The First Century Influence of John the Baptist

In a previous article[1] it was observed that scholars think[2] that John the Baptist was in some sense a competing focus for loyalty in the early church and that one of the aims of the Fourth Gospel (4G) was to place the ministry of the Baptist in a correct perspective. If this is true it would reinforce the hypothesis that the 4G was delivered first to Ephesus, where disciples of John the Baptist were encountered by Paul.

He must increase but I must decrease

In a Gospel that is renowned for the “signs” that Jesus performed (John 2:18; 4:54; 6:14, 30; 12:18) we are informed that “John performed no sign, but all the things that John spoke about this Man were true” (John 10:41).  Although the ministry of John and Jesus are contrasted favourably, the reader is left in no doubt that John’s function is preparatory and testamentary.   Even so, the author of the Gospel is at pains to stress that the witness of John did not lend Jesus his authority: “You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved” (John 5:33-34). J. Ashton comments,

Although everything John the Baptist said about Jesus was true (cf. 10:40-41), Jesus himself did not, could not, accept human testimony -i.e., he himself did not depend on it to establish who he was in his own mind.[3]

Another illustration of the subordination of the Baptist is seen in the detail of Jesus’ baptism. J. D. G. Dunn remarks,

For the Fourth Evangelist the important thing between the encounter between the Baptist and Jesus was the descent of the Spirit on Jesus. Far from implying that this was effected through or by water baptism John focuses attention exclusively on the operation of the Spirit.[4]

In contrast, the synoptics describe the actual water baptism of Jesus in more detail.[5]

The Fourth Gospel also differentiates itself from the Synoptists in that it knows of a baptismal ministry administered by Jesus, although careful to specify that it was the disciples who baptized.   G. R. Beasley-Murray observes,

While each of the Synoptists gives an account of the baptism of Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist merely presumes it without mentioning the event (John1.32f). On the other hand, the Synoptists are silent about any administration or authorisation of baptism by Jesus, but the Fourth Evangelist refers twice to such an activity on the part of our Lord (John 3.22ff, 4.1ff). Nor can it be said that the Evangelist views this work as an insignificant aspect of the ministry of Jesus; the account is part of his exposition of the relations between Jesus and John. He implies that there was a period when the ministries of John and Jesus were exercised concurrently (3.22ff) and, somewhat surprisingly, that the baptizing ministry of Jesus was more successful than that of his forerunner: John’s disciples tell him that ‘everybody’ was going to Jesus for baptism (3.26), and Jesus learns that the Pharisees heard He was making and baptizing more disciples than John (4.1).[6]

Many scholars regard the passage[7] as largely tendentious, motivated for apologetic reasons – to provide an explanation for the Church’s adoption of John’s water baptism or to combat movements who saw the Baptist as the Messiah.  However, J. A. T. Robinson concludes,

That there were elements of John’s following which did not find their way into the Church is indeed very probable; that these elements constituted a rival group to Christianity in the first century, with a competing Christology, is, I believe, without any foundation whatever.[8]

We might add his observation that,

…for this Gospel above all there is no antithesis between the history and the theology, so that the more theological it is (which no one would dispute), the less historical it is (as many would conclude).[9]

There is no reason to regard the baptism administered by Jesus’ disciples as any different to that of John; indeed many scholars understand it as a continuation of John’s baptism[10] but we are still left with a problem, namely, if the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus (Christian baptism) are essentially the same – why does the Fourth Gospel feel it necessary to emphasise the superiority of Christ? Was there an underlying problem with some of the disciples of the Baptist?

The Baptism of Repentance

The baptism of John and Christian baptism are essentially the same, they differ only in their temporal perspective; one is preparatory and looks forward to the salvation event, the other projects backwards to the same event.

The ministry of the Baptist marked a turning point: “since that time the kingdom of God is preached” (Luke 16:16),[11] therefore John the Baptist, together with Christ, belonged to the new dispensation.  The baptism itself did not result in the forgiveness of sins. Dunn remarks,

In other words, it is not a repentance baptism which results in the forgiveness of sins, but John’s baptism is the expression of the repentance which results in the forgiveness of sins. This is confirmed by passages as Acts 3.19; 5.31; 10.43; 11.18; 13.38; 26.18.[12]

Beasley-Murray understands the call to repent as an appeal to turn to God.[13] As such this would complement the O.T. prophetic exhortations to return (or turn back) to God; he says,

It is not feasible that either Jesus or John meant by that word, ‘Come to baptism that God may turn you!’[14]

However, as H. A. Whittaker notes,

If repentance only was the gist of his teaching, in what respect was he better than the Old Testament prophets who just as trenchantly taught the same?[15]

The answer supplied by the Fourth Gospel is that John was baptizing in order that the Messiah should be manifested to Israel (John 1:31).  National repentance could be achieved on the Day of Atonement – baptism was more than an acknowledgement of sin and a return to God. The rite of baptism was a means of manifesting the Messiah to the people. It spoke of the suffering, rejection, death and resurrection of the servant prophecies in Isaiah that the Baptist so often used in his preaching (i.e. John 1:29, 36 cf. Isa.53:7).  It may be objected that such an interpretation is anachronistic – as it could only be fully understood after the resurrection event. This is partly true, for what chance did the ordinary people have when even the disciples failed to understand the full significance of baptism until after the resurrection?   The major difference between the baptism of John and Christian baptism was the reception of the Holy Spirit, the power and promise of the new age, which promise was cut short because of the unbelief of the nation and the apostasy of the Church.

The Problem with John’s Baptism

So far we can conclude that there is no essential difference between the baptism of John and Christian baptism.  The Apostles did not require re-baptism before receiving the Spirit at Pentecost. Why then the stress on the superiority of Christian baptism? It is suggested that the baptism of John lent itself readily to subversion by Judaists, who accepted John as a prophet and viewed his baptism in the same light as the ceremonial cleansings and purifications proscribed by the law.  The disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus (Acts19:1-7) are an illustration of defective knowledge. They had not even heard of the promise of the Holy Spirit therefore they could not have obtained their instruction first hand from the Baptist – no wonder Paul was astonished.  Such disciples could easily be subverted and led back to the law. The baptism of John would be detached from any deeper significance other than a cultic lustration producing ceremonial cleanliness.

It is here that the Fourth Gospel demonstrates awareness of the dangers of Judaism.  The six water pots of the Jews are changed into new wine (John 2:1-11).   This is not a reference to the baptism of John, but rather to the Law and its ceremonial rites for cleanliness.  Similarly, the water of the pool could not heal the man – this was accomplished solely by the word of the one who was sent by God (John 5:1-18); nor could thirst be permanently quenched with water from Jacob’s well (John 4:7-72).  The Jewish water pouring rite at Tabernacles was but a prefiguring of the Spirit (John 7:37-39). As Dunn observed,

John uses water in two distinct ways – by way of contrast and by way of equation. In chapters 1, 2, 3 and 5, water is that which represents the old dispensation (in its preparatoriness, its poverty, its mere externality, and its inability to help), in contrast to that which Jesus gives in the new dispensation (represented by the gift of the Spirit, by wine by healing).[16]

Both the gift of the Spirit and water were used in various strands of Judaism as a metaphor for the Torah (cf. Isa 55:1). For example, Rabbi Ishmael taught that, “…the words of Torah are compared to water. Just as water raises the status of the impure to purity, so too do the words of Torah” (Sifre Ekev 48).  Or again, Philo taught that the water that the Israelites thirsted for in the desert was a symbolizing of divine wisdom in the Torah: “…until God send forth the flowing waters of His supernatural wisdom (i.e. gift of the Spirit) and so provide drink of unfailing healthfulness to the wandering soul” (Allegorical Interpretations 2:86). Furthermore, the Essenes affirmed that “the well [dug in the desert, Num 21:16-18] is the Torah” (Damascus Document 6:3).

The dispute in John 3:25 between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification, is often regarded as being occasioned by a Jew who had been baptized by Jesus and who was concerned with the relative merits of John’s baptism.[17]  However, this seems unlikely as it is more probable that John’s baptism was compared with contemporary purification rites practiced at Qumran. As the baptism of John was outwardly similar to such practices (and some argue derivative from them), it could easily lend itself to subversion and reduction to mere externals.

The question put by the “Jews” in John 3:25 should be placed in the context of Nicodemus, a “ruler of the Jews” in John 3:1.  Initiation into the kingdom can only occur through water and Spirit.  This is not a hendiadys as is sometimes supposed, but rather two distinct components of the same baptism. For Nicodemus, who had probably undergone the baptism of John (as many Pharisees had) and who obviously had a defective understanding of that baptism (the eschatological significance of it) it was impossible, nay humiliating to require a new birth.  It was necessary to re-baptise with water in cases where the purpose for the baptism had not been clearly understood in the first place.

Conclusion

The baptism of John and Christian baptism are in principle equivalent. The Seal of the Spirit (in the first century) – the power of the age to come, was proof that the baptism of John (that looked forward to the new age) had been fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ, the one who could inaugurate the new age. Nevertheless, the baptism of John lent itself easily to manipulation by Judaists, who equated it with Torah observance and cultic lustrations.  This necessitated an apologetic approach by the author of the Fourth Gospel and it is suggested that this was directed to solve the problems at Ephesus.

---

[1] P. Wyns, “The Destination and Purpose of the Fourth Gospel” Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation 3 (2008):  2-11.

[2] J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, (Oxford University Press, USA, 1993), 253

[3] Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 103.

[4] J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 33.

[5] A. Perry concludes that the baptism that John administered to Jesus (Matt 3:15) was not a baptism of repentance but a different kind of baptism, one that was a prophetic fulfilment of all righteousness (all the righteous acts of God). Perry is certainly correct with linking this typologically with the righteous act of national baptism in the context of the original quote from 1 Sam 12:6-7.  In this type, Perry equates Moses with John and Aaron with Jesus.  However, we would argue for baptism in the Jordan under Joshua, who led the nation into the kingdom. Neither Moses (which means my son cf. Matt. 3:17) or Aaron entered the land. See A. Perry, “Marginal Notes” in Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation Annual 2007, 86-88.

[6] G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Biblical and Theological Classics Library edition; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 67.

[7] Some see a contradiction between John 3:22 (Jesus baptized) and John 4:1 (Jesus did not baptize) attributable to conflicting underlying sources, others regard John 4:2 as a parenthetical explanation by the Evangelist.

[8] J. A. T. Robinson, “Elijah, John and Jesus” in Twelve New Testament Studies (London: SCM Press, 1962), 28-52 (50).

[9] J. A. T. Robinson, Priority of John (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 346.

[10] Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 21.

[11] John the Baptist chose the nation’s entry point into the land (the same place where Elijah had vanished some 900 years earlier) as the locale for his preaching. His reference to raising sons to Abraham from stones (sons/stones is a Hebrew phonetic pun) is linked to the memorial built by the Israelites. See P. Wyns “John the Baptist” in Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation Annual 2007, 50-58.

[12] Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 15.

[13] Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 35.

[14] Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 35.

[15] H. A. Whittaker, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (Cannock: Biblia, 1985), 292.

[16] Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 186.

[17] Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 21.