Basic HTML Version
605
was pregnant with new and more spiritual meanings. Lambert is quite correct when he, in
speaking of the Jewish lustrations, says: “Their purpose was, by removing a ceremonial
defilement, to restore a man to his normal position within the ranks of the Jewish community;
John’s baptism, on the other hand, aimed at transferring those who submitted to it into an
altogether new sphere — the sphere of definite preparation for the approaching Kingdom of
God. But above all, the difference lay in this, that John’s baptism could never be regarded as a
mere ceremony; it was always vibrant through and through with ethical meaning. A cleansing of
the heart from sin was not only its preliminary condition, but its constant aim and purpose. And
by the searching and incisive preaching with which he accompanied it, John kept it from sinking,
as it would otherwise have tended to do, to the level of a mere opus operatum.”[The
Sacraments in the New Testament, p. 57.]
Another question that calls for consideration, is that of the relation of the baptism of John to
that of Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church in the Canons of Trent[Sess. VII. De Baptismo.] curses
those who say that the baptism of John equalled that of Jesus in efficacy, and regards it, along
with the Old Testament sacraments, as purely typical. It claims that those who were baptized
by John did not receive real baptismal grace in this baptism, and were at a later time re-
baptized, or, more correctly expressed, baptized for the first time in the Christian manner. The
older Lutheran theologians maintained that the two were identical as far as purpose and
efficacy were concerned, while some of the later ones rejected what they considered to be a
complete and essential identity of the two. Something similar may be said of Reformed
theologians. The older theologians generally identified the two baptisms, while those of a more
recent date direct attention to certain differences. John himself would seem to call attention to
a point of difference in Matt. 3:11. Some also find a proof for the essential difference of the two
in Acts 19:1-6, which, according to them, records a case in which some, who were baptized by
John, were re-baptized. But this interpretation is subject to doubt. It would seem to be correct
to say that the two are essentially identical, though differing in some points. The baptism of
John, like the Christian baptism, (a) was instituted by God Himself, Matt. 21:25; John 1:33; (b)
was connected with a radical change of life, Luke 1:1-17; John 1:20-30; (c) stood in sacramental
relation to the forgiveness of sins, Matt. 3:7,8; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3 (comp. Acts 2:28) and (d)
employed the same material element, namely, water. At the same time there were several
points of difference: (a) the baptism of John still belonged to the old dispensation, and as such
pointed forward to Christ; (b) in harmony with the dispensation of the law in general, it
stressed the necessity of repentance, though not entirely to the exclusion of faith; (c) it was
intended for the Jews only, and therefore represented the Old Testament particularism rather
than the New Testament universalism; and (d) since the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured
out in pentecostal fulness, it was not yet accompanied with as great a measure of spiritual gifts
as the later Christian baptism.