# Was John's Baptism Valid?



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 17, 2006)

Did those who were baptized by John have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?

Did those who were baptized by Jesus' disciples have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 17, 2006)

IF we say his baptism was not valid then were saying Jesus baptism was invalid. Im not gona say that.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 17, 2006)

Didn't John the Baptist baptize the Apostles? He had an authority and calling.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 17, 2006)

Must we not conclude then that their baptism's were the same in mode and application as the Church's baptisms today?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 17, 2006)

that depends on the church-the 'christian' church is so fragmented that baptism is done differently and is meant differently almost everywhere. 

blade


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Must we not conclude then that their baptism's were the same in mode and application as the Church's baptisms today?



John the Baptist did it right the first time by submersion, and then along came the unwashed Romanists and Presbyterians.



[Edited on 6-30-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Ivan (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



There you go!


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 18, 2006)

Acts 18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

It seems that from this passage that the outward sign was sufficient but his understanding was similar to that which the apostles had before Pentecost. Aquila and Priscilla had to get him caught up. 

I believe John's baptism was sufficient as a boundary marker to associate the receiver with the community of faith but obviously it didn't contain the full revelation of Christ's redeeming work which would come after the Spirit was poured into the disciples.

[Edited on 1-18-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Did those who were baptized by John have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?



Good question. I wonder what to do with this passage, for example:



> Acts 19
> 3 And he said to them, "œInto what then were you baptized?"
> So they said, "œInto John´s baptism."
> 4 Then Paul said, "œJohn indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
> 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.




It surely _sounds_ like they were baptized again.

But I know some people disagree.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 18, 2006)

I'm confused... It's amazing how one can read the text... and never dig into it. I confess to never contemplating this question before now. 

My natural inclination is to reflexively sense a paedo-baptist plot.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I'm confused... It's amazing how one can read the text... and never dig into it. I confess to never contemplating this question before now.
> 
> My natural inclination is to reflexively sense a paedo-baptist plot.



Actually, I would think that saying John's or Jesus' baptisms were "valid" would satisfy the Baptists who insist on using Jesus' 30 year old baptism as a defense for the Credo-only position. Even if "valid", I do not think so, but nevertheless, the common Paedo response to such is that Jesus was circumcised as an infant and John's baptism was for a different purpose than the baptism's of today. 

Anyway, I have no secret Paedo-plot in mind with this thread. It is a serious question and I would rather we refrain from Paedo/Credo-only debates.


----------



## cupotea (Jan 18, 2006)

I'm of the opnion that the notion of "validity" doesn't apply to John's baptism; that it would be more accurate to say that it was "incomplete." After all, it *was* only for dealing with confession of sins. And John himself noted that Jesus would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.

Hence John's baptism belongs in essence to the old covenant, yet points to the new, and is fulfilled with the gift of the Christ Himself and the gift of the Spirit.

Immersion is a wonderful symbol. I'd like to do it all the time. But it's not necessary.

Along the same lines, at least one early congregation used a sarcophogas for their baptisms. Imagine the power of that symbol! I once told members of my congregation that if we desire the fullness of the symbol, then instead of a baptismal font, or even a pool, we should have someone make us a water-proof casket and set it up in front of the church every time we wish to celebrate the sacrament. (The looks on their faces was priceless!)


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 18, 2006)

I think to do this question justice we would have to read and introduce the rabbinic writings and the understanding and influences that lead to John's baptism. The mikvah, or ceremonial washing is probably a good place to start. I don't have the time to write what I would like. So many thoughts, so little time.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> I think to do this question justice we would have to read and introduce the rabbinic writings and the understanding and influences that lead to John's baptism. The mikvah, or ceremonial washing is probably a good place to start. I don't have the time to write what I would like. So many thoughts, so little time.



I too think this is very important.

I found this section from James M. Chaney's book _William The Baptist_ very helpful in understanding why Jesus was required to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness":



> P.-- "May I ask you why John baptized, and what was the nature or object of his baptism?"
> 
> W.--" John baptized because God sent him to baptize, as John himself tells us. As to the object of his baptism, he said, 'I baptize you with water unto repentance.' "
> 
> ...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 18, 2006)

Why was Jesus Baptized at age 30?

Even though John baptized Jesus, we really cannot say that Christ received "John's baptism". Let me explain:

* John's baptism was for sinners (Matthew 3:1-6) --- but Jesus was not a sinner. 
* John's baptism was unto repentance (Matthew 3:11) --- but Jesus did not need to repent. 
* John baptized to prepare the way for the Lord (Luke 1:17) --- but Jesus didn't need to prepare to receive himself. 

In fact, John himself felt that it was improper for him to baptize Jesus (Matthew 3:14). How did Jesus change John's mind? Why did Jesus need to be baptized?

Jesus simply told John that "it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). And we know from Deuteronomy 6:25 that righteousness has to do with obedience to the law. So Jesus was submitting to baptism in order to fulfill Old Testament law. Jesus had already submitted to the Old Testament law of circumcision (Leviticus 12:3, Luke 2:21), he went to the temple (Leviticus 12:2-8 and Luke 2:22-23), partook of the the Passover (Exodus 34:23, Luke 2:41), and observed the Jewish feasts (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:3, John 17:10). But what Old Testament law had to do with baptism?

Christ's baptism was the ceremonial act of His ordination to the high priesthood. Jesus Christ was (and is) a priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14, 5:5; 9:11). And according to Exodus 29:4, priests had to be washed with water as a part of their ordination.

Before any man could become a priest, three things were required:

* He must be 30 years old (Numbers 4:3,47). --- This is why Christ's age at His baptism is given as 30 years (Luke 3:23). 
* He must be called of God as was Aaron, the first high priest (Exodus 28:1). --- Christ was called (Hebrews 5:4-10). 
* He must be washed with water (Exodus 29:4; Leviticus 8:6) by one already a priest. --- John the baptist was a priest, inheriting the office from his father (Exodus 29:9; Numbers 25:13; Luke 1:4,13). Christ knew His call, waited until He was 30 years old and then came to John "to fulfill all righteousness," that is, to meet the last demand of the Old Testament Law for a priest before He began His public ministry.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 18, 2006)

Joseph, did you read my post?

What you said is indeed good stuff and is more detailed than my pericope, but a reiteration of the point nonetheless.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 18, 2006)

Forgive the length, but I found this in my various theological papers folder:

I have no idea where it came from.



> John's baptism is frequently omitted in discussions of Christian baptism, but this should not be the case, since John the Baptist is a pivotal figure in the overlap between the old and new covenants. It is important to remember, in this regard, that circumcision is not only a sign of blessing, but also "a sign of Christ's redemptive judgment with its benedictions and maledictions alike." If true, this means that we must expand any discussion of baptism to also include the idea that baptism also is a sign of blessing and of curse. At this point, Kline asks the rhetorical question, "must we enlarge our theology of baptism so as to see it in a more comprehensive symbol of the eschatological judgment that consummates in the covenant of which baptism is the sign?" [Kline, BOC, 50].
> 
> The answer, says Dr. Kline, is yes.
> 
> ...


----------



## non dignus (Jan 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Did those who were baptized by John have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?
> 
> Did those who were baptized by Jesus' disciples have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?



No, and no.

_"There is one faith, one baptism..."_ Rebaptising makes a mockery of a previous legitimate baptism. To rebaptise is to say John's baptism was not legitimate. 

Jesus was not sanctified by water. His baptism sanctified all water for baptism.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Joseph, did you read my post?
> 
> What you said is indeed good stuff and is more detailed than my pericope, but a reiteration of the point nonetheless.



 Yes, and your post was good.


I just thought some people might like the extra detail.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 22, 2006)

Mark,

Thanks for that long post on Kline's analysis of baptism. Wow.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 22, 2006)

Original questions:


> Did those who were baptized by John have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?
> 
> Did those who were baptized by Jesus' disciples have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?


1) I would say there is no such thing as a "re-baptism"; either you are or you aren't baptized with Christian baptism.

2) Because of continuity/discontinuity issues, I say that John's baptism (and all other OT baptisms) prefigure NT baptism, but is not synonymous with it.

3) As in Kline's/whomever's analysis, John's and Jesus' disciples' baptism (early ministry, before the resurrection) is essentially the same.

4) Everyone brought into the NT church undergoes NT baptism, beginning at Pentecost. The previous (OT) baptism by John, although transitional, is not NT, Trinitarian baptism. It is hasty, I think, to conclude that because Acts 2 mentions all the foreigners in Jerusalem, that only foreigners were among those baptized Trinitatianly by the apostles on Pentecost. The text does not distinguish among them (Peter says "_you_ crucified him"), and these were for the most part observant Jews (including converts) from among the nations. Therefore, the Johannine disciples in Ephesus are properly baptized under NT auspices. Remember: it is Jesus who baptizes his people, mediated through his representatives/ministers, but HE is doing it.

5) Who baptizes the apostles then? Jesus equips his disciples fully for their mission. This fact is axiomatic. Therefore, if my analysis is correct--and maybe it isn't--but if it is, then either:
a) They were exempted from NT baptism; or
b) John's baptism sufficed for them only; or
c) They reciprocally baptized one another just before or along with the rest of those at Pentecost; or
d) Jesus baptized them himself, either in an textually explicit but parabolic manner such as in his washing their feet? or when "he breathed on them...'Receive ye the Holy Ghost'"?; or simply by by implication--i.e he _must_ have done so, but the circumstances are not revealed.

Choice 'a' appeals least to me--exemption? after all, they receive the actual Spirit baptism, so why not the sign?
'b' seems to dodge the question by making an exception.
'c' removes many difficulties, but raises other questions for me. For example, why would they wait to obey Jesus? And, did they 'figure out' a procedure at the last minute, and an order?
'd', in some form, appeals most to me.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Why was Jesus Baptized at age 30?
> 
> Even though John baptized Jesus, we really cannot say that Christ received "John's baptism". Let me explain:
> ...



Good reasoning"¦ but I respectfully disagree. 
I object to your notion that Jesus was baptized in fulfillment of OT priestly regulations, thus allowing him to function as a priest. The reason is because, as Hebrews 7 tells us, Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, while the OT law restricts the priesthood to those from the tribe of Levi. Thus, Jesus was fundamentally disqualified from serving as a priest according to the Levitical system"¦ so why do you suppose he would have bothered to fulfill Levitical ordination requirements, when he was disqualified from service at the outset _because he was no Levite?_ The crux of the argument in Hebrews 7 is that Jesus does NOT serve according to the Levitical priesthood, but according to the order of Melchizedek, which is superior to the priesthood of the Levites.
Therefore, I do not believe that Jesus' baptism and reference to "fulfilling all righteousness" in any way refers to him fulfilling priestly ordination requirements of the OT Levitical code.
You are right in noting that Jesus did not need to repent or prepare to receive himself. Have you considered that perhaps Jesus was here acting as our representative just as in the rest of his life?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 22, 2006)

In contrast, I think Joseph's observations (which certainly aren't original with him) on the subject of "priesthood" do have merit.

Ben and Joseph are approaching the Mosaic data from two different angles. Ben's argument is that the data is exclusively Levitical, therefore inapplicable to Jesus. Joseph's argument is that the Mosaic data is more fundamental than the Levites. He is arguing that certain aspects of any legitimate priesthood form a "background" to the specific Levitical application found in the text. For example, that any legitimate priest must be "clean" (or cleansed) ceremonialy; and that some methodological analogies should be expected on the principle of continuity, i.e. water-sprinkling.

This notion is in no wise far-fetched. In fact, such connections form the basis for much of the Melchizedek-Aaronic comparison/contrast in the book of Hebrews. In other words, natural questions to ask when Jesus is declared to be a "priest" would include:
1) What sort of "legitimate order" is he if he isn't a descendent of Aaron? (answered directly in Hebrews)
2) What sort of sacrifice did he bring? (answered)
3) Shouldn't a priest be "clean" to perform his duties? How was Jesus ceremonially cleansed?
4) How mature should a "real" priest be?
The last two are simply further points that, if Levitical rites were instituted according to a divine "norm", then we aren't surprised to find additional points of correlation. They suggest (though not infallibly) the content of the divine "norm".


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 22, 2006)

I was less confused before the discussion began.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 22, 2006)

Then here's another example:
The WCF teaches the the Sabbath is both a "moral" and "positive" commandment. If you take the position that the Sabbath ordinance (4th commandment) is to be taken at its literal sense, and that alone, then you should either repudiate it as ceremonial or adopt the 7th Day Adventist stance.

The WCF asserts that the command is moral at a more fundamental level than the basic text of the 4th commandment, and that the 4th commandment represents the specific _positive_ direction unto the Old Covenant nation Israel. We further state that God may change the positive prescription if he desires, and in fact _has_ changed it to the 1st Day (Lord's Day) celebration.

The connection is as follows: the Levitical rites are positive. Behind them is something more fundamental, of which the Levitical, and earlier Melchizedek's, and later the Messiah's, priesthoods are all prescriptions. We may wish to be less dogmatic about such a connection as Jesus specific age being given to us, in the context of his baptism, _just happening to be_ the same as the priestly age prescribed for the Levites, but on the other hand, should it be discounted without consideration or appreciation?

Matthew draws some pretty amazing parallels between Jesus' life and the National History. If God hadn't inspired him, we might think it was a bit of a stretch, yes? But He did inspire, and that encourages us to search for other OT analogues to Jesus' life and ministry.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> We may wish to be less dogmatic about such a connection as Jesus specific age being given to us, in the context of his baptism, _just happening to be_ the same as the priestly age prescribed for the Levites, but on the other hand, should it be discounted without consideration or appreciation?



Levitical rules apply to Levitical priests. No one else. 
Jesus' age has nothing to do with "the priestly age" of the Levites. Why? Read that passage posited by Joseph (Numbers 4:3,47) it simply recounts a specific situation. What were the actual prescribed priestly ages? 


> Numbers 8:23 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 24 "This applies to the Levites: from *twenty-five years old * and upward they shall come to do duty in the service of the tent of meeting. 25 And from the age of fifty years they shall withdraw from the duty of the service and serve no more. 26 They minister to their brothers in the tent of meeting by keeping guard, but they shall do no service. Thus shall you do to the Levites in assigning their duties."



According to this passage, Jesus could have started his priestly service 5 years prior... The bottom line is that we can draw all the allusions in the world, because we are creative beings, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything. You have verses that seem to make an "eerie" correlation between what Jesus did and what the OT priests had to do... I have a verse that shows Jesus could not have served according to that pattern. 
Anyway, I think you should look to the federal aspect of Christ's ministry to ascertain why he was baptized. One thing is for sure: This isn't worth splitting a church over.

[Edited on 1-23-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2006)

I agree the issue isn't worth a big fight.

I said that the observation had merit, not that I thought it was the most significant thing about Jesus' baptism. As for a divine norm behind the administration (which was the main thing I was saying) that is exactly what is implied in Heb 5:1, 5; 7:21; 8:3.

Beside the federal or priestly connections noted above, here's another consideration: Jesus is the Annointed One (Messiah/Christ). When was he annointed to his office? At his baptism. His prophetic and kingly roles are also in the mix.

I'm just saying that there are benefits to considering additional implications of the baptism of Jesus. Such investigation has an honorable pedigree, and needn't be relegated to the swamp of "speculative" theology.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 24, 2006)

Either way, it was part of Christ's active obedience and I praise God for it, knowing that it is counted to my account!


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 24, 2006)

confused


----------



## Kevin (Jun 30, 2006)

"was Johns baptism valid?"

Yes.

Valid as a OT baptism of (or for) repentance. Just as valid as any other of the "many baptisms" found in the old cov. i.e. as valid as the baptisms the lepers healed by Christ recieved from the priests that readmitted them to covenant fellowship.

Was it a "christian baptism"? 

No.

It was not trinitarian. It was one of many baptisms that were replaced/fulfilled by the work of Christ. Paul did not consider it a "christian Baptism" (acts 19).

Ryan, don't feel bad I was confused too when I was still a baptist by all the references in the OT to baptism. As hard as I tried I could not make them fit within my system.


----------



## sola_gratia (Jun 30, 2006)

Jesus wouldn't have necessarily been immersed...I mean he may have been, but he had to fulfill all the law. If he was ordained for his ministry wouldn't be have been sprinkled as well?


----------



## Kevin (Jun 30, 2006)

Levi, I think the record of scripture is very clear on this point Christ most certainly was NOT immersed.

This was, as you said his "ordination" into his priestly ministry. As such it had to follow the Mosaic rules to the letter ie by a priest, and by sprinkling.

BTW this is only one of three priestly baptisms Christ underwent. The others were by oil (the spirt) & by blood (the cross).


----------



## sola_gratia (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Levi, I think the record of scripture is very clear on this point Christ most certainly was NOT immersed.
> 
> This was, as you said his "ordination" into his priestly ministry. As such it had to follow the Mosaic rules to the letter ie by a priest, and by sprinkling.
> ...



That is what I thought, but I wasn't sure. The baptists were confusing me. But I was always told he wasn't immersed. thanks.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 30, 2006)

Still confused six months later.


----------

