Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

The United Free Church of Scotland General Assembly 2001 Panel on Doctrine Report on Baptism, chapter 3.

This page is a copy of the text of www.ufcos.org.uk/ga01/panel03.htm

The origins of water baptism

First half of this chapter: OT, Qumran & Proselyte Baptism

The baptism administered by John

It has been seen already that attempts to locate the origin of Christian baptism in Jewish ritual washings, including those of Qumran, are fraught with difficulty. Clearly the use of water is common to all but, that apart, the parallels are not clear. By contrast parallels between Christian baptism and John's baptism are easily discerned. John's water ritual is more properly described as a baptism than a bath or a washing, it was administered to a candidate (not self-administered), and it was administered to a candidate once and not often.

Attempts to locate the origin of Christian baptism in Jewish proselyte baptism are also fraught with difficulty, though for a different reason. It is possible to argue that Christian baptism influenced proselyte baptism rather than the other way round. In the case of John the Baptist that is simply not possible. History and the chronological sequence are clear. John's baptism preceded Christian baptism.

In view of the clear links between John's baptism and Christian baptism it is important to undertake a more careful exploration of the meaning and significance of baptism as we find it in John, to consider how his approach relates to the baptism instituted by Jesus, and to consider any light that the one throws on the other.

Baptism and repentance

According to the synoptic gospels the baptism administered by John was integrally bound up with repentance. Mark relates how John came baptising in the desert region preaching "a baptism of repentance" (1.4; see also Luke 3.3). Matthew has a slightly different phrase when he records John's actual words, "I baptise you with water for repentance" (3.11).

There is general agreement that the concept to the fore in the New Testament understanding of repentance is that of a radical turn around, involving a turning from and a turning to. It involves a moral change, from evil to righteousness. Primarily it has to do with a change in a person's relationship with God. The change of life stems from the change of relationship. To repent is to turn to God. "The call to repentance on the part of man is a call for him to return to his creaturely ... dependence on God … (it is) a complete alteration of the basic motivation and direction of one's life"

The Westminster Confession of Faith says of repentance: "By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, sogrieves for and hates his sins as to turn from them all unto God, purposingand endeavouring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments." (XV,II)

A baptism 'of' and 'for' repentance

Whereas Mark gives us his own description of John's baptism, i.e. "a baptism of repentance" (1.4), Matthew gives us John's own words, i.e. "I baptise you … for repentance" (Matt 3.11). While some writers have made great play of the difference between Mark and Matthew, arguing for example that Matthew has paraphrased Mark, this hardly seems necessary. It is sufficient to note that there is a difference, that Mark is making a personal comment whereas Matthew is recording the words spoken, and that both a baptism 'of' and a baptism 'for' are appropriate. It is also possible that there is no significant difference in meaning at all. C F D Moule gives a cautionary warning, "it is now becoming more and more clearly recognised that it is a mistake to build exegetical conclusions on the notion that Classical accuracy in the use of prepositions was maintained in the koine period" and argues for a "fluidity of usage" [An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge UP 1959, p49]. If there are nuances of meaning we may consider the following.

A baptism of repentance

The simplest way of understanding Mark's genitive ('of repentance'; metanoias) is that it describes the nature of the baptism. It is a baptism that belongs to repentance. In which case the idea of baptism as a sign of repentance would fit very well. The full description which Mark (1.4) and Luke (3.3) give of John's baptism is "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" – not an easy phrase to decipher precisely. Barclay's paraphrase is helpful: "a baptism which was the sign of a repentance through which a man might find the forgiveness of sins" [The Gospel of Mark, The Saint Andrew Press 1955, p1]. Leon Morris comments, "This means a baptism which follows repentance and is a sign of it" [Luke, IVP 1974, p 95].

A baptism for repentance

The preposition 'for' in Matthew's Gospel translates a word (eis) which generally means 'into' – either literally or metaphorically. In which case it is a baptism into repentance. The suggestion here may be that it is a baptism which takes or leads us into repentance. Hence Barclay translates: "I baptise you with water to make you repent" [The New Testament: Volume 1 (a new translation), Collins 1968, p 58]. Hendriksen has a better turn of phrase when he renders it, "I baptise you … with a view to conversion (repentance)" [Matthew, Banner of Truth 1974, p 207]. Other possibilities, depending on one's exegesis of the difficult phrase 'for repentance' (eis metanoian) are: (a) 'I baptise you in order that you will repent' (eis plus accusative suggesting purpose, here in context unlikely); (b) 'I baptise you with a view to continued repentance' (the telic sense suggested by Broadus), (c) 'I baptise you because of your repentance' (causal eis, or something close to it, Turner). [Syntax, Vol 3 of J H Moulton,Grammar of New Testament Greek, T & T Clark 1963, pp 266-267; referred to in D A Carson's, The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 8 Matthew-Luke, (Ed.FE Gaebelein), Zondervan 1984, p 104]. It is well to remember that John's purpose in speaking these words is to contrast his baptism with that of the one who was to come after him.

All this raises a fundamental question, not without significance for our understanding of Christian baptism. Does repentance lead to baptism, or does baptism lead to repentance? Is repentance a pre requirement of baptism or is it a consequence of baptism? Is baptism a sign of repentance or does it effect repentance? E Lohmeyer is in no doubt as to the answer: "For John repentance is a divine act on a man; the means through which this miracle is given and is experienced is through baptism" [Johannes der Taufer, Gottingen, pp 68f. (italics added)]. It is clear from Lohmeyer's writings that in his view people came to John to be baptised in order to receive repentance and not the other way round. Beasley-Murray helpfully comments: "It is unfortunate that an exegete should so strongly contend for what is manifestly a one-sided emphasis; it demands decision on an 'either-or' which the New Testament writers would not have recognised" [Baptism in the New Testament, Paternoster 1972, pp 34f]. Perhaps, as is often the case and as Beasley Murray has hinted, the truth lies somewhere in-between.

There can be no question that John required repentance from those who came for baptism and that his baptism was a sign of repentance. The heart of John's preaching was repentance not baptism, as Matthew himself records (3.1): "John the Baptist came … saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.' " The message is for men to turn from sin to God. As Beasley-Murray comments, "It is not feasible that either Jesus or John meant by that word, 'Come to baptism that God may turn you!' " [Baptism in the New Testament, Paternoster 1972, pp 35]. We should also note the exceedingly strong emphasis which John laid on the need for genuine repentance (Matt 3.7-11).

At the same time it is worth pointing out that repentance and conversion are a continuing necessity for a person's relationship with God. It may be that John was urging repentance both before and after baptism, urging repentance as a way of life as well as the way into a new life. Repentance must be prior to baptism and it must be subsequent to baptism. Baptism both signifies the repentance already there and the repentance which must follow. Hendriksen's summary of the position is worth quoting in full:

"But is this phrase 'with a view to conversion' a contradiction of the idea that a man must already have been converted before he can be baptised, a truth clearly implied in verses 6-10? Answer: Not at all, for, by means of baptism, true conversion is powerfully stimulated and increased. The person who in the proper manner – that is, with a pledge to God proceeding from a clear conscience – receives baptism, understanding the outward sign and seal, will all the more heartily out of gratitude yield himself to God. Moreover, how could reflection on the adopting, pardoning and cleansing grace of God, as symbolised by the sign and seal of baptism, have any different effect? For such a person the outward sign and seal applied to the body, and the inward grace applied to the heart, go together" [Matthew , Banner of Truth 1974, p207].

Genuine repentance is clearly a work of God before it is a work of man and yet the obligation to repent is laid on men everywhere. That was as true for the ministry of John the Baptist as it was the ministry of the Apostles. Baptism is a sign of grace and a means of grace. There is nothing, however, to suggest that John's act of baptism itself effected repentance. His words to the Pharisees and Sadducees clearly contradicted such a possibility. Baptism alone would not save them from "the coming wrath" (Matt 3.7), only baptism in so far as it represented a genuine turning from evil to God.

The context of John's baptism

An 'eschatological orientation'

The context is 'the coming of the Lord'. Quoting Isaiah each of the synoptic Gospels tells us that John has come to "prepare the way for the Lord", to "make straight paths for him". Luke gives us more of the quotation concluding with (v 6), "And all mankind will see God's salvation." It is worth noting that in Isaiah the 'concluding' verse reads (40.5), "And the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all mankind will see it."

Negative and positive elements

Here again we note not only the negative but also the positive element in John's ministry. The coming of the Messiah is near and with his coming the establishing of his kingdom. The glorious day anticipated for centuries was about to dawn, the day when God would intervene and save his people.

Of course, it was also understood that this day would be a day of judgement and salvation (the negative and positive again). It includes "the coming wrath"; the tree that does not produce good fruit "will be thrown into the fire"; "the winnowing fork is in his hand"; and the chaff will be burned with "unquenchable fire" (Matt 3.7,10,12). But the warning of judgement is intended to lead to repentance. In any case the essential purpose of the winnowing fork is not the destruction of chaff but the "gathering of his wheat" (v 12) [Saint Luke, Pelican 1963, p 74].

The turning from evil and the turning to God signified and stimulated by baptism is, according to John, essential preparation for those who want to be included in the Messiah's kingdom. John makes clear that the Jewish ancestry of those who came to him would be insufficient to gain them entry into the kingdom (v8). There is no substitute for genuine repentance.

The pointer to another baptism

There is another important aspect of John's baptism. His "preparatory and symbolic baptism" was to give way to a truly "effective baptism" [Matthew, IVP 1985, p 93], i.e. the baptism of the Coming One. He would baptise "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matt 3.11; Luke 3.16; Mark omits 'and with fire', 1.8). It should be noted that John's baptism with water anticipates Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit and not Christian baptism with water.

In spite of arguments to the contrary there is no good reason for not taking the text as we have it in Matthew and Luke as correct and allowing that Mark omitted the words "and fire" either because he wasn't aware of them or because he was concerned to emphasise a particular aspect of the promised baptism which had been fulfilled by the time he wrote [The Message of Mark, IVP 1992, p 34-36]. I H Marshall writes: "the way for John to speak of a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire had already been laid in Judaism, and he could have well taken the final decisive step …" [The Gospel of Luke, Paternoster 1978, p147]. The term 'Holy Spirit' appears in the Old Testament (e.g. Psalm 51.11; Isa. 63.10ff) and the coming of the Spirit is anticipated in the Old Testament (Isa 32.15; 44.3; Ezek 18.31; 36.25-27; 37.14; 39.29). Judgement is associated with fire (Isa 29.6; 31.9; Ezek 38.22; Amos 7.4; Mal 3.2; 4.1). Particularly important is the association of the Holy Spirit with fire in Joel 2.28-30.

Granted the above there are still differences of opinion as to what is meant by Jesus' baptism as "baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire".

(a) Some distinguish between the Holy Spirit and fire and also between the recipients of the Holy Spirit and fire, arguing that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is for those who genuinely repent, whereas the baptism with fire is for those who cling to their sin (c.f. Luke 3.13) [The Gospel of Luke, Marshall, Morgan and Scott 1977, p140].

(b) Some distinguish between the Holy Spirit and fire but argue that those who receive the Holy Spirit and fire are those who truly repent. The Spirit and fire represent positive and negative aspects of God's salvation in the life of the same truly repentant person.

(c) Some make little or no distinction, though the practical application here is much the same as with (b). Hence, Calvin comments that it is Christ who bestows the Spirit of regenerationand that, like fire, this Spirit purifies us by removing our pollution. Carson says, "the one whose way (John) is preparing will administer a Spirit-fire baptism that will purify and refine" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 8 Matthew-Luke, (Ed. F E Gaebelein), Zondervan 1984, p105].

It may be noted that the connection between the Holy Spirit and fire is close; there is no separate preposition in the Greek text; it is "with the Holy Spirit and fire". It may also be noted that on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit and fire came upon believers, fire symbolising the presence of the Holy Spirit. We can be fairly sure that Pentecost was the fulfilment of John's prophecy in Luke's understanding, both in his Gospel and in his Acts of the Apostles [The Gospel of Luke, Paternoster 1978, p146].

It is possible that the baptism with 'the Holy Spirit and with fire' represents the whole work that God would achieve through his well beloved Son in terms of rescue, renewal and restoration plus the destruction of all that is worthless. JDG Dunn sums up this preferred approach, reflected in (c) above, as follows.

"First, the future baptism is a single baptism in Spirit-and-fire. Second … Spirit-and-fire baptism is not offered as an alternative to John's water baptism, nor does one accept John's water-baptism to escape the messianic baptism. Rather one undergoes John's water-baptism with a view to and in preparation for the messianic Spirit-and-fire baptism. In which case, the Coming One's baptism cannot be solely retributive and destructive. Those who repent and are baptised by John must receive a baptism which is ultimately gracious. In short, if John spoke of a future baptism at all there was both gospel and judgement in it [Baptism in the Holy Spirit, SCM 1970, p11].

A new and novel baptism

At the turn of the century, reflecting on Jewish initiation rites Plummer was able to state, "the history of baptism, so far as direct evidence is concerned, begins with (John)". Can the same be said following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

When considering the Qumran community (under 'Jewish Baptisms?') the question was raised of a connection between John and Qumran. Our conclusion was that there is no evidence and no necessity for a connection.The contrasts between the two are far greater than the similarities. WL Lane (quoted previously when dealing with Qumran) puts forward one particular difference which demands further consideration at this point.

"Those who heard John would not have failed to recognise the familiar prophetic call to repentance. But in response to his preaching John called for an action which was wholly novel – baptism in the Jordan River. It has been conjectured that John's baptism was derived from the Jewish practice of baptising proselytes, or from the rites of initiation practised at Qumran. No clear line of dependence can be shown in support of these theories. Baptism appears rather as a unique activity of this prophet, a prophetic sign so striking that John became known simply as 'the Baptizer' " [The Gospel of Mark, Marshall Morgan and Scott 1974, p49].

R T France makes a similar point: "John is introduced abruptly, distinguished by his regular title, the Baptist, (so also Mark, Luke and Josephus), since he was apparently the first to baptise others (proselyte baptism and the 'baptisms' at Qumran were self-administered)" [Matthew, IVP 1985, commenting on v1 (p90), italics added]. He also comments on vv5-6: "John's baptism was an innovation. The nearest contemporary parallels are the self-baptism of a Gentile on becoming a proselyte, and the repeated ritual washings (also self-administered) at Qumran" [ibid].

France also notes two other important distinctions. Referring to proselyte baptism and the 'baptisms' of Qumran he observes, "Neither accounts adequately for John's baptism, which was apparently a once-only rite, administered by John in the river; and neither carried the note of urgent preparation for the coming crisis which was the main point of John's baptism. John's 'converts' were not seeking ceremonial purification, but 'fleeing from the wrath to come' (v 7). Their baptism was a token of repentance …" [Matthew, IVP 1985, p91. (italics added)].

Beasley-Murray points out that the word baptisma (baptism) used in connection with the baptism of John "appears for the first time in the NT. No instance of its occurrence in pagan and Jewish literature has yet been found. In view of the fact that its earliest employment is for the baptism of John, it could conceivably have been coined by John's disciples. More plausibly, it is a Christian innovation, and was applied by Christian writers to John's baptism in the conviction that the latter should be bracketed with Christianity rather than with Judaism. It is often affirmed that baptismos denotes the act of immersion and baptisma includes the result … Of this there is no evidence. It is more likely that baptisma was formed on the analogy of its Heb. equivalent tebilah. Apart from the general preference of Jewish Christians for Gk. terms phonetically similar to Heb. equivalents, it may well have been adopted by them to express their consciousness that Christian baptism was a new thing in the world, differing from all Jewish and pagan purificatory rites (so Ysebaert, op. cit., 52)" (italics added).

On "ho baptistes" (p150) he says: "ho baptistes is the surname given in the NT, above all in the Synoptic Gospels to John the Baptiser (e.g. Matt 3.1). It draws attention to the characteristic element in his ministry, namely the demand for repentance-baptism, and still more the novelty of administering baptism to others, instead of leaving them to baptise themselves, as happened with all OT ablutions and in Jewish proselyte baptism."

John's baptism and Christian baptism

RA Cole states: "John's baptism was not Christian baptism, nor was it associated with the gift of the Spirit (see Acts 19.2, where disciples of John are re-baptised by Paul, as being ignorant of the very existence of the Spirit, and as not having been baptised in the name of Jesus). But note also that there is no evidence for the re-baptism of those disciples of the Lord who had previously been John's disciples, and who may thus be presumed to have received his baptism already" [The Gospel According to St Mark, Tyndale 1963, p 57]. This raises a number of questions.

(1) What is the relationship between John's baptism and Christian baptism? It is clear that the two cannot be equated for the simple reason that John's baptism was not sufficient for those who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. The fact that the two are not equated, however, does not mean that they are not connected.

(2) What is the relationship between John's baptism of Jesus and Christian baptism? According to Bultmann it was the practice of the early church which provided the basis for the account of Jesus' baptism in the Gospels. Jesus' baptism was modelled on the practice of the early church [Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 3rd ed. 1997, pp 263ff, referred to in Beasley-Murray's Baptism in the New Testament, p 62]. The more common view has been that the baptism of Jesus had a crucial role to play in the development of Christian baptism. W F Flemington suggests that Jesus' baptism "has exercised a more considerable influence than has hitherto been recognised upon the origin of the Christian rite" and further suggests that in the early church Christian baptism was "the counterpart in the life of the believer of the baptism of Jesus himself" [The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 1948, p121]. D M Baillie writes, "It seems obvious that when the early Christians baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus, their thoughts went back to that incident which in the gospel tradition stood immovably at the beginning of His public ministry – the baptism of Himself by John in the Jordan" [The Theology of the Sacraments, Faber 1957, p 77]. According to Karl Barth it was through his own baptism that Jesus instituted the sacrament of baptism [The Teaching of the Church regarding Baptism, (trans. EA Payne), SCM 1948; see DM Baillie, p 77].

The difficulty faced here is "the all but complete silence of the New Testament writers concerning this supposed relationship between the two baptisms" [Baptism in the New Testament, Paternoster 1972, p 63]. There is not a single New Testament writer who makes any attempt to relate the two. Whether the omission is deliberate or unconscious it stems, no doubt, from the uniqueness of Jesus' baptism. His baptism was the baptism of a man who did not need baptism, at least, not for himself. In his baptism the sinless One was identifying with sinners. It seems inappropriate to compare his baptism with ours, and may well have seemed inappropriate to the apostles.

While it may be going beyond the biblical data to suggest that one baptism is dependant upon the other it is certainly in keeping within the biblical data to say that there are parallels between the two baptisms. As Beasley-Murray has put it, there is "a vast difference between the two experiences, yet there is also a connection between them" [Baptism in the New Testament, Paternoster 1972, p 65].

There are parallels between Christian baptism and John's baptism (i.e. all his baptisms including the baptism of Jesus):

• Unlike other Jewish rituals involving water neither of these baptisms are self-administered. They are administered to the persons seeking baptism. As made clear earlier this is quite different from rituals involving water prior to John the Baptist which are normally called ritual cleansings, washings or baths rather than baptisms.
• Unlike other Jewish rituals John's baptism and Christian baptism are both once-for-all events. The baptism of proselytes was also a once-for-all event but there is considerable uncertainty as to when such baptisms began and whether they had any influence on either John's baptism or Christian baptism. The first significant reference to such a baptism is dated cAD 80.
• Key emphases in both are repentance and the forgiveness of sins (cf. Mark 1.4 with Acts 2.38).

There are further parallels between Christian baptism and the specific baptism of Jesus by John which do not apply to John's baptisms in general:

• Jesus was identified with us in his baptism; we are identified with him in our baptism.
• Jesus was acknowledged to be the Son of God at his baptism (Mark 1.11); we are acknowledged to be the sons of God at our baptism (albeit through faith in him - Gal 3.26). Our sonship is rooted in his Sonship.
• Jesus' baptism had an anticipatory and eschatological element to it, anticipating the great redemptive act of death-resurrection-ascension-parousia;our baptism has an anticipatory and eschatological element to it. It is the sign of our death, resurrection, ascension and glorification.
• The Spirit descended on Jesus at his baptism.The Spirit is given to those who are baptised in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38).

It should be remembered that these are parallels and that the parallels are not be taken too far. So for example in connection with the last named parallel Beasley-Murray cautions that "in Apostolic teaching the descent of the Spirit at the Messiah's baptism is eloquent of who He is rather than what Christian baptism is (Acts 10.38; 1 John 5.6ff)" [Baptism in the New Testament, Paternoster 1972, p 66]. Nonetheless the parallels have some significance.

Although Christian baptism, and John's baptism for that matter, may be attributed to an act of revelation (the command of Christ in the case of Christian baptism; illumination by God in the case of John's baptism) they do have a context. There are parallels with Jewish rituals : the use of water, the symbolism of cleansing, the outward sign of an inward disposition; in the case of Qumran and proselyte baptism, the concepts of new birth, dying and rising; in the case of proselyte baptism, the baptism of children along with parents (men and women). These parallels, however, do not constitute a relationship and they are weaker than the parallels between John's baptism of Jesus and Christian Baptism.

There is a sense in which Christian baptism reflects in a very general sense the baptism of Jesus by John, but to talk about one baptism anticipating the other may be going too far. There is no explicit connection made in the New Testament between John's baptism and Christian baptism, though there is an explicit reference to connect John's baptism of Jesus with water and Jesus' baptism of his followers with the Holy Spirit. As stated earlier John's symbolic baptism with water anticipated Jesus' effective baptism with the Holy Spirit. If the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan anticipates anything it is the baptism of his people with the Spirit. We can say that John's baptism with water anticipated Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit which is symbolised by baptism with water.

(3) Can we presume that the twelve disciples of Jesus were given Christian baptism at some point, both those previously baptised by John and those not baptised by John? Or is it the case that the baptism of those previously baptised by John was accepted as Christian baptism when they became disciples of Christ? Those who have suggested this have had to explain the fact that the baptism of the Ephesian 'disciples' (Acts19.1-7) was not accepted as 'Christian'. Hence, R N Longenecker distinguishes between (i) those whose "baptism by John was seen as pointing beyond itself to Jesus (as with Apollos)", and (ii) those whose baptism by John "was understood as rivalling commitment to Jesus". In his view the baptism of the first group was regarded as Christian baptism, whereas the baptism of the second group, e.g. the Ephesians, was not regarded as Christian and, therefore, baptism "into the name of the Lord Jesus" was administered [The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol. 9 (on Acts), Zondervan 1981, p 494]. The difficulty here is that we are dealing entirely with supposition. We simply do not know whether any or all of the disciples received Christian baptism. Neither do we know whether those who had been baptised by John were regarded as having received Christian baptism. We are operating in the realm of speculation, a realm which cannot contribute to our discussion of therelationship between John's baptism and Christian baptism. An element of agnosticism in this area is appropriate.

Next chapter: Old Testament.

Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

This web page was last updated on 15th April 2004.