Those books on the life of Christ, written by human authors, often mention John in their early chapters. But a great many of those authors, especially the older ones, come from a Protestant theology. And as a result, when it comes to the baptism of John they make terrible mistakes. I have no idea how many times I have read that John’s baptism was “not Christian Baptism.” They say things like: “John’s was a baptism unto repentance,” as if ours has nothing to do with repentance. They say, “It was not in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so it couldn’t be Christian.” They say that John was a prophet – an Old Testament prophet – so his ministry wasn’t Christian. They point out that John baptized before the death of Christ, as though the New Testament era began with the Book of Acts, rather than with the four Gospels. Most of those man-written books admit to the importance of John’s MINISTRY, but only in the context of the Lord Jesus. They deny that John has anything to do with you and me.
My premise tonight is the importance of John’s BAPTISM, no matter what the context – yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Why do people reject the baptism of John?
It is certainly not because of flaws in the person or ministry of John himself. In one sense, John had more authority for his ministry than did even Jesus. John was the son of a serving priest – of the course of Abia; the son of a daughter of Levi. It was while his father, Zacharias, was serving in the Temple that God gave him news that he was to become a father. We never read of the chief priests and scribes coming to John asking him,“By whose authority do you say and do these things.” If they had done that, John probably would have pointed to his Levitical pedigree. It was the Lord Jesus who asked THEM about John’s authority.
And nobody could question John’s separation from the corruption of society. He lived in the wilderness of Perea, and dressed in the poorest of fashions. He despised fatty, high-cholesterol, sugar-drenched, micro-waveable foods. He ate what he could catch, striving simply to keep body and soul together. He didn’t eat locusts out of the enjoyment of eating – they taste so good when dipped in honey. He ate to live not the other way around. And never was John charged with immorality, impropriety or sin of any kind. He didn’t smoke or chew; he wasn’t a drunkard or a wife-beater. He couldn’t be charged with gossip, deceit, plotting against the government, or against Sanhedrin.
The priests didn’t know what to do with John, but the common people considered him a prophet of God. Have you ever asked yourself, why they might have done that? We are not told that he spent much time forecasting the events of the future. And there are no miracles attached to his name. His clothing may have been Elijahesque, but that certainly didn’t qualify him for the title of “prophet.” The only aspect of the ministry of the prophet that John bore was to boldly go were only prophets dared to tread – a call for personal and national repentance. Neither the Pharisees nor the priests and the Sadducees would say that they denied John’s baptism because of flaws in his character or ministry.
Modern-day Protestants don’t turn their backs on John because the Lord Jesus did. Christ had only the highest praise for his cousin. He said, “There has never been a better man born of woman, than John.” When John was suffering in prison for telling the truth, and his faith was deteriorating just a bit, our Lord had no rebuke, but instead offered encouragement to John and his disciples.
In addition to Christ Jesus, we must remember that the Holy Spirit, too, had great affinity for John. Before the man was even born, he was filled with the Spirit of God. Of course those scribes and chief priests knew nothing about that, but it doesn’t change the fact. Only a fool would dislike a man for displaying the grace and power of the Spirit of God.
So why do people spurn the Baptism of John?
If it wasn’t the character of John which turned these chief priests away from John, then what was it? These people lied – they boldly lied right into the face of the Son of God. “We cannot tell” from where John received his authority. No, the fact is they would not tell – they wouldn’t answer the Lord’s question.
It wasn’t a problem with those priests, but it is for the Protestants…. Some reject John because his baptism repudiates their practice of infant baptism. The vast majority of the so-called “Christian” denominations sprinkle water on babies, calling it “baptism.” That’s like eating fish and calling it chicken or beef. The Protestants got the idea from the Catholics. The practice of infant baptism was introduced into Christendom along about the year 204 AD. The first mention is made by Tertullian in the third century – not the second or the first century. In other words, John didn’t baptize babies using any means or method. He never – not once – immersed an infant. The thought of doing so never even crossed his mind. In fact the idea is ridiculous – the idea has to be planted, instilled, brainwashed into people. It is not logical and people wouldn’t be drawn to the idea if it wasn’t first planted in their heads.
When people came to John for baptism, he demanded to see proof of their repentance. Have you ever heard John speak about repentance “for sin?” Listen to Matthew 3:7-8 – “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.” Biblical repentance is a complete change of heart and mind in the light of the holiness of God. As I said last week, it’s not a one time event in a person’s life. It is seen in discipleship, among other things – not just the turning from a few sins. John wouldn’t immerse people without seeing a genuine change of heart. If proof of conversion wasn’t present in a person’s life John simply did not baptize those people. There isn’t a hint in all the Bible that he changed his pattern to admit babies. No wonder the paedobaptists – the baby sprinklers – don’t like John’s baptism.
And then to be more specific, some don’t like John’s baptism because he never sprinkled anyone – including adults. It goes without saying that the word “baptize” demands, by it’s definition, immersion or dunking a person. Anyone with a hint of knowledge when it comes to the Greek language could never substitute any other mode for baptism than immersions, because that is what it means. Sometimes we see artists ideas of John and the Lord Jesus, standing in the Jordan River. And John has a cup, or he has made a cup with his hand, pouring water on head the Lord. That is as foreign to the Bible as Elvis’ reincarnation. Of course this had nothing to do with the rejection by the scribes and priests, because such an idea was impossible to think. But it is a part of the fallen logic of today.
A great many modern people don’t like John’s baptism, because he didn’t baptize people in order to make them children of God. He didn’t practice or believe in the idea of baptismal regeneration. As I say, he demanded proof and fruit of spiritual life before he dunked people.
Some people don’t like John’s baptism because they misunderstand what they read in Acts 19. “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, 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. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Paul met some people who claimed to have been baptized by John. He questioned them a little bit about their theology and discovered a couple of things. One of those was the fact that they had not been baptized by John personally. They had received baptism by someone who had been baptized by someone who had been baptized by someone, who had been baptized by John. And so they had never been interview by John, nor had they ever learned the message of John from the prophet’s own lips. And this takes us back to the problem with the chief priests, scribes and elders. It appears to me that these men in far off Ephesus, had never been born-again. Certainly they had not ever heard John teaching about the Holy Spirit. So their theology was all hay-wire. Paul didn’t question their sincerity or honesty, but he did question their baptism. Apparently when they convinced Paul that they were true believers in Christ, they were baptized. Paul may have been the very first anabaptist – rebaptizer. But that these men were baptized again doesn’t place the least bit of suspicion on the ministry or ordinance that John performed.
The reason Alfred Edershiem, C.I. Schofield, Lewis Sperry Chaffer and a host of others reject the baptism of John is due to the fact that they are Protestants. They were born with false ideas about baptism, and not even a mountain of proof could convince them that John’s baptism was Christian. Those men had their false doctrines and false practices to protect. So they were forced by prejudice to turn their backs on John’s ministry and baptism. They are all dead now and finally know better, but the damage they caused is still around. But the Jews of this scripture were not Protestants, so what was their problem? Let me save that for my conclusion, while we consider one more point.
Why SHOULD today’s Christians LIKE John’s Baptism?
First, because John’s authority to baptize came from God himself. The chief priests came with another trick designed to entrap and condemn the Lord. But rather than step into a quagmire from which human logic could never free itself, Christ made a promise to those men. “If you answer my question, I will answer yours.” And Jesus’ question was about the authority behind John’s baptism. “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men.” In another way the question was – “Is it Heavenly and new; or is it old and man-made.” Remember that Christ Himself was baptized by John, so what is the obvious answer? It was from God – from Heaven. If it was otherwise, Christ wouldn’t have received it. I am no psychologist, but hasn’t experience taught you, that the first thought which came into their minds was the obvious one – John’s authority came from Heaven. Their consciences told them the truth, but their wicked hearts beat the idea into submission.
Some people used to say that John was practicing Jewish proselyte baptism – that it came from men. He was just doing what others had been doing for years. That theory has been exploded for quite some time now. John’s baptism was radically different from what a handful of Jews had been doing. He was no copy-cat. This was brand new. The Lord Jesus doesn’t come out and clearly say that John’s commission to baptize came directly from Jehovah, but reading between the lines, that is what Jesus implied. Those who deny John’s baptism are, in effect, denying the divine authority which was given to John.
The practical reality is that the vast majority of Christendom itself has no authority to baptize by whatever means they use. And their own doctrine and practice is proof. Authority to baptize was given to John and then passed on to the Lord Jesus and finally to the church which Jesus started during his ministry. That authority has been passed from scriptural church to scriptural church down through the centuries. And the Catholics and Protestants who disavow John’s baptism are cutting themselves off from the original authority and commission. No church which baptizes differently than Christ, the disciples and John baptized, have authority to do so.
Why should people like John’s Baptism? Because the Lord Jesus did. It may sound superficial, but if it was good enough for Christ it ought to be good enough for all the rest of us. And then following that, John’s baptism was good enough for all of the Apostles as well. Every single one of the first twelve disciples were baptized by John. The only apostle who was not personally baptized by John was Paul, and he was converted long after John had been martyred. Then all those apostles, under Jesus direction, baptized others. Not one of the twelve was ever rebaptized, yet they became part of the first church. Not one of the twelve was ever rebaptized, and the baptism that they passed on to others was the same that they had received – John’s baptism. Then when Peter and the others were looking for a replacement for fallen Judas, it was a prerequisite that the new man have been baptized by John.
The baptism which is administered by this church is the same as that of John the Baptist. John’s baptism glorified Christ and it still does. A baptism of sprinkling or affusion, does not honor the Lord – because it has nothing to do with Christ. A baptism of sprinkling doesn’t picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, as immersion does. A baptism which claims to wash away sins, pollutes the saving blood of Christ. The so-called baptism of babies overturns the doctrines of repentance and faith. We should have respect for John’s baptism, because the Lord Jesus had respect for it.
The very thinking of the chief priests and scribes explains why they rejected the baptism of John.
“If we shall say, from Heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him.” Notice that the Holy Spirit didn’t say, “Why did ye not then receive John’s baptism.” Rather than that, we read “Why did ye not then BELIEVE him.” Before they rejected John’s baptism, they rejected his demand for repentance. And they rejected John’s Saviour and the Messiah. They rejected “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” This was the root of their problem, whether that was clear to their hearts or not. They rejected John and his baptism, because their rejected the One for whom John was preparing a way.
Like so many of Jehovah’s prophets before John, the leadership of Israel rejected the God of those prophets. That was the problem these men had. And that is still the problem with Christendom today.