Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
한국어 日本語
Water Baptism Was Superseded by Spirit Baptism
by Robert P. TerryUpdated June 29, 2025
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 rite of water baptism, and no ritual 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 the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
A careful reading of the New Testament reveals that water baptism was to be superseded by Spirit baptism.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 cannot 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 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. This points to the temporary nature of 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 the customary 40 years to repent, 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 plainly 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. 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 baptizing in Jesus' name, just like the Apostles did all the way up to 70 AD. This was the 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" and the ways of Israel was underway as early as Acts 10 and especially after Acts 15.
As mentioned above, the book of Acts was transitional, and the Apostles themselves were still learning many things, including the significance of Sprit 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, it shows that Peter knew nothing of some so-called Christian water baptism. He knew of the water baptism of John, and he knew that Jesus told him of a new type of baptism that would be by Holy Spirit. Second, he hadn't fully recognized the significance of this Holy Spirit baptism until he saw the Gentiles experience it. 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. 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 (just as John used to do) 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 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 water baptism, but emphasized 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, the more the things of "Israel according to the flesh" faded away, including water baptism.
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 positive. There is nothing about its significance, nothing about how to perform it, nothing about who should administer it, and nothing about whom it should be administered upon. 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. In Romans, he mentions being baptized once in chapter 6, but it is in the context of being "buried together with Christ," indicating that he had spiritual truth in mind, not a physical ritual. The same holds true for his mention of being baptized in Galatians where he immediately connects it with belief in Christ where there is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, etc., again indicating that he is thinking of spiritual truth, not a physical ritual. Again, the same holds true in Colossians where he 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. He mentions the washing of regeneration to Titus, 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. Finally, in Ephesians, which he wrote very late in his career at the close of Acts 28 or later, he tells the Ephesians that there is only one baptism and mentions it in a context that is very similar to the Spirit baptism he spoke of to the Corinthians.
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. This is also why he needed to tell them that water baptism was not part of the Gospel, nor part of their response to the Gospel. 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. Again, it is important to recognize that this was the same 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. We know the Apostles were never rebaptized, and as mentioned above, the only water baptism that Peter knew of as late as Acts 11 was John's water baptism. Likewise, Paul told us in Acts 19 that John was 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 that followed them up until this day 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 career, 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. Baptism is the spiritual 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." 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 11 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 clear implications of the Apostles writings and the transitional period described in the book of Acts, people (because of superstition, love for traditions, and desire to boast) 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). The Apostle 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, who was a companion of Peter, carefully noted this using the inclusio mentioned above. As for Matthew 28:19, Jesus sent His apostles to preach the Gospel, save souls, forgive sins, heal the sick, raise the dead, and lay hands on people so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. There is no reason to interpret the baptizing of people as referring to water 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." Having said this, however, even if these verses 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 Apostles' practice of John the Baptist's water baptism up until the end of the Old Covenant Age in 70 AD, just as described above.
Perhaps more importantly, both Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19 are disputed texts. The longer ending of Mark from 16:9-20 is omitted from many English Bibles, and although Matthew 28:19 is in all English Bibles and extant Greek manuscripts, it is admitted by many scholars that the words "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are an interpolation made by the church after establishing the doctrine of the Trinity. The historian Eusebius, whose writings predate the earliest extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew 28:19, overwhelmingly showed in 21 quotations of Matthew 28:19 that the original text read "Go and instruct all nations in my name and teach them to uphold all things that I have commanded you." After Eusebius's death, it seems that even his writings were interpolated with forgeries where he supposedly waxed eloquent about the Trinity. If anyone is interested in this topic, I'd recommend reading a paper called The Supersessionist Forgery of Matthew 28:19. 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 they don't mention 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 nothing but fighting, even murdering people because of their beliefs in water baptism. Still today, water baptism remains one of the greatest causes of Christian division. Even Christians who say they believe water baptism is only symbolic or a so-called "means of grace" will treat you as an unbeliever if you refuse to undergo this ritual. 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 repudiate it and count it as a most abominable thing (Deut. 7:25-26). Water baptism served its purpose at the end of the Old Age, but it was never intended to survive into the New Age of Christ. The apostolic Gospel for the New Age is very simple: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Whoever believes this has life in His name. Churches that mix this message with water baptism (even as a symbolic response to the Gospel) only demonstrate that they don't fully understand what it means for Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, who came into the world to save His people.