.[33]
That Peter should say Christ commanded his apostles to preach to the
people and never at any time intimated that he commanded them to baptize
with water, certainly suggests that no such command was given and that
the present popular conception of the apostolic commission has
originated since Peter's time and is a human invention and has no divine
authority.
Neither the apostles nor first Christians could have understood that
Christ commanded them to baptize with water nor that he prescribed any
formula therefor, otherwise they would have used this formula and have
referred to this command as authority for their subsequent water
baptism. But so far as Scripture informs, no one in those early days
ever did baptize with water in the name of "The Father, Son and Holy
Spirit," nor ever heard of such formula.
Sometimes they baptized in the name Jesus, Lord or Christ, but never one
word about the Father nor the Holy Spirit.[34]
Some baptized without formula, or if they did use formula it was not
considered of sufficient importance to mention.[35]
They baptized with water before Christ gave them their commission, and
continued to baptize in the same way after, which is another proof that
their authority for water baptism did not originate in Christ's
command.[36] Nearly thirty years after Christ, some believers who were
fervent in Spirit and instructed in the ways of the Lord, continued to
baptize with John's baptism and we don't know how much longer it
continued.[37]
When was Christ's command first quoted as authority for water baptism?
Not in apostolic times, not until long after.
When did man first presume to baptize with water, in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Some of our oldest writings[38] indicate the use of this formula in some
places, probably in the early part or middle of the second century. Yet,
Schaff, who was familiar with all these old records, says this formula
is not traceable in its present shape earlier than the fourth century.
Evidently the apostles and first Christians continued to baptize with
water, because it was a conspicuous feature in the special mission of
John the Baptist as well as a Jewish rite in which they and their
fathers were educated. They had no thought of Christ's command as
authority for water baptism.
Paul said plainly that he had no such authority. Christ sent him not to
baptize but to preach the Gospel.[39]
Paul thanked God that he had baptized so few.[40] He could not have
spoken thus slightly of Christian baptism. It must have dawned upon him
that in the fulness of the Christian dispensation there was no place for
water baptism; otherwise how could he thank God that he had baptized so
few? What dispenser of water baptism could give such thanks in this day?
Paul circumcised Timothy, and perhaps Titus, because of the Jews. Did he
not baptize those few with water for the same pacific purpose, or did he
not at first receive full light upon this subject?[41]
Some assume that Christ gave others authority to baptize which did not
extend to Paul.
We cannot believe that all Christ's ministers to the end of the world
were commissioned to baptize with water, Paul only rejected.[42] This
reflects unjustly upon Paul, the great apostle to us Gentiles.[43] Is it
not a mere evasion of the gospel truth here and elsewhere inculcated,
that Christ gave no commission to baptize with water?[44]
John the Baptist was sent or commissioned to baptize with water and the
Holy Spirit once descended as John baptized with water.[45]
The apostles were commissioned to go preach the Gospel after they should
be endued with power from on high.[46]
We read that the Holy Spirit descended as the apostles preached the
Gospel. [47] Neither the apostles nor disciples were ever commissioned
to baptize with water; and so far as we read, the Holy Spirit never
descended as they did baptize with water.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 31: 1 Cor. 1.17; Acts 13.47; Rom. 1.16]
[Footnote 32: Luke 24.47; Luke 24.49]
[Footnote 33: Mat. 28.19; Mat. 3.11; Mark 1.8; Luke 3.16; Jon. 1.26, 33;
Acts 11.16; 1 Cor. 1.17; Acts 10.42]
[Footnote 34: Acts 2.38; Acts 8.16; Acts 10.48; Acts 19.5; Acts 8.12,
13]
[Footnote 35: Acts 8.38; Acts 9.18; Acts 18.8, 25; Acts 16.15, 33]
[Footnote 36: Jon. 4.2]
[Footnote 37: Acts 18.25; Acts 19.3, 5]
[Footnote 38: "The Ante-Nicene Fathers"; "The teachings of the twelve
Apostles"; Ecclesiastical History Vol. 1, P. 164]
[Footnote 39: 1 Cor. 1.17]
[Footnote 40: 1 Cor. 1.14]
[Footnote 41: Acts 16.3; Gal. 2.3, 5; 1 Cor. 1.14]
[Footnote 42: 1 Tim. 2.7]
[Footnote 43: 2 Tim. 1.11]
[Footnote 44: 1 Cor. 1.17]
[Footnote 45: Jon. 1.33; Mark 1.10; Luke 3.22]
[Footnote 46: Luke 24.47, 49; Acts 1.4, 8; Acts 10.42, 45; Acts 11.15,
16]
[Footnote 47: 1 Cor. 2.4; 1 Thes. 1.5; 1 Peter 1.12]
WATER BAPTISM IN HISTORY AS A PAGAN AND JEWISH RITE.
From the writings of Grotius we gather that some ancients baptized with
water in memory of the world being saved from the waters of the deluge.
Bancroft says: It is related by all the old Spanish historians that when
the Spaniards first visited Yucatan they found baptism administered to
both sexes between the ages of three and twelve: It was the duty of all
to have their children baptized, for by this ablution they believed they
received a purer nature and were protected against evil spirits and
misfortune. None could marry without it.[48]
Some baptised their children with ceremonies, which in many points
resembled those in use among Christians.[49]
Smith in his Bible dictionary[50] says: It is well known that ablution
or bathing was common in most ancient nations as a preparation for
prayers and sacrifice or as expiatory of sin.
There is a natural connection in the mind between the thought of
physical and spiritual pollution. In warm countries this connection is
probably closer than in colder climates; hence the frequency of ablution
in the religious rites of the East.
The history of Israel and the law of Moses abound with such lustrations.
The consecration of the high priest deserves special notice. It was
first by baptism then by unction and lastly by sacrifice.
From the gospel history[51] we learn that at that time ceremonial
washings had been greatly multiplied by traditions of the doctors and
elders. The most important and probably one of the oldest of these
traditional customs was the baptism of proselytes.
These usages of the Jews will account for the readiness with which all
men flocked to the baptism of John the Baptist.[52]
Schuerer in his history of the Jewish people[53] devotes several pages to
giving reasons for believing that the Jews baptized proselytes long
before the coming of Christ.
Dean Stanley says baptism is inherited from Judaism.[54]
Many other good authorities might be quoted to support the belief that
water baptism and other ordinances were greatly multiplied among many
Jews during the last few hundred years before Christ. There are no
Scripture writings which cover this period.
Tylor says: The rites of lustration which hold their places within the
pale of Christianity are in well marked connection with Jewish and
Gentile ritual.[55]
Baptism by water, the symbol of the initiation of the convert, history
traces from the Jewish rite to that of John the Baptist and thence to
the Christian ordinance.
As we understand, the Christian ordinance here referred to by Tylor, is
traceable through many modifications back to those carnal ordinances,
those weak and beggarly elements, which Paul says were imposed until the
time of reformation.[56] It has no authority from Christ and is
therefore not Christian baptism.
As we read: Pagans of old baptized the face. Under the law of Moses the
hands were baptized. John the Baptist baptized the whole body. Our
Saviour baptized the feet.[57] Now Christians complete the cycle and
again as of old baptize the face.
Some early Christians deferred water baptism to middle life or old age
and many were never so baptized. Now Christians insist upon infant
baptism.
Some early Christian said: If only one finger remains above water the
baptism is not valid. Now Christians say: "A few drops of water are as
good as a river."
What shall we say? Wisdom answers. Let us hold to what Christ says:
"John indeed baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Spirit."[58]
We learn from the Brahmins on the Ganges, and the dwellers by the Nile
and from explorers all around the world that water baptism was
administered as an ancient religious rite among many so called heathen
nations when first discovered.
Some we read baptized to appease the wrath of the Gods and to expiate
sin.
Some Christians now claim that by water baptism a child of wrath becomes
a child of Grace and sins are washed away.
The similarity of these two ideas, one Pagan and the other Christian,
suggests a common origin far back in the ages before man learned that
God is love and that Jesus likened the Kingdom of Heaven to little
children without baptism.[59]
Augustine who, in the fifth century, formulated from previously
conceived theories the dogma of original sin and baptismal regeneration,
was himself educated a Pagan and was well versed in that culture, and it
impressed itself upon his writings and the church which adopted
them.[60]
The little children which Jesus took in his arms and blessed and to whom
he compared the heavenly kingdom were Jews, and Jews did not baptize
their children.[61]
That, same loving Jesus, who blessed those children in Judea, we do
believe now blesses our little ones and is watching over them for good
and that to these also the heavenly kingdom is compared. To His tender
care and keeping we reverently commit ourselves and them, and we do feel
that for us it would be sinful to distrust this loving Saviour and turn
to man for carnal baptism.
Justin Martyr, a prominent Christian writer of the second century said
to Typho (a Jew)[62]: "John was a prophet among your nation after which
no other appeared among you. He cried as he sat by the River Jordan: I
baptize you with water to repentance but he that is stronger than I
shall come whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you
with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
In all the scriptures from Genesis to Revelations we find no intimation
of any other Christian baptism, only this one baptism of the Holy
Spirit.
Feet washing was administered by Christ [63] and impressively commended
to his disciples but it is plainly not the one baptism of the gospel.
From time immemorial some Pagans all around the world baptized with
water.
By the law given through Moses the Jews baptized with water.[64]
John the Baptist was sent to baptize Jews with water.[65] But no one was
sent to Baptize us Gentiles with water. God sent his son to baptize us
with the Holy Spirit. All flesh, Jews and Gentiles, are objects of this
one baptism.[66]
This is the one baptism of the Gospel and we know of no other.[67]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 48: Bancroft's Native Races; Vol. 2, P. 260; Vol. 2, P. 269;
Vol. 2, P. 282]
[Footnote 49: Vol. 3, P. 370]
[Footnote 50: Under Baptism]
[Footnote 51: Mat. 15.2, 3; Mark 7.5, 9]
[Footnote 52: Mat. 3.5, 6]
[Footnote 53: The Jewish People in the time of Christ Vol. 2, P. 320]
[Footnote 54: Christian Institutions P. 6]
[Footnote 55: Primitive Culture by Tylor Vol. 2, P. 440; Vol. 2, P. 441]
[Footnote 56: Heb. 9.10; Gal. 4.9]
[Footnote 57: Jon. 13.4, 17]
[Footnote 58: Acts 1.5; Acts 11.16]
[Footnote 59: Epistle of Jon. 4.8, 16; Mat. 18.2, 4; Mark 10.13, 16;
Luke 18.16]
[Footnote 60: Britanica]
[Footnote 61: Mark 10.13, 16; Luke 18.16]
[Footnote 62: Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1, P. 219]
[Footnote 63: Jon. 13.1, 15]
[Footnote 64: Exodus 29.4, 40.12]
[Footnote 65: Leviticus 8.4, 6; Jon. 1.31, 33]
[Footnote 66: Jon. 1.33, 34; Acts 2.17, 18; Acts 10.45; Acts 11.15, 16]
[Footnote 67: Joel 2.28]
JOHN'S BAPTISM.
John the Baptist was sent before Christ to prepare the way before
him.[68]
John was a prophet of dispensation previous to Christ.[69] He was in the
desert until the time of his showing unto Israel.[70] In the vision he
was with Moses on the Mount and they talked with Jesus.[71] He with
Moses vanished and left Jesus alone.[72]
John said: That he (Jesus) should be manifest unto Israel, therefore am
I come baptizing with water.[73] John defines his commission as only to
Israel (the Jews). His baptism was adapted to Jews only and not to us,
who according to Jewish classification are Gentiles. Evidently John
baptised Jews only and no Gentiles.
It was unlawful for Jews to keep company or come unto Gentiles and there
is no intimation that John ignored this Jewish law.[74]
The woman of Samaria wondered that Jesus (a Jew) asked water of her, a
Samaritan, for Jews had no dealings with Samaritans.[75]
Even in apostolic times we have no record that any full Gentile was
baptized with water; nor that any one born of Christian parents was so
baptized.
Cruden says: Naaman, Cornelius and the Eunuch were all proselytes of the
gate and not full Gentiles.[76]
The Samaritans were a mixed race who observed the law of Moses. They
also were Jewish proselytes and not full Gentiles.[77] When the Jews
numbered the people they did not count the Gentiles. So all Jerusalem
and Judea whom John baptized would not include the few Gentiles who
lived among the Jews.[78]