John’s Baptism

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is a minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and has authored a number of books, including (among others) the following: Doctrine According to Godliness: A Primer on Reformed Doctrine (2004), The Coming of Zion’s Redeemer: Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (2015). He was also the joint author of Saved by Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism (1995) and its accompanying study guide (all of which can be purchased at http://www.cprc.co.uk and http://www.rfpa.org).

*          *          *          *          *          *

[Previous section: “The Baptism of Christ”]

Other favorite passages of immersionists are those which speak of John baptizing in the Jordan:

And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. (Mark 1:5)

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.  And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him (Mark 1:9-10)

Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. (Matt. 3:5-6)

              

It is simply assumed that this refers to the mode of John’s baptism, that is, that his baptizing them in the Jordan means that they were immersed in the Jordan River by John. But that assumption is false.  The word “in” can just as well refer to the place where John baptized, as is evident from Mark 1:4 which speaks of John baptizing in the desert, and John 3:23 which speaks of him baptizing in Aenon, an area near the Jordan River.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4)

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (John 3:23)

Comparing Mark 1:5 and 9 and Matthew 3:6 with the many other passages which use the word “in” with a place name will show that, when so used in Mark 1 and Matthew 3, “in” refers not to the mode of baptism, but to the place where John baptized, and can just as well be translated “at” or “near,” thus giving in English a truer sense of the word.  Mark 1:5 could just as well and better be translated “at the river of Jordan,” and Matthew 3:6 as “at the Jordan.”  That translation would at least make it clear that those passages say nothing at all about the mode of baptism.

There are, however, several other passages which we must examine in connection with John’s baptism.

John 1:19-28

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?  And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.  And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.  Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?  He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.  And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.  And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Let us remember here that John was a priest, the son of a priest (Luke 1:5ff), and would have been accustomed to performing baptisms.[1]  The fact that priests and Levites were sent by the Jewish leaders to question John on this point (John 1:19), and the fact that they asked about his baptism shows that John was indeed doing the work of a priest and doing it in the manner of the Old Testament priests: “And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?”

[1] 

These leaders knew from the Old Testament Scriptures:

                   

1. That Messiah would baptize:

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. (Isa. 52:15)

2. That on at least one occasion, Elijah had baptized when he poured 12 jars of water on his sacrifice at Carmel:

And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.  And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.  And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water. (I Kgs 18:33-35)

3. That Messiah would come “in the spirit and power of Elijah”:

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1:17)

4. That Messiah would be “the prophet” of whom Moses had spoken:

              

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.  And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.  I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deut. 18:15-19)

              

5. That Messiah would be the purifier of God’s people:

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.  And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.  For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.  Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.  Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. (Acts 3:19-26)

And, since John was not doing the ordinary work of priest in the temple, they thought that he, one who was performing priestly baptisms, was either the Messiah himself, or Elijah, or “that prophet.”

      

This is important.  It shows, first of all, that John’s baptism was not essentially different from the baptisms of the Old Testament.  If John’s baptism had been something completely different from the baptisms of the Old Testament, there would have been no reason for asking this question, nor for sending the priests and Levites to ask it.

      

The question of the priests and Levites also suggests, therefore, that John’s baptism was by sprinkling or pouring and not by immersion, since the “baptisms” of the Old Testament were ordinarily by sprinkling or pouring and not by immersion.  If John had baptized by immersion, the priests and Levites would not even have recognized what he was doing as the work of an Old Testament priest.  The argument is along these lines, therefore:

      

(a) John was performing baptisms, something which was the province of the priest in the Old Testament.

      

(b) John had the right to do this as a priest and the son of a priest.

      

(c) That he performed his baptisms away from the temple suggested that he might be either the Messiah or Elijah returned, or “that prophet” of whom the Scriptures testified.

      

(d) If he was none of these three, then the question had to be asked, “Why baptizest thou then?”

      

(e) But since the Jews did not question either his right to baptize or the manner of his baptism, the clear implication is (1) that his baptisms were recognized as of the same kind as those of the Old Testament; and (2) that he baptized by sprinkling, since that was the Old Testament manner.

              

John 3:23-28

              

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.  For John was not yet cast into prison.  Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.  And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.  John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.  Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

This passage closely parallels John 1:19-28, for it indicates that John’s baptizing raised questions among the Jews about “purifying.”  That word, “purifying,” can only refer to the ritual purifications of the Old Testament and the questions show that John’s baptizing was identified by the Jews with these ritual purifications.  In this case, they were not concerned about John’s authority, but about the fact that Jesus was performing what they considered to be the same kind of purifications and attracting more followers than John.  Nevertheless, the fact that they identified both John’s baptisms and Jesus’ with those ritual purifications, leads to the conclusion that those baptisms were performed in the same way as the purifications of the Old Testament.

       

That was part of the calling of a priest.  Every Old Testament washing, ritual purification, and sprinkling is referred to in Hebrews 9:10 as a baptism.  The KJV speaks of “diverse washings,” but the word translated “washings,” as we have already seen, is really the New Testament word “baptisms.”  According to the original Greek, therefore, all these “washings” were baptisms in the New Testament sense of that word.

      

These baptisms were an important and large part of the work of the priests and we will be looking at them more closely in another chapter.  But the point here is that John’s priestly office allowed him to be a “baptizer” but also meant that the baptisms he performed would have been performed as were the Old Testament baptisms, none of which were by any other mode than by sprinkling or pouring.

[Next section: “The Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch”]

==========

FOOTNOTES:

See the previous section, “The Baptism of Christ.”