Christian Baptism And The Baptism Of John: A Comparative Study

By Gerald R. Procee

The baptism of the Lord Jesus is recorded in Matthew 3, Mark 1, and Luke 3. Throughout church history, it has been debated whether the baptism of John is the same as Christian baptism, which was instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and is practiced by the Christian church. Notably, John Calvin considered both baptisms to be the same. Speaking of the men in Acts 19, who had only been baptized with the baptism of John, Calvin wrote: “I admit, for my part, that it was the true baptism of John, and one and the same as the baptism of Christ, but I deny that they were rebaptized.” [1] As proof for his position, Calvin writes:

John and the apostles agreed on one doctrine: both baptized to repentance, both to forgiveness of sins, both into the name of Christ, from whom repentance and forgiveness of sins came. John said that Christ was the lamb of God, through whom the sins of the world would be taken away [John 1:29]. In this, he made him a sacrifice acceptable to the Father, and the propitiator of righteousness and author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession? [2]

The only difference Calvin can find between the two baptisms is that John baptized in the name of the Christ who was still to come, whereas the apostles baptized in the Christ who had already revealed Himself. Calvin refers to this, however, as a minor difference and upholds his view that the baptism of John and that of the apostles was one and the same. [3]

Later Reformed divines followed suit. Francis Turretin argues that although there is some difference, this is only accidental and refers to the “circumstances and degrees,” but this difference is “not substantial and specific with respect to essence.” [4] Turretin states that both baptisms agree in essential content. Both are external, using water, and both have the internal element—“the promise of grace concerning the remission of sins and regeneration.” [5] Similarly, Wilhelmus à Brakel, in his work The Christian’s Reasonable Service, also states that the baptism of John and that of the apostles was the same baptism:

This is first of all evident because all that belongs to the essence of a sacrament is equally true for the baptisms of both John and Christ. 1) They both have one and the same Author (John 1:33); 2) they have the same sign, that is, water (Mat. 3:11); 3) they signify the same matter: Christ’s blood unto the forgiveness of sins (Acts 19:4); 4) the relationship between the sign and the matter signified is the same: the washing away of filth—in the one of the body, and in the other of the soul; 5) they have the same purpose: incorporation into the church, the sealing of the forgiveness of sins (Acts 19:4), and conversion (Mat. 3:11). All these matters are identical in this chapter. It is consequently one and the same baptism. [6]

Meanwhile, others have contended that the baptism of John is not the same as Christian baptism. They state that John’s baptism was in anticipation of the coming of Christ in whom actual forgiveness of sins would be received. In this case, the baptism of John is considered to be a preparation of people for Christ. Among those who distinguish these baptisms were several of the church fathers. For instance, Augustine wrote: “Wherefore, although my belief is that John so baptized with the water of repentance for the remission of sins, that those who were baptized by him received the expectation of the remission of their sins, the actual remission taking place in the baptism of the Lord.” [7] Augustine then stated that those who were baptized by John were rebaptized by the apostles. Speaking of John the Baptist, Augustine wrote, “[H]e was not worthy to baptize in such wise that those who were baptized by him should not be baptized again after him.” [8]

More recently, Robert Lewis Dabney also contended that the baptisms administered by John and Christ were different. He acknowledges that the Reformers strenuously identified John’s baptism with Christian baptism because it was a baptism of repentance to the forgiveness of sins. However, with later Reformed theologians, Dabney holds that John’s baptism was a baptism for a different purpose and cannot be equated with Christian baptism. He argues this for the following reasons:

1st. That it was not administered in the name of the Trinity, and did not bring the parties into covenant with Christ. 

2nd. It was not the initiatory rite into the church, and did not signify our ingrafting into Christ, for the old dispensation still subsisted, and those who received the rite were already in the church of that dispensation, whereas Christ’s was not yet opened, and therefore could not receive formal adherents. 

But, 3rd, Paul seems clearly (Acts xix.5) to have repeated Christian baptism on those who already had John’s…. John’s baptism was therefore not the sacrament of the new dispensation, but one of those purifications, preparing the way of the Messiah about to come, with which, we believe the Jewish mind was familiar. [9]

It is clear that the views of Calvin, Turretin, and à Brakel on the one hand and of Augustine and Dabney on the other hand stand in sharp contrast to each other. It begs the question what the proper view is on the relationship between John’s baptism and Christian baptism. I contend that the biblical theological and exegetical evidence is such that the baptisms are not the same, though there are overlapping emphases.

John The Baptist In The History Of Redemption

First, we need to examine the biblical theological place of John the Baptist. His work was focused on the coming Messiah and therefore was fulfilled in the coming of Christ. John’s work involved preaching and baptizing in anticipation of the Messiah’s coming. Matthew 3:2 summarizes his message as “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This preparatory work of John the Baptist was fulfilled in the coming of Christ. John pointed to Christ as the Savior of the world. When Jesus was baptized by John, He fully confirmed John’s preaching; after Jesus was baptized, all could know that He was the fulfillment of John’s preaching. Now the kingdom of God was coming into this world. The preparatory work of John the Baptist became obsolete, for the fulfillment in Christ has come.

When we compare the baptism of John and Christian baptism, we must note the institution of the latter by the Lord Jesus Christ just before He ascended to heaven. In Matthew 28:19, He commanded, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Christian baptism was expressly instituted at that time. We do read of the baptism of John, as well as ritual washings and cleansings in the Old Testament. John 3:22 and John 4:1-2 also record that the disciples of the Lord Jesus baptized. But this was only a continuation of the baptism of John. Many of John’s disciples became followers of the Lord Jesus and did not immediately give up their practice of baptizing. After these early passages, we read no other references to the disciples baptizing. J. P. Versteeg concludes: “We have the impression, that this baptism was limited to the first beginning of Jesus’ sojournings.” [10] We should not consider these baptisms to be Christian baptism; the command to baptize was given only after Christ was risen from the dead.

Some cite 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 to identify the baptism of John with Christian baptism. There we read, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” The reasoning is that the baptism which believers of Christ underwent is the same as the baptism that Christ Himself received. Ephesians 4:4-5 also says, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Since Christ was only baptized with the baptism of John, they conclude that the baptism of John and Christian baptism are identical. “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” counts for Christ as the Head as well as for believers as members.

The problem with this interpretation is that John the Baptist distinguishes himself clearly from the Lord Jesus when he refers to this baptizing with the Holy Spirit. John testifies, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John 1:32-33). John and the Lord Jesus differed in that only the Lord Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit. Thus, being baptized with the Holy Spirit into the unity of the body of Christ does not refer to the baptism of John, but to the work of Christ. Christ was baptized with the Holy Spirit and likewise all His people receive the same Holy Spirit.

In Acts 1:8 Christ says, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Being a witness meant testifying, preaching, and the teaching of Christ, and then also administering baptism. Also after His resurrection, He said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

This implies that those who came to Christian faith had to be initiated into this new relationship by means of baptism. This was administered to all who joined the Christian church, including Jews, even though many of them had undergone the baptism of John. When John preached and baptized, “then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan” (Matt. 3:5). Soldiers, publicans, Pharisees, and multitudes of people came to be baptized; however, when the apostles later witnessed of Christ, they baptized Jews into the Christian church. Already on the day of Pentecost, three thousand Jews were baptized, and many more were added later. The sign of joining the Christian church was baptism.

The Baptism Of John And Proselyte Baptism

The question of the relationship between John’s baptism and proselyte baptism deserves to be addressed at this point. It is often suggested that the Jews had a custom of baptizing Gentiles who wished to join the Jewish faith. There is some discussion about when this baptism of proselytes was implemented. It is noteworthy that the two prominent Jewish scholars from the first century, Josephus and Philo, mention nothing about it, and yet it was a known phenomenon. We have records of first-century discussions between certain rabbinical schools at Jerusalem, known as the schools of the rabbi Hillel and of the rabbi Shammai. These discussions imply that a Gentile who wanted to become Jewish had to be baptized. [11]

To validate this baptism of the proselytes, the rabbis turned to Exodus 24:8, which records the baptism of the people of Israel when “Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.” This baptism was a sprinkling with blood which applied to all Jews of all ages. Sometimes the passage through the Red Sea was also considered a baptism. If a Gentile wished to join Israel, the same ordinance was applicable to him as to the Jews. As Numbers 15:15 states, “One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.”

The question that rises is whether proselyte baptism is the basis for John’s baptism. There are some marked differences. The proselyte baptism was to initiate a Gentile into the Jewish religion; it marked a fundamental new beginning in life. The proselyte had to deny his past and his old ties and relations, and he was incorporated into a new fellowship of the Jews. The proselyte baptism was aimed at making the baptized person ceremonially clean, incorporating him into the people of Israel, while John’s baptism focused on the necessity of inward cleanness, obliging to repentance and a new and godly walk. While proselyte baptism was only applied to Gentiles, the baptism of John was applied to Jews and Gentiles alike, who confessed their sins. That Gentiles needed purification was clear to all Jews, but that Jews also needed such a cleansing must have been astounding to them. John’s baptism showed that also God’s elect people were unclean and unfit to meet the coming Messiah because of their sin. [12] Those receiving John’s baptism had to make confession of their sins, while such confession was not present with proselyte baptism. The purpose of John’s baptism was eschatological and anticipated the coming kingdom of God. John preached and baptized in anticipation of the coming Messiah.

In his study on this point, Beasley-Murray concludes: “In short, there is no point at which contact can be found between John’s baptism and proselyte baptism; there seems to be no ground therefore for the repeated assertion that the former was derived from the latter. The basic ideas behind the two institutions had little or nothing in common.” [13]

German commentators Strack and Billerbeck also conclude that the two baptisms have nothing in common. [14] Instead, the roots of John’s baptism can be traced to Old Testament purification rituals. [1]5 The people of Israel were unclean and unfit to meet the Messiah and therefore had to be cleansed. Many Old Testament passages refer to cleansing by water. [16] Though at times an analogy is made between Christian baptism and proselyte baptism, [17] it would be more in the line of Scripture to explain Christian baptism from the Old Testament passages which refer to the Messiah’s work of cleansing from sin and pollution by water. [18] A direct link between the baptism of proselytes and Christian baptism is not present in the New Testament.

The Baptism Of John In The Book Of Acts

The book of Acts supplies us with some interesting examples of those who had been exclusively exposed to the baptism of John and only afterwards were introduced to Christian doctrine and baptism.

Acts 18 introduces Apollos, a Jew with a Hellenistic name, born at Alexandria, “an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures” (v. 24). He came to Ephesus and began to teach the little group of believers: “This man was 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” (v. 25). He spoke boldly in the synagogue where a Christian Jew from Rome, Aquila, and his wife, Priscilla, heard him speak and realized that he did not have a full knowledge of the Christian faith. They took Apollos aside and explained to him more perfectly the way of God. Apollos was so receptive to this instruction that when he travelled on to Achaia, the brethren gave him letters of commendation and Apollos “mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (v. 28).

Apollos was a disciple of the Lord Jesus, for he “was instructed in the way of the Lord.” In the book of Acts, the expression “the way of the Lord” refers to Christian faith. [19] Apollos had received instruction and had become fervent “in the spirit”—an expression which refers to being filled with the Holy Spirit. [20] No one has good grounds to deny that Apollos was a true believer in Christ; he was a powerful Christian evangelist and taught accurately the truth about Jesus. But he was only aware of the baptism of John. Aquila and Priscilla realized that he needed further instruction. After having received this instruction and letters of commendation, he traveled further on his evangelistic tour. But we read nothing about any baptism or rebaptism. He may have received it, but most likely did not, for then we would expect it to have been mentioned, as in other cases. [21]

Our position is that Apollos was not baptized, just like the disciples were never baptized. Some were probably baptized by John such as Andrew, Peter, John (cf. John 1), but we never read that they themselves received Christian baptism. They were all assigned the task to baptize others in the name of the triune God, but we never read that they themselves were baptized.

The reason they were not baptized is that baptism is a sign of passing from an old life of paganism or Judaism into a new life with Christ. Paul passed from an old life of Judaism into a new life of Christianity, as did the Jews on the Day of Pentecost. The Roman centurion, Cornelius, of Acts 10, did not know the Lord Jesus, though he feared God, and made a similar transition. But the disciples had already experienced such a change when the Lord Jesus called them to follow Him. For over three years, they had been immersed in His teaching. They had been owned by Christ, witnessed His resurrection, and been commissioned as His ambassadors to the world. They had received the Holy Ghost and subsequently there was no need for them to be baptized. Likewise, Apollos had been a disciple of the Lord Jesus and had made this transition through the instruction he previously had received. He was incorporated in Christ and had received the Spirit of Christ. The only thing needed was to improve Apollos’s knowledge of Christian doctrine; a further baptism was needless.

As Beasley-Murray states, Apollos “is to be compared rather with the hundred and twenty disciples of Jesus on Pentecost morning, though he was not a witness of the resurrection. He is a representative of an unknown number of disciples of John who passed quietly unto the sovereignty of the Messiah Jesus and who were graciously visited by the Spirit without any further ecclesiastical intervention.” [22]

Another unique case is recorded in the next chapter of Acts. In Ephesus were certain disciples who had received John’s baptism, but had not so much as heard that there was a Holy Ghost (Acts 19:1-6). In verse 4, Paul explains to these disciples that they had been baptized unto repentance and were now called to believe on Him who came after John—the Lord Jesus. They were baptized and received the Holy Spirit after Paul had laid his hands on them.

Their situation differed from that of Apollos. These disciples were called disciples (mathetai). Everywhere in the book of Acts this term is used for those who adhere to the preaching of Christ. But we must also keep in mind that Luke also uses the same term in his gospel to designate the disciples of John (Luke 5:33; cf. Matt. 9:14). The insight of these disciples was, to say the least, very limited. They had been poorly instructed so that they did not even know of the existence of the Holy Spirit, let alone of being filled with Him. This is surprising, seeing John himself had spoken about the Spirit of God.

These disciples then had a very limited understanding. Probably they did not even know of the coming of the Lord Jesus and they certainly knew nothing about the coming of the Holy Spirit. This raises the question concerning the extent of their discipleship. If Paul had to explain to them the basic matters of faith in Christ, their faith was not decisively Christian. After they were instructed, they were baptized because they then adhered to the faith in Christ, which Paul had explained to them. This marked a major change for them from the doctrines of John to the doctrines of Christ. After they had believed, they were baptized. Paul then laid hands on them, and they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

While these disciples had been previously baptized in the baptism of John, they were baptized in or into the name of the Lord Jesus (v. 5). This name was pronounced over them and they fully confessed it. A definite change took place which was demonstrated in their baptism. These men, about twelve in number (v. 7), are the only clear examples of rebaptism in the New Testament. This shows that we cannot equate the baptism of John and Christian baptism.

The position of Calvin, Beza, and Bavinck, who argue for equating these baptisms, is known. They reason that Acts 19:5 is not a description of what happened to these disciples but is the continuation of Paul’s words in verse 4. Paul explained that John preached the baptism of repentance and urged the people to believe on Christ who would come after him and that those who heard John preach were indeed baptized in the name of Jesus. The point that Paul would then be making is that John’s baptism was actually a baptism in the name of Jesus and could therefore be equated. Consequently, these disciples in Ephesus were already baptized in the name of Jesus and would not need any other baptism.

But such reasoning is very questionable, be it only due to the fact that John never baptized in the name of Jesus but preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Luke 3:3).

Calvin and Bavinck also equate the baptism of John with Christian baptism because both refer to cleansing from sin, both take place with water, and both are implicitly focused on Christ. [23] However, using this reasoning one could argue the same equality between the various Jewish cleansing rituals as described in the Old Testament and Christian baptism. These also were focused on cleansing from defilement, from sin, both took place with water, and both had an implicit reference to Christ.

Conclusion

John’s baptism was a baptism unto repentance, not unto Christ. As it pointed to the coming of Christ, it was merely declarative. It was not a symbol of effective engrafting into Christ and therefore did not have covenantal content. John’s baptism pointed the people to their sin and to the necessity of cleansing. In this regard, the Lord Jesus also identified Himself with this baptism. He wanted to be reckoned among the sinners. Matthew 3:15 tells us the reason Christ gave for His desire to be baptized by John: “And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.”

Acts 19:2-6 shows that John’s baptism was “destitute of the Holy Spirit and of power to remit sins,” which qualities are ascribed to Christian baptism. [24] John’s baptism did not become Christian baptism without any change. The Lord Jesus shed His blood, died, arose, and ascended into heaven. Then Christ fulfilled John’s prophecy of Him: He sent the promise of the Father and baptized His disciples in the Spirit. Now baptism became not merely the sign of preparation for the coming kingdom but of entrance into the kingdom. Ralph Bass clarifies: “What was John’s baptism? John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. It was not accepted in the Church as Christian baptism, and in all known cases in which the disciples of Jesus confront John’s followers, they are instructed in the distinction and differences of the two and then follow Christ in Christian baptism.” [25]

In summary, the biblical theological and exegetical evidence brings before us the following salient points:

1. The baptism of John was in anticipation of and preparation for the coming of Christ. It was eschatologically focused and was fulfilled with the coming of Christ.
2. The baptism of John was not administered in the name of the triune God.
3. The baptism of John took place only at the beginning of the Gospels and apparently later was no longer practiced.
4. John’s baptism was not an initiation into the Christian church. Jews were later baptized in Christian baptism, in spite of a possible baptism by John the Baptist.
5. Paul indicates that he rebaptized those who were only baptized with the baptism of John (Acts 19:3-6).
6. The baptism of John was not with the Holy Spirit; this was reserved for Christ Himself.
7. John’s baptism could not be the sacrament of initiation into the new era, for this era had not fully come. Such initiation by Christian baptism could only take place after the resurrection of Christ.

Thus we conclude that the baptism of John is not to be equated to Christian baptism and was a temporary institution to be fulfilled in Christian baptism.

Notes

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 4.15.18.
2. Calvin, Institutes, 4.15.7.
3. Calvin, Institutes, 4.15.7.
4. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997), 3:399.
5. Turretin, Institutes, 3:399.
6. Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. B. Elshout (Ligonier: Soli Deo Gloria, 1993), 2:489.
7. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book V, ch. 10, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 4:468.
8. Augustine, On Baptism, , Book V, ch. 12, 4:468-69.
9. R. L. Dabney, “Lecture LXIII: Baptism,” in Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 763.
10. J. P. Versteeg, “De Doop volgens het Nieuwe Testament,” 26 (“We krijgen de indruk, dat deze doop tot het eerste begin van Jezus’ omwandeling beperkt ge­bleven is”).
11. See Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1931), 2:745. See also Versteeg, “De Doop volgens het Nieuwe Testament,” 20. Strack and Billerbeck also give a description of proselyte baptism. It never took place at night, and was administered after the wounds due to circumcision were healed. It took place by immersion. After a person came up from the water he would be viewed as an Israelite. “Nach heilung der Beschneidungswunde wird er bei Tage, nicht in der Nacht, zum Tauchbad geleitet: zwei, nach späterer Tradition drei Gelehrtenschüler stehen ihm als Zeugen zur Seite u. legen ihm einige leichte u. schwere Pflichtgebote aus, während das Wasser schon die untere Hälfte seines Körpers bedeckt. Ist er auch jetzt noch in seinem Entschluss fest, so lässt man ihn untertauchen, so dass das Wasser über seinen ganzen Körper auf Einmal hinweggeht. Mit dem Augenblick, da er dem Tauchbad entsteigt, gilt er in jeder Hinsicht also in Israelit.” Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: C. H. Bech’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Oskar Beck, 1928), 1:110.
12. Cf. G. de Ru, De Kinderdoop en het Nieuwe Testament (Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen, 1968), 102-106.
13. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 42.
14. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 1, 112: “Dagegen haben inhaltlich die beiden Riten nichts miteinander gemein.”
15. Cf. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the early Church, History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five centuries (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans 2009), 93.
16. See Jer. 4:14; Isa. 1:16; Ezek. 36:25; Zech. 13:1.
17. See Versteeg, Doop volgens het Nieuwe Testament, 21. He refers to three important strands of comparison: the manner in which baptism took place in the ancient church resembles the ritual of baptism of the proselytes, the fact that both baptisms refer to the forsaking of an old life and an entering of a new life, and the instruction given to the proselytes is parallel to the instruction given to converts to Christianity who wished to be baptized.
18. Isa. 52:15; Ezek. 36:25; Zech. 13:1.
19. Acts 9:2, the way of Jesus; 16:17, the way of salvation; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22, the way; cf. John 14:16, “I am the way.”
20. The Greek word pneumati is also used in Acts 19:21 to refer to Paul being directed by the Spirit and in Acts 20:22 where Paul is bound in the Spirit.
21. Cf. the Jews in Acts 2, Paul in Acts 9, Cornelius in Acts 10, etc.
22. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 110.
23. Calvin, Institutes, 4.15.7; H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. John Vriend, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 4:501.
24. James W. Dale, Johannic Baptism (Phillipsburg, N. J.: P&R, 1993), 72.
25. Ralph E. Bass Jr., Baptidzo: A 500 Year Study in the Greek word Baptism (Greenville: Living Hope Press, 2009), 126.