27. John the Baptizer 1

In previous years we have looked at the various passages that clearly teach infant baptism. And that is because I want you to know why we do what we do. Tradition is meaningless unless it is Biblical. And so we have looked at many positive passages. But last week we started looking at the supposed “Baptist” passages and showed how even they supported the doctrine of infant baptism. As we have more baptisms in the future, I want you to realize that there are no weak passages. Now obviously you may have questions about passages that we won’t have time to cover this morning, and I would be happy to address those some time. And I am going to have to take a little bit longer this morning, so I will just cut my sermon short and finish the rest of it next week.

Today I want to examine the Baptism of John, which supposedly is proof positive that children were not included. They point out that John called the people to repent and be baptized, and infants cannot repent. I found it interesting to note that Baptists frequently argue vigorously that John’s baptism wasn’t Jewish proselyte baptism. And I did a little research to find out why there were such strenuous objections. And I came to find out that when Jews baptized proselytes, the adults were called to repentance — yes, just like John did; but then the whole household (including the babies) were baptized along with the converted adult. And I came to find out that baby baptisms started in the Old Testament. The first time a person was baptized was on day eight after birth and accompanied the circumcision if you were a male, and was performed by itself if you were a female.

And so, one of the assumptions of these books was that the baptism of John the Baptist was something brand new; that it had no connection to the Old Testament - that baptism is a New Testament doctrine. Now I want to show today that if John’s baptism was an Old Testament baptism, that it had to include all the children, and it had to be by sprinkling. There are three problems with saying that John’s baptism was brand new. The first one is historical. John didn’t have to explain what baptism meant. The people understood what he meant and that’s almost impossible to explain if it was something brand new. I mean, just imagine that you were transported back into time and you told Martin Luther to be sure to watch the 11 o’clock news on T.V. “Excuse me? What’s a T.V.?” “Oh, I’m sorry, I meant the Television.” “I’ve never heard of a television. What’s that?” “Well, it’s this big box that you plug into the electric outlet, and there are T.V. stations that transport the news over the air…” You get the point. Anytime a brand new doctrine is given, it generates a lot of discussion and questions and controversy. The Jews didn’t do anything in those days that wasn’t in the Bible or in tradition. Remember Fiddler on the Roof? Tradition! Tradition! There was a fight over any bucking of tradition. And yet, the only controversy over baptism was over who administered the baptism. They knew what baptism was but they said to John, “What right do you have to baptize? That’s our job.”

You see, there were several baptisms in the Old Testament, and every Jew had been baptized at least once. Hebrews 6:1 says that those Old Testament baptisms are basic principles for Christians. “The basic principles of Christ.” There is a connection. Look at Hebrews 9:10. Hebrews has been trying to show that outward rituals don’t save us. You’ve got to have the inward reality that the sign was pointing to before you are actually saved. And we believe Hebrews. We don’t teach that baptism saves our children. It is merely the sign and pledge that God has given of His promise of the Spirit to us and to our children after us. We don’t know when, but we lay hold of God’s promise by faith. And so Hebrews describes various Old Testament signs as being “concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings” [and that’s the same word that is elsewhere translated as baptisms — various baptisms], “and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.” And then he goes on to describe five Old Testament baptisms all of which were either a sprinkling of water or of water mixed with blood or ashes. Verse 13 — “the sprinkling of the unclean” points (verse 14) to the purifying of our conscience. He is saying that in the Old Testament you had to have both. It’s not enough for those families to be sprinkled outwardly. To be saved they also had to have the purifying of the conscience. And he goes through the chapter showing how these Old Testament family baptisms pointed to the need for Christ and the Holy Spirit in our lives. Outward baptism points to the need for Spirit baptism. And if you look at those Old Testament baptisms — they applied to all, believing men and women along with their children.

In chapter 10 he applies the Old Testament baptisms to New Testament baptism and says it’s the same — the outward ceremony is important, but it’s not enough. Look at 10:22. This is describing Christian baptism: “let us” [notice that this is not Old Testament saints now, but “let us”] “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” The outward sprinkling of water on our bodies pictures the inward sprinkling or purifying of our hearts. So the first problem with thinking that John’s baptism was new was that the people didn’t need any explanation. They were used to seeing these baptisms for thousands of years. Nothing new. And the New Testament clearly connects Christian baptism with Old Testament baptism.

The second problem with saying that John’s baptism was a new baptism was that while there was no controversy over the fact of baptism, there was a great deal of controversy over who could perform the baptisms. For example, Luke goes to pains to show that John was a priest. Does that really matter? Couldn’t anyone have baptized a Jew? No. Only a Levite could, and Luke settles the question by making clear that John was a priest from the tribe of Levi. Why do John’s disciples and Christ’s disciples get into a fight as to who should be baptizing? Well, Christ was not a Levitical priest. It would have seemed strange until Christ quotes the Scriptures and shows that He is the Messiah. Ahh! The Messiah was a priest — a priest after the order of Melchizedek. So it made sense for Christ to be baptizing. Even the Pharisees knew that. The Pharisees question John and ask Him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ?” They knew that Christ would baptize, but who is John? And John has to give his credentials. And if you look at the Levitical baptisms of the Old Testament, again you will see that the only Levitical baptism that could have been in view here included the whole family of a repentant believer. That’s why Luke 3:21 says that “all the people were baptized” by John. It wasn’t just the adults. It was all without distinction but not all without exception. If it was all without distinction, it must have included all classes, including babies. It followed the Old Testament pattern of family baptism.

And people might object, if it was Old Testament sprinkling, why does John 3:23 say, “John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there.” Why do you need much water if you are only going to sprinkle? Well, number one, Old Testament baptisms required running water. Number 2, if John was going to baptize in the wilderness, there had to be a source of water for the thousands of people to drink. And number three, all you have to do is visit Israel and you will see that there isn’t body of water big enough at Aenon to dunk people in. The word Aenon means place of many springs and there are seven fountains there. Plenty of water to drink, but none to dunk in. And I find it significant that Baptist dictionaries say that the location of Aenon hasn’t been found yet. But they mean it hasn’t been found near a body of water. There is an Aenon that is near 7 springs which is what the word means. The geography of where Aenon is fits baptism by pouring, but not baptism by immersion. So that objection does not overthrow the fact that this was an Old Testament baptism.

The third problem with the assumption that John’s baptism was a new baptism was that the Pharisees and all the people were expecting Christ to baptize. For example in John 1:25 it says, “And they asked him, saying, ‘Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ?’” They were expecting the Christ to baptize. And again, the only prophecies about Christ baptizing anyone are by sprinkling and they include the children. For example, the passage in Isaiah that makes the Ethiopian Eunuch ask what hinders him from being baptized is a passage that speaks of the application of Christ’s death to the Gentiles. The Ethiopian gets baptism out of Isaiah, but there isn’t any reference to dunking. It says, “So His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; So shall He sprinkle many Gentiles.” The eunuch was a Gentile who until then had been excluded from the church, and he gets excited. If this Messiah you’ve been talking about sprinkles Gentiles and not just Jews, then what hinders me from being baptized? Can you see it? He didn’t have any kids, but Matthew later traveled to him in Ethiopia and planted many churches. And the earliest records of the Ethiopian church show infant baptism. There has never been a time in Ethiopia when the whole family was not included in the baptism.

Or consider this prophecy: “I will pour water on him who is thirsty… I will pour My Spirit on your descendants, and My blessing on your offspring.” Christ was prophesied not only to pour water on us and our children, but to pour His Spirit on our children as well. Water baptism points to the pouring out of His Spirit — and all done on believers and their children.

Or consider this prophecy about Christ in Ezekiel 36: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and … I will put My Spirit within you and cause You to walk in My statutes.” Water being sprinkled on us points to the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Can you see why Peter speaks not only of water baptism, but Spirit baptism and says, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)? He speaks of outward baptism being the symbol of Spirit baptism and the very next words are, “for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” The sign is applied to every one of them because the promise was to the adult Jews, to their children, and the Gentiles afar off. Can you see why the only baptisms we see in the New Testament (except for those who didn’t have a family) were baptisms of the believer and their household? And we have the household Cornelius, of Lydia, of the Jailer, of Crispus, of Gaius and of Stephanus all baptized according to the Old Covenant pattern of “unto you and your seed.”

John’s baptism was proselyte baptism. He offended the Pharisees because he was calling them Gentiles when he called them to repent and get baptized. He said they were outside the church. But the beauty of the proselyte baptism was that when the adult repented, his whole family was included in the covenant, was baptized and was welcomed into the church even if the children couldn’t talk yet. And that is what we are going to do this morning. By faith we are laying hold of God’s covenant promise. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household” and we are imitating that family when Acts goes on to say, “And immediately he and all his household were baptized” (Acts 16:31,33).