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!
[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.
No comments:
Post a Comment