Was John the Baptists's Baptisms efficacious?

[NotWorthy]

Clearly these 12 came to Paul AFTER Christ had entered the water … probably 8-12 years late, in 40-50 AD. So Paul doesn’t accept them as w/o exception, duly baptized, on basis of Christ completing / making ALL prior baptisms SACRAMENTAL when He was baptized by John.

Paul is making his judgment solely on basis of these 12 saying they had previously been baptized … yet had not received the H.S. Paul instinctively knew some error had occurred with their baptisms … which Christ entering the water had not FIXED !!!

BRB, you are so correct on this part. But…

The ONLY explanation that makes sense to me is exactly what ACTS 19 tells us. Paul asks if they were Baptized into Christ … and they say NO. As Christ taught in scriptures … “No one comes to the Father, except by the Son” . Paul knew w/o their baptism into Christ … he [Paul] could not Confirm the H.S. upon them. He needed to FIX their errant baptism problem. The only way … was to give them the Christian Baptism that Paul himself had received … since they had not received the NORMATIVE one of John, which in majority of cases 12 Apostles for example] … had been done properly and included BOTH repentance and belief in the Christ to come.

I’m not aware that John baptized the 12 Apostles. There is no history of this, as far as I’m aware of.

Perhaps Paul knew that John’s Baptisms were not Sacramental and that Paul’s is.

 

[Bookcat]

BRB, you are so correct on this part. But…

I’m not aware that John baptized the 12 Apostles. There is no history of this, as far as I’m aware of.

The twelve here are not the 12 Apostles… but …I see the confusion for Acts does ot say there were 12 disciples of John that Paul encountered…but just “men”…I think the OP is sort of accidentially combining two stories…or I may have misread things here.I was not following all the posts….

Perhaps Paul knew that John’s Baptisms were not Sacramental and that Paul’s is.

Yes basically…for they had only the baptism of John’s …that of repentance…not Christian Baptism…that of Jesus.

 

[James224]

Clearly these 12 came to Paul AFTER Christ had entered the water … probably 8-12 years late, in 40-50 AD. So Paul doesn’t accept them as w/o exception, duly baptized, on basis of Christ completing / making ALL prior baptisms SACRAMENTAL when He was baptized by John.

Paul is making his judgment solely on basis of these 12 saying they had previously been baptized … yet had not received the H.S. Paul instinctively knew some error had occurred with their baptisms … which Christ entering the water had not FIXED !!!

The ONLY explanation that makes sense to me is exactly what ACTS 19 tells us. Paul asks if they were Baptized into Christ … and they say NO. As Christ taught in scriptures … “No one comes to the Father, except by the Son” . Paul knew w/o their baptism into Christ … he [Paul] could not Confirm the H.S. upon them. He needed to FIX their errant baptism problem. The only way … was to give them the Christian Baptism that Paul himself had received … since they had not received the NORMATIVE one of John, which in majority of cases 12 Apostles for example] … had been done properly and included BOTH repentance and belief in the Christ to come.

Again, I agree with your comment with the exception that the disciples didn’t say NO. All it says is that they hadn’t heard of the Holy Ghost (v2) and that they had been baptized into John’s Baptism (v3). I say you could interpret John’s Baptism as being baptized into Christ because verse 4 says John required them to believe in Jesus so once Christ was baptized in the Jordan, the sacrament was complete.When you say “No one comes to the Father, except by the Son”, this is true and the Son, Jesus, was a necessary requirement for those that were Baptized by John to believe.

I’m not putting down your interpretation of these verses but only am trying to show that there is a traditional, correct second interpretation that is acceptable.

 

[Bookcat]

Again, I agree with your comment with the exception that the disciples didn’t say NO. All it says is that they hadn’t heard of the Holy Ghost (v2) and that they had been baptized into John’s Baptism (v3). I say you could interpret John’s Baptism as being baptized into Christ .

Such an interpretation would though not be the right one here.

John’s baptism however was and remained a “baptism of repentance” …those who were baptized by him were not yet Christians…did not receive the Sacrament.

So those who Paul encountered needed to be Baptized into Christ …

Later Christian Baptism would be given in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…by his disciples after he commands them to do so…

John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance…not the Sacrament of Baptism. This is clear.

In Acts those when those who had been baptized only by John were encountered…they had to be baptized with Christian baptism…and then received the Holy Spirit…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

720 Finally, with John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit begins the restoration to man of “the divine likeness,” prefiguring what he would achieve with and in Christ. John’s baptism was for repentance; baptism in water and the Spirit will be a new birth.

Johns Baptism was for repentance…it is only with Christian Baptism that one will be baptized in water and the Spirit …and it is the baptism that brings new birth.

"Returning now to the Gospel passage, let us seek to better understand what is happening today. St Mark recounts that it was just when John the Baptist was preaching on the banks of the River Jordan, proclaiming the urgent need for conversion in view of the now imminent coming of the Messiah, that Jesus, who was among the crowds, presented himself to be baptized. John’s Baptism is indisputably a Baptism of penance, very different from the sacrament that Jesus was to institute. "–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090111_battesimo_en.html

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

 

[James224]

Clearly these 12 came to Paul AFTER Christ had entered the water … probably 8-12 years late, in 40-50 AD. So Paul doesn’t accept them as w/o exception, duly baptized, on basis of Christ completing / making ALL prior baptisms SACRAMENTAL when He was baptized by John.

Paul is making his judgment solely on basis of these 12 saying they had previously been baptized … yet had not received the H.S. Paul instinctively knew some error had occurred with their baptisms … which Christ entering the water had not FIXED !!!

The ONLY explanation that makes sense to me is exactly what ACTS 19 tells us. Paul asks if they were Baptized into Christ … and they say NO. As Christ taught in scriptures … “No one comes to the Father, except by the Son” . Paul knew w/o their baptism into Christ … he [Paul] could not Confirm the H.S. upon them. He needed to FIX their errant baptism problem. The only way … was to give them the Christian Baptism that Paul himself had received … since they had not received the NORMATIVE one of John, which in majority of cases 12 Apostles for example] … had been done properly and included BOTH repentance and belief in the Christ to come.

Hey brb3,

What do you think of what it says in the Catechism that I posted in post #51? Look it up in the Catechism and let me know.

 

[James224]

Such an interpretation would though not be the right one here.

John’s baptism however was and remained a “baptism of repentance” …those who were baptized by him were not yet Christians…did not receive the Sacrament.

So those who Paul encountered needed to be Baptized into Christ …

Later Christian Baptism would be given in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…by his disciples after he commands them to do so…

John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance…not the Sacrament of Baptism. This is clear.

In Acts those when those who had been baptized only by John were encountered…they had to be baptized with Christian baptism…and then received the Holy Spirit…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

720 Finally, with John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit begins the restoration to man of “the divine likeness,” prefiguring what he would achieve with and in Christ. John’s baptism was for repentance; baptism in water and the Spirit will be a new birth.

Johns Baptism was for repentance…it is only with Christian Baptism that one will be baptized in water and the Spirit …and it is the baptism that brings new birth.

"Returning now to the Gospel passage, let us seek to better understand what is happening today. St Mark recounts that it was just when John the Baptist was preaching on the banks of the River Jordan, proclaiming the urgent need for conversion in view of the now imminent coming of the Messiah, that Jesus, who was among the crowds, presented himself to be baptized. John’s Baptism is indisputably a Baptism of penance, very different from the sacrament that Jesus was to institute. "–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090111_battesimo_en.html

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 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!

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 Jordan.

 

[James224]

Ahhh, the Holy Spirit was interjecting Himself into the Cornelius affair. If He hadn’t, then Cornelius and the gang would have gone through circumcision prior to baptism.

I think some of them may have lost their religious zeal if they were faced with circumcision as a pre-requisite for Baptism.

Remember, God sets up norms for His Church to act, but He is not bound by those limitations. That helps to explain Cornelius and even the Good Thief on the Cross, “For all things are possible with God”!

Absolutely! I totally agree.

 

[James224]

Hello brb3,

One other thought I had about this 2nd interpretation is that it is rare that both could be acceptable but it happens and I wanted to give a couple of examples off the top of my head:

Purgatory - The church has never said where Purgatory is but, simply, that it exists. We are free to believe it’s in heaven or in hell.

Predestination - There are 2 acceptable viewpoints in the church on this - the Thomisitc View and the Molonist view.

Likewise with the Institution of Baptism.

 

[James224]

Hello Notworthy and brb3,

Well, after all my defending I finally was able to see some of the quotes of the ECF’s and, so far, all they say is that Acts 19:5 is Water Baptism and nothing else. So I have to admit I may be totally wrong. Bouncing this off of you helps to get to the bottom of this. I looked at Cyril, Augustine, and Ambrose so far. I wish I could see that quote by Aquinas on Augustine to do with the institution of Baptism at the Jordan.

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! I want to thank both of you for your interaction and I’ll remember you in my prayers!

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey guys. Just thought I would put this juicy little tidbit of fatherly tradition up here:

Clement of Alexandria:

“Yes, truly, the apostles were baptised, as Clement the Stromatist relates in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes. For, in explaining the apostolic statement,“I thank God that I baptised none of you,” he says, Christ is said to have baptised Peter alone, and Peter Andrew, and Andrew John, and they James and the rest.”

It’s okay if you’re not as excited as I am, but not only did Christ baptize (which explains the supposed John 3 and John 4:1 controversy), but he baptized Peter. This would also appear to show that yes, Baptism was instituted in the Jordan.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hey guys. Just thought I would put this juicy little tidbit of fatherly tradition up here:

Clement of Alexandria:

“Yes, truly, the apostles were baptised, as Clement the Stromatist relates in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes. For, in explaining the apostolic statement,“I thank God that I baptised none of you,” he says, Christ is said to have baptised Peter alone, and Peter Andrew, and Andrew John, and they James and the rest.”

It’s okay if you’re not as excited as I am, but not only did Christ baptize (which explains the supposed John 3 and John 4:1 controversy), but he baptized Peter. This would also appear to show that yes, Baptism was instituted in the Jordan.

But Christ is never “said to have baptized Peter alone, and Peter Andrew, and Andrew John, and then James and the rest”. I’m going with John 4:2 on this matter.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

It says that he wasn’t baptizing anyone when the pharisees came up. It doesn’t say he *never *baptized anyone. Im not sure why this is so shocking, Jesus has a habit of instituting something, then bestowing it on his disciples.

John 4 says that Jesus was not baptizing, not that he never did. It makes complete sense that he baptized Peter who in turn baptized the rest, it is allowed by the text, and it is supported by early witness.

 

[NotWorthy]

It says that he wasn’t baptizing anyone when the pharisees came up. It doesn’t say he *never *baptized anyone. Im not sure why this is so shocking, Jesus has a habit of instituting something, then bestowing it on his disciples.

John 4 says that Jesus was not baptizing, not that he never did. It makes complete sense that he baptized Peter who in turn baptized the rest, it is allowed by the text, and it is supported by early witness.

Who are the early witnesses.

It doesn’t make sense that He baptized, because of two statements.

Jesus says, “I must go so that the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, may come”.

Peter says, “Repent and be Baptized, for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.

 

[James224]

Who are the early witnesses.

It doesn’t make sense that He baptized, because of two statements.

Jesus says, “I must go so that the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, may come”.

Peter says, “Repent and be Baptized, for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.

Hello Notworthy & Nathan,

It’s interesting but I agree with Notworthy that the usual understanding, anyway, it that Jesus never baptized. This has been the most interesting thread I’ve been on in probably 10 years! It’s great having all you knowledgeable Catholics to talk to!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I gave the citation from Clement of Alexandria (to clarify, that was his quotation, not mine), and he says “it is said,” so apparently it is not a theological novum that Jesus at least baptized one person. Also, it is never argued that the Holy Spirit was not present prior to Jesus’ resurrection, since otherwise by what power were the miracles the apostles committed being performed in Luke 9 and Mark 6? How can he breathe the Holy Spirit into the apostles after his resurrection (gospel of John) but before his ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit?

The special presence of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost is in a special way, and we have this same distinction in Baptism and Confirmation.

All of this may be beside the point, however, since if the institution of the Eucharist was able to anticipate the cross in a mystical sense, why not the Baptism? Also, if Jesus baptized only one person, you can rightly say that he baptized, then clarify later that it was his disiples baptizing. Add that with the comment by Clement of Alexandria, and it’s a pretty good case.

 

[NotWorthy]

I gave the citation from Clement of Alexandria (to clarify, that was his quotation, not mine), and he says “it is said,” so apparently it is not a theological novum that Jesus at least baptized one person. Also, it is never argued that the Holy Spirit was not present prior to Jesus’ resurrection, since otherwise by what power were the miracles the apostles committed being performed in Luke 9 and Mark 6? How can he breathe the Holy Spirit into the apostles after his resurrection (gospel of John) but before his ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit?

The special presence of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost is in a special way, and we have this same distinction in Baptism and Confirmation.

All of this may be beside the point, however, since if the institution of the Eucharist was able to anticipate the cross in a mystical sense, why not the Baptism? Also, if Jesus baptized only one person, you can rightly say that he baptized, then clarify later that it was his disiples baptizing. Add that with the comment by Clement of Alexandria, and it’s a pretty good case.

I’ll take a look at Clement’s quote, but all I know from Scripture is that it says Jesus didn’t Baptize. And I don’t know of any ECF’s prior to Clement that claim that Jesus baptized.

In the Eucharist, Jesus explained that His Body was the Body that He was going to Sacrifice on the Cross. Nowhere is there similar teaching in the Bible that is related to Jesus’ Baptism - stuff like what St. Paul says like, “We are baptized into His Death…”.

Just my opinion.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I’ll take a look at Clement’s quote, but all I know from Scripture is that it says Jesus didn’t Baptize. And I don’t know of any ECF’s prior to Clement that claim that Jesus baptized.

In the Eucharist, Jesus explained that His Body was the Body that He was going to Sacrifice on the Cross. Nowhere is there similar teaching in the Bible that is related to Jesus’ Baptism - stuff like what St. Paul says like, “We are baptized into His Death…”.

Just my opinion.

I’d have to respectfully disagree, 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.

Considering the presence of the dove and the parallels with the baptism of the world in Noah’s flood (also a symbol of death), I find it worthy of note that in Luke 12:50, Jesus chooses the term “baptism” to refer to his crucifixion and death, which is also a death but a new creation. Yes, baptism can refer to trial and ordeal in the NT, as in the Pauline epistles, but the reason why can easily be traced back to the fact that this is the terminology Jesus chose to use. Paul makes more explicit what is implicit in the Gospels, but the parallels are definitely there, and in the Gospel of Mark’s case he makes a rather explicit parallel.

As for the Scriptures:

John 3:22: After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.

John 3:26: So they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing and everyone is coming to him.”

John 4:1-2: Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples)

John 3:22 seems to say Jesus baptized. At least once. The question to ask, is whether the qualifying paragraph in 4:2 is really meant to explain both previous passages. Another thing to ask, is why it says Jesus was not baptizing, instead of Jesus did not baptize. The continuing tense of the verb indicates that he may not have been baptizing at one point (when the Pharisees found out), but that he may have baptized at a previous point. There is nothing in the grammar to indicate he did not, and John 3:26 seems to say so. Arguing from John 4:2 is similar to saying that because Paul said “all have sinned,” this excludes Jesus. Scripture often has used language such as this while still allowing a few isolated examples. Except in this case, the grammar is even more supportive of this possible interpretation of John 4:2.

There is also the logical example of whether or not it really makes more sense for Jesus to have all the apostles baptize themselves without baptizing at least one of them. Combine this with the statement of Clement of Alexandria that speaks in passing of an assumed fact, saying “it is said,” and we have a fairly cohesive argument that Jesus did in fact baptize Peter.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
There is also the logical example of whether or not it really makes more sense for Jesus to have all the apostles baptize themselves without baptizing at least one of them. Combine this with the statement of Clement of Alexandria that speaks in passing of an assumed fact, saying “it is said,” and we have a fairly cohesive argument that Jesus did in fact baptize Peter.

I tend to agree that Jesus probably baptized at least some of the apostles before they baptized others. However, One must note that some of the apostles had been John’s disciples; so presumably had been baptized by him. They could have baptized the others, and Jesus baptize no one. In either case we still have the question of the effect of these early baptisms by the apostles.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

There are also two coptic sources:

The two Coptic sources are Abu-'l-Barakat, century XIV, and Macarius, century X. The former writes of the week that precedes Palm Sunday:

“It is said that the baptism of the apostles took place then.”

Macarius, some four centuries earlier, had already written concerning the Friday of the same week:

“It has been told that this is the day on which the Lord Christ baptized his disciples.”

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I tend to agree that Jesus probably baptized at least some of the apostles before they baptized others. However, One must note that some of the apostles had been John’s disciples; so presumably had been baptized by him. They could have baptized the others, and Jesus baptize no one. In either case we still have the question of the effect of these early baptisms by the apostles.

I would disagree on one count, since it is portrayed in the gospel of John as a competitive baptism. They had to be baptizing in Jesus’ name, and so a baptism by John would not be sufficient, since we know that the two were markedly contrast. I think the issue is that many people confuse the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost with any efficaciousness of the Holy Spirit in a sanctifying manner throughout the Gospels, which cannot be disputed.

Another thing people confuse is temporal and eternal timelines. The cross hadn’t happened yet on a temporal line, but if the baptism is tied with the cross, it is efficacious regardless on the spiritual plane. The precise reason they would be efficaious is because Jesus purified the waters himself first.