This was a thought-provoking article. John's baptism is described in Scripture as a baptism of repentance. Is this also how baptism should be described today? Today we speak of baptism as being a way to show our faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. I don't think this can be said for either the baptisms performed by John or those performed by Jesus and His disciples. I do not mean by this that these baptisms were invalid, but just that they did not carry all the meaning that baptism after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ now carries.
The fact that John's baptism was valid does not necessarily mean that it had the same meaning and significance as baptism after the resurrection of Christ.
Thanks for sharing this article! I look forward to reading the next one.
Do you plan to deal with the rebaptism of the disciples of John in Acts 19?
You're right that John's baptism is characterized as "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). But I don't think we have to understand this as unique to John's era. Matthew represents John and Jesus preaching the same essential message--"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matthew 3:2, 4:17). This message is also referred to as "the gospel of the kingdom" (Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:14). Baptism was simply an integral part of this gospel message.
So in Acts, we find the same "gospel of the kingdom" continuing to be preached (Acts 8:12, 14:22, 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, 28:31), although it has been filled with a great deal more significance following the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Of course, everywhere this gospel is preached, repentant believers are commanded to be baptized. We also find Peter explicitly connecting baptism with repentance and remission of sins in his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:38).
I do think it is important for us to recognize the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ as having the same essential meaning. Nevertheless, it's equally clear that there was a great deal that was implicit in John's baptism that was revealed and became explicit after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension.
As for Acts 19, Gill follows Calvin in understanding v. 5 to be part of Paul’s speech, so that no one was really immersed again in this passage. So that’s one solution.
Nevertheless, I lean toward rejecting this explanation. It seems to me that these disciples were baptized on the occasion of this meeting with Paul.
But either way, we don’t have to understand this passage as implying the inferiority of John’s baptism. The disciples here say they are baptized with John’s baptism, and yet they have never even heard of the Holy Spirit. This is very strange, as the Holy Spirit was a major feature of John’s message. Evidently there was a serious defect in the gospel message they had received. To me, this would explain a “rebaptism”.
In any case, it’s a challenging pericope for sure. That’s why I would look elsewhere in the scriptures for definitive evidence on the nature of John’s baptism.
Thanks for your reply. I like how you point out that what was implicit in John's baptism became explicit in the baptisms performed after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
I also appreciate your reply concerning Acts 19. It is indeed challenging.
This was a thought-provoking article. John's baptism is described in Scripture as a baptism of repentance. Is this also how baptism should be described today? Today we speak of baptism as being a way to show our faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. I don't think this can be said for either the baptisms performed by John or those performed by Jesus and His disciples. I do not mean by this that these baptisms were invalid, but just that they did not carry all the meaning that baptism after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ now carries.
The fact that John's baptism was valid does not necessarily mean that it had the same meaning and significance as baptism after the resurrection of Christ.
Thanks for sharing this article! I look forward to reading the next one.
Do you plan to deal with the rebaptism of the disciples of John in Acts 19?
Good thoughts, brother!
You're right that John's baptism is characterized as "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). But I don't think we have to understand this as unique to John's era. Matthew represents John and Jesus preaching the same essential message--"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matthew 3:2, 4:17). This message is also referred to as "the gospel of the kingdom" (Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:14). Baptism was simply an integral part of this gospel message.
So in Acts, we find the same "gospel of the kingdom" continuing to be preached (Acts 8:12, 14:22, 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, 28:31), although it has been filled with a great deal more significance following the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Of course, everywhere this gospel is preached, repentant believers are commanded to be baptized. We also find Peter explicitly connecting baptism with repentance and remission of sins in his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:38).
I do think it is important for us to recognize the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ as having the same essential meaning. Nevertheless, it's equally clear that there was a great deal that was implicit in John's baptism that was revealed and became explicit after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension.
As for Acts 19, Gill follows Calvin in understanding v. 5 to be part of Paul’s speech, so that no one was really immersed again in this passage. So that’s one solution.
Nevertheless, I lean toward rejecting this explanation. It seems to me that these disciples were baptized on the occasion of this meeting with Paul.
But either way, we don’t have to understand this passage as implying the inferiority of John’s baptism. The disciples here say they are baptized with John’s baptism, and yet they have never even heard of the Holy Spirit. This is very strange, as the Holy Spirit was a major feature of John’s message. Evidently there was a serious defect in the gospel message they had received. To me, this would explain a “rebaptism”.
In any case, it’s a challenging pericope for sure. That’s why I would look elsewhere in the scriptures for definitive evidence on the nature of John’s baptism.
Thanks for your reply. I like how you point out that what was implicit in John's baptism became explicit in the baptisms performed after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
I also appreciate your reply concerning Acts 19. It is indeed challenging.
God bless you, my brother!