John,
I feel that a certain part of John the Baptist’s baptism has not been emphasized enough, and in modern times is not even mentioned. We know that John’s baptism was ordained by God only for the Jews and that it always included a message for the person baptized: “I baptize you in the name of the One who was coming, who will baptize you with the holy Ghost and fire.” But a crucial element was that the baptizer had to be anointed and sent by God to perform the baptism. If not anointed, how would the baptizer know a person had repented? According to how I am thinking, to baptize someone who had not truly repented would not have been John’s baptism, even if the baptized person was a Jew. It would be just another useless, dead ceremony.
==========
Yes, Wendell. John’s anointing (and later, the anointing of Jesus’ disciples) to know who had repented was critical to the process. They never baptized anyone who came to them without truly repenting. The example of this was Apollos in Acts 18. He thought he was baptizing with John’s baptism, but he did not have John’s anointing to do so. Therefore, Apollos’ baptism was worthless. That is why in Acts 19, Paul re-baptized those twelve Jews whom Apollos had baptized. They had truly repented, but being Jews, they had to receive the real baptism of John, and Paul was anointed to do that for them. And when he did that, he laid hands on them and they received the holy Ghost.
==========
Another question is, after the Spirit was made available, if the Jew receiving John’s baptism had repented when they were baptized in water, wouldn’t he receive the Spirit at the same time he was baptized in water?
Thanks,
Wendell
==========
Yes, he would, for receiving John’s baptism was the final thing God required of the Jews.
Thank you for the good comment and question!
Pastor John