Shortly after I put my testimony on Unveiling in February 2012, my parents visited us and my mother asked me, “Why did you not say anything about your baptism in your testimony?” I replied, “Because it was just another religious thing I did that I knew I was meant to do.”

She said, “But we didn’t tell you to do it, you wanted to be baptized…” and I agreed, saying, “Yes, because I knew very well what was expected of me as a good Christian, and I knew what you guys wanted me to do!”

When I was baptized as a teenager I certainly had all the head knowledge of what I was doing and why, and I was sure that God wanted me to be baptized, but the simple truth is that the act of baptism could not take me from death to Life! No ritual can bring about a spiritual result because a ritual is something WE do as opposed to something the Spirit of God does.

Then my mother said, “Didn’t Jesus say to baptize people in His name?”

Well, it is very debatable whether Jesus ever said that! “Go and make disciples of all ethnicities, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) is one of the most contested verses in the Bible. The second half of the sentence is believed to have been added much later. Some refuse to accept this because it is included in the Textus Receptus and baptism plays such a large role in church tradition. However, Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew and was translated into Greek much later. The Jews preserved several Hebrew versions (see links at the end) but these Hebrew texts were not used in the creation of the English Bible. Instead the Latin and Greek translations were used.

In one of these Hebrew versions this verse reads: “You go and teach them to carry out all the things that I have commanded you forever.” Some believe that the phrase about baptism was added by the “church fathers” into the Greek and Latin versions. “Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name” without mentioning the Trinity baptism command.” (Analysis of Matthew 28:19 R. D. Hughes).

But what does baptism mean anyway? Perhaps NOT what the church has interpreted it to mean…

History of Baptism

Baptism, whether by immersion or sprinkling, is a very old religious ritual of many religions. It has never been an exclusively Christian ritual. Hindus have been practicing baptism for 4000 years. As part of their religious purification rites they are immersed in a river or sprinkled with water. Babylonian, Egyptian and Roman religions also practiced ritual purification ceremonies as is proved by both archeology and ancient literature. Apuleius, a Roman writer who lived in the 2nd century, wrote of: “the ancient Roman initiation that was preceded by a normal bath and then a ceremonial sprinkling by the priest of Isis.” He said that the ritual of sprinkling and cleansing with water in ancient times was: “a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace.” (Apuleius 120-180 AD, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21).

More importantly, Judaism had a number of cleansing and purification rites including baptism (called tevilah in Hebrew). Water played an important role in their ceremonies and regulations, including immersion in water and sprinkling with water (Ex. 29:4; Lev. 15:13; 16:24; 17:15,16; Num. 8:7; 19:7,8; Deut. 23:11). John’s baptism was nothing new to the Pharisees or to the Jews. They were very familiar with what we call “baptism”. In their religion full body immersion (tevilah) had to be done in the running water of a river (called “living water”) or in a mikveh (baptismal pool of rain water in the temple). It was not a bath for washing in, it was seen as a symbolic immersion for spiritual cleansing, conversion and renewal. All Gentiles who wanted to become Jews had to go through tevilah/baptism. To this day converts to Judaism are still required to be baptized in a “mikveh”.

Ancient mikveh ruins (left) mikveh in the Jerusalem temple (centre) and a modern Jewish mikveh (right).

By the 2nd century the “church fathers” believed and taught that you were not saved unless you were baptized with water:

“The prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none‘ chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” (Tertullian 140-230AD, On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 674-675).

In other words, the church was necessary for salvation! Baptism was put in the place of Christ, because salvation was viewed as being brought about by water baptism (a work of man) rather than only by faith and trust in Jesus and what He has done. They simply replaced the rituals and laws of the Old Testament with a set of their own:

“But when the time began to draw near… that the Prophet should appear, of whom he had foretold that He should warn them by the mercy of God to cease from sacrificing; lest haply they might suppose that on the cessation of sacrifice there was no remission of sins for them He instituted baptism by water amongst them, in which they might be absolved from all their sins on the invocation of His name.” (Clement, “Recognitions of Clement,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 88, emphasis mine).

Due to this belief that being baptized was necessary for salvation, it was a logical conclusion that the earlier you were baptized, and therefore saved, the better – and so infant baptism was introduced. Infant baptism (christening) had been a practice of pagan religions for a long time before it was practiced in the church; sprinkling the baby in pagan religions was supposed to cleanse it from being born in sin and free it from the devil. Some claimed that:

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which are washed away through water and the Spirit” (Origen 248AD, Commentaries on Romans 5:9).

But there is no mention whatsoever of infant baptism in the Scriptures. So where did these erroneous ideas come from? They were importing and mixing other religion’s beliefs and practices with their new religion of Christianity. Many things that are considered “important” in churches today were simply “imported” from pagan religions. Many churches today still teach that your sins are not forgiven unless you are baptized in water. They appear to have more faith in this religious ritual done by man, than in what God has done through Christ!The Nicene Council in 325AD (attended by many religious leaders) was an attempt at creating a universal religion/church to help strengthen the Roman empire. Christ’s followers who did not accept the integration of pagan practices, including infant baptism,into Rome’s Christianity, were persecuted and often killed. “Christening” was believed to make one a “Christian” and in the year 416 infant baptism became a compulsory law for the entire Roman Empire. Those who did not agree with these baptisms could not call themselves Christians because they had not been christened into Christendom. They were often killed by the church for not conforming.

The history of the church is not good… And lest we proudly think that this applies only to the Roman Catholic Church, remember that Protestant evangelical churches are not much different. They have been born from Catholicism and most of the same traditions are still present in some form today. This issue of baptism is a case in point.

What Does “Baptize” Mean?

The word “baptize” was not a religious word in the Greek; it simply meant to immerse, submerge, wash or overwhelm. “Baptize” is one of few words in the Bible that wasn’t translated into English from the Greek, it was imported directly from the Greek as a transliteration instead of a translation. So instead of saying “immerse”, “dip”, or “wash” the Greek word “baptize” was kept; presumably because the ritual and practice of baptism was already well established as part of church doctrine and religious culture. The Greek word baptizo means:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm.

In a Greek recipe for pickles, the food was to be baptizo (submerged) in vinegar. Telling your child to go and be baptized meant for them to go and have a wash! There are a few instances where “baptize” was translated into English in the Bible, “But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised” (Luke 11:38). That word for “wash” is baptizo and yet has been translated as wash instead of baptize. Why? To distinguish baptism as a religious tradition of the church, even though these baptisms mentioned here were also religious traditions: “When they (the Jews) come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash (baptizo). And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing (baptismos) of cups, pitchers and kettles… For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, such as the washing (baptism) of pots and cups: and many other such things you do.” (Mark 7:4,8).

“Baptize” was a common Greek word used every day and did not exclusively mean a religious sacrament or rite like it does now.

“When we use the word ‘baptize’ we think at once and we think only of the religious rite. Apart from that rite the word has no meaning for us. It is simply and solely a religious technical term.” (F. H. Chase, The Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1905, p. 503)

Three translations of the Bible do sometimes translate “baptize” into English: “The Complete Jewish Bible”, “The Aramaic Bible in Plain English”, and the “International Standard Version”. Mark 1:8 in The Aramaic Bible reads: “I have immersed you in water, but He will immerse you in The Spirit of Holiness.” John was pointing away from the literal immersing and washing that he was doing in water, to the spiritual immersion and washing that only the Holy Spirit can do!

A lot of clarity can come when you simply translate the Greek word into its English meaning:

Ceremonial Cleansing

Some may object at this point because clearly there were physical, literal immersions and ceremonial cleansings performed by John the Baptizer, and also by the followers of Jesus (Acts 8:36; 10:47); and although Jesus Himself didn’t baptize anybody (John 4:2), He did go through this ritual Himself.

The Israelites had quite a few ceremonial cleansings, including priests being immersed before they could enter the temple and converts who had to be immersed to signify leaving their old religion for the new. Some of the immersions mentioned in the book of the Acts were clearly an act performed with water here on this earth. I believe the reason for this is that the first believers were still doing what they had grown up with in their religion: immersion in water. They still had faith in the external material things they they could see, feel and touch. They were still bound by their religious traditions of ceremonial washing, keeping the feasts, going to the temple etc, hence the need for Paul to write what he did to the Galatians, and to correct Peter, saying, “If we receive God’s approval by obeying these laws, then Christ’s death was pointless” (Gal. 2:21). They found it hard to let go of the physical external rituals and customs that had been such a vital part of their religion and their life. And people today still find it hard to let them go.

Anybody converting to Judaism had to (and still does) receive circumcision and baptism. Paul linked spiritual circumcision with baptism in Col. 2:11,12 because it was common knowledge that any Gentile who wanted to become a Jew had to be both circumcised and baptized. Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians because they were reverting to putting their trust in ceremonial acts (like circumcision) instead of trusting in Christ alone. Peter was confronted by Paul over this very thing (Gal. 2:11-21). For many Christians today, although circumcision may be viewed as not essential, baptism still is; many believe that you cannot be a child of God unless you have been baptized. Replacing “circumcision” with “baptism” (both Jewish religious rituals) gives an interesting (and yet I believe, valid) discourse from Paul on such a belief:

Everything about the New Way of Life in Jesus is NEW: it is a complete and utter conversion from the symbolic external examples (Old Covenant: physical circumcision) to the true internal realities (New Covenant: spiritual circumcision). It is not a reversion, so to revert back to something symbolic, external, religious and ritualistic like a ceremony of water baptism that you must do, just does not fit with what Jesus and His followers preached.

The Baptism of Jesus

Then we have to ask: so why did John baptize, and why did Jesus ask John to baptize Him? John was the one who prepared the way for Jesus Christ, so all that he did was pointing to Him: to Christ as the Immerser and Christ as the Living Water. Baptism/immersion into the name/Person of Jesus and the baptism of John were two different things, linked only by the symbolic (John) preceding the actual (Jesus), as is mentioned in the book of the Acts and as John himself said: “I baptize with water BUT He will baptize with the Holy Spirit” – being immersed in His Spirit.

John’s baptism was different to other immersions of the day because John’s immersion was not a prescribed immersion for ceremonial cleansing but was one of repentance. “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance” (Acts 19:4, also: Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24), and yet Jesus insisted on being baptized by John. So why did Jesus need this symbolic baptism of repentance – an immersion signifying a change of mind? Why would this holy Man, who had not sinned, be required by God to be ceremonially washed for repentance? What did Jesus have to repent of (meaning to have a change of mind) that would make this act necessary from God’s perspective? It could well be that Jesus was repenting and turning away from one thing that He had done perfectly up until this point: keeping the Jewish Law! He had been subject to the laws of the Torah and this “baptism of repentance” revealed His death to all of that, and His rising to a new covenant, a new Way, a new Life in and of the Spirit for Him, and later (through the Cross) for every one of us.

His baptism revealed an inward death to the old covenant and an inward rising to new Life. “Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to prevent Him. ‘I need You to baptize me’, he said. ‘Surely You do not come to me?’ But Jesus replied, ‘It is right for us to meet all the Law’s demands—let it be so now.’ Then John agreed to his baptism. Jesus came straight out of the water afterwards, and suddenly the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God coming down like a dove and resting upon Him. And a voice came out of Heaven saying, ‘This is My dearly-loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'” (Matt. 3:13-16 Phillips).

For Christ it was about dying to the religious keeping of the LAW and then living from then on in the Life of the Spirit. This explains why He was so adamant about needing John to immerse Him, and why it was outside of the temple’s mikveh, in living (running) water that He was immersed. It wasn’t a purification ceremony in obedience to God (He was already pure), but about repenting: it was an immersion of repentance from having kept the religious Law even though He had kept that Law perfectly. It was a sign before God of Him finally completing and fulfilling the Law and dying to that Law and Covenant/Contract and being raised into the new Law of Life and liberty in the Spirit with the new contract – resulting in an opened heaven.

When Jesus emerged from the water, God immediately declared Him to be His Son. Of course He was already God’s Son prior to this so this declaration may have been indicating that Jesus had now left the “kindergarten” of the Law and graduated to maturity (Gal. 3:23,24), being now a full grown Son, “fulfil all justice” which was the reason Jesus had given for Himself needing to be baptized (Matt. 3:15 DRA). In other words: He was completing and perfecting all that the law required. Twice this word for “fulfil” is translated as “end”; in Greek it means:

1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
b) to consummate: a number
1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise.

So that all fits with the baptism of Jesus being a sign of completing and ending the old covenant: a once for all act symbolic of His death and resurrection on our behalf. The letter to the Galatians is enlightening to read in light of this: “Until the time when we were mature enough to respond freely in faith to the living God, we were carefully surrounded and protected by the Mosaic law. The law was like those Greek tutors, with which you are familiar, who escort children to school and protect them from danger or distraction, making sure the children will really get to the place they set out for. But now you have arrived at your destination: By faith in Christ you are in direct relationship with God. Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe – Christ’s life, the fulfillment of God’s original promise.” (Gal. 3:23-27 TM).

From this point on Jesus was a marked man. No longer was He governed by the Law and religious expectations, He was now governed solely by the Spirit of God and often did the opposite of what people expected. He set the cat among the pigeons and turned over the tables in the temple in more ways than one: He didn’t keep the Sabbath or many of the other laws, and this upset the Jewish religious leaders, resulting in His crucifixion because of His breaking of the Law (John 5:16-18; 7:19; 9:16; Matthew 12; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:14). Today, 2000 years later, we are still learning to leave Judaism’s laws and give up our religious ways to follow Him outside the camp.

How sad it is that people have argued and even died over the issue of baptism by immersion or sprinkling for centuries, and yet have entirely missed the point. The enemy loves to deceive and bring death with these things: “Should we worship here or there, with this or that?” and Jesus says, “NOT in Jerusalem, NOR there, NOT this or that, BUT Me…” (John 4:20-24).

Oh for eyes to be opened to see only Him… The church and religion have taken His place for far too long. Are you baptized/immersed in church life, in work for God and in your “ministry”, or are you immersed in Christ? Are you immersed in the world around you: television, entertainment, social media, your friends and your work, or are you fully immersed in Christ in the heavenlies?

Traditionally the church teaches that Jesus was immersed as an example, so that we would all follow His example and be baptized by the church, symbolising being buried with Him in death, and rising to new Life. Yes, Jesus Christ certainly was setting an example for us to follow, but not as we’ve known it: His example was for us all to die to our own “goodness” and leave behind the works of religion (including baptisms) and the keeping of laws and regulations and instead live in the freedom of the new Law of the Spirit of Life, just as He did, to have access to an opened heaven just as He did. To listen to and do only what His Father wanted, just as He did. And to have the Holy Spirit of God both in and upon us, just as He did!