The Baptism of John

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 113]

     The city of Ephesus provided the site for many interesting experiences in the life of Paul. Some of these are related in Acts, chapter 19. One of them had to do with immersing about a dozen men. When the apostle first encountered these, he asked them, "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed"? They replied, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit." He asked them, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" They said, "Unto John's baptism." Paul informed them, "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.

     Why were these men immersed again? Does this passage furnish scriptural authority for baptizing a second time all whose knowledge of the ordinance and the blessings accruing therefrom, was imperfect at the first? Because of what we believe to be a palpable error contributing to the promotion and perpetuation of the sectarian spirit we propose a thorough examination of the nature of John's baptism and its relationship to this event. We are convinced that this passage is wrested from its context and is bent and forced to fit a situation to which it has no reference. We are also persuaded that many of our brethren negate and nullify the work of John and make his labors and death appear a little ridiculous and of no consequence.

     We hold that John's work was divinely directed and that it was effective. To better share our views we shall make a few preliminary remarks and then ask a series of questions which we will allow the word of revelation to answer. When a house is to be built, or a nation to be born in one day (Isaiah 66:8), the material to be incorporated into that house or kingdom must be prepared in advance. The house of God is composed of living stones (people) and the work of John was to go before, or in advance of Jesus (Mark 1:2) and "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17). It is our conviction that he did this and when the king was inaugurated, those who were previously prepared and acknowledged were given the privilege of becoming citizens in that kingdom which they had heard proclaimed in "the gospel of the kingdom" (Matthew 4:23). Let us bring this out in answer to certain definite questions.

     1. Under whose authority was John commissioned?
     "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John" (John 1:6).

     2. How was he empowered to fulfill his mission?
     "He shall be great in the sight of the Lord.... and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15).

[Page 114]

     3. What was his specific mission?
     "To make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17).

     4. How was he to prepare them?
     "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins (Luke 1:77).

     5. Did he accomplish this by preaching?
     "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it" (Luke 16:16). "In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea" (Matthew 3:1). "And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people" (Luke 3:18).

     6. Did he announce Jesus as the Son of God?
     "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spoke" (John 1:15). "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God" (John 1:34).

     7. Did John require faith in Christ Jesus?
     "John verily baptized.... saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus" (Acts 19:4).

     8. Did he command repentance?
     "And saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:2).

     9. Did this entail reformation of life?
     "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8). "And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats let him impart to him that hath none: and he that hath meat let him do likewise. Then came also the publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely: and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:10-14).

     10. Was repentance followed by confession?
     "Confessing their sins" (Matthew 3:6).

     11. Did John baptize the believing penitents?
     "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance" (Matthew 3:11).

     12. Was this baptism for the remission of sins?
     "John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4).
     Careless students have sometimes made a play on the term "baptism of repentance in an endeavor to show that it could not have produced salvation and prepared those who were baptized for citizenship in the approaching kingdom. This is done to enforce the contention that only "baptism into Christ" can establish covenantal relationship. But it must not be forgotten that all of those whom John immersed were already in covenant relationship with God under the legalistic system then in vogue. John baptized no one but Jews, but he baptized them in preparation for a new order where relationship to Abraham would not be the controlling factor. He said, "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham unto our father" (Matthew 3:9).
     No amount of cavilling will set aside the facts. John was to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins (Luke 1:77). God sent him to "baptize with water" (John 1:33). His baptism was distinctly said to be "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4).

     13. Did all of those whom John made ready for the Lord receive him when he came?
     "He came unto his own and his own received him not" (John 1:11). "His own were not Jews as contrasted with Gentiles, but "his own" as contrasted with the rest of the world. The world of mankind did not recognize him; many of his own did not receive him. "He was in the world, and the world was made by him and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received

[Page 115]

him not." John preceded Jesus for the specific purpose of making ready "a people prepared for the Lord." If the disciples of John were not "his own" any more than the rest of the Jews who were not prepared, why were they called "the people prepared for the Lord?" Moreover, the inspired record makes a clear distinction between "John's disciples and the Jews" (John 3: 25).

     14. What happened to those of his own who did receive him when he came unto them?
     "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).
     Every Jew on earth had been born of blood, the will of the flesh, and the will of man. But his own to whom Jesus came had been born of the will of God. Some of these did not receive him after they had been prepared for him by repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 7:66). Some of his own did receive him and believed on his name. To them he gave power (the privilege) to become sons of God. Why did he have to give to these who had been born of God the privilege of becoming sons of God? Why were they not sons of God automatically? The answer is that at the time of birth the family had not yet been set up. The kingdom was yet in preparation. These living stones were made ready in advance and on the day when Jesus was granted authority and coronated to sit at God's right hand they were incorporated into the kingdom. From that day forward that only had validity which was done in the name, that is, by the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17).

     15. Were the twelve apostles baptized before Pentecost?
     Yes. Not only were they baptized to become disciples of Jesus, but they baptized others during the lifetime of Jesus (John 4:1, 2). Some of the apostles were disciples of John before Jesus was identified to them. When they learned that he was the one for whom they were prepared they immediately followed him. "Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples, and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus" (John 1:35-37). "One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus" (John 1:40-42). The disciples of John and the disciples of Jesus, before the death of Jesus, were baptized by the authority of God with the baptism which John described by saying, "He that sent me to baptize with water...."

     16. How could these be baptized and prepared as members of the body before the body existed?
     In exactly the same way the head was prepared for the body prior to its inception. Jesus was baptized by John and so were those who were ''charter members" of the body. When he became the head they automatically became members for a body does not consist of a head alone.

     17. Were not the people immersed on Pentecost the first members of the body?
     Certainly not. The record specifically says, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41). It was not those who were added but those to whom they were added who had the priority. Certainly the apostles who proclaimed the message were already part of the body unless you conclude that the gospel was first proclaimed by those outside the body of Christ.

     18. Do we have any idea how many who were prepared under John's baptism automatically became members of the body by divine privilege?
     All did who received Jesus and believed on his name (John 1:12). We can be

[Page 116]

certain that the number of disciples in Jerusalem approximated a hundred and twenty (Acts 1:15). That there were more than this is evidenced by the fact that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred at one time (1 Cor. 15:6).

     19. When did John's baptism cease to be valid?
     When all authority was bestowed upon Jesus by the Father, "for he hath put all things under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:27). John's baptism was performed under the authority of God and was valid until God transferred that authority to the Son. Since that time baptism (as well as all else we do or say) must be in the name of Jesus Christ, that is, in recognition of his Lordship over all. John baptized by the authority of God, but he baptized no one in the name of Jesus, because Jesus had not received the authority. Those who were baptized by John were required to believe in Jesus as a coming Lord, not as a present sovereign (Acts 19:4).

     20. Were there any who continued to proclaim the baptism of John after it was invalidated by the transfer of authority to Jesus?
     No doubt all did who knew of the baptism of John but did not know of the ascension, coronation and glorification of Jesus. Lines of communication were not as well established then as now. A good many years after Jesus was "by the right hand of God exalted and received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit" we have an example of one man who did not know that John's baptism had been superseded by that in the name of Jesus Christ. "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spoke and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John" (Acts 19:24, 25).
     The expression "mighty in the scriptures" indicates that Apollos was thoroughly conversant with the law, the psalms and the prophets (the Torah, Hagiographa, and Hafterah of the Jews). Certainly there is no relation here to the new covenant scriptures, for not a word of these had been written when Apollos was eloquently declaiming. The term ''instructed in the way of the Lord'' is typical of one who was recognized as a teacher in the synagogue because of familiarity with the discussions of the scribes and expounders of the Torah and its implications. Through his knowledge of the scriptures, Apollos had come to expect a forerunner of Jesus who would prepare a people for the Anointed One. He recognized John as a precursor of the Messiah, and baptism as a means of preparation, but he did not know that the Anointed One had taken the seat of authority.

     21. Were there those who were baptized unto John's baptism after it had become invalid by transfer of divine authority?
     Yes. The twelve at Ephesus of whom we previously spoke were in this category (Acts 19:1-7.) In all probability they were baptized by Apollos, for it was in Ephesus that he eloquently and fervently spoke and taught, urging the baptism of John (Acts 18:25). Obviously, since it is the authority of Jesus which validates any act performed under the Messianic regime their baptism was irrelevant and incompetent.

     22. What test was proposed by Paul as to their status in the Lord Jesus?
     He asked the logical question, "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" This was certainly the proper query, since all those who were immersed

[Page 117]

in the name of Jesus were promised the Holy Spirit as a gift (Acts 2:38). Those who were baptized by John in preparation for the kingdom did not receive the Holy Spirit at the time of baptism, since the Spirit could only be given to believers after the glorification of Jesus. "But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39).
     Of course all who were previously prepared by John the Baptist, and who received Jesus, were given the Spirit at the time when they were given the privilege of becoming sons of God, having already been born of the will of God. The indwelling Spirit is a mark of sonship. "And because you are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts" (Gal. 4:6). The apostles were of this number and were given the Spirit on the day when Jesus was made head of the body. They were a part of the charter membership of that body. We can determine when the body became a functioning unit by determining when the head and members were united by the Spirit (Cp. Acts 2:33).
     We should not pass on without calling attention to some undesigned factors about Paul's question and the circumstances growing out of it. He did not ask if they had received the Holy Spirit since they had been baptized, but since they had believed. Upon determining that they were unaware of the Spirit's existence, he asked, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" This demonstrates that the apostle had no concept of believers, as disciples, who had not been baptized. There was no such thing with the apostle as "unimmersed believers" in the fellowship. Indeed it was he who wrote, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 4:27). When Paul found a believer whose faith did not produce the fruits of union with Christ, he wanted to know instantaneously unto what he was baptized. Here is evidence that belief in Jesus is made effective by obedience in baptism.

     23. What made the original baptism of the twelve disciples at Ephesus invalid?
     We can best determine the answer to this by ascertaining what was done to provide valid baptism for them. It is at this juncture that modern partisans who regard baptism as a factional rite or tribal initiation fall down in their assumption and reasoning. Their baptism was not invalid because of their personal ignorance of the blessings or results intended to accrue from it, or because they did not understand when such blessings were bestowed. It was not even because they did not know they were to receive the Holy Spirit at the time for the evidence is that this blessing (as well as others) spontaneously resulted when baptism was performed under the proper authority. That is why the absence of this gift indicated that the baptism was performed under the wrong authority, which is no authority at all in things spiritual.
     In view of the fact that when the Ephesian disciples learned the facts about Christ they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, we can conclude that it was being baptized under another name or commission which rendered their baptism ineffective. It was not a mistaken idea about baptism nor a wrong view about the blessings to be received from it that was at fault, but a defective concept of the status of Jesus.
     It is not faith in baptism, but belief in Christ which makes our obedience acceptable. When a man believes that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," he may be ignorant about a great many things, and so may the one who immerses him, but this will not affect his acceptability with God. We are welcomed because of faith in Jesus, not because of perfection in knowledge of God's ordinances. A man may hear the good news of Jesus from a preacher who, because of faulty knowledge, tells him his sins are forgiven prior to baptism, but if the believing penitent does what God tells him to do, the fallacious view of a mistaken preacher will

[Page 118]

not cancel the promise of God made by grace.

     I suspect if you were to enquire of baptismal administrators in most of our contemporary religious parties, as to the name in which, or the authority under which, they immerse, they would unhesitatingly affirm that they acted in the name of Jesus. We need to regard baptism as a universal means given by God for implementing our faith and not try to make it a mere factional gate. It is my honest conviction that Acts 19:1-7 did not give rise to rebaptism as practiced in our day, but men adopted a narrow and exclusivistic pattern of thought and sought for a scripture to sustain it. I regard every sincere immersed believer who was baptized in the name of my Lord as God's child and my brother. I am in the divine fellowship with all such in spite of the ignorance of all of us!

     I have nothing to conceal and I refuse to cavil or quibble. If it be asked whether I believe that I have brethren scattered among the various sects and parties now in existence, the answer is emphatically that I do! God's sheep are still a scattered flock. Our task is to help gather them. We will not accomplish it, either by denying that they are sheep, or by creating another narrow sect into which to lead them. The body of my Lord is greater and nobler than any party or faction. It is greater than all of them put together!

     (This is one of a series of expository lessons reviewing certain scriptures wrested from their context to justify sectarian exclusiveness. One of these will appear each month during 1965, and all will be bound in book form, fully indexed, under the title "The Twisted Scriptures" and mailed out on March 1, 1966. Orders are being received now for future billing at $2.49 per copy).