Baptism plays a crucial role in the story and plot development of the book of Acts. We will look at some of the critical passages in future posts, but first, we must make a few preliminary observations about the role of baptism in the book of Acts.
Baptisms in Acts
The difficulty with discussing baptism in the book of Acts is that the book refers to numerous different types of baptism. Take Acts 19:1-6 as an example. Within the span of six verses, three different types of baptism are mentioned, though in the passage, only two are called “baptism.” There is the baptism of John (19:3-4), the baptism into Jesus Christ (19:5), and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (19:2, 6). This third type is not specifically called “baptism” in Acts 19, but other passages do refer to the coming of the Holy Spirit as a baptism.
So as we look at the subject of baptism in Acts, we must recall that not all references to “baptism” refer to dunking somebody under water.
Decreasing Baptism
One other curious aspect about baptism in the book of Acts is that the number and frequency of baptisms decreases as the book progresses. This decreasing emphasis on baptism continues throughout the rest of the New Testament, until at one point, Paul specifically declares that he is glad that he baptized so few people because God didn’t send him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel (1 Cor 1:14-17). Paul elsewhere indicates that the real washing occurs with the water of the Word (Eph 5:26), and even Peter himself seems to disregard water baptism as having any real significance (cf. 1 Pet 3:21).
Why this decreasing emphasis on baptism in Acts and the rest of the New Testament? It is possible, of course, that water baptism continued to be practiced as frequently as ever, and the writers simply stopped mentioning it, but when we understand the cultural and religious significance of water baptism in the first century Mediterranean world, and specifically the role of baptism within the book of Acts, it becomes clear that water baptism served a special and specific role within the early church which became unnecessary later on.
Baptismal Transitions in Acts
What is the role and purpose of water baptism in the early church, and specifically in the book of Acts? Water baptism is a key indicator for transitions in Acts. Each reference to water baptism indicates that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God has arrived to a new people group. The Gospel and water baptism begins with the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2), and spread to Samaria (Acts 8), God-fearing Gentiles (Acts 10), and eventually to the entire world (Acts 16, 19).
In every case, it is Peter who goes and uses the “Keys of the Kingdom” to unlock the door of the Gospel to a people group that was previously cut off from God and the Gospel (cf. Matt 16:19; Eph 2:11-18). Acts uses baptism to show the advancement of the kingdom to include all people who were formally shut out and cut off. Acts shows that the dividing wall of hostility has been torn down. The barrier is no more.
Future posts will look at individual baptism passages in Acts in greater detail.
I do not think those scriptures mean what you think they mean.
In fact, they seem to prove your point wrong.
I want to know where I can find the 8 passages that say in the Greek “Into the name of,”
“Eis Tan animas,” as best as I can spell without having the Greek print on my computer
who qualify to baptise someone
Thank you for the time writing this article. However, I must disagree with the premise that the importance of baptism every decreased.
When you cited the example in 1 Corinthians 1 where Paul says he was thankful he didn’t baptize many people, you left out the context, which is critical to understanding that statement.
The context of 1 Corinthians 1 is that there were divisions in the church.
People were saying, “I am a follower of Paul, I am a follower of Cephas (Peter), I am a follower of Apollos. Then he asks the question, “Did Cephas die for you? Were you baptized into Paul’s name?”
Rhetorical question with the answer being NO.
Jesus was crucified for us, and you were baptized into the name of Jesus.
We should not be calling ourselves followers of anyone but Jesus.
That was the point.
Then he says, I am glad I didn’t baptize many of you (personally).
Why? So that they couldn’t brag that they were baptized by Paul.
So that they wouldn’t call themselves followers of Paul.
That was the point.
And then Peter in no way downplays baptism in 1 Peter 3:21ff. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion from those verses.
In fact, I would argue that he is comparing how just as the people in Noah’s day were saved by getting into the ark and carried through water, Peter is saying we are carried to safety through baptism, which would be just the opposite of downplaying baptism.
My thoughts on the matter, anyway. I don’t see baptism every being downplayed in the Bible.
Jeremy,
I completely agree with you. Thank you for your reply.
Paul
Yes there are different baptisms mentioned in the book of Acts, baptism of the holy Spirit, John’s baptism and the most mentioned one baptism included in the good news. To some way minimize or suggest that baptism isn’t important is Ludacris. baptism is a part of the Gospel (good news)
-People heard the good news about Christ.
-People received or rejected the good news.
-People that received the good news repented.
-People that received the good news we’re baptized into Christ.
A person sees this pattern all the way through the book of Acts.
Dave,
100 percent agree with you. The Acts of the Apostles are an example left for us. Not sure how the Holy Spirit could have been more clear.
Seems odd that you would suggest Peter did not say that baptism is significant and use 1 pet 3.21 as your proof text; he says baptism saves. That seems significant. Also, Paul in 1 Cor 1 is not suggesting that baptism wasn’t important. Rather, what was unimportant was who had baptized. In the context Paul is opposing divisions based on who had taught and baptized. Be careful to not go beyond what scripture says
According to the book of John, Jesus is the only one that baptizes with the Holy Spirit. The apostles were never given the ability to baptize with the Holy Spirit, so Acts 19:6 can’t be talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The apostles simply had the ability to pass on the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.
To add to that, one thing that should stand out, is that water baptism occurs in every conversion in Acts. Holy Spirit baptism only occurs in 2 of the at least 8 conversions in Acts and the purpose was only to confirm the gospel that was being preached. Not to mention that the “about 3000” that were added, didn’t receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, only the apostles did.
Further touching on what was mentioned about Paul, he had to understand that water baptism was significant. Given the fact that he wasn’t sent to baptize, as he stated, how did he know to baptize anyway? We would have to conclude that he was made aware by the other apostles. The fact that he used the past tense form “baptized”, also shows that the audience that he was talking to, was already baptized.
Why are 3 baptisms mentioned in Acts 14? What is the difference between them? Is the baptism of John (repentance) included in the baptism of Jesus? What is the baptism of Jesus? Why is the baptism of the Holy Spirit (tongues) not taught and experienced in most churches today?