The baptism of John

This is the fourth 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.

We’re still considering the immediate question, is baptism the act which joins a believer to a particular local church? In our last post, we critiqued two common arguments in favor of this view. We’ll now begin to consider the scriptural evidence that baptism does not inherently join a believer to any local church.

The earliest baptisms recorded in the New Testament were, of course, administered by John the Baptist. It was John who was sent by God to preach the gospel of the kingdom, baptize repentant believers, and ultimately introduce Jesus the Messiah to the nation of Israel.

Some paedobaptists and open communion Baptists have argued that John’s baptism was essentially different from the baptism administered by the disciples of Jesus. In this view, the baptism of John was merely preparatory and therefore cannot properly be considered full Christian baptism. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to reject this view.

A clear and convincing case for the continuity of the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ was made by John Gill. He writes:

John had a mission and commission from God, he was a man sent of God, and sent to baptize …

Now his baptism, and that of Christ and his apostles were the same. Christ was baptized by John, and his baptism was surely christian-baptism; of this no one can doubt …

And it is observable, that the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ and his apostles, were at the same time; they were contemporary, and did not one succeed the other: now it is not reasonable to suppose there should be two sorts of baptism administered at the same time; but one and the same by both.

The baptism of John, and that which was practised by the apostles of Christ even after his death and resurrection from the dead, agreed, -

1. In the subjects thereof …

2. In the way and manner of the administration of both …

3. In the form of their administration …

4. In the end and use of baptism …

Now since there is such an agreement between the baptism of John, as administered before the death of Christ; and between the baptism of the apostles, after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ; it is a plain case, it was not limited to the interval of time from the beginning of John’s ministry to the death of Christ; but was afterwards continued …

(Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Vol. 3, 1796, p. 290-291, https://books.google.com/books?id=HYtQAQAAMAAJ)

Indeed, the Gospel of John explicitly represents John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus baptizing simultaneously:

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (John 3:22-23)

There is, therefore, no essential difference between John’s baptism and that administered by Jesus’ disciples. This being the case, we can learn something further about the essential nature of baptism.

All four gospels make it clear that John the Baptist was already baptizing disciples prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ. The synoptic gospels place the inception of Jesus’ public ministry after the imprisonment of John (Matthew 4:12-17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 3:19-20ff). Likewise, the Gospel of John emphasizes that the baptism of Jesus was the necessary precursor to John the Baptist’s proclamation of him as the Messiah (John 1:29-34).

Although it is a fact often overlooked, it is vital to recognize that since John the Baptist was administering baptism before Jesus himself was baptized, John was necessarily baptizing before the existence of any local churches. There simply were no Christian congregations when John began to administer baptism.

Nevertheless, as we’ve established above, the baptisms administered by John even in the earliest period of his ministry were essentially one and the same with the baptisms administered later by the disciples of Jesus. That is, even the earliest baptisms of John were fully Christian baptisms, even though they did not result in local church membership.

The conclusion is therefore unavoidable that addition to the membership of a local church is not part of the essential nature of baptism. In other words, joining a believer to a particular local church is not an inherent function of baptism.

We might ask, when John baptized his first disciples, what local church were they baptized into? The question is an absurdity precisely because it is obvious that local churches did not at that time exist!

The only way to possibly evade the force of this line of reasoning would be to argue for some kind of essential disparity between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ. But as we have learned from Gill, the notion of two fundamentally different forms of water baptisms flies in the face of both scripture and reason.

In light of the foregoing, we believe it is simply undeniable that uniting a believer to a particular local church is not an inherent function of baptism.

Admittedly, this is in stark contradiction to what is taken for granted by most Baptists today. But should a scriptural truth be dismissed simply because it does not agree with the view held by the majority?