Did a church authorize Paul to baptize?

This is the fourteenth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

Two posts ago, we began looking for evidence that any of those who administered baptism in the New Testament were specially authorized to do so by a local church. We reviewed every instance of baptism recorded in scripture and found none where scripture explicitly affirms it to have been so.

However, our search for a pattern isn’t complete. The New Testament identifies two administrators of baptism after Pentecost by name—Philip and Paul. If we can establish that either of these two men was authorized by a local church to administer baptism, we may find our pattern after all.

In our last post, we examined the case of Philip, and we concluded that there is no scriptural evidence that Philip was specially authorized by a local church to administer the baptisms he is recorded to have performed in Acts 8.

In this post, we will consider the Apostle Paul. Paul himself informs us that he baptized several of the first Corinthian believers, including Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). It’s also very likely that in the course of his missionary journeys, he baptized others as well. The key question we’ll seek to answer in this post is, was Paul specially authorized by a local church to administer baptism?

Some Baptists have argued that Paul derived his authority to baptize from a local church on the basis of a passage in Acts 13 which describes the beginning of Paul’s first missionary journey:

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:1-4)

According to some, these verses show the church at Antioch, as an entire congregation, granting Paul and Barnabas special authority to preach and baptize in the course of their coming journey. In this view, Paul and Barnabas are being officially sent out as agents of the church at Antioch, and they remain under the authority of the congregation during the course of their mission.

The subordination of Paul and Barnabas to the local congregation at Antioch is seen to be further reinforced by the fact that, following the completion of their mission, they reported what they had done to a gathering of the whole church:

And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. (Acts 14:26-27)

Finally, according to this view, the authoritative sending out of Paul and Barnabas by the church at Antioch establishes a binding precedent that no preaching and baptizing is legitimate unless it is first authorized by a local church.

Although there are many Baptists today who understand Acts 13 in this way, we must nevertheless ask, is this interpretation correct? Does this passage really teach that Paul derived his authority to preach and baptize from the church at Antioch?

There are several substantial reasons to reject this interpretation.

First, although the “church that was at Antioch” is mentioned at the beginning of verse 1, the remainder of the verse is a list of five “prophets and teachers” who were in this church—Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Paul. Only these prophets and teachers are the subjects of the verbs in verses 2 and 3, not the church as a whole. It was these prophet and teachers—not the congregation—who “ministered to the Lord”, “fasted” during their service, were instructed by the Holy Spirit to “separate” Paul and Barnabas, “fasted and prayed”, “laid [their] hands on” them, and “sent [them] away”. In fact, this passage does not refer to any action taken by the congregation itself.

Second, the verbs “separate” and “sent away” do not represent the prophets and teachers as granting Paul and Barnabas any kind of special authority or permission to minister. Rather, the action here is best understood as this company of prophets and teachers simply releasing Paul and Barnabas so that they might carry out the work given to them by the Holy Spirit. The word rendered “sent away” in verse 3 (Gr. apoluo) is translated throughout the rest of the New Testament in the sense of to let go, to release, to set at liberty, to dismiss, etc., and this is certainly the action in view here. These prophets and teachers let go of their beloved brethren Paul and Barnabas so they could pursue a higher calling.

Third, the fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands in verse 3 do not describe a formal ordination service. They do not represent Paul and Barnabas as being installed at this time to church office. Instead, these prophets and teachers are humbly begging God to bless Paul and Barnabas with protection, aid, and success in what will be a dangerous journey of ministry.

We get another description of what happened at this time in Acts 14:26, which refers to Antioch as the place “from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled”. That is an allusion to the events of Acts 13. The same words are used at the inception of Paul’s second missionary journey in Acts 15:40—“Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God”. This is precisely what the prophets and teachers were doing for Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13—they were commending them to the care of God.

The laying on of hands in Acts 13:3 also does not here represent a transfer of authority or an ordination. Rather, this is a gesture used by the Jews of the first century to demonstrate their desire for God to bless someone. John Gill writes:

This was a gesture and ceremony used among the Jews, when they wished any blessing or happiness to attend any persons; and so these prophets, when they separated Paul and Barnabas from their company, and were parting from them, put their hands on them, and wished them all prosperity and success …

Now when they had thus prayed for them, and wished them well, they sent them away; to do the work they were called unto; not in an authoritative way, but in a friendly manner they parted with them, and bid them farewell.

(Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Acts 13:3)

Fourth, the words “called” and “sent forth” in this passage, which do carry the notion of authority, are not ascribed to the church at Antioch, nor to the company of prophets and teachers, but rather to the Holy Spirit—“the work whereunto I have called them … they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost”.

Fifth, the fact that Paul and Barnabas later reported to the church at Antioch all that God had done in their journey does not mean that the church had originally authorized their work. In the very next chapter, Paul and Barnabas also give a report of the same missionary journey to the church at Jerusalem (15:4), but this is no ground to conclude that the church at Jerusalem had authorized it.

Finally, the very idea that Paul derived his authority to minister from a local congregation of believers is preposterous, as the New Testament makes it perfectly clear that Paul was personally sent to preach by Jesus Christ himself! When Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, he explicitly sent him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles:

Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. (Acts 26:17-18)

Over and over in his letters, Paul was insistent that his apostleship came immediately from Jesus Christ himself:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Galatians 1:1)

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; (1 Timothy 1:1)

The simple fact that Paul had already been personally sent by Jesus Christ to preach before the beginning of his first missionary journey in Acts 13 means that we cannot understand Paul as receiving authority to preach at that time from the church at Antioch. Again, Gill says:

This was not an ordination; the Apostle Paul particularly was not ordained an apostle by man, but by Jesus Christ; who personally appeared to him, and made and ordained him his minister and apostle; and much less by men inferior to himself, as Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen were …

(Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Acts 13:3)

In conclusion, a proper interpretation of Acts 13 furnishes no scriptural evidence to support the idea that Paul derived his authority to preach and baptize from the church at Antioch. On the contrary, Paul had already been sent to minister among the Gentiles by Jesus Christ himself, and he was called to his first missionary journey directly by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch, along with the whole congregation, joyfully participated in Paul’s mission through their prayers and support. It’s just inaccurate to say that they authorized or gave permission to Paul to carry out this work.

We originally asked the question, is there a pattern in the New Testament that baptisms are performed only by administrators who are specially authorized by local churches? Having reviewed every instance of baptism in the New Testament, and having completed special studies of Philip and Paul, we’re now ready to give an answer.

There is no such pattern.

It’s not that the pattern is merely weak or tenuous—it does not exist. There is not one baptism recorded in the New Testament that is ascribed to an administrator who was specially authorized to baptize by a local church.

Yes, we’ve found many instances where this might have been the case. But we haven’t found any where scripture affirms this to have been the case.

Yes, we have an idea that we can read into the text of scripture and does not contradict it. But that doesn’t make our idea a binding scriptural precedent.

We therefore conclude that there is no implicit scriptural command that baptism must be performed by an administrator who has been authorized by a local church.

In our next post, we will begin to consider the proposition that this is an explicit scriptural command that arises from the imperatives of the Great Commission.