Baptism of the Apostles

[Perry]

What do you suppose is the significance of the fact that there's no record of the baptism of the apostles? I'm not suggesting that they were not baptized, I just wonder why it wasn't recorded.

[KyleB]

I have wondered the same myself......

[jeremiah]

in the book of acts there is a definite record of paul's baptism after the scales fall from his eyes. i think its a reasonable deduction to assume the other apostles were. it would seem that some of the twelve were disciples of john the baptist prior to following jesus. if this is true, then it definitely follows that they were baptized by john. then later we're told that jesus didn't baptize any but it was his disciples who did so. i think it's safe to assume that if they were baptizing others, then they must have been baptized already. i guess in the end all we can really say (except of course for the record of paul's baptism), the evangelists didn't see it to be that important to tell us exactly when.

grace and peace...

[jeremiah]

i rechecked, in the first chapter of john's gospel we're told: after two of his disciples hearing john the baptist say "behold the lamb of God," they turned to follow jesus. one of these two was andrew. i admit its not explicit, but i would not think it eisegesis to deduce that both of john's disciples that turned and followed jesus had previously been baptized.

grace and peace...

[Perry]

i think its a reasonable deduction to assume the other apostles were [baptized].

I agree completely. I think it very likely that they were included in the masses referred to in Mark 1:5 (and parallel verses). Also, it occurred to me after my OP that John the Baptist speaks of a further baptism of the Holy Ghost/Fire which was fulfilled in Acts 2.

I was just wondering if there was any significance to the fact that it isn't mentioned explicitly.

[Paidion]

Well, there is one apostle who, in his testimony to the Jews (Acts 22:3-21), gave an account of his own baptism — the apostle Paul.

I find it interesting that there is not a word about his sins being dealt with, when Jesus appeared to him, and told him what to do, while he was travelling to Damascus. Rather it was at his baptism, that he had his sins washed away. At least, that's what Ananias said would happen, and Paul didn't negate his words in any way.

[jeremiah]

perry,

cool man, i don't know. my guess is the significance if any has something to do with the intentions of the evangelists. the four gospels are concerned with jesus, whereas in acts where paul's baptism is recorded, the author's attention has turned to the apostles specifically. i'd like to hear what others think though...

I find it interesting that there is not a word about his sins being dealt with, when Jesus appeared to him, and told him what to do, while he was travelling to Damascus. Rather it was at his baptism, that he had his sins washed away. At least, that's what Ananias said would happen, and Paul didn't negate his words in any way.

that is interesting. i don't have anything to seriously add to your thought, but lightheartedly: i had a good laugh imagining newly reborn paul turning to ananias and commencing with a corrective argument on the finer points of regeneration and hamartiology.

ananias: what are you waiting for, get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord.

paul: yes indeed, i must. but brother annie , technically my sins were washed away at the cross, and now that this reconciliation is complete by my faith...(goes on for another five minutes romans style)

ananias: [thinks to himself] love him anyway, love him anyway, then says" o.k. lets go to the river..."

grace and peace...

[darinhouston]

If John The Baptist baptized them along with Jesus, then they would have been baptized into John's baptism (as Christ was), but that wouldn't be a post-regenerative believer's baptism. I suspect they were probably re-baptized as no doubt others who JTB had baptized were. I wonder by whom.... hmmm (maybe Jesus?) Wouldnt' that be cool!

[Paidion]

lightheartedly: i had a good laugh imagining newly reborn paul turning to ananias and commencing with a corrective argument on the finer points of regeneration and hamartiology.

Ahhhh... But was Paul "newly reborn" when he gave his testimony to the Jews as recorded in Acts 22?

Indeed was he regenerated at all prior to his baptism? "He who believe AND is baptized shall be saved."

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) wrote to Augustus Caesar, his son, the philosopher Lucius, and the whole Roman senate, a letter known as "The First Apology of Justin Martyr". Here is a passage from the letter in which Justin explains the practice of Christian baptism:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we were being made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5)
— Apology ch. 61

[jeremiah]

Ahhhh... But was Paul "newly reborn" when he gave his testimony to the Jews as recorded in Acts 22?

no he wasn't then, but i was referring to the setting of the testimony he was giving to the jews. i take your point though. do you think being born of water as jesus spoke of in john 3 refers to water baptism?

grace and peace...