The Baptism of John

[py3ak]

What is the relation of John's baptism to Christian baptism?

 

[Christusregnat]

What is the relation of John's baptism to Christian baptism?

Ruben,

None of the Apostles that were baptized into John were required to be re-baptized. The baptisms of "John's Disciples" that Paul did in Acts (20 or so) were clearly never taught by John. They stated that they "had never heard whether there were a Holy Ghost", whereas, if you listen to John's teaching, He clearly spoke of the Holy Ghost; thus, they weren't John's disciples, and hadn't received his baptism.

Our Lord Jesus Christ received John's baptism. Is someone going to say that His baptism wasn't valid Christian baptism? It is THE VALID Christian baptism, from which all others take their pattern.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Barnpreacher]

What is the relation of John's baptism to Christian baptism?

Ruben,

None of the Apostles that were baptized into John were required to be re-baptized. The baptisms of "John's Disciples" that Paul did in Acts (20 or so) were clearly never taught by John. They stated that they "had never heard whether there were a Holy Ghost", whereas, if you listen to John's teaching, He clearly spoke of the Holy Ghost; thus, they weren't John's disciples, and hadn't received his baptism.

Our Lord Jesus Christ received John's baptism. Is someone going to say that His baptism wasn't valid Christian baptism? It is THE VALID Christian baptism, from which all others take their pattern.

Cheers,

Adam

So are you saying that those individuals Paul ran into in Acts had received some sort of unorthodox baptism that was being classified as John's baptism?

 

[Christusregnat]

So are you saying that those individuals Paul ran into in Acts had received some sort of unorthodox baptism that was being classified as John's baptism?

Barnpreacher,

Indeed, that is exactly what I'm saying. Here's the passage in question:

Acts 19:1 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, 2 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. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 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. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And all the men were about twelve.

Here are John's words:

Luke 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

John 1:33 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.

Clearly, John's words are not compatible with 12 men not knowing "whether there be any Holy Ghost". They had never heard John's message, and, as you state, received heretical baptism. That is how I read the text.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'd like to offer a slightly different take.

Having felt the incongruity of the Apostles allegedly NOT having been baptized by Christ, they only having John's baptism, I have thought some on this subject. The question has been raised: why did the Jerusalem converts require baptism on Pentecost, if they had (surely a host of them) been down to the Jordan and to John some years earlier?

It makes little sense to me to assert that these must have been mainly foreigner-converts (although certainly there were many of those there too). The simple facts are that they all were baptized with Christian baptism on Pentecost, regardless of whether they had been formerly baptized by John. So, either the Apostles must be an anomaly, a special case, or else they must have been baptized by Christ himself.

Personally (and this seems to be a minority view), I take John 3:22 and 4:2 as teaching exactly this fact: that Jesus separated himself from John the Baptist, along with his disciples, whom he then administered another baptism--HIS.

Jn 3:22 "After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing." Most commentators then juxtapose 4:2 and interpret both to mean that it was the disciples work in Jesus' name, which amounts to the same thing--a truism indeed, but is that what is meant?

Joh 4:2 "(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)". This verse is providing a corrective to the erroneous claims being made about Jesus in v1, namely that he was setting up a rival ministry to John's. The thought seems to be that only if there were dozens or hundreds of baptisms taking place with Jesus could this error have been made by the Pharisees.

Nonsense. Rumors are like that.

Now, here's an alternative translation of this verse, mine: Joh 4:2 (Gk) καιτοιγε ιησους αυτος ουκ εβαπτιζεν αλλ οι μαθηται αυτου. (Eng) although Jesus himself was not baptizing except for his disciples.

In other words, give the "alla/but" the sense of "none but", and do NOT import the whole repetitive notion of "doing baptisms" and apply it to the disciples as the actors. The sense of the first "kaitoige" doesn't lose any force; if anything it seems to gain force.

"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, but in fact that notion was completely off base, for Jesus baptized none but his own disciples, he left Judea and departed again for Galilee." (vv1-3)​

Baptized whom? The Twelve, and perhaps just a few others, with them having accompanied them "during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us," Acts 1:21.

This interpretation may also shed some light on another enigmatic verse in John's Gospel: Jn 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Recall that this is the Eleven (really the Ten, since Thomas isn't physically present, but that is of little importance). The important thing is that this is after Judas is dead, and it is evidently connected with the Holy Spirit baptism that will shortly follow.


What is the resulting issue? Well, one is that we have a clear moment given when Jesus baptized the Apostles ceremonially with water, just as they would later do with every convert they made in his name.

Two, no more questions about why some of John's baptisms were not "repeated" in the Christian era, and others were. No, Jesus baptized his Twelve, and commissioned them to baptize others in the name of the Trinity. Thus, by the ministry of His church, we all receive a portion of His baptism--that is, the baptism he gives, not the one he received.

Third, the "connection" between John's baptism and Christian baptism is focused entirely on Christ, in his Person. John's baptism stays in the Old Testament, where it belongs. Even as it forms a crucial bridge to the New Testament.


As for the poorly informed Johannine followers in Ephesus, I respect Adam's take on it, and I appreciate that he makes some important connections to John's own preaching, but I cannot concur with it. If Jews or Jewish converts (which I am doubtful) they may well have received John's baptism in a fleeting moment one year in Jerusalem when present traveling, or for Passover; or perhaps even irregularly in a second-hand fashion. And most of that teaching was lost to them over time. What remained was the deep impression John made.

Or more likely, they were not Jews, but Gentiles*, and it was the conviction of someone like Apollos (see 18:24ff) who prior to Paul's coming was in Ephesus preaching somewhat deficiently, and needed to be better informed of the Way by Priscilla and Aquila.

You might know something of their experience by your own. Do you recall every word of the most powerful sermon you ever heard? Probably not. But you do remember something, and you remember the impression. Perhaps John didn't even mention the Holy Spirit the day they came down to the Jordan. Apollos needed correction and guidance, as outstanding a New Testament preacher as he was. We can't know those facts.

But we do know these men were looking for the Messiah because of their encounter with the proto-gospel of John the Baptist, and the Holy Spirit may well have made them Old Testament converts to the true faith of Judaism prior to the DB&R of Christ.



*That Ephesus incident is one of only 3 times we have recorded the falling of the Holy Spirit on a group followed by tongues-speaking--Pentecost, Cornelius, and Ephesus--all together which indicate the ingathering of the Gentiles.

 

[py3ak]

Bruce, thanks for a thoughtful reply. Do you think your view involves the further conclusion that, for instance, Mary and the others mentioned were also baptized by the apostles on the day of Pentecost?

And what precisely is the difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism?

(Of course anyone is free to chime in.)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ruben,
I don't really know who baptized some of the others, or when. From the analytic/systematic side, I am well persuaded that Jesus instituted Christian baptism, and it is organically connected to the Great Commission. Therefore, I think that either

a) one of the Twelve (who I am persuaded were baptized by Christ as they began to follow him), including Matthias, baptized all other first-believers on or after Pentecost until new ministers were ordained. Like Ananias of Damascus baptized Paul (who was then commissioned an Apostle!).

Or,

b) they were among the very few who Jesus personally baptized. Believe me, I do not think anyone "misses out" if he wasn't alive in 1st cent. Palestine, but some of those folks got a real blessing actually being with the Master. Some got healed of this or that; a few were raised from the dead; a handful were baptized.

Just being touched by Jesus doesn't mean they had some "power" either. The empowerment to evangelize, baptize, and make more disciples (and do signs and wonders in the foundation of the church) was in the Great Commission, not in some fact of their baptism by one particular person.


What is the difference between JB's baptism and Christian Baptism?

Aside from the fact that along with the rest of the OT symbolism, JB's baptism was prophetic and foreshadowing of Christ, it was strictly speaking a baptism to demonstrate repentance. That one of the things that Christian baptism indicates is also repentance (see Acts 2:38) serves to connect them, but in only one restricted sense. This connection makes JB's baptism proleptic of Christian baptism, which speaks of far more.

John's baptism could not possibly symbolize all that baptism BY Christ makes the new reality. There is zero indication that JB's baptism was an emblem of union with Christ, which is a benefit of the resurrection. None that baptism is an emblem of the Holy Spirit's baptism. JB's own words testify to this reality, saying in effect, "My baptism is not connected with the Holy Spirit's outpouring. That is the work of the Christ alone." He quite frankly tells us there is another baptism coming. Jesus' disciples got it first.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, Bruce. One of my intentions here is to find out why Calvin's view of John's baptism seems not to have been generally accepted (obviously because people didn't agree with it, but I'm hoping to find out more).

John Calvin, from his commentary on the synoptics (Matthew 3:11-12; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:15-18), writing about the relation of John’s baptism to Christian baptism:

Hence we infer, that his intention was not at all to distinguish between his own baptism, and that which Christ taught his disciples, and which he intended should remain in perpetual obligation in his Church. He does not contrast one visible sign with another visible sign, but compares the characters of master and servant with each other, and shows what is due to the master, and what is due to the servant. It ought not to have any weight with us, that an opinion has long and extensively prevailed, that John’s baptism differs from ours. We must learn to form our judgment from the matter as it stands, and not from the mistaken opinions of men. And certainly the comparison, which they imagine to have been made, would involve great absurdities. It would follow from it, that the Holy Spirit is given, in the present day, by ministers. Again, it would follow that John’s baptism was a dead sign, and had no efficacy whatever. Thirdly, it would follow, that we have not the same baptism with Christ: for it is sufficiently evident, that the fellowship, which he condescends to maintain with us, was ratified by this pledge, when he consecrated baptism in his own body.

We must therefore hold by what I have already said, that John merely distinguishes, in this passage, between himself and the other ministers of baptism, on the one hand, and the power of Christ, on the other, and maintains the superiority of the master over the servants. And hence we deduce the general doctrine, as to what is done in baptism by men, and what is accomplished in it by the Son of God. To men has been committed nothing more than the administration of an outward and visible sign: the reality dwells with Christ alone.

Scripture does sometimes, though not in a literal sense, ascribe to men what John here declares not to belong to men, but claims exclusively for Christ. In such cases, however, the design is not to inquire, what man has separately and by himself, but merely to show, what is the effect and advantage of signs, and in what manner God makes use of them, as instruments, by his Spirit. Here also is laid down a distinction between Christ and his ministers, that the world may not fall into the mistake, of giving to them what is justly due to him alone: for there is nothing to which they are more prone, than to adorn creatures with what has been taken from God by robbery. A careful attention to this observation will rid us of many difficulties. We know what disputes have arisen, in our own age, about the advantage and efficacy of signs, all of which may be disposed of in a single word. The ordinance of our Lord, viewed as a whole, includes himself as its Author, and the power of the Spirit, together with the figure and the minister: but where a comparison is made between our Lord and the minister, the former must have all the honor, and the latter must be reduced to nothing.

This was Calvin’s settled opinion: he preached it to his congregation (Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Second Sermon on the Ascension of Christ):

So then, seeing that we are inclined to the vice of exalting creatures and robbing Jesus Christ of His glory, let us hold all the more firmly the saying that “John baptized with water” to show that, if we have to do with any grace, we must come neither to Peter nor to John, but to Jesus Christ, of Whom it is said that He received the grace of God, not at all in part, but in fullness, to show that we must address ourselves to Him alone. Besides, some have taken this as an occasion to say that the Baptism of John was not perfect. But this is an abuse. For the intention of John, when he spoke thus, was not to declare the truth of the Sacrament which he administered, but only the difference between his person and that of Jesus Christ. Although, then, the Sacrament of Baptism administered by John, and that which Jesus Christ administered, are the same Sacrament, and tending to the same end, yet John declares that he has not power to give worth to Baptism, but this belongs to Jesus Christ. There is, then, no doubt at all that it is the true Baptism which he administers, for we do not look at the sign but at the truth, and yet the sign is conformable to that of Jesus Christ. But the principal thing that we have with respect to Baptism consists in two points: it is that we are stripped of the old Adam, renewed and united to Jesus Christ, and that we are purged of all our spots when God pardons us of our sins. That is the sum of Baptism.

Now let us see if John did all that. It is certain. For he came preaching the remission of sins, and administering Baptism to this end. Further, in baptizing he preached repentance, which implies what we have said, that we be put to death with respect to our selves, and that this corruption that we have from Adam be abolished, in order that the justice of God rule in us. So when we shall have examined this quite well, we shall find nothing else here. But why? It is very necessary to distinguish between the person of the minister and the person of Jesus Christ. True it is that when one speaks of Baptism in itself, it is the washing away of our sins. Why so? Because by this we are confirmed that we have entered into Jesus Christ, in order that we may be purified and that we may live by His power. Scripture speaks thus. As we see that when Ananias baptizes St. Paul, he says to him, “Come and wash away your sins.” (Acts 9:18, Acts 22:16.) But also it is not only a matter of the sign when one speaks of Baptism, but of the truth there signified: namely, of being acceptable to God through the remission of sins, of being renewed by His Holy Spirit, in order that we may live no longer to ourselves. And why do we say that all that is comprehended in Baptism? Because the commission of Jesus Christ is without doubt and certain; and He accomplishes inwardly what it signifies outwardly. Otherwise it would be playing a farce upon a stage, if reality were not joined with the sign. This, then, is how God joins reality with the sign, in order that we may know that, just as the visible sign signifies, so we receive the graces there signified. So it could be said of the Supper. When we receive the Supper, as the minister distributes to us the bread and the wine, Jesus Christ makes us partakers of His body and His blood, in order that we may be truly His members; and by this means it is said that the Supper is the communication of the body and blood of our Lord. But when it comes to treating the part that mortal man does, then we must consider what power he has. When I baptize, is that to say I have the Holy Spirit up my sleeve to give it? Or the body and blood of the Lord to give it to whomever it seems good to me? It would be climbing too high to wish to attribute to mortal creatures what belongs to Jesus Christ. Let us not, at all, then, take away from the office of Jesus Christ, which is to baptize by the Holy Spirit. Just as I take water to baptize, Jesus Christ accomplishes what I signify, and He accomplishes it by His own power.

Institutes, IV.15.6-8:

Thus first John baptized, and thus afterwards the apostles by the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, understanding by the term repentance, regeneration, and by the remission of sins, ablution.

7. This makes it perfectly certain that the ministry of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the apostles. For the different hands by which baptism is administered do not make it a different baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves it to be the same. John and the apostles agreed in one doctrine. Both baptized unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed. John pointed to him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world (John 1:29), thus describing him as the victim accepted of the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession? Wherefore, let no one be perplexed because ancient writers labor to distinguish the one from the other. Their views ought not to be in such esteem with us as to shake the certainty of Scripture. For who would listen to Chrysostom denying that remission of sins was included in the baptism of John (Hom. in Matthew 1:14), rather than to Luke asserting, on the contrary, that John preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”? (Luke 3:3). Nor can we admit Augustine’s subtlety, that by the baptism of John sins were forgiven in hope, but by the baptism of Christ are forgiven in reality. For seeing the Evangelist clearly declares that John in his baptism promised the remission of sins, why detract from this eulogium when no necessity compels it? Should anyone ask what difference the word of God makes, he will find it to be nothing more than that John baptized in the name of him who was to come, the apostles in the name of him who was already manifested (Luke 3:16; Acts 19:4).

8. This fact, that the gifts of the Spirit were more liberally poured out after the resurrection of Christ, does not go to establish a diversity of baptisms. For baptism, administered by the apostles while he was still on the earth, was called his baptism, and yet the Spirit was not poured out in larger abundance on it than on the baptism of John. Nay, not even after the ascension did the Samaritans receive the Spirit above the ordinary measure of former believers, till Peter and John were sent to lay hands on them (Acts 8:14-17). I imagine that the thing which imposed on ancient writers, and made them say that the one baptism was only a preparative to the other, was, because they read that those who had received the baptism of John were again baptized by Paul (Acts 19:3-5; Matthew 3:11). How greatly they are mistaken in this will be most clearly explained in its own place. Why, then, did John say that he baptized with water, but there was one coming who would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire? This may be explained in a few words. He did not mean to distinguish the one baptism from the other, but he contrasted his own person with the person of Christ, saying, that while he was a minister of water, Christ was the giver of the Holy Spirit, and would declare this virtue by a visible miracle on the day on which he would send the Holy Spirit on the apostles, under the form of tongues of fire. What greater boast could the apostles make, and what greater those who baptize in the present day? For they are only ministers of the external sign, whereas Christ is the Author of internal grace, as those same ancient writers uniformly teach, and, in particular, Augustine, who, in his refutation of the Donatists, founds chiefly on this axiom, Whoever it is that baptizes, Christ alone presides.

This, then, is what John says, “I baptize with water, but Jesus Christ baptizes by the Holy Spirit.” This is what is here treated, and will be again in the eleventh chapter. Besides, now we must speak in like language: namely it is not up to us to perfect the things which we signify. Yet nevertheless we must be certain that God accomplished what is signified by the sign, and that, just as the washing away of sins is signified by water, so He accomplishes it by His blood. This is how we must distinguish the person of Jesus Christ and the person of the minister, in order that each may be in his degree and in his measure, and that it may be known that all perfection comes from this Fountain.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree with John Murray (always, when I go against John Calvin) against my better judgment.

By the way, there is tons of material there in what Calvin says, especially about Christ being the author of the baptisms, that I am in 100% accord with.

It's evident that Calvin does not agree that there were those who were baptized again after John's. But that, according to my interpretation, makes all the difference.

 

[py3ak]

But were you led to your understanding of John 4:2 by John 4:2 or did other considerations make you wonder if the more typical interpretation was wrong? And what would you make of Calvin's points about the similarity between John's baptism and Christian baptism? They could both, after all, be spoken of as a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It started, if I recall, with the question of the disciples themselves--why were they baptizing on Pentecost? It seemed utterly incongruous to me that they should be baptizing others who had the same baptism as themselves, namely JB's.

And given the crowds who went to see JB, it is frankly stupefying to me the supposition that many, many of those 3000 embracing the risen Jesus as Messiah that day had made no pilgrimage to the Jordan, even recognizing that many of these were foreign visitors.

Mark 1:5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.​

And I do not accept the notion that those previously baptized (met in Acts 19) had some left-field, non-Johannine baptism that they mistook for JB's. It might have been irregular, another fact we cannot confirm, but it is plainly connected to JB. Only the prior decision "this cannot be right, because we know those baptized by JB were never rebaptized; they only thought they had John's baptism" can sustain that reading.

Recalling my reading (I think, I need to check) of Murray, I backtracked from Pentecost to John 20. Then, I thought of the passages around the turn of John 3-4. I went to them to see how read the Greek. Certainly the first passage is explicit, saying Jesus baptized. Certainly, an a-contextual reading would leave that impression. Not that authorized baptisms in Jesus' name are not Jesus' own acts, but without 4:2 and the std reading, would we assume that from the language? No, we wouldn't.

Then I looked at 4:2. Everything is dependent upon that conjunction "alla" and the interpretation of "instead" being placed upon it. "Instead of Jesus, it was his disciples who were doing the baptisms," and that entire final clause there is repeatedly inserted into our translations for ease of reading. Or is it perpetuating a lesser interpretation? It is defensible, obviously. I'm just questioning it.

And again, unless one is prepared to treat rumors, and Pharisee rumors at that, as grounded in sober clarity of reflection upon well documented facts (i.e. dozens, hundreds, even thousands! of baptisms--"since HE is baptizing MORE than JB! I know its true! I heard it from brother Ezra's sister-in-law."), then what is left? That it was a preposterous exaggeration, even if Jesus' disciples were actually doing additional baptisms.

And even more ridiculous if it was no more than a dozen baptisms or so done by the Master, or a few dozen, including Matthias. But people were already watching him and taking notes, so... why would it be surprising that the rumors should fly like crazy? Not surprising at all.

EDIT: I think, that even if I was eventually persuaded that there were no texts that explicitly pointed to Jesus personally baptizing a handful, and that the std. interpretation of Jn 3:22 & 4:2 was correct, I would then have to rely on Jn.20:22, or simply assume Jesus did so as a theological necessity, I am that convinced that in fact the Apostles were--they had to have been--baptized by Christ. And in the end, if that route was excluded to me for some reason, I would end up where Calvin is--that Christ DID baptize them through JB. But then, I'd be back to what sound to me right now as other difficult implications and interpretations that follow.​

The similarity between JB's and Christian baptism.
I think there ARE similarities. I think that JB makes a vital connection between the Testaments. He is the greatest prophet of the Old Covenant. He was a minister of Christ, as were all the rest of the true prophets of God. But he was an Old Covenant minister, Mt 11:11.

I do not think that Calvin's concerns in which he writes,

It would follow from it, that the Holy Spirit is given, in the present day, by ministers. Again, it would follow that John’s baptism was a dead sign, and had no efficacy whatever. Thirdly, it would follow, that we have not the same baptism with Christ: for it is sufficiently evident, that the fellowship, which he condescends to maintain with us, was ratified by this pledge, when he consecrated baptism in his own body.

either "follows" as he says, from the simple disjunction (from an abuse of it, certainly), or sunders Christ's baptism from us and ours in the way he fears.

Jesus identifies with God's people in his baptism. More to the point, he identifies with them under the law in that baptism! Our baptism IN HIM, is a baptism into his death to the law. Our connection is not to the RITE, that we share with him, and he with us. No, it is to HIM. Our ONLY connection to Johns' baptism is IN Christ'S own participation in it.

We are not bound together with any of the others who partook of that rite as fellow participants THROUGH the RITE. No more than we are partakers of them in any of the other OT ceremonies. IN Christ we are participants in those sacrifices, feasts, miracles of deliverance, etc. We are wonderfully connected to all those things, but it is in and by the person of Christ.

We are "of a whole" with the elect of old; we identify with all the OT ceremonies, the Levitical priests were doing our service. We participate with JB's baptism in the same way as we do with any of the old Levitical service. John was even a priest! We do it through Christ.

Calvin quotes Augustin twice, once in disagreement and once in agreement. And I have to agree both times with Augustin.

"...that by the baptism of John sins were forgiven in hope, but by the baptism of Christ are forgiven in reality."

"Whoever it is that baptizes, Christ alone presides."​

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, Bruce. Very lucid.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Wanabee has helpfully pointed out a rather obvious flaw in my presentation. Thank you, Joe.

The fact that in 4:2 "the disciples" is in the Nominative case raises a serious objection to my suggested re-reading of that text. For my position to be strong, it would need to be in the Accusative or other case. The Nominative indicates a second subject in the sentence (although sometimes a predicate nominative, but virtually impossible in this case).

What might this do to my case? I could:

1) scrap my labor. But I've already put forth my theological supposition that drove me to look for any concrete verses that might lend it support. And 3:22 still stands as its own statement, unless it is to be totally interpreted by 4:2 as a denial of ANY baptisms by Jesus, even a handful. So, I don't think I am persuaded to abandon it completely either theologically or exegetically, however slim a prop I'm leaning on. But it isn't really enough to ask anyone else to buy into it merely on my recommendation.

2) continue to look for a linguistic defense along the lines of the original supposition. This seems least likely to produce fruit.

3) suggest yet a third reading. If the standard translations must provide an entire half-a-sentence in order to attempt to clarify, may I suggest another reading that is a close second choice? In most cases the supplied form of the verb restated should take as close a form as possible to that which was used earlier in the sentence. That is, "Jesus" is the first nominative, and the verb corresponding is Imperfect-Active-Indicative-3rd-Singular.

So, if "the disciples" (plural) is to replace "Jesus" (singular) then the ASSUMED (not-stated) form of the verb must undergo at least one order of transformation--into Imperfect-Active-Indicative-3rd-PLURAL. This would be a necessary change, but a CHANGE nevertheless.

Well, why not two orders? Is it linguistically indefensible to supply as the "missing" verb form, the verb in the passive, rather than active voice? In other words,, the latter portion would then be read, "except his disciples were being baptized." Theoretically, if a certain idea actually demanded such a verbal adjustment, then we would accept it as a matter of course. In this case, there is obviously some question as to the preferability of a second-order change.

In its defense, beside what has already been said concerning the simple need to make a terse construction in the Greek read plainly in another tongue, I might add that a hermeneutical decision must be made regarding 3:22--should it be taken at face value, and inform our understanding of 4:2, or should this latter verse continue to modify our reading of 3:22? If not for the standard reading of 4:2, I am not aware of any other indication anyplace in the gospels that indicate "the disciples" did any pre-baptizing before the Great Commission institution. (And it still appears to be a great and strange anomaly to me if they were; such a notion would seem to have Jesus raising his disciples, who are at a beginner's level, ON PAR with the peerless John the Baptist.)

I'm not at this point claiming I know this third possibility is true or possible. I'm simply proposing it for consideration, and would welcome any feedback.

 

[py3ak]

I'm glad you posted this, Bruce. It occurred to me on Sunday that I still hadn't turned up John 4:2 and see what to think of your rendition.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think I'm content to rest my whole premise upon 3:22.

Even if I must say in the end that 4:2 is simply not going to offer me the kind of support I might like it to give, I do not feel obliged to reinterpret 3:22 as though it were being restated and clarified by 4:2. I can easily accept 4:2 as pointing to the fact that Jesus was doing none of the ongoing work of baptisms, as word of "yet another baptizer" beside J-B was getting back to Jerusalem, while still reading 3:22 at face value.

Yet one more aspect of 3:22 in favor of a literal reading: the "missing" accusative. "After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing _____." (KJV)

Compare with texts like:

Mat 5:19 "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Italic in the KJV text, i.e. added word of direct object)

Mat 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. (Italic in the KJV text)

Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. (Italic in the KJV text)

Mat 15:36 And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. (Italic in the KJV text)

Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Italic in the KJV text)

Mat 21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. (Italic in the KJV text)

Mat 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. (Italic in the KJV text)

Mar 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. (Italic in the KJV text)

Mar 6:13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. (Italic in the KJV text)

Mar 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. (Italic in the KJV text)​

Let me stop there. That's only ten verses, and only third-person-plurals. And it was only a handful from two of the gospels, and literally dozens more examples of "understood objects" are frequently to be found rendered explicitly in our translations.

So, the question is: is there an "understood object" of specificity in this verse? Jn 3:22 "After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing _____." (KJV)

There are clearly two choices here, the one leaving the verb without an object, as most translations have it. And I would like to know how often in the New Testament is "baptize" is rendered as an abstract verb, that is without any completion of the thought--with a D.O., with a prepositional phrase, anything? The verb being rendered abstractly here, so does this verse stand almost without parallel?

The second choice is comparable to virtually any of the above verses. In 3:22 the construction goes: Jesus + [verb, 3s] + others, and he + [verb, 3s] + with them [prepositional phrase present in the Greek] + and he + [verb, 3s]--followed by nothing. This strikes me as a classic situation where the final object has been omitted as plainly following the pattern, and so understood. That is, "..and he baptized THEM."

Compare to any of the above references, but especially to those that would be ending in verbs, if not for the added, italicized "them", e.g. Mk.6:5 & 13.

Look at this common construction: actor + verb + object, and verb + understood same object.

Luk 23:22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

Joh 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.​

This is the same kind of construction as in John 3:22

All this to defend the idea that linguistically John 3:22 can be used to establish the idea that Jesus baptized his initial, small circle of followers. It is only objectionable if one is first committed to the idea that John 4:2 precludes this notion, by referring to precisely the same activity as in 3:22.