In Matthew 11:12 Jesus said, speaking of John’s ministry: "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force." Jesus compares entrance into the kingdom of heaven to a situation well known in that day - a city under siege. Like such a city where invaders try to force their way into it before it is fully surrendered, people were prematurely seeking to get into the kingdom, even before its official establishment after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Apparently God allowed them premature entrance "before the fact," as John baptized people telling them to believe on Him who was to come after him. Thus they were counted as "saved" before the general offering of salvation.

In the book of Hosea, chapter 4, verse 6, we read the following:

In the day when this verse was written, about 722 BC, the northern kingdom of Israel, to whom Hosea spoke, was on the verge of destruction by the Assyrian empire. God was not going to intervene to save them. Faithful prophet Hosea, speaking by inspiration of God, put his finger on their problem: Ignorance of the word of God.

About 120 years later the northern kingdom of Israel was gone – destroyed by the Assyrians. Now it was the southern kingdom that was on the verge of coming apart. It was about to be overrun by the Babylonians. Much like Hosea, in that desperate time, Isaiah wrote in chapter 5, verse 13:

"Therefore My people go into exile for their lack of knowledge…."

Christianity is a religion of instruction. Where there is no solid biblical teaching, the church cannot continue to exist. Where leaders in the church, no matter what their reasons, do not teach and preach the word of God, the church will die.

That is the reason we continue to preach and teach from the word of God here each week when we gather. It is why there is biblical content in our sermons and lessons. God forbid that we in this church should ever allow ourselves to drift away from the truths of this book, God’s word, the Bible!

In that spirit this morning we continue our look at the life and ministry of John the Baptist. John played a vital role in the history of Christianity and it is something we need to know about. We’ve looked so far at John’s background, his place in Old Testament prophecy, his appearance and conduct. We’ve looked at his early life and mission. We’ve considered his effectiveness and his preaching of the kingdom of God. Today I want to take a look at the nature of his baptism. I have a series of questions to ask and answer about the baptism of John in this message. Here is the first:

1. When Did John’s Baptism Begin?

The beginning of John’s baptism is synonymous with the beginning of his ministry. Baptism as practiced by John and Jesus was not a part of the Law of Moses. Luke tells us when John’s baptism began. In Luke 3:1-4 we read: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar… the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins…."

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives 26 or 27 AD as the 15^th year of Emperor Tiberius. It is quite reasonable to assume that John began his ministry when he reached the age of 30 and that Jesus, who was 6 months younger than John, probably began His ministry about 6 months later. John’s baptism then, began with his preaching.

2. What was the Purpose of John’s Baptism?

I love it when we can work directly from the clear statements of the Bible and on the subject of the purpose of John’s baptism, there can be no doubt. In Luke 3 we just read it: "And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins…."

The phrase, "for the forgiveness of sins" is identical to the phrase in Acts 2:38, written to Christians: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." John’s baptism, like Christian baptism today, was a baptism for remission of sins.

In addition to this clear statement of forgiveness of sins, Mark 1:2-4 tell us that John’s role was to "make ready the way of the Lord" and to "make His paths straight." His baptism of repentance cleansed the life from sin, reoriented the life toward God, and raised expectations of the coming of Christ.

3. What was the Mode of John’s Baptism?

That the mode of John’s baptism was immersion in water ought to be beyond dispute among careful students of the Bible. The meaning of the word "baptize," in the original language, according to Thayer’s Lexicon (and many others) is "to dip, to immerge, to submerge."(1)

From John 3:23 we learn that this was immersion in water. There we read, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there…" Matthew 3:11 verifies the same where John himself says, "…I baptize with water…."

In Mark 1:9-10 we find further verification that John’s baptism was immersion in water. There we read that Jesus was "baptized by John in the Jordan," and "immediately coming up out of the water," he saw the heavens open up and the Spirit, like a dove, ascended upon Jesus.

In scripture then, whether we’re referring to John’s baptism or Christian baptism, baptism always means immersion. To find other modes for baptism, you have to look beyond the Bible into teachings that have been added by men since the close of the New Testament writings.

4. What Belief did John’s Baptism Require?

According to Paul in Acts 19:4, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

So the faith required for John’s baptism was faith in the One who was yet to come. The person of this faith was realized when God spoke from heaven at Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3:17 and said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Interestingly, this faith was apparently what we might call "faith before the fact," that is, faith in the sacrifice of Jesus before it actually took place. I’ll say more on this a little later.

5. Did John’s Baptism Save?

Apparently it did in its time. We’ve already noted that it was for the forgiveness of sins, the very same phrase that Peter used on Pentecost in Acts 2:38 when he said, "Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins…." But there is an even clearer statement of salvation in the context of John’s teaching in Luke 1:76-77. Here John’s father, Zacharias, prophesied of his son’s future ministry: "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways; to give to His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins…."

It may come as a surprise to some of us that John’s baptism could be for salvation and the forgiveness of sins before Christ died, so we need to ask a related question:

6. How could John’s Baptism Save before Christ’s Sacrifice was Actually Made?

The writer of Hebrews makes it very clear that "where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it."(2) The New Covenant, which offered salvation through forgiveness of sins to the whole world, didn’t officially begin until after the death of Christ. Salvation, purchased by the blood of Christ, was first announced and universally offered on the day of Pentecost, fifty days after His death.(3) So how is it that forgiveness based on the sacrifice of Christ could extended before the sacrifice was made?

There is a parallel of forgiveness offered "before the fact" in the relationship between the Old and New covenants.

In Hebrews 9:15 we read, "And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

We don’t have time to expound on all of this verse, but note please, those words, "since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committee under the first covenant…." In the context of these words, specifically verse 14, the "death" referred to is the death of Christ.

When Jesus died to take away sins, He didn’t die just for people living under the New Covenant. He also died for the sins of those who lived before, under the first covenant. In essence, Christ’s death looked both forward to all those it would save under the New Covenant and backward though Old Covenant as well.

People living under the first covenant offered the blood of animals to atone for their sins. Yet Hebrew 10:3-4 says of those animal sacrifices, "But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Animal sacrifices never actually took away sin. (When you think about it, how could the life of an animal be an adequate substitute for the life of a human being?) All the animal sacrifices did was keep peace with God until the ultimate sacrifice could be made for sins through Christ. When that happened, it was applied to the sins of all those who, in faith, offered animal sacrifices under the first covenant.

Thus we have what is, in effect, a situation where forgiveness was offered to Old Covenant people "before the fact" of Christ’s death. What I’m saying here is that it looks to me like forgiveness could be offered though John’s baptism before the death of Christ in a similar fashion since he told people to "believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."(4)

While I'm sure it doesn't fully explain it, perhaps we might compare this "forgiveness before the fact" to a phenomenon in our day when a department store is having a big sale. The store opens at 9:00 AM but anxious early birds start showing up at 7:30. In honor of their eagerness, the manager comes out and gives them a token to guarantee that they will be able to enter and buy before the others just as soon as the store opens. They still have to wait until 9:00 but their position is gained and guaranteed before the actual opening.

There is also a passage of Scripture that hints at the "before the fact" salvation. In Matthew 11:12 Jesus said, speaking of John’s ministry: "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force." Jesus compares entrance into the kingdom of heaven to a situation well known in that day - a city under siege. Like such a city where invaders try to force their way into it before it is fully surrendered, people were prematurely seeking to get into the kingdom, even before its official establishment after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Apparently God allowed them premature entrance "before the fact," as John baptized people telling them to believe on Him who was to come after him. Thus they were counted as "saved" before the general offering of salvation.

7. How does John’s Baptism compare with Christian Baptism?

In at least four ways they were the same:

But they were also different:

So are these differences, especially the last one, sufficient to make Christian baptism critically different than John’s baptism? Apparently so as we shall see in considering our next question.

8. Why were the disciples of John re-baptized as described in Acts 19:1-5?

You may or may not be familiar with the passage, so let’s take a look at it. Here is Acts 19:1-5:

Paul actually re-baptized these people. A lot of people don’t know that the concept of re-baptism exists in Scripture. So what can we learn from this?

First, we note that these people had already been baptized. They had been immersed for the remission of sins in John's baptism.(9) But their understanding was lacking. They knew nothing of the Holy Spirit. And apparently they knew nothing of the coming of Jesus. Thus they were re-baptized. Apparently, re-baptism is an appropriate act in some circumstances.

Second, I think we can safely say that according to the Apostle Paul, a correct understanding of baptism is important. Just any old immersion is not sufficient. In Christian baptism there needs to be an adequate understanding. As in the case of Priscilla and Aquila’s correction of Apollos immediately before these verses in question, the "way of God" needs to be understood "accurately." In this case, the things missing from the understanding of these 12 disciples were that Jesus had come and that He had given His Spirit. Not even their sincerity in obedient submission to John’s baptism (which, as we have seen, was very close to Christian baptism) was sufficient. Paul re-baptized these disciples in the Name of Jesus.

Third, in Christian baptism, reception of the Holy Spirit is associated with the act. This should come as no surprise to us. Peter linked baptism with the reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38: "Repent and let each of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So if these things are true, what are those lacking who have never been baptized or have not understood the meaning of baptism? If our reasoning is accurate here, I think it is likely the case that such people are lacking the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, notice the connection between belief and baptism. Paul asks, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" When they seemed puzzled about his question, stating that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit, he asked about their baptism. There was no separation between belief and baptism in that day as we sometimes see around us today. Penitent believers were baptized immediately upon their profession of faith – both in the case of John’s baptism and the case of Christian baptism. They didn’t wait for weeks or months or even years. Read through the book of Acts and you will see the theme of immediate baptism repeated again and again.(10)

All of these things lead to a final vital question for us today:

9. Is Re-baptism Ever Appropriate Today?

It seems to me that it is. Just about everything that can be distorted about baptism has been distorted by men today - the mode, the purpose, the recipients, the necessity, the meaning. The subject has become a battlefield. In my experience talking to actual people, many have no idea why they were baptized or what it was supposed to mean. Others have ideas that don't even remotely match Scriptural teaching. Surely the many different versions of baptism practiced today cannot all be right. God is not the author of confusion. So when we find versions of baptism that do not square with the New Testament teaching, what shall we do? Ignore them? Shall we conclude that it is no big deal? Is any old baptism OK as long as the one baptized is sincere? Apparently Paul didn't think so.

"But," someone says, "I don’t think it is as big a deal as you are making it. I was sincere when I decide to follow Christ. Surely God will accept my baptism as long as I’m sincere." Maybe so. Maybe as long as you are sincere, it really doesn't matter what you do or believe. But may I remind you that this wasn’t the case with the twelve disciples of John in Acts 19? The inspired Apostle Paul baptized them again, even though the baptism of John was very close in meaning to Christian baptism. Apparently Paul believed that it does matter.

I don't own the bank of grace. Only God does. Nor am I the judge. If He chooses to offer grace to people who, for whatever reason, disregard His instructions, or mess them up, or misunderstand them, its fine with me. I'll be happy with that. I'm just a teller at the bank. My job is to say what the owner says. That's what I'm trying to do here. And it looks to me like the example we find here in Acts 19 indicates that we need to get it right. It looks like it does matter.

I encourage you to give careful consideration to these things. Study the Scriptures for yourself. If I may help you with further please let me know.

Footnotes: Use your back button to return to your place.

1. Thayer’s Abridged Lexicon.
2. Hebrews 9:16
3. Acts 2:38-40
4. Acts 19:4
5. Mark 1:4-5
6. See Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:39
7. John 1:33b
8. Acts 2:38; Romans 8:9
9.  Mark 1:4
10. One example is in Acts 16:33
11. 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience." How would baptism be such an appeal if the person believes he or she is already saved and thus already has a good conscience?

Dave Redick is Minister of the Hwy 20 Church of Christ in Sweet Home, Oregon and Editor of The Preacher's Study. He may be reached at pstudysupport@comcast.net.

Copyright © 1996-2008 by The Preacher's Study. Permission is granted to subscribers to use this document in total or in sermon preparation in the context of the local congregation only. Publishing it in a book, on the Internet, or anyplace beyond the local congregation is prohibited.

All Scripture quotations and references are from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise stated.

[Archive]    [Home]   [Comments]   [Search]