Jon Gary Williams
Articles / Resources

Many have thought that after the church was established it was necessary for all those whom John had baptized to be baptized again. However, there are clear reasons that this was not the case.

As Mark's gospel account opens, notice how the writer immediately turned attention to the work of John the Baptist. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight" (Mark 1:1-3).

John the Baptist was the "messenger" of Jesus, who was to "prepare the way" for Christ. The interaction between the "gospel of Jesus" and the work of John in preparing the way for Him is clear. His preparatory work involved telling people to believe in Jesus and his coming kingdom.

John's preaching focused on the new kingdom, teaching that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:2). He told people to be looking for it, for it was near. Jesus said that some at that time would still be alive when the kingdom came (Mark 9:1). It appears certain they believed the kingdom of which John and Jesus spoke was for them--and, of course, it was.

The angel Gabriel told Zacharias that his son (John) was to, "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17). Hence, those whom John baptized were "prepared" for the Lord and his kingdom. They were ready to receive (to be a part of) his kingdom.

No doubt, John baptized thousands of people (Matthew 3:5). This included even publicans and soldiers (Luke 3:12,14). They all came "confessing their sins" (Mark 1:5). They were then baptized with the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). So the question is, were their sins remitted? We must conclude that they were. But when were their sins remitted? This happened when Jesus died. His blood was retroactive, covering them in the same way His blood covered the faithful under the Old Covenant (Hebrews 9:15).

It is reasonable to conclude that those whom John baptized were not subject to an additional baptism. To the contrary, their penitent baptism was done in view of the anticipated coming kingdom (Matthew 3:2). The implication is clear. They believed that, based on their penitent baptism, they would soon be a part of that kingdom.

Also consider those whom the apostles had baptized (John 4:1,2). Was it necessary for them to be baptized again after the church was established? And what about the apostles themselves? Did they receive a second baptism? There is no indication that the apostles were baptized on the day of Pentecost. Obviously they had already been baptized and would be a part of the new kingdom. Notice also that Peter told the people to repent and be baptized. Would Peter have told them to do something he had not already done himself? Certainly not.

The unique parallel between John's baptism and the baptism preached on the day of Pentecost ("...baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" and "...repent and be baptized for the remission of sins") is compelling evidence that those previously baptized did not need to be baptized again.

Also, Zacharias prophesied that John would, "give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins" (Luke 1:77). This passage is too clear to misunderstand. They had knowledge that they were saved, because they had been baptized "for the remission of their sins."

If all whom John and the apostles baptized needed to be baptized again, wouldn't it have been necessary to seek these people out and explain to them why their baptism was insufficient? And wouldn't this have been an awkward and difficult task?

Of course, after Jesus' death and the establishment of the church, John's baptism was abrogated. This is shown by the fact that some who were still practicing John's baptism were told they needed to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5).