Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
한국어 日本語
Water Baptism Was Superseded by Spirit Baptism
by Robert P. TerryUpdated May 21, 2026
One of the greatest tragedies of church history has been the continuance of John the Baptist's Old Covenant Jewish purification ritual known as water baptism. Nothing has divided the church more over the centuries than the practice of water baptism, and no ritual, since the controversy over circumcision in the first century, has nullified justification by faith more than water baptism. Only God knows how many countless souls have died trusting in their water baptism instead of believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
An attentive reading of the New Testament reveals that water baptism was to be superseded by Spirit baptism. John the Baptist announced it and the Lord Jesus confirmed it right before His ascension saying, "John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with Holy Spirit not many days from now." The importance of these words should not be understated, for they are repeated multiple times during John's ministry, by Jesus right before His ascension, and then again by Peter after His ascension (see Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:26-33, Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:16). Six times we are told to look away from water baptism and to look toward Spirit Baptism. In Matthew 3:11, BDAG notes the contrast between the two clauses given by the Greek men ... de construction. If the intention of John the Baptist, Jesus, and His Apostles was to say, "John indeed baptized with water, and you will also be baptized with Holy Spirit," they very well could have said it; but instead of Spirit Baptism complementing water baptism, we see that in all six occurrences Spirit Baptism is contrasted with water baptism.
We are told quite plainly by John the Baptist in John 1:31 that the purpose of water baptism was to manifest the Messiah to Israel. As a practice, it was a Jewish purification ritual as explained in John 3:25-26. More importantly, however, it represented an act of repentance that was necessary both for the nation and for individuals (even for Roman soldiers, presumably, and anyone who wanted to identify themselves with the Messianic hope of Israel) to "make ready the way of the Lord and make His ways straight." The nation was facing a crisis: repent or be destroyed. John's ministry started when he was about 30 years old, according to the custom of priests, which corresponded to approximately 30 AD, and lasted only about six months or little longer. However, Israel as a nation was given 40 years to repent (the number 40 often being symbolic of testing), during which time water baptism was practiced up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD when finally the Old Covenant practices were terminated once and for all. The content of John's preaching was also quite simple. Up until the water baptism of Jesus, John taught the people to repent and believe on the One who was to come after him. After Jesus' water baptism, John taught the people to repent and believe in Jesus. The Apostle Paul tells us in Acts 19:4-5 that John the Baptist was water baptizing in the name of Jesus. In Acts 19:4-6 we read, Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. Notice how Luke, the author of Acts, uses Paul's name twice. First regarding what he said, and second regarding what he did. Although many English translations end the quote in verse 4, Luke is very careful in his placement of Paul's name so that we understand that the quotation contains both verses 4 and 5. (Also, it is very important to notice that even if the quotation ends in verse 4, the implication of John the Baptist's message was that people were receiving John's water baptism in the name of Jesus.) Therefore, according to Paul and based on what we read in John 1-3, after the revealing of Jesus as the Son of God at His water baptism, John the Baptist also started water baptizing in Jesus' name (and if not literally "in name of Jesus Christ," at least with the implication that his water baptism represented repentance and faith in Jesus as the now revealed "one who was to come"), just like the Apostles did all the way up to 70 AD. This was 40 years of trial, to test the nation to see if it would repent and recognize its Christ. However, this was only a temporary period, and we see throughout Acts that the transition away from "Israel according to the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18) was underway as early as Acts 10 and especially after Acts 15. (For an extended discussion on the 12 disciples in Acts 19, please see the section at the end of this article.)
As mentioned above, the book of Acts was transitional, and the Apostles themselves were still learning many things, including the significance of faith and Spirit baptism. This is why Peter as late as Acts 11 made the startling statement, "Then I remembered the words of the Lord, how He was telling us that John indeed baptized with water but you will be baptized with Holy Spirit." This striking admission is quite suggestive. First, Peter was still contrasting Holy Spirit baptism with John's water baptism. This suggests that he knew nothing of some new so-called Christian water baptism. In fact, his command to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" in Acts 2:38a suggests that he had been following the pattern of John the Baptist's message. Second, he hadn't fully recognized the significance of Holy Spirit baptism until he saw the Gentiles experience it through faith (Acts 15:7-11). Third, it appears from the narrative in Acts 10 that the sequence of events surprised him. He was used to administering John's baptism first and then laying his hands on people for them to receive the Holy Spirit, as is indicated in Acts 2:38b when he says, "and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." But this time, the Holy Spirit came without water baptism, signifying that something was different. Up until this point, the Apostles were still not aware of the inclusion of Gentiles and only preached to the Jews (Acts 11:19), but what happened with Cornelius and his company marked a point of transition. Peter urgently commanded them to be water baptized in the name of Jesus because, as a Jew, that is what Peter had been accustomed to do up until that point, and just like the Roman soldiers (presumably) who were water baptized by John, the giving of Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his company indicated to Peter that they were also partakers of the hope of Israel's Messianic kingdom. But his admission in Acts 11 about "remembering" the words of the Lord signifies that he realized something important about both water baptism and Spirit baptism. This is obvious from his retelling of the events of that day in Acts 11 and Acts 15. In those chapters, he mentioned nothing about administering water baptism, but emphasized that it was through faith that they received Spirit baptism. This event with Cornelius got the gears turning in his head. As we shall see, as the transition progressed and as the Apostles increasingly learned the significance of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus and the role of faith, the more the things of "Israel according to the flesh" faded away, including water baptism. John the Baptist, the last prophet of the Old Testament (Matt. 11:13), even alluded to this transition away from water baptism when he said, rather ironically, to a bunch of people who were debating about water baptism, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:25-30). (It is true that Jesus and his disciples were also water baptizing, in accordance with the commission to manifest the Messiah to Israel during the 40 years of trial, but the Apostle John was careful to tell us that Jesus himself did not water baptize anyone, the reason being that His baptism would be spiritual in nature in contrast to John's.)
Despite the heavy emphasis placed on water baptism by the post-apostolic churches, it is amazing that we find nothing in the Apostles' writings concerning water baptism, at least nothing to support the continued practice of it. There is nothing about its meaning, nothing about how to perform it, nothing about who should administer it, and nothing about upon whom it should be administered. In contrast, the Apostle Paul tells the Corinthians (sometime between Acts 18 and Acts 21) that he was not sent to [water] baptize, but to preach the Gospel, thereby indicating that water baptism was not part of the Gospel. Neither was water baptism part of the response to the Gospel, for Paul goes on to tell the Corinthians that the only acceptable response to the Gospel is to believe it, rather than seek after signs like the Jews (which, according to Rom. 4:11, included circumcision, and by way of extension, in consideration of the context, water baptism) or wisdom like the Greeks. Later on in the same letter, he revealed to them that it was Spirit baptism that enabled them to experience life in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). In Romans 6:3-5, Paul mentions being baptized, but this is not "baptism with water," "baptism into water," or "baptism in the name of Jesus Christ" (i.e., the common formula for administering water baptism in Acts and 1 Corinthians), but "baptism into Christ Jesus" and "baptism into His death" where they were "buried together with Christ through baptism." The word baptism in these verses is being used as a metaphor for our identity with Christ. We know this because "baptism into His death" (6:3) coincides exactly with becoming "united with Him in the likeness of His death" (6:5). This means that Paul is referring to spiritual things, not a physical ritual. The same holds true in Galatians 3:27, where again it is not "baptism in the name of Jesus Christ" but "baptism into Christ," with the immediate context connecting belief in Christ (v. 26) with a spiritual "clothing of themselves with Christ" where there is "neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female" but oneness "in Christ Jesus" (vv. 27, 28). Again, the same holds true in Colossians where Paul speaks of being baptized in the very same context of being circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands. In his letters to Timothy and Titus, where we might expect to find some instruction on water baptism, we find nothing. In 1 Timothy, Paul spends 14 verses discussing widows, but not a peep about water baptism. In Titus, he mentions the washing of regeneration, but again, it is in the context of the Holy Spirit's work. In Hebrews, (assuming that Paul or a close companion of his wrote it) he mentions the doctrines of baptisms, but also tells us that they were fading away (Heb. 8:13). Finally, in Ephesians, which he wrote very late in his life at the close of Acts 28 or later, he says that there is only one baptism and mentions it in a context that is very similar to the Spirit baptism he spoke of in 1 Corinthians 12:13.
The Apostle Paul knew very well that Gentiles were too immature and incapable of understanding the significance of the Jewish ritual of water baptism. This is why he had to scold the Corinthians for allowing water baptism to cause divisions among them, actually going so far as to thank God that he didn't baptize many of them. (According to 1 Corinthians 15:29, some people, perhaps among the Corinthians, were so infatuated, and as a result, misled by the ritual that they were even undergoing water baptism for the dead, i.e., vicarious water baptism for deceased people whom they probably viewed as unbelievers. Paul mentions them to make his point about resurrection, just like he mentioned people visiting temples and eating meat sacrificed to idols to make his point earlier, but carefully distances himself from them by referring to them in the third person, i.e., "them" and "they." In contrast to these people, in 15:30 Paul says that he and his associates, i.e., "we," were in danger every hour, presumably for preaching Christ crucified.) The Corinthian church was formed from a synagogue in Corinth, so it is natural that the ethnic Jews were practicing John's baptism, being the necessary sign for the nation up until its destruction in 70 AD. The Gentiles likewise participated in it as they were added to Israel's olive tree to provoke them to jealousy. There were many things during the Acts period, such as the circumcision of Timothy, that served as a concession (or accommodation) for the Jews. It was still Jew first in those days, so the Gentiles inevitably had to cooperate to a certain extent. Gentiles were permitted to undergo water baptism (Acts 8:37) and were commanded to keep the ordinances in Acts 15, but it was all an accommodation for the Jews (Acts 15:21). Again, it is important to recognize that this was the same water baptism that started with John the Baptist and continued with the Apostles throughout Israel's period of testing. Neither Jesus nor His Apostles ever established a so-called Christian water baptism. There is no record of the Apostles (Acts 1, 2), Apollos (Acts 18), or the twelve disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19) ever being rebaptized with so-called Christian water baptism. As mentioned above, the only water baptism that Peter spoke of as late as Acts 11 was John's water baptism. Likewise, Paul told us in Acts 19 that John was water baptizing in the name of Jesus just like the Apostles continued to do in the book of Acts. However, the Christian churches departed from Paul's teachings almost immediately, just as he predicted, and they certainly didn't give heed to his warning about water baptism. As a result, we've had nearly 2000 years of Christians fighting about water baptism. The Corinthians couldn't handle water baptism, and the paganized churches of today (with their highly questionable triadic baptismal formula, as documented here and here) still can't handle it, but have utterly corrupted themselves.
As for the other Apostles, John says nothing about water baptism in his letters or in Revelation, James says nothing, and Jude says nothing. Peter mentions baptism once in his first letter (which was written considerably late in his life, probably after Acts 28), but again, he is speaking of Spirit baptism. Let's look at 1 Peter 3:18-21 in Young's Literal Version: "18 Because also Christ once for sin did suffer—righteous for unrighteous—that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach, 20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah—an ark being preparing—in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 Also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ." In the days of the flood, Noah and his family were saved by the ark through the flood water. Only Noah and his family gave heed to Spirit of Christ who was preaching in him to the disbelieving spirits (of men, presumably) in those days. As a result, they got into the ark and were saved. Peter goes on to say that the antitype of this (i.e., being saved by the ark through the flood water) is baptism, which Peter makes clear is not the Jewish purification ritual that removes dirt from the flesh, but the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is very important to notice here that the baptism that saves is through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (v. 21) and that Peter just told them that Jesus was made alive (i.e., resurrected) in the spirit (v. 18). By viewing these two verses together, we can see that the baptism that saves us corresponds to the spirit of resurrection that was in Christ. Peter is talking about spiritual things in this passage. Spirit baptism is the antitype of Noah's physical ark experience.
To insist that Peter is referring to water baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 is both illogical and inconsistent with the carefully written Greek of his first letter. It is illogical because it makes no sense to interpret one type by another type. Peter specifically said the antitype of Noah's ark experience was baptism. But if the baptism were water baptism, it couldn't be the antitype of Noah's ark experience because water baptism itself is a type. We know this because Peter told his readers that this baptism wasn't the removal of dirt from the flesh, and therefore, the antitype couldn't be physical water. Peter's first letter is too refined for the kind of careless reasoning that says, "The antitype of one type is another type." As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it seems to me that Peter was telling his readers that they were saved by the regenerating power of Spirit baptism just as Christ was made alive by the Spirit in His resurrection. I can only imagine that after more deeply realizing the significance of Spirit baptism in Acts 10 and thereafter, he wanted to clarify this for his readers. Just so there was no misunderstanding, he specifically says the baptism was not the Jewish purification ritual that removed dirt from the flesh. Water baptism had its purpose for a while, but it was superseded by Spirit baptism and was fading away just as taught by Paul in the letter to the Hebrews.
Despite the implications of the Apostles' writings and the transitional nature of the book of Acts, people (because of superstition, love for tradition, and desire to justify themselves) will continue to believe that there is such a thing as Christian water baptism, even though they can't point to a single verse in the New Testament to support their claim. Of course, they'll point to Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19, but neither of these verses says anything about water, and Jesus said these things right before His ascension when He made it clear that "John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with Holy Spirit not many days from now." With this expectation, how is it even possible to read water baptism into these verses? In the Gospel of Mark, Spirit baptism serves as an inclusio (i.e., brackets or bookends). Mark starts off his Gospel with John the Baptist's words in 1:8, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit," and ends with Jesus words in 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved," and it is vitally important to notice that Jesus said these words in the context of the gifts of the Spirit in 16:17-18. The expectation of John and Jesus was the Spirit baptism. Mark carefully noted this using the inclusio mentioned above. As for Matthew 28:19, while the use of the formula "in the name of" does favor the ritualistic sense of the baptism, there is no record of any of the Apostles in the book of Acts ever water baptizing anyone "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." This is one of the reasons why James W. Dale, in his massive work Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism, refused to see any water in Matthew 28:19, saying, "The language of inspiration announces a real baptism as distinctly as can be done by the use of words; there is absolutely no evidence of a ritual baptism in connection with these words, either in this passage or elsewhere in the Scripture" (p. 455). So, according to this renowned scholar on baptism, the baptism in Matthew 28:19 must be spiritual. Having said this, however, perhaps more importantly, even if Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19 do refer to water baptism, there is no reason to believe it refers to some new Christian water baptism. This commission would be totally consistent with the practice of John the Baptist's water baptism up until the end of the Old Covenant Age in 70 AD, just as described above (and according to Jesus' words "to the end of the age" in Matthew 28:20).
While on the topic of Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19, it should be noted that both are disputed texts. The longer ending of Mark from 16:9-20 is bracketed in many English Bibles to indicate its questioned authenticity, and although Matthew 28:19 is in all English Bibles and extant Greek manuscripts, many scholars believe the words "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are an interpolation in the text (see here and here). The historian Eusebius, whose writings predate the earliest extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew 28:19, often quoted the text as "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name." At any rate, if Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19 are the best proof texts for a newly established Christian water baptism, they sure don't give us much confidence, especially in light of the fact that neither mentions water and none of the Apostles ever mentioned anything about a new water baptism.
And this is it. The churches should had taken heed to the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, but instead, church history has been filled with fighting, even murdering people because of their beliefs in water baptism. Still today, water baptism remains one of the greatest causes of Christian division. Water baptism has become such an idol that Christians who understand the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are practically bound by conscience to count it as a most abominable thing (Deut. 7:25-26). Just like Hezekiah needed to "break in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made" because it had become a snare to the "sons of Israel who burned incense to it" (2 Kings 18:4), so must Christians demolish the self-justifying practice of so-called Christian water baptism. Water baptism served its purpose at the end of the Old Age (just like the bronze serpent served its purpose in the wilderness), but it should have never survived into the New Age of Christ.
More thoughts on the 12 disciples of Acts 19
If the Apostle Paul's quote ends in verse 4, we need to consider why these 12 disciples were (water?) baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. In such a case, it would seem that although Paul initially assumed that they had believed, their response about not knowing the presence of the Holy Spirit (in particular the giving of spiritual gifts) made him reevaluate the situation. We have very few details to go on to try to reconstruct this story, but it very well could be that they were only familiar with John's baptism unto repentance, probably being Jews in the diaspora who only had second, third, or fourth hand knowledge of what had occurred along the Jordan River decades earlier. This might be why Paul says, "John baptized indeed with a baptism of repentance," thus affirming what they knew, but then added that John also said, "to believe on Him who was to come after him, namely, Jesus." In other words, Paul needed to "explain to them the way of God more accurately" (as was also the case with Apollos in Acts 18:26). With this broadened understanding about Jesus, they then proceeded to be water baptized in His name, which was the common (and expected) response for Jews living in that period, as indicated by Paul's initial question "unto what were you baptized?" However, the very fact that Paul needed to ask this question suggests that there was more than one water baptism being practiced (although he might have been alluding to the Spirit baptism into Christ that was often attested to by spiritual gifts), including a deficient form of John's water baptism (which these disciples seemed to have received), as well as water baptism in the name of Jesus (which would have been the proper administration of John's water baptism as described by Paul in his quote of John in 19:4), the water baptisms of the Jews (John 2:6, 3:25), the water baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29), and other water baptisms (translated "washings" in Hebrews 6:2). But as just mentioned, this question by Paul might not have implied water at all, but instead the Spirit baptism into Christ. At any rate, if these 12 disciples were water baptized in Acts 19:5, it is probably best not to regard this water baptism as some new Christian water baptism, which none of the Apostles are recorded to have undergone or taught, but as the correctly administered water baptism of John the Baptist, as indicated by Paul's emphasis that John the Baptist was telling people to believe in Jesus.
Despite the above explanation, I still favor the interpretation that I gave in the third paragraph of this article. Both Paul and Luke affirm that they were Christians. Paul said that they believed, and Luke called them disciples. The explanation given in the previous paragraph assumes that they had not believed in Jesus, but if this was the case, why would the Scripture go out its way to call them disciples who had believed? Also, we know from the case of Cornelius that water baptism was not required to receive the baptism of the Spirit and spiritual gifts, and that Paul also specifically connects the receiving of the Holy Spirit with believing (19:2). I find it most probable that, like Apollos in Acts 18:24-25, these 12 disciples (who might have been companions of Apollos) were believers who just needed Paul to "perfect that which is lacking in their faith" (1 Thess. 3:10) and then "impart to them some spiritual gift" (Rom. 1:10) by the laying on of his hands (2 Tim. 1:6). And if this is the case, they would have already had the pledge of the Holy Spirit in their hearts (2 Cor. 1:22) and were just growing in grace (2 Pet. 3:18).