Were the apostles ever baptized in Jesus' name?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So pretty much all we have is theorys of how they might could have been baptized? I guess it might also be possible that they weren't baptized in Jesus' name?

I would find that to be highly unlikely. Peter said, "...be baptized...every one of you...", and then goes on to say, "For the promise is unto...as many as the Lord our God shall call." Were the apostles called? Would they be part of that group?

This would seem to apply to everyone. We know the apostles had the Holy Ghost; why would they have skipped baptism in Jesus' name? Why would Paul have rebaptized John's disciples if he didn't personally recognize the need to have the baptism done a certain way in order to be effectual?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So pretty much all we have is theorys of how they might could have been baptized? I guess it might also be possible that they weren't baptized in Jesus' name?

They were baptized in water under the authority of either Jesus Christ Himself (standing right there) or John the Baptist whose authority came from God Almighty and whose ministry pointed directly at the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Remember - and this is key to understanding several of the posts here, not just mine - the liturgy practiced by modern Oneness Pentecostals of carefully pronouncing the words "jzs" and "nm" is NOT the same thing as what the First Century apostles and disciples understood when they did something "in the name of the Lord" ... or in anyone else's name for that matter.

We have fixated upon reciting a creedal formula whereas the First Century church was set upon following the authority, practices and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

For OP's today - "in Jesus' name" means simply enunciating the prescribed syllables. In the First Century, it meant submitting one's life completely to the Master.

I know, most OP's today will complain that that's what they mean - in addition to their careful pronunciations and creeds. But in their zeal for the creed, they often loose sight of the actual practice and understanding of "whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus..." Colossians 3:17.

Also, in discussions like this - the whole thing keeps going back to "What syllables were pronounced" rather than, "Was Jesus Christ glorified as Lord and Savior?"

We do have only "theories" about what was pronounced at the First Century baptisms, but we have explicit statements and teachings from the apostles themselves about what was believed and how that Jesus Christ was glorified as Lord and Savior.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I meant unique position in that the were followers of Christ while he was yet on earth, and then recieved the direction to baptize in His name (at the great comission, if they did it before we don't have record of it--though I understand it IS possible that when the apostles baptized DURING Jesus ministry they could have used his name. A discussion I would be interested in having).

As for Barsabas and Matthias being the only two, I think there were more by my reading of it, but I haven't studied that passage, just my two cents.

I think we're in agreement. And, I also am under the impression that there were more than just two candidates eligible in Acts 1:20-23; it's just I have to confess that this is the impression I get from reading it and not the explicit statement of the text.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

John seems to be making something of a big deal that "his baptism" was with water (John 1:33 and Matthew 3:11) whereas the baptism that was to be performed by Jesus Christ was of the Spirit.

Yes, that doesn't mean that Jesus did not baptize his 12 and then they baptized others.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes, that doesn't mean that Jesus did not baptize his 12 and then they baptized others.

No, nothing appears to say whether Jesus did or did not baptize the Twelve. It is apparent that a significant number of the Twelve, probably all, we're disciples to one degree or another of John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-23). Matthew is the one possible exception, but even he appears to meet the qualifications described in Acts 1. This seems to be an important point since it was a qualification for a position within this group.

Whether or not Jesus Himself baptized the Twelve doesn't appear to be an important point because this detail has escaped the attention of every single writer.

Only their presence when Jesus was baptized by John (and thus their presumed baptism also by John) is mentioned as a qualification.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

No, nothing appears to say whether Jesus did or did not baptize the Twelve. It is apparent that a significant number of the Twelve, probably all, we're disciples to one degree or another of John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-23). Matthew is the one possible exception, but even he appears to meet the qualifications described in Acts 1. This seems to be an important point since it was a qualification for a position within this group.

Whether or not Jesus Himself baptized the Twelve doesn't appear to be an important point because this detail has escaped the attention of every single writer.

Only their presence when Jesus was baptized by John (and thus their presumed baptism also by John) is mentioned as a qualification.

They were also disciples of Jesus too. Remember the disciples of John in Acts? They were rebaptized, making them disciples of Jesus

The bible does not say it but I think the 12 were probably baptized by Jesus as he commissioned them to go out and baptized others too

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

They were also disciples of Jesus too. Remember the disciples of John in Acts? They were rebaptized, making them disciples of Jesus

The disciples of John in Acts

The bible does not say it but I think the 12 were probably baptized by Jesus as he commissioned them to go out and baptized others too

That would be pure speculation as opposed to a careful deduction from what the text does say.

The only time Jesus is ever mentioned in the context of performing water baptism, it emphatically states that He did not (John 4:1-2). He baptized with the Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5 (why didn't he say "I baptized you with water" ...?).

Apollos is described as "knowing only the baptism of John." He appears to have left Judea some time before the events described in Luke 3:21-22 and John 1:32-34. Apollos and the other disciples of John in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-6) had never heard the words that John spoke in John 1:33 (and other related passages mentioned above). This is demonstrated by their own words in Acts 19:2, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."

All they knew up to that point was "Repent" and the remission of sins through the baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4).

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Brother David

They were baptized in water under the authority of either Jesus Christ Himself (standing right there) or John the Baptist whose authority came from God Almighty and whose ministry pointed directly at the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Remember - and this is key to understanding several of the posts here, not just mine - the liturgy practiced by modern Oneness Pentecostals of carefully pronouncing the words "jzs" and "nm" is NOT the same thing as what the First Century apostles and disciples understood when they did something "in the name of the Lord" ... or in anyone else's name for that matter.

We have fixated upon reciting a creedal formula whereas the First Century church was set upon following the authority, practices and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

For OP's today - "in Jesus' name" means simply enunciating the prescribed syllables. In the First Century, it meant submitting one's life completely to the Master.

I know, most OP's today will complain that that's what they mean - in addition to their careful pronunciations and creeds. But in their zeal for the creed, they often loose sight of the actual practice and understanding of "whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus..." Colossians 3:17.

Also, in discussions like this - the whole thing keeps going back to "What syllables were pronounced" rather than, "Was Jesus Christ glorified as Lord and Savior?"

We do have only "theories" about what was pronounced at the First Century baptisms, but we have explicit statements and teachings from the apostles themselves about what was believed and how that Jesus Christ was glorified as Lord and Savior.

You nailed it ... this is baptism in the name of Jesus.

We find no signs of a prescribe doctrine of invocation at baptism .... NOWHERE.''

To be consistent we would have to do all deeds and words uttering the name of Jesus ... 24-7

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

That would be pure speculation as opposed to a careful deduction from what the text does say.

The only time Jesus is ever mentioned in the context of performing water baptism, it emphatically states that He did not (John 4:1-2). He baptized with the Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5 (why didn't he say "I baptized you with water" ...?).

Apollos is described as "knowing only the baptism of John." He appears to have left Judea some time before the events described in Luke 3:21-22 and John 1:32-34. Apollos and the other disciples of John in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-6) had never heard the words that John spoke in John 1:33 (and other related passages mentioned above). This is demonstrated by their own words in Acts 19:2, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."

All they knew up to that point was "Repent" and the remission of sins through the baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4).

Right it is my opinion. But the point is they were disciples. WHose? John. Baptism is part of the act of making disciples (See Mat 28:19) and so when they heard they were to believe on Jesus they were baptized in Jesus name.

If the 12 were students of the master, I am assuming they too were baptized by the master and commissioned therefor to do the same.

Yes Jesus did not do the baptizing...again who did? The disciples. It makes sense that Jesus baptized them first as part of making them disciples and the disciples then baptized everyone else. The context in which this verse appears does not necessarily mean no other time before that did he also not baptize.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Right it is my opinion. But the point is they were disciples. WHose? John. Baptism is part of the act of making disciples (See Mat 28:19) and so when they heard they were to believe on Jesus they were baptized in Jesus name.

If the 12 were students of the master, I am assuming they too were baptized by the master and commissioned therefor to do the same.

Yes Jesus did not do the baptizing...again who did? The disciples. It makes sense that Jesus baptized them first as part of making them disciples and the disciples then baptized everyone else. The context in which this verse appears does not necessarily mean no other time before that did he also not baptize.

Yes, but pel's post you quoted quite nailed what I have been trying to say. No matter what all we have is speculation.

Now I also want to say this, baptism in Jesus' name is supposed to be at the very least a symbolic act related to Christ's death, burial and resurrection (or just one of these things if you prefer, it doesn't matter for the point I am about to make). At the most it's supposed to actually be when Christ's blood is applied to our lives.

You want to say it doesn't make sense that Jesus didn't baptize them. But I say that it doesn't make sense that they could have been baptized into a Christian baptism before Christ's death because of either the symbolism or actual application of the blood that baptism is supposed to serve. I say that it makes just as little sense to think that anyones baptism could have been the same before Christs death. If it was then there would have been either no symbolism or no application of the blood for those baptisms before his death, and thus the ones after wouldn't be about those things either. Therefore it seems that any baptism which happened before Christs death is in fact a much different kind than what the apostles baptized people into in the book of Acts