Revisiting John’s baptism and those who
say it was not “Christian.”
One who says “Christian baptism is into the
death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ” sometimes argues that, strictly
speaking, John’s baptism (and even the baptisms performed by the disciples of
Jesus before Pentecost, John 3:22; John 4:1-2) should not be considered “Christian”
because it did not symbolize the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection
into a new life in Christ.[i]
Regardless of what we call John’s baptism,
it was a baptism from God and not men – according to the Lord Jesus himself. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or
of men? (Luke 20:4). There was a man
sent from God, whose name was John (John 1:6). The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is
written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which
shall prepare thy way before thee (Mark 1:1-2).
John fulfilled his calling. With John, the
coming of the Christ was no longer future but fulfilled. It was a future
prediction for all previous prophets until John. John was not the last prophet.
Other prophets came after him (cf. Ephesians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 12:28).
However, John was the prophet whose ministry terminated in the fulfillment of
the anticipated coming of the Christ. Jesus came and fulfilled the preparation
of John. Those who reject the baptism of John as “Christian” baptism in effect deny
that John completed his mission. They deny that he made ready a people “prepared”
for the Lord. Instead, many of them claim it was the Holy Spirit on the day of
Pentecost that actually made “ready a people prepared for the Lord” –
contradicting the plain statement of Scripture (Luke 1:17). See also Acts 13:25,
“…John fulfilled his course…”
John’s baptism was unto repentance. Christian
baptism symbolizes the believers own death, burial and resurrection to a new person
(life) in Christ. Paul plainly says that John required repentance and faith in
Christ (Acts 19:4). John claimed to have preached the gospel of Christ (John
3:36), and Mark says the beginning of the gospel was with John (Mark 1:1-2). Yet
for some reason those who deny that his baptism was Christian baptism think John
preached some other kind of repentance connected with some other kind of gospel
(cf. Galatians 1:8-9).[ii]
Those who reject the baptism of John as “Christian”
baptism deny his baptism was “the counsel of God” (Lk. 7:29-30).[iii] Hence, the Pharisees, in
rejecting John’s baptism as it would be invalidated in less than a year and
half by God and Christians, were wiser than God or Christ were.
Does any text of Scripture call any water baptism either before or after
the cross as “Christian” baptism? No, not at all! Baptism before the cross is
just as “Christian” as baptism after the cross as far as scripture is concerned.
The soteriology
or ecclesiology (or both) of those who reject the baptism of John as “Christian”
force them to that conclusion – rather than their being taught it by Scripture.
The “whatsoever I have commanded you” of
the Great Commission could only refer back to the baptism of John and the
apostles. That is the only baptism in existence. That is the only possible baptism
Christ could “have” commanded previously. John 4:1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 confirm
this. The Great Commission makes no change in baptism.
Some teach that the 3000 saved and
baptized on the day of Pentecost included all the folks previously baptized by
John the Baptist – “rebaptized” with “Christian baptism” (which they presume
began on the day of Pentecost, along with “the” church). However, no repentant
believers baptized by John or the apostles were part of the 3000-something
baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). These 3000-something people are
identified as Jews who came from outside of Palestine. The 120-something John
the Baptist kind of baptized disciples (Acts 1:21-22; 2:1) who were “all
Galileans.”
One text of Scripture often arrayed against John’s baptism is Acts 19:1-7. The idea proposed is that John’s baptism
was no longer valid after Pentecost, since Paul “re”baptized disciples of John in Ephesus. Such an approach is both astigmatic and unbiblical. This text bears of several explanations that do not
require invalidating John’s baptism. I was taught and have always believed that
John the Baptist did not baptize the disciples found in Ephesus. Rather they
were merely baptized “unto John’s baptism” – that is, by someone perpetuating
John’s baptism without the authority to do so. In recent years, I have come
across another, and perhaps older, interpretation, which reads verse 5 of Acts
19 as part of Paul’s explanation of John’s baptism, rather than referring to
the reaction of the Ephesian disciples.
Acts 19:4-5 Then
said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the
people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is,
on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Both Baptists such as John Gill and
Protestants such as Francis Turretin have taught this manner of understanding
Acts 19:4-5.
XIV. Acts 19:4-5 does not prove that the
Ephesian disciples, who had been baptized with the baptism of John, were
rebaptized by Paul. For the words (verse 5) ἀκουσαντες δὲ ἐβαπτίσθησαν [“When
they heard this, they were baptized,” rlv] are not the words of Luke telling
what followed after Paul talked to them [the Ephesians], but rather a confirmation
of Paul’s statement to those Ephesians, in which he teaches that those who had
received baptism from John had been baptized in the name of Christ, and
therefore had no need of a new baptism.[iv] Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ, Tom. III (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 3), Francisco Turrettino, New York, NY: Robert Carter, 1847, p. 343
Ver. 5. When they heard this, &c.] That is, the people to whom John
preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he,
and that it became them to believe in him: they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul
found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the
Apostle Paul, giving an account of John’s baptism, and of the success of his
ministry, shewing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord
Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon
his account of John’s baptism; for then he would have made mention of the
apostle’s name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard
this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the
historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in ver. 4, 5., then
what he did, ver. 6., where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he
laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the
extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles μεν and
δε, which answer to one another in ver. 4, 5, and shew the words to be a
continuation of the apostle’s speech, and not the words of the historian, which
begin in the next verse. An Exposition of the New Testament, Volume II, John Gill, London: Matthews and Leigh, 1809, p. 324
If interpreters such as Gill and Turretin
are correct, no contemporary water baptism occurs in the Acts 19:1-7 pericope.
Rather Paul laid his hands upon already believing baptized disciples who had
not “received the Holy Ghost,” and “the Holy Ghost came on them.” This is
consistent with the experience of the baptized believers in Samaria, and seems
a very good possibility. See Acts 8:14-17.
Consider also:
- John’s authority came from heaven. Compare
Matthew 21:25-27 and John 1:6.
- John the Baptist preached of the Father, the
Holy Ghost, and the coming Messiah. Compare Matthew 3:11.
- John preached repentance and required
evidence of it (cf. Matthew 3:8; John 3:36; Acts 19:4).
- Apollos knew “only the baptism of John” (Acts
18:25-26), but was not “re”baptized.
A normal reading of the Scriptures is that
John had a successful God-ordained ministry of preparing disciples for the
coming Messiah, including his baptizing of those disciples, and those disciples
leaving John and following Christ. One possesses an odd and seemingly almost
determined discordant dogmatism to find the baptism of John as an aberration
within God’s program!
[i] Those
who “unchristianize” John’s baptism must also look at doing so to the baptism
by the disciples under the authority of Jesus (John 4:1-2). The Gospels are
clear. The disciples walking with Jesus did not distinctly and thoroughly
understand his ministry until after his resurrection – especially concerning his
death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. Yet they were baptized. They
were never rebaptized. (though a few
people try to make up such a scenario). Prior to the death, burial,
resurrection of Jesus, the baptism ministry of the disciples of Jesus was a
transitional ministry similar to John’s baptism. It pointed to a time in the
future when things would be more clearly fulfilled and understood. This in no
way nullifies either the baptism of John or the baptism of the apostles. There
is only one water baptism in the New Testament, whether by John or the
disciples, whether before or after Pentecost.
[ii] All
saints prior to the coming of Jesus the Christ were “Christians.” They were all
believers in Christ (Messiah/Anointed). Peter plainly says that (Acts 4:12 with
10:43). People did not call such believers “Christians” (as far as we know
until Acts 11:35 in Antioch) – but they were nevertheless believers in Christ
as their Christ and Saviour.
[iii] Or,
at least suggest it was inferior counsel
as not only would all Christians reject it on Pentecost but God would reject it
as well!
[iv] XIV.
Locus Act. xix. 4, 5, non evincit rebaptizatos fuisse a Paulo discipulos
Ephesios, qui baptizati fuerant baptismo Johannis. Verba enim (vers. 5) ἀκουσαντες
δὲ ἐβαπτίσθησαν non sunt verba Lucæ narrantis quid sit consecutum Pauli sermonem
ad ipsos, sed potius confirmatio orationis Paulinæ ad illos Ephesios, qua docet
illos, qui baptismum acceperant a Johanne, fuisse baptizatos in nomine Christi,
atque adeo non opus habuisse novo baptismo. 
