A Bible History of Baptism

by Samuel J. Baird

But two of the evangelists, Matthew and Mark, mention baptism in connection with the last instructions of Jesus; and of these, Mark introduces it in an incidental way, as though it had been a matter already understood. (Matt, xxviii, 19, 20; Mark xvi, 15, 16.) The reason was that the apostles were not then first commissioned to baptize. On this point, Calvin speaking with reference to the arguments of the Anabaptists says, “It is a mistake worse than childish to consider that commission as the original institution of baptism,—which Christ had commanded his apostles to administer, from the commencement of his preaching. They have no reason to contend, therefore, that the law and rule of baptism ought to be derived from those two passages, as if they contained the first institution of it.”[^[118]] Upon this, Dr. Dale says,—“Calvin is right in dating Christian ritual baptism from the ministry and authority of Christ, and not from that of John, even if they were entirely identical, which they are not. The baptism of John is Christian baptism, as far as it goes; but it is Christian baptism undeveloped in the blood shedding of an atoning Redeemer, in which shedding of blood, ‘for the remission of sins,’ ritual baptism has its exclusive ground.” Again, speaking of the words of Peter, on the day of Pentecost,—“Repent and be baptized,”—he asks,—“What was this baptism? Was it a Jewish baptism, a ceremonial cleansing of the body, merely? Was it John’s baptism, a spiritual baptism (baptisma metanoias) in which no Holy Ghost was yet ‘poured out,’ no crucified Redeemer was yet revealed? Was it Christian baptism, the baptism of Christ, the crucified, the Risen, the Ascended, the Pourer out of the Holy Ghost?”[^[119]] In these passages we have a statement of differentia upon which the lamented author insists earnestly, as distinguishing the baptisms named, from each other. As to the Jewish baptisms,—those which were appointed by the divine law, they were, as we have seen, spiritual in the same sense precisely as were the baptisms of John and of Christ; and the latter were and are “a ceremonial cleansing of the body, merely,” in the same sense as were the baptisms of the Jews. To this day, “the letter,” or outward form of Christian baptism is a ceremonial cleansing of those who are ritually unclean. No otherwise could it show forth “the spirit” of the ordinance, which is the real purging, by the Spirit, of those who are spiritually defiled. From the beginning to the present day, the ritual baptisms always signified the very same spiritual truths. And they were all alike devoid of any spiritual power in themselves.

But let us trace the line of connection between them. Very early in the ministry of Jesus, before the imprisonment of John, while the latter was baptizing in Enon, “Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them and baptized.” But “when the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.”—John iii, 22; iv, 1-3. Here, be it observed, (1.) that John was the intelligent, faithful and inspired forerunner and herald of the Lord Jesus. The gospel which he preached was that which the Spirit of Christ gave him, and the baptism which he administered set forth that gospel in ritual figure. His preaching was summed in one word. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (2.) The Lord Jesus preached the very same word, and gave it to the apostles and the seventy to proclaim, when he sent them abroad through the land. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (3.) There is not an intimation in the Scriptures, nor suggestion to justify the idea, of the least difference in the form and nature of the baptisms at this stage of the history, administered by them respectively. Certainly if there were differences, they must have been characterized by a minuteness and subtlety, fit rather to exercise the ingenuity of hair-splitting schoolmen, than to instruct the common people of Judea; who, upon the supposition of diversity, were called to choose between the rival baptisms. John’s baptism was at first into the name of “the coming One,” “the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Of that baptism his was proclaimed to be a symbol. When Jesus came, John at once identified him as the coming One, and thenceforth his baptism was into the name of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not mean that John made use of those phrases. To this point we shall come presently. But “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.”—Acts xix, 4. The rite which he dispensed sealed upon the recipients their profession of repentance and faith in Jesus, the Son of God, the atoning Lamb, the King Baptizer. In a report of one of his discourses, which occupies seven verses of the gospel of John, each of these titles and the things implied in them is brought out with perfect distinctness. (John i, 29-36.) That John was ignorant of the precise form of crucifixion, as that in which atonement was to be made, is possible; although even there the facts do not warrant the confidence of Dr. Dale’s assertions. But that he was not ignorant of Christ’s atoning office, his own words distinctly testify. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”—John i, 29. (4.) The whole manner of the narrative from which we learn the fact that Christ’s disciples baptized, indicates the identity of the ordinance as administered by them with that of John. The fact is not mentioned for its own sake, but as introductory and explanatory of the testimony of John respecting Jesus. (John iii, 22-30.) In fact, we have no information whatever of the nature and meaning of Christ’s baptism, as thus originated, except in its justly assumed identity with that of John. This, the language of John’s interlocutors implies (Ib. 26), and upon the basis of this assumption the whole narrative rests. This remark applies also to the subsequent statement,—that “the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John; though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.”—John iv, 1, 2. Here the one word, “baptized,” without qualification or differentiating phrase, is applied to both Christ’s disciples and John, and plainly identifies the rite administered by them as one and the same. That such was the case can not be successfully questioned.

And now, what have we, in the ordinance thus dispensed by the disciples under the eye, and as a seal to the preaching, of Christ, but Christian baptism? True, the disciples were ignorant at that time, of the doctrine of the cross, which in fact they refused to believe, till their Master was crucified before their eyes. But while the baptism was administered by their hands, it was in Christ’s immediate presence, by his authority, and as a seal to the gospel which he preached. How then could their ignorance and hardness, or that of John, if he be so impeached, change the nature of the rite which by Christ’s authority they both administered? And, especially, how could this be, when in fact that baptism, while it presupposed Christ’s atoning sufferings, yet had no immediate relation to them, but to his kingdom and glory,—the theme of John’s preaching,—the one thing in Christ’s instructions which the apostles gladly received?

To what extent this baptizing function of the apostles continued in exercise during the subsequent ministry of Christ, we are not informed. But, the manner in which, first and last, the subject is treated by the evangelists implies that it never was in abeyance. Hence, in his final interviews with them, Jesus does not speak of the ordinance as a novelty, nor as a rite to be reintroduced; but alludes to it as to a familiar subject. In fact, his only recorded references to it, have in view, not the ordinance, in itself considered, but its bestowal on the Gentiles. “Go ye, disciple all nations, baptizing them.”—Matt. xxviii, 19. “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.”—Mark xvi, 15, 16. By this decree, the ordinance, which, as we have seen, was already divested of its sacrificial elements, was released from its peculiar and restricted relation to the Jewish people. Heretofore, only the circumcised could be admitted to baptism; and the rite, when administered to them, was received as a certificate of title to the privileges of the covenant, in connection with the Mosaic ritual and the temple service. But, by this decree of Christ, it was appropriated to the use of the Gentiles, also; as certifying to them a part in the same covenant, relieved of the encumbrance of the ritual law. That its administration to the converts of Christ’s ministry is not mentioned, presents no just occasion of surprise, in view of the familiarity of the ordinance and the emphasis already given to it in connection with John’s ministry. That Christ’s disciples baptized at all is only known to us by the incidental mention in the last of the evangelists.

The facts here developed are of immense importance in their bearing upon our present inquiry. The Lord Jesus did not institute baptism, at any time. He recognized it as an ordinance of God given to Israel ages before,—accepted it personally from the hands of John,—immediately appointed his disciples to administer it to the Jews in conjunction with John, and then, after his resurrection and assumption of the sceptre, commanded them to dispense it to the Gentiles also.—“All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them.”

The rebaptism of the twelve disciples of John, by Paul at Ephesus (Acts xix, 1-7), may be thought inconsistent with the assertion of the identity of the baptisms of John and of the Christian church. But when the facts are considered in their true relations, they will appear in perfect harmony with all that have been heretofore adduced, and entirely consistent with the conclusions thence derived. John was the herald of Christ. His preaching and baptism had neither significance nor value, except as they directed the attention and faith of his disciples to the coming of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which He should administer. To the great mass of those who received his baptism, no profit resulted, because it was not followed up by a waiting for Christ’s coming, and a devotion to him when he was revealed. It effected no actual separation of such disciples from the unbelieving mass of the nation. When, therefore, the crisis came and the Saviour was crucified, they sustained no relation of identity with him and his cause; but were an undistinguishable part of the nation, whose rulers betrayed and crucified Him. The baptism which they had received was no magical rite, leaving an indelible impress on the recipients; but a rational ordinance, designed to mark and seal a separation and consecration unto Christ. Precisely here, was the point of Paul’s testimony to these men.—“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.” Where this intent of John’s baptism did not follow,—where no separation unto Christ was actually effected, the parties remained unclean, with the unclean nation. In them was fulfilled the proverb of the son of Sirach.—“He that is baptized from the dead, and again toucheth the dead, what availeth his washing?”—Ecclus. xxxi, 30. Such was the case with any of the converts of Pentecost, who had been John’s disciples. And such evidently were the Ephesian disciples. They were believers in the Messiah of prophecy, as heralded by John. But their faith was weak and supineness prevalent. They had not followed up the line of John’s testimony, with the zeal of a living consecration. The baptism which they had received had effected no separation unto Christ. When, therefore, under the ministry of Paul, they were prepared to begin a new life, their consecration was sealed by a new administration of the same baptism.[^[120]]

That this is a just view of the case in question farther appears from the manner in which it is presented in immediate connection and contrast with that of Apollos, whose story closes the eighteenth chapter of the Acts, as that of the twelve opens the nineteenth. Of him it is stated that he was “an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue; whom, when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”—Acts xviii, 24-26. The silence, here, on the subject of baptism, and the emphasis given to its statement immediately after, in the case of the twelve, is pregnant. For, all occurred in the same city of Ephesus, where Apollos was instructed and preaching just before Paul’s coming, and the baptism of the twelve.

Note.—How can we consistently restore excommunicated persons without rebaptism? Is not the prevalent practice a relic of the opus operatum heresy? “If any one assert that in the three sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and orders, there is not a mark imprinted on the soul,—that is a certain spiritual and indelible token, whence, it may not be repeated,—let him be anathema.”—Council of Trent, Sess. vii. Canon 9. Is this the faith which we hold?

Section XC.—“Baptizing them into the Name.”

“And Jesus came and spake unto them and said, All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and (mathēteusate) disciple all nations, baptizing them (eis) into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever[whatsoever] I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.”—Matt. xxviii, 18-20.