Was John the Baptists's Baptisms efficacious?

[NotWorthy]

On AgapeBibleStudy.Com, I saw a couple of thoughts on this matter by St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose

St. John Chrysostom writes that …both baptisms, that of St. John the Baptist and that of our Lord’s disciples …], had a single purpose’to bring the baptized to Christ …] and prepare the way for future faith. Homilies on St. John, 29,1. St. Ambrose wrote that baptism of repentance was necessary to prepare the way for the grace that would be Christ’s gift: *Neither repentance avails without grace nor grace without repentance; for repentance must first condemn sin that grace may blot it out. *St. Ambrose of Milan, Epistle 34.

In this study, it is understood (by John 4:2) that Jesus didn’t baptize.

If both John’s baptisms and those of Jesus’ Disciples were one of repentance (and to prepare the way for Christ), then it would make sense that Jesus didn’t baptize simply to prevent future confusion among those baptized once Baptism became a Sacrament.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Agape Bible Study is an excellent resource, but it doesn’t deal with some of the problems already cited, nor does St. John Chrysostom necessarily cancel out the earlier quote from Clement as well as the Coptic references.

Your point is noted about the confusion, but it could also be argued that Jesus created even more confusion by allowing his disciples to baptize anyone at all. We could argue, as you seem to be, that they are both giving one baptism of repentance, but later passages in Acts make it clear that the baptisms were different on a personal level (baptism of John, baptism of Jesus), and nowhere is it even implied that the apostles had to be “rebaptized” with the “now sacramental” baptism, since their baptism was “really just the same type of one as John’s.” Instead it simply states that John’s disciples (and only John’s) were re-baptized. Due to this complete lack of textual evidence, all one can truly say without reading too much into the text is assume that the disciples were indeed baptizing in the name of Jesus, and that these baptisms were effectual because on a spiritual plane, they were tied directly to the cross, as I have demonstrated, while John’s were not. This makes perfect sense if we stop thinking in purely temporal planes, since there is absolutely no reason to assume that the grace of the cross cannot transcend temporal boundaries, particularly for an instituted Sacrament tied directly to it. Were they instituted *temporally *until the cross? No. But on a *spiritual *plane, I would argue yes, since all grace throughout the Bible post-Adam is from the cross. The baptism would simply be tied more so (and be efficacious; ex opere operati) with the cross because it is a Sacrament.

We have the advantage of having had dogmas defined over the centuries, that Saint John Chrysostom would perhaps have been speculating on, such as the nature of grace, and the differing natures of the presences of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is present in the Gospels prior to Christ’s ascension, and even prior to his death through the apostles, and yet He had not come until Pentecost. Since our Confirmation is linked in Pentecost, we can look at these other instances of the Holy Spirit as a differing form, much as people were baptized, and yet still had to have hands lain on them since they had “not yet received the Spirit.”

I am merely trying to challenge people in general to really think about what they say when they respond (and I am not saying you at all) “The Holy Spirit hadn’t come yet.” It is a statement I hear parroted that seems to betray a lack of deeper reflection on the nature of the workings of the Holy Spirit through the gospel, what it actually meant to say the Spirit hadn’t come yet, the differing forms of the Spirit, taking into account both temporal and eternal planes, the pattern of sacramental institution Jesus seems to follow repeatedly, and other factors stated earlier throughout this thread. I find the quote by Clement of Alexandria and the Coptic references to personally have cleared up a lot of this for me, I understand if it does not for many others, though I would ask them to really think about why they disagree, so that they have certitude that withstands the rigors of deeper thought. I will continue to pray and reflect on this matter, and I appreciate the dialogue with all of you.

 

[NotWorthy]

Agape Bible Study is an excellent resource, but it doesn’t deal with some of the problems already cited, nor does St. John Chrysostom necessarily cancel out the earlier quote from Clement as well as the Coptic references.

Your point is noted about the confusion, but it could also be argued that Jesus created even more confusion by allowing his disciples to baptize anyone at all. We could argue, as you seem to be, that they are both giving one baptism of repentance, but later passages in Acts make it clear that the baptisms were different on a personal level (baptism of John, baptism of Jesus), and nowhere is it even implied that the apostles had to be “rebaptized” with the “now sacramental” baptism, since their baptism was “really just the same type of one as John’s.” Instead it simply states that John’s disciples (and only John’s) were re-baptized. Due to this complete lack of textual evidence, all one can truly say without reading too much into the text is assume that the disciples were indeed baptizing in the name of Jesus, and that these baptisms were effectual because on a spiritual plane, they were tied directly to the cross, as I have demonstrated, while John’s were not. This makes perfect sense if we stop thinking in purely temporal planes, since there is absolutely no reason to assume that the grace of the cross cannot transcend temporal boundaries, particularly for an instituted Sacrament tied directly to it. Were they instituted *temporally *until the cross? No. But on a *spiritual *plane, I would argue yes, since all grace throughout the Bible post-Adam is from the cross. The baptism would simply be tied more so (and be efficacious; ex opere operati) with the cross because it is a Sacrament.

We have the advantage of having had dogmas defined over the centuries, that Saint John Chrysostom would perhaps have been speculating on, such as the nature of grace, and the differing natures of the presences of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is present in the Gospels prior to Christ’s ascension, and even prior to his death through the apostles, and yet He had not come until Pentecost. Since our Confirmation is linked in Pentecost, we can look at these other instances of the Holy Spirit as a differing form, much as people were baptized, and yet still had to have hands lain on them since they had “not yet received the Spirit.”

I am merely trying to challenge people in general to really think about what they say when they respond (and I am not saying you at all) “The Holy Spirit hadn’t come yet.” It is a statement I hear parroted that seems to betray a lack of deeper reflection on the nature of the workings of the Holy Spirit through the gospel, what it actually meant to say the Spirit hadn’t come yet, the differing forms of the Spirit, taking into account both temporal and eternal planes, the pattern of sacramental institution Jesus seems to follow repeatedly, and other factors stated earlier throughout this thread. I find the quote by Clement of Alexandria and the Coptic references to personally have cleared up a lot of this for me, I understand if it does not for many others, though I would ask them to really think about why they disagree, so that they have certitude that withstands the rigors of deeper thought. I will continue to pray and reflect on this matter, and I appreciate the dialogue with all of you.

And I have appreciated the dialog as well. Although this discussion is akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it has been most enlightening.

 

[NotWorthy]

One of the reasons I’ve appreciated this dialog is that it has made me take a 2nd (and a 3rd, and a 4th) look at something I’ve always accepted as fact. I couldn’t find any commentary on these passages in the Ignatius study Bible, but the Navarre says that John 4:2 proves that Jesus didn’t baptize.

And sadly (as far you Nathan is concerned) the Navarre references two verses: John 7:39 - He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe in him were to receive. There was, of course, no Spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. - and John 16:7 - But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

I’ll continue to look at some other studies, if I have time, to see if I can find anything more concrete.

God Bless!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Already covered those in the post above, 3rd paragraph

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi everybody! This will probably be my only contribution to this thread, but I had some thoughts to share…

I have not been able to definitively confirm this, but I am fairly certain that the quote from “Augustine” that Thomas Aquinas gave is actually something from Maximus of Turin. Augustine’s homilies on the Epiphany focus on the coming of the Magi, not baptism, and “Many of [Maximus’] sermons were [formerly] attributed to Ambrose or Augustine” ([preview of this page not available]). Here is the text that I think Aquinas may have been drawing from (perhaps a variant form):

“For the Lord had to demonstrate first in Himself what He would afterwards demand of the human race, since He accomplished everything not for His own sake but for our salvation. Or did He wish to be baptized on his own account even when He had no sin? As the prophet says: He did not sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth. but [He was baptized] for our sake — we who, subject to punishment because of our many crimes and sins, needed to be cleansed in Christ’s baptism. And therefore the Lord came to the washing not so that He Himself might be purified by the waters but so that the streams of waters might purify us, for He went down into the waters thereby destroying the sins of all believers. But it was necessary that he who bore the sins of all should destroy the sins of all, as the Evangelist says: This is the lamb of God, this is the one who takes away the sins of the world. In a wonderful way, then, one man goes down into the waters and the salvation of all is restored” (Sermon 64).

Here are some other thoughts from the fathers that touch on points raised in this thread…

Tertullian said that John’s “baptism was divine indeed, (yet in respect of the command, not in respect of efficacy too, in that we read that John was sent by the Lord to perform this duty,) but human in its nature: for it conveyed nothing celestial, but it fore-ministered to things celestial; being, to wit, appointed over repentance, which is in man’s power… And thus it was with the selfsame baptism of John that His disciples used to baptize, as ministers, with which John before had baptized as forerunner. Let none think it was with some other, because no other exists, except that of Christ subsequently; which at that time, of course, could not be given by His disciples, inasmuch as the glory of the Lord had not yet been fully attained, nor the efficacy of the font established through the passion and the resurrection; because neither can our death see dissolution except by the Lord’s passion, nor our life be restored without His resurrection” (On Baptism).

And Augustine wrote that “it is correct to say that when Peter denied the Lord the Apostles had not yet been baptized, not, indeed, with water, but with the Holy Spirit… But, if we say that they were not baptized with water, it is to be feared that we may put them seriously in the wrong… [W]e know that it was when He went from Jerusalem with His disciples into the land of Judea and abode there with them that He baptized, not personally, but through His disciples, whom we understand to have been already baptized either with the baptism of John or, more credibly, with the baptism of Christ” (Letter 265).

“[C]ertain who had the baptism of John were commanded by Paul to be baptized (cf. Acts 19:3-5), for they had not the baptism of Christ” (Tractate 5 on the Gospel of John).

“It may perhaps surprise you why it is said, that ‘Jesus baptized more than John’ (John 4:1); and after this was said, it is subjoined, ‘although Jesus baptized not, but His disciples’ (John 4:2). What then? Was the statement made false, and then corrected by this addition? Or, are both true, viz. that Jesus both did and also did not baptize? He did in fact baptize, because it was He that cleansed; and He did not baptize, because it was not He that touched. The disciples supplied the ministry of the body; He afforded the aid of His majesty. Now, when could He cease from baptizing, so long as He ceased not from cleansing? Of Him it is said by the same John, in the person of the Baptist, who says, ‘This is He that baptizes’ (John 1:33). Jesus, therefore, is still baptizing; and so long as we continue to be baptized, Jesus baptizes. Let a man come without fear to the minister below; for he has a Master above” (Tractate 15 on the Gospel of John).

 

[Pete_Holter]

John Chrysostom: “ ‘After this,’ says the Evangelist, ‘He went forth and His disciples into the land of Judæa, and there He tarried with them and baptized.’ … Yet the Evangelist farther on says, that ‘Jesus baptized not, but His disciples’; whence it is clear that this is his meaning here also. And why did Jesus not baptize? The Baptist had said before, ‘He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.’ Now he had not yet given the Spirit, and it was therefore with good cause that he did not baptize. But His disciples did so, because they desired to bring many to the saving doctrine” (Homily 29 on the Gospel of John).

“[H]ow says Luke, ‘that he came into the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?’ (Luke 3:3) And yet it had not remission, but this gift pertained unto the baptism that was given afterwards; for in this ‘we are buried with Him,’ and our old man was then crucified with Him, and before the cross there does not appear remission anywhere; for everywhere this is imputed to His blood. And Paul too says, ‘But you are washed, but you are sanctified,’ not by the baptism of John, but ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God’ (1 Corinthians 6:11). And elsewhere too he says, ‘John verily preached a baptism of repentance,’ (he says not of remission,) ‘that they should believe in Him that should come after him’ (Acts 19:4). For when the sacrifice was not yet offered, neither had the spirit yet come down, nor sin was put away, nor the enmity removed, nor the curse destroyed; how was remission to take place? What means then, ‘for the remission of sins’?…he adds, ‘for remission,’ as though he said, ‘For this end he exhorted them to confess and repent of their sins; not that they should be punished, but that they might more easily receive the subsequent remission. For had they not condemned themselves, they could not have sought after His grace; and not seeking, they could not have obtained remission’ ” (Homily 10 on Matthew).

Aquinas: “[T]he whole teaching and work of John was in preparation for Christ: just as it is the duty of the servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the form which is accomplished by the head-craftsman. Now grace was to be conferred on men through Christ, according to John 1:17: ‘Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.’ Therefore the baptism of John did not confer grace, but only prepared the way for grace” (Summa Theologica).

“John’s baptism neither conferred grace nor imprinted a character, but was merely ‘in water,’ as he says himself (Matthew 3:11). Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because, when in a sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament, not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely renewed. Now, it belongs of necessity to Christ’s baptism that it be given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3:5: ‘Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Wherefore in the case of those who had been baptized with John’s baptism in water only (cf. Acts 19:3-5), not merely had the omission to be supplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, but they had to be baptized wholly anew ‘in water and the Holy Ghost.’

…]

“The reason why these persons were baptized after being baptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy Ghost, but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ”
(Summa Theologica).

“The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely figurative, whereas John’s baptism, in a measure, was real, inasmuch as it induced men to refrain from sin; but Christ’s baptism is efficacious unto the remission of sin and the conferring of grace. Now Christ needed neither the remission of sin, which was not in Him, nor the bestowal of grace, with which He was filled. Moreover, since He is ‘the Truth,’ it was not fitting that He should receive that which was no more than a figure. Consequently it was more fitting that He should receive the intermediate baptism than one of the extremes” (Summa Theologica).

With the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete

 

[Bookcat]

I read these quotes and agree, however, even Pope Benedict’s words doesn’t undo this second interpretation. Here’s why. Your quote above that says, “John’s Baptism is indisputably a Baptism of penance, very different from the sacrament that Jesus was to institute”, doesn’t really say the disciples weren’t fully baptized but, rather, that John’s Baptism, by itself, wasn’t complete and needed Christ’s institution to be complete. However, Baptism was instituted by Christ at the Jordan, at least, as some historically interpreted it. It would equally be unusual if the sacrament was instituted at the Jordan and NO ONE was truly Baptized!

Such is not the understanding of the Church.
Pope Benedict words here do include the meaning that John’s baptism remained such as it was…even after Christ was baptized. When one says that the waters were sanctified by Christ at the Jordon…it is not saying that then John’s baptism was then a Christian baptism. It is not at all unusual that no one was baptized as a Christian until after the death and resurrection of Christ! For baptism comes from the death and resurrection of Christ…one even dies and rises with him in it. Hence one finds Christs command to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…after his death and resurrection. oh and John of course did not baptize in any such way…it was one of repentance…not baptism into Christ.

As far as your quote from the Catechism (CCC 720) is concerned, I think looking at CCC 719 gives a broader context. It says, "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. . . . Behold, the Lamb of God."99

This is a quote from John 1:33-36. And Jesus, being at the Jordan, did Baptize with the Spirit. In other words, Jesus completed the Baptism of John at the Jordon

Jesus did not complete the baptism of John…his baptism is different.

 

[rcjones]

I think there are several parallels between Jesus’ baptism and his death. Schidzo, the Greek word for “torn or ripped” is used only twice in the Gospel of Mark, at the moment he is baptized and the heavens are rent (1:10), and at the moment he dies and the temple veil is torn (15:38). That is highly signficant.

Very good observation. Prophets of old were told to ‘role play’ a sort of dinner theater as a means of prophesying to the people. Jesus stepped into circumstances that were shadows of the cross, and role played the part to finish the picture. The Father then responded usually with a miracle to endorse it.

Jesus’s baptism was a shadow of the cross. There was no Water/Word until John fulfilling the prophecy of Elijah. John is himself a shadow of Christ, since there was no Word until the Living Word, Christ. Elijah then has three days in the grave hidden in riddle. Just as Christ would have three days in the grave. So the role play was that he must die at the hands of John symbolizing his death at his own hands, or by his own choice. So he submitted to the baptism to fulfill all righteousness.

The Father seeing that Jesus understood his role at the cross, rewards him with the miracle of the Holy Spirit visible like a dove. By this Jesus had confirmation that he was doing his Father’s will.

The veil tearing and the heavens split, and the rock split, and the waters parted are all shadows that God Himself would be split at the cross as the Father ‘forsook’ the Son and left him alone. There was no greater desolation than when the Son had been made to be sin and the Father left him on the cross.

 

[NotWorthy]

Already covered those in the post above, 3rd paragraph

That was my point… it (the Navarre commentary) revealed nothing new to the conversation.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

That was my point… it (the Navarre commentary) revealed nothing new to the conversation.

Ah, ok, gotcha. Pete Holter, thanks for those citations.

 

[NotWorthy]

Very good observation. Prophets of old were told to ‘role play’ a sort of dinner theater as a means of prophesying to the people. Jesus stepped into circumstances that were shadows of the cross, and role played the part to finish the picture. The Father then responded usually with a miracle to endorse it.

Jesus’s baptism was a shadow of the cross. There was no Water/Word until John fulfilling the prophecy of Elijah. John is himself a shadow of Christ, since there was no Word until the Living Word, Christ. Elijah then has three days in the grave hidden in riddle. Just as Christ would have three days in the grave. So the role play was that he must die at the hands of John symbolizing his death at his own hands, or by his own choice. So he submitted to the baptism to fulfill all righteousness.

The Father seeing that Jesus understood his role at the cross, rewards him with the miracle of the Holy Spirit visible like a dove. By this Jesus had confirmation that he was doing his Father’s will.

The veil tearing and the heavens split, and the rock split, and the waters parted are all shadows that God Himself would be split at the cross as the Father ‘forsook’ the Son and left him alone. There was no greater desolation than when the Son had been made to be sin and the Father left him on the cross.

I think the two usages of “rent” in Jesus’ Baptism and His Death can not be examined completely without looking back to Isaiah’s writings when he wrote, "Too long have we been like those you do not rule, who do not bear your name. Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down, with the mountains quaking before you… " (Isaiah 63:9).

The two events are a fulfillment of Isaiah’s request for the Lord to rend the heavens and come down to rule His people". Jesus’ Baptism is a pre-cursor to the fulfillment… a foreshadowing, if you will. And Jesus’ death, releasing the blood and water from His side, would be the fulfillment. The Blood sealing the New Covenant, and the Water representing the Holy Spirit spreading from the Temple (ala Ezekiel 36).

So instead of the heavens rending displaying God being split apart, I would rather look at the heavens rending to show that God is going to come down and Shepherd His people (ala Jeremiah 31).

 

[rcjones]

And Jesus’ death, releasing the blood and water from His side, would be the fulfillment. The Blood sealing the New Covenant, and the Water representing the Holy Spirit spreading from the Temple

If releasing the blood and water represent something else, then they are not the fulfillment but a shadow of the thing they represent. The fulfillment is that which all the others speak of.

 

[NotWorthy]

If releasing the blood and water represent something else, then they are not the fulfillment but a shadow of the thing they represent. The fulfillment is that which all the others speak of.

The Blood IS the Seal of the Covenant. The Water may point to the fulfillment at Pentecost… you’ve got a point there. But His own precious Blood is what Jesus sealed the New Covenant with.

So yes indeed, friend, I misspoke. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[brb3]

The baptism John offers is one of repentance, a sign that is an invitation to conversion, to a change of life, because One is coming who will “baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (3: 16). —Pope Benedict XVI
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20100110_battesimo_en.html

I think you misunderstand Pope Benedict’s meaning on this. Christ’s Baptism was also based on REPENTANCE. Indeed, repentance is always the prerequisite event [for adults receiving].

Christ took John’s Baptism [of Repentance and Belief in the Christ to Come] … and completes it by bringing forth the Holy Spirit he received from the Father, when he underwent John’s Baptism by water. Not that Christ needed repentance, but as he said … it was needed to FULFILL the scriptures.

The Baptism of Christ involves two matters 1.) John’s Baptism [Water washing, as a demonstration of one’s repentance] … per Peter. 2.) Receipt of Holy Spirit … [act of Christ on the repentant one, washed of water].

Per Christ … "yea must be born OF WATER & SPIRIT. Man does his part, Christ does his part. A ‘Covenantal matter’ that brings true renewal / conversion .

 

[rcjones]

The Blood IS the Seal of the Covenant. The Water may point to the fulfillment at Pentecost… you’ve got a point there. But His own precious Blood is what Jesus sealed the New Covenant with.

So yes indeed, friend, I misspoke. Thanks for the heads up!

With prophetic recapitulation it is easy to do. When you realize that even the life of Jesus is a shadow of the Son in eternity, then sometimes it is easier to start with the end and work backwards.

 

[brb3]

John’s Baptism, by itself, wasn’t complete and needed Christ’s institution to be complete.

This is a quote from John 1:33-36. And Jesus, being at the Jordan, did Baptize with the Spirit. In other words, Jesus completed the Baptism of John at the Jordan.

Yes … our Priests do their part …as did John, ////// and Christ completes the sacrament by doing his part, for the Father.

Thus, both Part A and Part B are needful … to have an efficacious Baptism.

 

[brb3]

So, as of yet I will assume I’m wrong until I do more research and only if I find something to the contrary.

brb3 - I know you are happy with this! lol I admire you for sticking to your guns!!

Always go with what Christ says … about ALL matters !!! His word is the Final Authority.

I know NotWorthy is good on scripture … but, not infallible

 

[brb3]

Jesus never baptized.

Yes … not with Water. That’s man’s part. But, he brings the Spirit & Fire to the water-washed convert.

But, he has Confirmed every VALID water baptism EVER done … Peter’s, Paul’s, Augustine’s, T. A.'s, mine, yours, NotWorthy’s, etc.

 

[brb3]

Hi everybody! This will probably be my only contribution to this thread, but I had some thoughts to share…

“It may perhaps surprise you why it is said, that ‘Jesus baptized more than John’ (John 4:1); and after this was said, it is subjoined, ‘although Jesus baptized not, but His disciples’ (John 4:2). What then? Was the statement made false, and then corrected by this addition? Or, are both true, viz. that Jesus both did and also did not baptize? He did in fact baptize, because it was He that cleansed; and He did not baptize, because it was not He that touched. The disciples supplied the ministry of the body; He afforded the aid of His majesty. Now, when could He cease from baptizing, so long as He ceased not from cleansing? Of Him it is said by the same John, in the person of the Baptist, who says, ‘This is He that baptizes’ (John 1:33). Jesus, therefore, is still baptizing; and so long as we continue to be baptized, Jesus baptizes. Let a man come without fear to the minister below; for he has a Master above” (Tractate 15 on the Gospel of John).

There ABOVE is the answer to the Mystery of … “Was John’s Baptism Efficacious”…