Matthew 28:16 - 20 Have we been wrong?

[Briguy]

Matthew 28: (KJV)
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
[17] And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Hi all. Two things struck me recently while reading this that I never really thought about before. These verses are used a lot and so may be easy to pass over because they seem so easy to understand. The first thing is that Jesus was only speaking to the apostles here. They were the direct audience and possibly not us. Maybe this is not the "commission" of every believer or maybe it is??

Second thing: The word for Baptism in Greek means "immerse". It does not mean water every time it is used. If you read the words of Jesus and insert immerse, as in really saturating with knowledge, love, works, etc… the verse makes more sense. The word teaching is used twice and seems to be the main context. I guess I am just throwing out this as a possibility and as a reason that the verse never made all that much sense to me because only very few believers ever water Baptize anyone. We should teach others and immerse them in our Lord. By that immersion of knowledge and love they will see Jesus at work and become a disciple.

Well, I know that if I am right that thousands of Bible scholars over the years would have to be wrong. Even with that please read the scriptures above with an open mind and let me know your thoughts. I may be all wet but it just seems to make more sense to me. Or the commission was really just for the Apostles as they expanded the body of Christ (what I wrote in the first paragraph)

In Christ,
Brian

[Chemnitz]

It makes even more sense if one stops denying that God can work through baptism to make new disciples.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Jesus was only speaking to the apostles here. They were the direct audience and possibly not us. Maybe this is not the "commission" of every believer or maybe it is??
If this applies only to the eleven, then then failed, because we know that they did not succeed in going out to the whole world, let alone the known world. In fact, the greatest instrument of the Great Commission, imo, was Paul, and he wasn't even there when the Great Commission was given.
The word for Baptism in Greek means "immerse". It does not mean water every time it is used. If you read the words of Jesus and insert immerse, as in really saturating with knowledge, love, works, etc… the verse makes more sense.
The context here is "baptizing then in the name of...". While it's true that the word "baptize" is a translation of the Greek "baptizo" which means cleanse/wash/immerse, it references the Jewish Mikveh cleansing ritual. Jews would immerse themselves in a pool of water as a part of ritual cleansing. This is the ritual John the Baptist was conducting when Jesus came to him. John was using an existing Jewish ritual, but unknowingly infusing it with new purpose. Since we westerners aren't familiar with the Jewish mikveh, we tend to lose the cultural significance of it.
Even with that please read the scriptures above with an open mind and let me know your thoughts.I think you're very astute to look at this verse and attempt to do so without any existing preconceptions. Good work. Even though I come to the traditional conclusion, I think you are making a very good point here.

[BobRyan]

Brian said --
Well, I know that if I am right that thousands of Bible scholars over the years would have to be wrong. Even with that please read the scriptures above with an open mind The problem is that Matt 28 has to be taken in conjunction with Acts 2 which is what happens as a direct result of that great comission.

What we see is "more than 12" evangelizing and we also see them speaking of water baptism.

So instead of just one point on a line - we actually have a number of confirming texts "showing" how the NT saints took that comission.

But you are right about one thing -- there is a big surprise in MAtt 28 for a lot of Christians today who would deny the words of Christ in the Gospels.

Christ said to TEACH others what HE taught them. Then we see the disciples WRITE out what HE taught them in the form of the Gospel accounts.

This is where the baptismal-regeneration folks fall on their swords because they are foremost among those who claim that the pre-cross Words of Christ are meaningless for us today.

They do a cut-and-paste (that is mostly a cut) where all of scriptural accounts/doctrine/instruction pre-cross is abolished.

In Christ,

Bob

[Briguy]

Johnv, thanks for the insight on what the Jews did in terms of immersing with water.

Bob, the question that is begged here is still, if the Great Commission is for all believers and the Baptism is of water, why don't almost all of us Baptize others then?? We are told to water Baptize, but we don't --- and then --- even though we don't water Baptize we boldly claim that these verses are our "Great Commission". There is just something messed up with the logic. If you have ever read my posts before you would probably remember that i am always looking for logic in theology and scriptual interpretation. Also, I want practical, played out practice of what is said. Anyway, maybe more folks will comment so I will wait to say more. Again, I am not convinced at all of my argument I am just trying to make sense of these verses.

Thanks for the input. Even yours Chemnitz.

In Christ,
Brian

[BobRyan]

Even the Catholic church admits that full water Baptism WAS the method used in the first century by the NT saints. They admit that it was an evolutionary process (error evolving in my view) that created the ideas for other modes of baptism.

The history is that almost every (in fact "every) non-Catholic group today immerged from groups that left Catholicism. So having Catholic roots the "practices" of those groups retain to some degree those old traditions.

In my view that explains the diversity.

As those churches go back to the Bible for their basis of practice they drop the Catholic traditions.

In Christ,

Bob

[av1611jim]

Bob said: The history is that almost every (in fact "every) non-Catholic group today immerged from groups that left Catholicism.
__________________________________________________

This is simply not true.
The Baptist faith did NOT 'immerged' (sic) from the Catholics.

That notion is revisionist history and has no basis in fact.

Briguy;
Good observation. Your thoughts perhaps could apply as a secondary interpretation of this message. To be 'immersed' in God. Nice!

In HIS service;
Jim

[Briguy]

Thanks for the posts. Hopefully there will be more.

Bob, I am not sure what point you are making. I am not saying that other verses aren't about water baptism, just that this one may not be.

It was mentioned that there is the use of "in the name of" which may prove water Baptism here. When I first thought about this that dawned on me but then as I thought it through I realized that stating the word "name" happens throughout the Bible and has nothing to do with Baptism. Things like, "At the name of Jesus every knee will bow and In the name of Jesus, rise and walk' (not direct Bible quotes but you get the point) Immersing others in the knowledge and Love of God in the three names, that being the Father, Son, and Holy Spitit still seems to fall within reason and make a non-water immersion here possible.

In Christ,
Brian

[BobRyan]

This is the only text in the gospels that tells the discipels to go Baptize - and certainly the only one in the Gospels after the cross - launching the Apostles on the NT Church mission that includes the subject of Baptism.

So when we see them doing it in Acts 2 - we can't simply say "coincidence".

And so as I was saying - even the RCC admits to the Water Baptism - full emmersion method being the actual one used in the first century by NT saints.

So although you see the RC influence in churches today handing them something other than the first century NT church practice that the RCC itself admits to -- that does not mean that in the first century there was a lot of different ways to Baptize. Today's evolution 2000 years later is not a snapshot of the first century practice.

In Christ,

Bob

[Bro. James]

Cannot cover all the things in one post.

The end of the Gospel of Matthew is a beautiful picture of The New Testament Assembly--the Bride of Christ. She is visible and local. Jesus did not post His Commission on the bulletin board in the town square. He gave the power(gk. exousia, i.e. authority to carry on and carry out in His absence to His Assembly. That vested authority was given to the assembly--not to a man. This authority remains vested in His assembly even through today--until He returns for His Bride.

There is a lot of confusion about "baptizo". The word was not "translated" into English--it was "transliterated"--that is, carried over without translation. The same thing was done with "angelos" which means messenger. Baptizo means to dip, plunge or immerse. It does not mean wash or cleanse--there are other Gk words for washing. One would be immersed "in"water not "with" water--another intentional oversight on the parts of the pedobaptist sprinklers who were translating scripture in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Further, there is nothing analagous about OT washings and NT Immersion. Immersion pictures death, burial and resurrection. How one pictures such by pouring/sprinkling "holy" water on the forehead is difficult to imagine.
Another further: immersion is not analagous to circumcision either. What about the women?

Some folks keep referring to water baptism as if there is some other sort of baptism. Scripture says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism". What part of ONE do we not understand? What about the Day of Pentecost? Yes, indeed, the Assembly got immersed in The Spirit, The Holy--and She still is--that "Another Comforter" still abides with The Bride, keeping her pure and undefiled, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. This is the difference between real assemblies and churches of the world--i.e. the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is coming for His Bride--she is ready--are we?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

[Briguy]

Hey Bob, it just dawned on me that the Baptism you spoke of in Acts 2 is not believers Baptism. It was a Baptism of repentance for the Jews. It would not have been preached to Gentiles in all parts of the earth. Believer Baptism appears a little later. So, acts 2 does not help your argument. On the other hand I think it was you that said that it was the commission of the church itself, not individuals so much. That certainly makes some sense. Though Jesus did just speak to the apostles and He does not mention them passing it on to the "church". Oh well, just some further thoughts.

In Christ,
Brian

[mman]

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen

The parallel account of this in Mark 16:15-16, And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Question, what group of people are excluded from "all nations"?

What group of people are excluded from "all the world"?

Jesus specifically said, "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you

What had he commanded them? To go teach, baptize, and teach them, "to observe all things that I have commanded you"

Yes, it was given to the apostles, but it started a chain that continues until now for us to go teach, baptize and teach, and those who are taught are to go teach, baptize, and teach.

The gospel was preached to the Jews first and also to the Greeks (Rom 1:16).

All are baptized into ONE body, whether Jew or Greek (I Cor 12:13).

How did that happen on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2?

The Apostles preached to the Jews and they believed, else they would have never asked "What shall we do?" in verse 37.

Peter did not say, you don't have to do anything, only believe.

No, Peter gave them instructions, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins" - Acts 2:38

Those who received the word were baptized and added to them - Verse 41

Added to what? Verse 47 says the Lord was adding those who were being saved to the Church.

Remember, I Cor 12:13 says we are baptized into one body and the body is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). Acts 2 also shows how we are added to the church, at baptism.

Someone, I don't remember who, I think it may have been Bob, incorrectly stated that this commission (in Matt 28) was given under the old law. Well, it was given after His death and resurrection. It first began to be carried out in Acts 2.

The purpose of baptism given in Acts 2:38 was for the remission of sin. The only other time this phrase is used, not in conjuction with baptism, is in Matt 26:28 where Jesus said His blood was shed for many "for the remission of sins."

Most folks have no trouble understanding what "for the remission of sins" means in Matt 26:28 but will try and twist and turn the real meaning of it in Acts 2:38.

Paul sums it up nicely when he says, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Gal 3:26-28

ALL includes Jew and Greek, and he specifically states such. All entered INTO Christ the same way, through faith they had been baptized INTO Christ.

Baptism always means immersion (in water) unless something in the context dictates otherwise. That is understood. The eunuch's statement, "See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized" shows biblical baptism is in water. (Acts 8)

Ananias told Saul, Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Water baptism was a command, carried out by men. HS baptism was a promise done by Jesus.

There is just one baptism today according to Eph 4:5. There are not 2 baptisms in effect, but only one. Since the chain is unbroken, we are commanded to teach, baptize, and teach. Clearly, he is talking about water baptism, since that is the only one man can perform.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hey Bob, it just dawned on me that the Baptism you spoke of in Acts 2 is not believers Baptism. It was a Baptism of repentance for the Jews. It would not have been preached to Gentiles in all parts of the earth. Believer Baptism appears a little later. So, acts 2 does not help your argument. On the other hand I think it was you that said that it was the commission of the church itself, not individuals so much. That certainly makes some sense. Though Jesus did just speak to the apostles and He does not mention them passing it on to the "church". Oh well, just some further thoughts.

Brian - when Jesus speaks to His disciples he speaks to "all who would believe through their witness" as well.

John 17
18 ""As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
19 ""For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
20 ""I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
If this were not so - nobody would evangelize but the 12 and we could all just toss the Gospels out the window.

Secondly - There is no such thing as "Baptism" into fellowship with the Christian Apostles post-Cross that is NOT "Believer's Baptism".

The "REPENT and Be Baptized" message of the Apostles did not "change" from what it was right after the cross - at Pentecost.

Christ tells them to wait for the Holy Spirit and then GO! GO! GO! in Acts 1.


8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.''He does not say -- you have a fake Gospel for now - but after you get a "real Gospel" then start Baptizing "for real".

The message is GOOD TO GO right out of the gate.

The Disciples are not "rebaptized" nor are any who are baptized in Acts 2 -- following that event.

Their baptism is "golden" as it were.

In Christ,

Bob

[yeshua4me2]

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


Hmmmmmmmmmm, why did they recieve the Holy Spirit?


Because they WERE SAVED.

thankyou and God Bless

[yeshua4me2]

Act 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.

Belivers Baptism?

[yeshua4me2]

1Co 1:17 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.


what??????

[Briguy]

Good points everyone. This has brought up some other issues but has actually stayed pretty well on topic.

Acts 2:38 simply was a message from Peter to the Jews were were asking him a question. If you read the context you see that it was declared to these jews that they had become an enemy of God. Yes, that is what it says they had become an enemy of God. To rectify that Peter says to Repent and to show the reality of the repentance to be baptized in water. The Baptism would show that the repentance was genuine. This was to place the jews back in a postion where they could be saved. Picture the example where the Jews are the natural branches on the tree and the Gentiles are the grafted in branches. This repentance restores Isreal to her rightful place as the natural branches on the tree. Belief in Jesus would come next and keep them (individually) on the tree, where unbelief would cause them (individually) to be cast off the tree and burned in the fire. To them that asked and in that circumstance they probably all did believe and so were saved and added to the church. Could they have chosen to be re-baptized later, sure but who knows. I do not for a minute believe that baptism is needed for salvation. yeshua4me2 has shown that by the verses he just used.

The Mark example was good. Some would say that those verses in Mark were added later and not part of the Holy Scriptures.

All have done well on this!!

In Christ,
Brian

[mman]

Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
Act 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.

Belivers Baptism? Of course. Why would a non-believer submit to baptism? Baptism is always for believers.

Even Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Was Jesus kidding? Mistaken? Did he really mean something else? Did he mean what he said?

Why were the Corinthians baptized?

[mman]

Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
1Co 1:17 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.


what?????? Did Paul baptize any of them? YES! Why? Were the Corinthians baptized? You know they were from your other post.

There were divisions in the Corinthian Church. Paul was saying that for them to belong to him, he would have to be crucified for them and they would have to be baptized in his name.

For us to belong to Christ, he has to be crucified for us and we have to be baptized in his name.

That is the ONLY way we can get INTO Christ. You cannot find another way to get INTO Christ. Search the scriptures and see what you find.

We are baptized INTO Christ. To claim that baptism is not required for salvation is to claim that being in Christ is not required for salvation. Surely you don't believe that!

God will take vengence on those who don't obey the gospel. How do we obey the gospel? First the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection. How do we obey that. We obey a form of that (Rom 6:3-4,17) in baptism. That is how we obey the gospel.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved - so simple you would have to have help to misunderstand it.

[mman]

Concerning Mark 16, usually those who question the validity do so because of the plain teaching concerning baptism. It is true that two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not include Mark 16:9-20. It is also true that one or both of these same manuscripts also omit Genesis 1:1-46:28; 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalm 106-137; Matthew 3; 16:2-3; Luke 6:1; 22:43-44; 23:34; John 5:4-5; 8:1-11; 9:38; 19:33-34; 21:25; Acts 8:37; Romans 16:24; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon; Hebrews 9:8-13:25; Revelation, and much more (ie. in the gospels alone, Vaticanus leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences). Are we willing to throw out these passages also? Furthermore, these manuscripts do not even agree with each other, let alone the other available manuscripts that do include it. They are different from each other in over 5,000 places in the New Testament alone. They were written in Classical Greek rather than Koine (common) Greek (which the original New Testament was written in).

Those who question the validity of Mark 16 usually have an agenda.

[Briguy]

mman, thanks for the good points, well thanks for the points anyway (he he)

Baptism in Mark 16 does not say what you are trying to make it say. Whether it should be in Scripture is secondary. What Mark is saying is that Belief is what saves. What kind of belief? Real belief built in faith. Baptism was the proof of faith in the early church. It was a way that outsiders could measure whether a person was being genuine or not. Baptism opened up the person to persecution because it idenified the person with the new radical group "the way". No one would be baptized unless they had real faith and were ready to face what ever would happen next. Beatings, jailings, etc... Look at all Paul went through. What Mark was saying is that he who believes and "signs on the doted line" will be saved. We have other ways to prove we are saved now, like joining a local assembly and worshiping in building with the name of Jesus on them. The next line of the verse quoted says he who does not believe will be lost, it does not mention not baptized. Think about it mman, you are saying that if you have genuine faith and never get Baptized you can't be saved?? What if you are on a desserted island by yourself?? and you find a bible and read it and believe. God will reject that person, right? Be careful because if there is one exception your theory or theology rather falls flat on itself. Baptism in old and new testemant (ceremonial washings) always have someone doing them. God through Jesus has restored the personal relationship betwen man and God. It is a one on one thing now. No longer is any sacrifice or other intercession needed for forgiveness of sin, just confession and belief between God and the one who trusts God. Hope that made sense.

Also, Paul clearly seperates the Gospel (good news) from baptism. They are clearly seperate or for no reason would he be GLAD he did not Baptize people. If that act gave them salvation he would have done it immediately, lest they get killed before someone else Baptized them. The good news is in Christ alone, and Baptism, as I showed above had a different purpose. Belief/faith/trust is what we do before God and for God. Baptism is what is done by man, for man, as a "proof" to man.

In Christ,
Brian

[bmerr]

BriGuy,

bmerr here. So far, I'd say the conversation has been pretty civil over all. Would that were the case on every thread! In reading over this topic, I think I might have somewhat to add.

One of the original questions posed was, in effect, "Why do so few believers immerse others in water?" That is something I wondered myself. The conclusion I have come to is (and i mean no offense) that some of the traditions of the RCC have carried over into most religious bodies today.

Here's what I mean. The RCC has it's "clerical hierarchy" of pope, bishops, cardinals, priests, etc. I think they got the idea from the Levitical priesthood, but I could be wrong. In any case, the idea of a "clergy"/"laity" distinction is completely foreign to the New Testament.

yeshua4me made a point of 1 Cor 1:17, where Paul said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel...", the contention being that since Christ did not send Pual to baptize, then it must not be all that important.

While admitting that Paul's main mission was not to baptize, we also must recognize that Paul did baptize some. Was he being disobedient? Of course not! He himself said that he "...was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19).

So how can these facts be reconciled? By coming to the understanding that all Christians have the authority to baptize. For instance, Paul did not need to baptize everyone who received his message. He may have baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, and then they could have taken over the baptismal duties, with others doing the same.

This also helps to account for 3000 being baptized in Acts 2. Someone has done the educated guessing on this, but for the 12 apostles to have baptized each one of the 3000, they would not have had time to finish in one day (2:41).

However, if each new convert turned and baptized another believer into Christ, the time factor goes away.

In closing (at least on this point), I too used to have a hard time understanding why only the "pastor" was allowed to perform the rite of baptism, especially if it was not essential.

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

BriGuy,

bmerr here. Next point.

You presented the idea that Peter's message in Acts 2 was only for the Jews. I'm pretty sure I've addressed this before, but since you brought it up again...

Up front, I will admit that Peter's audience was primarily a Jewish one. It was Pentecost in Jerusalem, after all - who would we expect to be in the majority?

But there are a couple of groups oft overlooked in the roster given in vv. 9-11 of Acts 2. In 2:10 we have "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes". For one to be listed as a "stranger" among a Jewish crowd indicates his non-Jewish, or Gentile status.

The "stranger" was a reference to Gentiles in numerous OT passages (ie. Ex 12:43, etc). The inclusion of this term in Acts 2:10 would make little sense if it did not refer to Gentiles, especially since it is placed in such close proximity to "Jews".

Also, the "proselyte" was simply a Gentile who had brought himself under the Mosaic Law. It didn't change who he was, just how he worshipped God.

If we skip to the end of Peter's message, we find that the promise was to go, not to only the Jews, but to "...them that are afar off..." This is also a reference to the Gentiles.

Eph 2:11 contains the subject, "Gentiles", and is referred back to with terms such as, "Uncircumcision" (2:11), "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" (2:12), "strangers from the covenants of promise" (2:12), and "ye who were sometimes afar off" (2:13).

In 2:17, there is a distinction made between "you which were afar off" (Gentiles), and "them that were nigh" (Jews).

BriGuy, I understand how important it is to hold this idea in light of your position on the neccessity of baptism (which we need not get into here), but since the ressurrection of Christ, there has always and only been one gospel for all nations in all the world. One gospel for Jews and Gentiles.

Acts 2 applies to you.

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

BriGuy,

bmerr here. Next point.

The textual criticism concerning the last 12 verses in Mark is one that is quite easily refuted. For the record, I do not think that you, personally have any doubt as to the legitimacy of these verses.

Anyway, here's a simple way to determine if those verses ought to be there or not.

Mark 1:1 reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

"Gospel" means "good news", as I'm sure we all know. Now, let's apply "good news" to the two alleged endings of the book of Mark.

The short version would end like this,

16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

The long version ends this way:

16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Now honestly, which one sounds like "good news"???

Hope it helps.

In Christ,

bmerr