This is the sixteenth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

In our last post, we examined a number of texts in the Gospels and Acts that record certain commands given by Christ, after his resurrection, regarding the proclamation of the gospel to all nations, throughout the entire course of the present age. For the past few centuries, these commands have often been referred to as the Great Commission.

We asked the question, who was the Great Commission given to? After carefully reviewing each relevant passage, we found that Jesus is consistently represented as addressing the eleven apostles. In Matthew 28 in particular, we discovered that the text unmistakably identifies the recipients of the Great Commission as “the eleven disciples” (v. 16). In that passage, Jesus is commanding the eleven apostles to go, to make disciples of all nations, to baptize them, and to teach them.

However, this naturally raises some important questions. Is the work of preaching and baptizing to be performed only by the apostles, or is there some way that this work will be continued by others? If the work of preaching and baptizing will be continued by others, exactly how will this mission be conveyed to them?

To begin to answer these questions, we’ll turn to the best inspired commentary on the Great Commission—the narratives of the Book of Acts.

Of course, the apostles themselves are frequently recorded as preaching in Acts. Peter preached to the Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (2:14-41) and later at the temple (3:12-4:4). Even after being arrested and threatened, the apostles continued to preach “daily in the temple, and in every house” (5:42), and here for the first time in Acts, Luke uses the Greek verb euaggelizo, meaning to evangelize, to proclaim good news. Peter and John preach in the region of Samaria (8:25). Finally, Peter preaches to Cornelius and his family and friends in Caesarea (10:34-48).

After Paul’s miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, he also immediately begins to fulfill his calling as the apostle to the Gentiles, preaching in the synagogues of Damascus (9:20-22) and then throughout the Roman Empire.

Although no apostle is ever explicitly represented in Acts as physically baptizing converts, Peter does play a unique and foundational role in establishing baptism as a duty for all believers. When those who heard Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost asked what they should do in response, he commanded them:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:38b-39)

Peter commanded those who received the gospel message by repentance and faith to be baptized. Furthermore, this remains a standing rule for all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, as it extends to “as many as the Lord our God shall call” (2:39).

In time, any remaining doubts about the appropriateness of baptizing Gentiles were forever settled by Peter’s experience in the house of Cornelius. When the Holy Spirit fell on those Gentiles, right in the middle of Peter’s preaching, he knew what needed to happen next:

Then answered Peter, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. (Acts 10:46b-48a)

Although Peter isn’t said to baptize these Gentile believers personally, he did establish a binding precedent that Gentiles who believe ought to be baptized (see also 11:1-18).

The question remains, however, whether anyone besides the apostles ever preached and baptized. According to the Book of Acts, the answer is yes.

The first non-apostle that Luke represents as preaching is Stephen, a man full of the Holy Spirit, wisdom, faith, and power (6:3, 6:8). Although the narrative is somewhat compressed, it’s clear that Stephen publicly proclaimed the gospel of Christ. His witness to the people, which was also attended by “great wonders and miracles” (6:8), was so powerful that several influential Jews in the synagogue rose up to oppose him. Nevertheless, “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (6:10). After a trial before the Sanhedrin, he died a martyr.

Stephen’s preaching, trial, and execution in Jerusalem then became the occasion for an episode of great persecution against the believers there (8:1, 11:19). As a result, “they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria” (8:1), with the exception of the apostles who remained in Jerusalem. Although this was a terrible trial, it did result in the further propagation of the gospel. We simply read:

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. (Acts 8:4)

Again, for the second time in this book, Luke uses the Greek verb euaggelizo, to evangelize—the very same word he had earlier used to describe the preaching of the apostles. (He uses euaggelizo in connection with them again in 11:20.) Thus, we find here a number of unnamed believers who are publicly preaching the gospel. And of course, none of these are apostles, since the apostles are explicitly said to have stayed in Jerusalem (8:1).

These anonymous believers preached everywhere they went (8:4). This included the regions of Judea and Samaria (8:1), as well as Phoenicia by the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, the island of Cyprus, and even as far north as Antioch in Syria (11:19-21). Some of these men were originally from Cyprus or from Cyrene, a city in North Africa (11:20).

These unnamed disciples preached to the Jews only (11:19), and this later came to include the Hellenistic Jews in Antioch (11:20). In fact, through their preaching, a “great number” of Jews were converted in Antioch before the church at Jerusalem ever even heard of it (11:21-22). Their initial disciple-making laid the groundwork for what would become one of the most influential churches of this period—the church at Antioch.

All that being said, we do know the name of one of these scattered believers who preached publicly—Philip. After Luke writes of those who “went every where preaching the word”, in the very next verse, he begins to record the ministry of Philip in the region of Samaria. Philip therefore serves as one specific example of the broader group of scattered disciples.

Like Stephen, Philip was a man “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” (6:3). Philip also preached openly to the people, and his ministry was also attended with miracles, including healing and casting out of demons (8:5-7). Luke uses the Greek verb euaggelizo to describe Philip’s preaching several times (8:12, 8:35, 8:40).

Philip’s preaching included an exhortation for believers to be baptized, because that’s precisely what they did:

When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12b)

We also know, as we have written before, that Philip physically administered baptism. After he preached to an Ethiopian eunuch and the eunuch expressed his desire to be baptized, Luke affirms that Philip personally baptized him:

They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:38)

In a later narrative in Acts, Luke refers to this same Philip again as “Philip the evangelist” (21:8).

We asked earlier, is the work of preaching and baptizing to be performed only by the apostles, or is there some way that this work will be continued by others? The three examples we’ve just seen—Stephen, the scattered disciples, and Philip—furnish more than enough evidence to answer the question.

Clearly, the work of preaching and baptizing was never intended to be tied exclusively to the apostles. It was always Christ’s intention that these works of ministry would be carried on by others as well.

But that still leaves our second question on the table. If the work of preaching and baptizing will be continued by others, exactly how will this mission be conveyed to them? We’ll seek to answer this question in our next post.

This is the fifteenth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

After carefully reviewing every instance of baptism in the New Testament, we concluded in our last post that there is no implicit scriptural command that baptism must be performed by an administrator who has been authorized by a local church.

Next, we’ll be considering the proposition that this is an explicit scriptural command that arises from the Great Commission. Some Baptists have argued that:

1. The Great Commission was given to the local church as an institution.

2. The Great Commission is an exclusive mandate which prohibits anyone else from carrying out its directives.

3. Baptism is commanded in the Great Commission.

4. Therefore, only local churches may authorize the administration of baptism.

In this post, we’ll begin addressing the first premise of this argument by asking, who was the Great Commission given to?

The phrase “the Great Commission” is not a scriptural term, but it has been used in English since the late 16th century to refer to commands that Christ gave to the apostles after his resurrection and prior to his ascension. Although the phrase has most often been associated with the last few verses of the Gospel of Matthew, the Great Commission in its broadest sense describes an age-long period of worldwide gospel proclamation, and it involves a number of important passages.

In terms of New Testament chronology, there are three distinct events which are relevant to the Great Commission. Mark 16:14-18, Luke 24:33-49, and John 20:19-23 record an appearance of Jesus to his followers in Jerusalem that occurred in the evening of the very same day of his resurrection. Matthew 28:16-20 relates a later appearance of Jesus to his disciples on an unnamed mountain in Galilee. Finally, Acts 1:1-9 describes commands given by Jesus in Jerusalem immediately prior to his ascension.

We will now briefly review each of these passages, with a special emphasis on who Jesus is addressing. We’ll begin with Mark 16 (in accordance with the text found in nearly all extant Greek manuscripts):

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

And he said unto them, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mark 16:14-18)

In this passage, Jesus is said to appear to “the eleven” (v. 14)—that is, the twelve original apostles, minus Judas. Although others were surely present on this occasion, what Jesus says here he says to “them” (v. 15), a pronoun which can have no other antecedent than “the eleven” just mentioned in the previous verse. Therefore, Jesus is here commanding the eleven apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

In Luke 24, Jesus appears to the eleven and other disciples right as the two on the road to Emmaus were explaining how he had just appeared to them:

And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.” And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, “Peace be unto you.” …

Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” (Luke 24:33-49)

In this account, it is clear that more than just the eleven apostles are present—we have not only “the eleven” (v. 33), but also “them that were with them”, as well as the two additional disciples who had encountered Jesus on the road. The subject of Jesus’ address beginning in verse 36 is just the ambiguous pronoun “them”. Is he speaking here to all of the disciples, or just to the eleven?

There are good reasons to understand Jesus as specifically addressing the eleven apostles. The first clue is Jesus’ statement in verse 48 that “ye are witnesses of these things.” While it’s true that all of the disciples present were seeing this appearance and would no doubt tell others, the apostles were witnesses of the resurrection in a special sense. It is in this sense, for example, that Peter insisted that a replacement for Judas must be “be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22).

We find another clue in Luke’s allusion to this same event in the beginning of Acts. There he writes, “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me” (1:4). As we will see later, the antecedent for “them” in this verse can only be “the apostles whom he had chosen” (1:2).

John 20 also records this appearance of Jesus to the disciples on the day of his resurrection:

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, “Peace be unto you.”

And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

Then said Jesus to them again, “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you …” (John 20:19-21)

In this passage, specific terms for “the eleven” or “the apostles” do not appear. Nevertheless, Jesus’ statement that “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” recalls earlier sayings of Jesus in John’s gospel which have special relevance for the eleven apostles.

After the institution of the Lord’s Supper and the departure of the traitor Judas, Jesus speaks intimately with the eleven. He tells them “ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (15:27). The concept of witnesses who have been with Jesus from the beginning mirrors Peter’s description of the apostolic office in Acts 1:21-22.

As Jesus prayed for the eleven in John 17, he said, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world” (17:18), which is perfectly parallel to his later statement “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (20:21).

He goes on to say, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word” (17:20). This points to the apostles’ unique role in bearing verbal witness to the resurrection, which was ultimately fulfilled in the writing of the New Testament. Indeed, it is still true today that everyone who comes to believe does so through the word of the apostles.

The last five verses of Matthew 28 record a meeting of Jesus with his disciples at a mountain in Galilee:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Amen. (Matthew 28:16-20)

Here, Jesus is explicitly said to address “the eleven disciples” (v. 16). Some have speculated that many other disciples may have also seen Jesus at this time, and this Galilee meeting does seem to be a good candidate for the occasion when, according to Paul, Jesus “was seen of above five hundred brethren at once” (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Nevertheless, even if hundreds of other disciples were indeed present, Jesus specifically addresses the eleven in this text. We read that “Jesus came and spake unto them”, and the only possible antecedent for the pronoun “them” in verse 18 is “the eleven disciples” in verse 16. Jesus is commanding the eleven apostles to go, to make disciples of all nations, to baptize them, and to teach them.

Furthermore, Jesus’ command to teach believers “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” also points uniquely to the apostles. It alludes to the years of intensive personal instruction that the apostles had received directly from Jesus. From now on, their job will be to publicly convey to others what Christ had privately conveyed to them. For example, this would include the observance of the Lord’s Supper, which according to all three synoptic gospels, Jesus had instituted only with the twelve (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17, Luke 22:14).

Finally, in Acts 1, Jesus commands the apostles just before his ascension:

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: and, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, “ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

And he said unto them, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. (Acts 1:1-9)

This passage begins with a clear statement that Jesus “had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen”. At a minimum, this would include the command to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit, but it likely indicates the entire complex of commands we’ve just been reviewing. Later, Peter simply says that “he commanded us to preach unto the people” (10:42). Regardless, the commands in view here were given to “them”, which can only indicate “the apostles” (1:2).

“The apostles” remains the antecedent for the remainder of this passage. It was the eleven apostles who asked Jesus about the restoration of the kingdom, and they were the ones who Jesus answered. He tells the apostles yet again that, after being empowered by the Holy Spirit, they will be “witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (v. 8).

A little later on, the angels refer to them as “men of Galilee” (v. 11), which would also indicate the apostles, and then each of the eleven apostles is listed by name in verse 13. The remainder of the chapter relates the selection of a new apostle “to be a witness with us of his resurrection” (v. 22), a phrase using the very same word for witness that Jesus had used in his charge just a few verses earlier.

We began by asking, who was the Great Commission given to? As we’ve just seen, whether we consider the Great Commission in the narrowest sense of the specific commands contained in Matthew 28:16-20, or in the wider sense encompassing all of the passages we’ve just reviewed that speak of an enduring gospel witness to all nations throughout the entire course of the present age, it is consistently represented in scripture as a work that will be carried out by the special witnesses chosen by the Lord Jesus himself—the apostles.

This raises many questions, of course. If the Great Commission was given to the apostles, did they complete it during their lifetimes? Did they convey it to others? How are we to understand Jesus’ statement that “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20)? Does the Great Commission continue in any sense in our own day? If so, who should do the work of evangelism today?

These are all good questions, and ones we hope to begin to answer next time. Nevertheless, we must begin with the exegetical bedrock we’ve just established—the Great Commission was given to the apostles.

This is the fourteenth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

Two posts ago, we began looking for evidence that any of those who administered baptism in the New Testament were specially authorized to do so by a local church. We reviewed every instance of baptism recorded in scripture and found none where scripture explicitly affirms it to have been so.

However, our search for a pattern isn’t complete. The New Testament identifies two administrators of baptism after Pentecost by name—Philip and Paul. If we can establish that either of these two men was authorized by a local church to administer baptism, we may find our pattern after all.

In our last post, we examined the case of Philip, and we concluded that there is no scriptural evidence that Philip was specially authorized by a local church to administer the baptisms he is recorded to have performed in Acts 8.

In this post, we will consider the Apostle Paul. Paul himself informs us that he baptized several of the first Corinthian believers, including Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). It’s also very likely that in the course of his missionary journeys, he baptized others as well. The key question we’ll seek to answer in this post is, was Paul specially authorized by a local church to administer baptism?

Some Baptists have argued that Paul derived his authority to baptize from a local church on the basis of a passage in Acts 13 which describes the beginning of Paul’s first missionary journey:

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:1-4)

According to some, these verses show the church at Antioch, as an entire congregation, granting Paul and Barnabas special authority to preach and baptize in the course of their coming journey. In this view, Paul and Barnabas are being officially sent out as agents of the church at Antioch, and they remain under the authority of the congregation during the course of their mission.

The subordination of Paul and Barnabas to the local congregation at Antioch is seen to be further reinforced by the fact that, following the completion of their mission, they reported what they had done to a gathering of the whole church:

And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. (Acts 14:26-27)

Finally, according to this view, the authoritative sending out of Paul and Barnabas by the church at Antioch establishes a binding precedent that no preaching and baptizing is legitimate unless it is first authorized by a local church.

Although there are many Baptists today who understand Acts 13 in this way, we must nevertheless ask, is this interpretation correct? Does this passage really teach that Paul derived his authority to preach and baptize from the church at Antioch?

There are several substantial reasons to reject this interpretation.

First, although the “church that was at Antioch” is mentioned at the beginning of verse 1, the remainder of the verse is a list of five “prophets and teachers” who were in this church—Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Paul. Only these prophets and teachers are the subjects of the verbs in verses 2 and 3, not the church as a whole. It was these prophet and teachers—not the congregation—who “ministered to the Lord”, “fasted” during their service, were instructed by the Holy Spirit to “separate” Paul and Barnabas, “fasted and prayed”, “laid [their] hands on” them, and “sent [them] away”. In fact, this passage does not refer to any action taken by the congregation itself.

Second, the verbs “separate” and “sent away” do not represent the prophets and teachers as granting Paul and Barnabas any kind of special authority or permission to minister. Rather, the action here is best understood as this company of prophets and teachers simply releasing Paul and Barnabas so that they might carry out the work given to them by the Holy Spirit. The word rendered “sent away” in verse 3 (Gr. apoluo) is translated throughout the rest of the New Testament in the sense of to let go, to release, to set at liberty, to dismiss, etc., and this is certainly the action in view here. These prophets and teachers let go of their beloved brethren Paul and Barnabas so they could pursue a higher calling.

Third, the fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands in verse 3 do not describe a formal ordination service. They do not represent Paul and Barnabas as being installed at this time to church office. Instead, these prophets and teachers are humbly begging God to bless Paul and Barnabas with protection, aid, and success in what will be a dangerous journey of ministry.

We get another description of what happened at this time in Acts 14:26, which refers to Antioch as the place “from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled”. That is an allusion to the events of Acts 13. The same words are used at the inception of Paul’s second missionary journey in Acts 15:40—“Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God”. This is precisely what the prophets and teachers were doing for Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13—they were commending them to the care of God.

The laying on of hands in Acts 13:3 also does not here represent a transfer of authority or an ordination. Rather, this is a gesture used by the Jews of the first century to demonstrate their desire for God to bless someone. John Gill writes:

This was a gesture and ceremony used among the Jews, when they wished any blessing or happiness to attend any persons; and so these prophets, when they separated Paul and Barnabas from their company, and were parting from them, put their hands on them, and wished them all prosperity and success …

Now when they had thus prayed for them, and wished them well, they sent them away; to do the work they were called unto; not in an authoritative way, but in a friendly manner they parted with them, and bid them farewell.

(Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Acts 13:3)

Fourth, the words “called” and “sent forth” in this passage, which do carry the notion of authority, are not ascribed to the church at Antioch, nor to the company of prophets and teachers, but rather to the Holy Spirit—“the work whereunto I have called them … they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost”.

Fifth, the fact that Paul and Barnabas later reported to the church at Antioch all that God had done in their journey does not mean that the church had originally authorized their work. In the very next chapter, Paul and Barnabas also give a report of the same missionary journey to the church at Jerusalem (15:4), but this is no ground to conclude that the church at Jerusalem had authorized it.

Finally, the very idea that Paul derived his authority to minister from a local congregation of believers is preposterous, as the New Testament makes it perfectly clear that Paul was personally sent to preach by Jesus Christ himself! When Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, he explicitly sent him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles:

Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. (Acts 26:17-18)

Over and over in his letters, Paul was insistent that his apostleship came immediately from Jesus Christ himself:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Galatians 1:1)

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; (1 Timothy 1:1)

The simple fact that Paul had already been personally sent by Jesus Christ to preach before the beginning of his first missionary journey in Acts 13 means that we cannot understand Paul as receiving authority to preach at that time from the church at Antioch. Again, Gill says:

This was not an ordination; the Apostle Paul particularly was not ordained an apostle by man, but by Jesus Christ; who personally appeared to him, and made and ordained him his minister and apostle; and much less by men inferior to himself, as Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen were …

(Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Acts 13:3)

In conclusion, a proper interpretation of Acts 13 furnishes no scriptural evidence to support the idea that Paul derived his authority to preach and baptize from the church at Antioch. On the contrary, Paul had already been sent to minister among the Gentiles by Jesus Christ himself, and he was called to his first missionary journey directly by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch, along with the whole congregation, joyfully participated in Paul’s mission through their prayers and support. It’s just inaccurate to say that they authorized or gave permission to Paul to carry out this work.

We originally asked the question, is there a pattern in the New Testament that baptisms are performed only by administrators who are specially authorized by local churches? Having reviewed every instance of baptism in the New Testament, and having completed special studies of Philip and Paul, we’re now ready to give an answer.

There is no such pattern.

It’s not that the pattern is merely weak or tenuous—it does not exist. There is not one baptism recorded in the New Testament that is ascribed to an administrator who was specially authorized to baptize by a local church.

Yes, we’ve found many instances where this might have been the case. But we haven’t found any where scripture affirms this to have been the case.

Yes, we have an idea that we can read into the text of scripture and does not contradict it. But that doesn’t make our idea a binding scriptural precedent.

We therefore conclude that there is no implicit scriptural command that baptism must be performed by an administrator who has been authorized by a local church.

In our next post, we will begin to consider the proposition that this is an explicit scriptural command that arises from the imperatives of the Great Commission.

This is the thirteenth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

In our last post, we began looking for evidence that any of those who administered baptism in the New Testament were specially authorized to do so by a local church. We reviewed every instance of baptism recorded in scripture, and while we found plenty of occasions where this might have been the case, we found none where scripture explicitly affirms it to have been so.

However, our search for a pattern isn’t over. The New Testament identifies two administrators of baptism after Pentecost by name—Philip and Paul. If we can establish that either of these two men was authorized by a local church to administer baptism, we may still find the pattern we’re looking for.

In this post, we’ll be asking, was Philip specially authorized by a local church to perform the baptisms recorded in Acts 8?

Although one of the original twelve Apostles was named Philip (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13), we read for the first time of a different disciple named Philip in Acts 6, where he is listed as one of seven faithful men who were appointed to oversee the daily distribution of food to widows:

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.”

And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6)

This event is usually understood as the election of the first seven deacons, and therefore this Philip is sometimes referred to as Philip the Deacon.

We next read of Philip in Acts 8, when the church at Jerusalem was under severe persecution. Amidst the widespread scattering of believers, Philip is said to have traveled to the city of Samaria, where he preached Christ:

And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles …

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. (Acts 8:1b-5)

Luke’s statement that the apostles remained in Jerusalem makes it clear that the Philip who went to preach at Samaria was Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle.

At Samaria, Philip not only preached, but also performed great miracles. His powerful witness resulted in the conversion of many men and women, who were then baptized. A former sorcerer named Simon even professed faith and was baptized:

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:12-13)

Although Luke doesn’t explicitly write that Philip personally baptized these believers, it does seem likely.

A short time later, Philip was led by the angel of the Lord to preach Christ to an Ethiopian eunuch returning back from Jerusalem. The eunuch believed and asked to be baptized. In this case, the text affirms that Philip personally baptized the eunuch:

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:38)

Immediately, the Spirit carried Philip to another location, and the eunuch continued on his way back to Ethiopia, rejoicing in his Savior.

The only other time we hear of this Philip in scripture is in Acts 21—perhaps as much as two decades after the events of Acts 8—when the Apostle Paul and his companions stayed in Philip’s house in Caesarea:

And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. (Acts 21:8-9)

Luke’s description of Philip as “one of the seven” makes it clear this Philip is one and the same as Philip the Deacon. We find that Philip is also referred to here with another title—Philip the Evangelist.

Having finished our brief review of Philip’s career, we’re now ready to consider the question at hand. Was Philip specially authorized by a local church to perform the baptisms recorded in Acts 8?

First, some have proposed that when the church at Jerusalem appointed Philip to the deaconship in Acts 6, they also authorized him to preach and administer baptism. But although there is nothing inherently unlikely in the suggestion itself, it must be admitted that the text says no such thing.

Luke tells us precisely what Philip was selected to do. He was specifically appointed “over this business” (v. 3)—that is, over the relief of the widows, some of whom were being “neglected in the daily ministration” (v. 1). In this text, Philip was not being appointed either to preach or to baptize. On the contrary, he was being appointed to minister to the material needs of the church, so that the apostles would be freed up to focus on “the ministry of the word” (v. 4). The apostles did not have time to “serve tables” (v. 2), and that’s exactly what these seven faithful men were appointed to do instead.

There is therefore no basis in the Acts 6 account of Philip’s appointment to conclude that it included an appointment to either preaching or the administration of baptism.

Second, it might be suggested that Luke’s use of the title Philip the Evangelist indicated an official appointment to a church office that included both preaching and the administration of baptism.

This is not entirely unlikely, especially considering that Paul lists evangelists as gifts of Christ alongside apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers in Ephesians 4:11. Nevertheless, Luke may have simply used the title Philip the Evangelist to distinguish him from Philip the Apostle, or to refer to him in connection with the works of evangelism he had performed earlier in Acts.

But even if we were to understand Philip to be an evangelist in the sense of an official church officer, scripture would remain completely silent as to when he was ordained to this office. Had he been ordained as an evangelist by a local church at the time he preached and baptized in Acts 8? We do not know, because scripture does not say.

In the end, we find there is simply no scriptural evidence that Philip was specially authorized by a local church to administer the baptisms recorded in Acts 8. Our search for a pattern will have to continue.

What about the Apostle Paul? We will consider his case in our next post.

This is the twelfth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

It is often asserted that, from Pentecost on, the baptisms recorded in the New Testament were performed only by administrators who were specially authorized by local churches, and that this pattern establishes an implicit scriptural command which must still be obeyed in the administration of baptism today.

Although this is a common claim, we must nevertheless ask, is it true? Is there really such a pattern in the New Testament? In this post, we will begin to examine precisely what scripture affirms—and what it does not affirm—about the administrator in the instances of baptism that it records.

Although the exact number will depend on how one categorizes them, a comprehensive survey of the New Testament will show that it records twelve distinct instances of baptism:

1. The baptism of John’s disciples by John the Baptist (Matthew 3; Mark 1; Luke 3; John 1; etc.)

2. The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34)

3. The baptism of Jesus’ disciples by others of his disciples (John 3:22, 4:1-2)

4. The baptism of those in Jerusalem who received Peter’s word on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41)

5. The baptism of those in the city of Samaria who believed Philip’s preaching, including Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:12-13)

6. The baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip (Acts 8:38)

7. The baptism of Saul in Damascus (Acts 9:18)

8. The baptism of Cornelius and his relatives and friends in Caesarea (Acts 10:48)

9. The baptism of Lydia and her household in Philippi (Acts 16:15)

10. The baptism of the Philippian jailer and his family (Acts 16:33)

11. The baptism of many Corinthians, including Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, who were personally baptized by Paul (Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:14-16)

12. The baptism of certain disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:5) [Some interpreters understand this verse to only refer to the baptism of John’s disciples.]

For our present study, we’re interested in what is explicitly affirmed about the administrator in these instances. In particular, we’re looking for evidence that any of those who administered baptism were specially authorized to do so by a local church.

Let’s begin by briefly considering the instances of baptism prior to Pentecost. It should go without saying that John the Baptist was not authorized by a local church to administer baptism. As we have previously written, John was sent directly by God to baptize, and John did so prior to the existence of local churches.

What about the baptisms performed by the disciples of Jesus before Pentecost? Although we might recognize the existence of a nascent church among these early disciples, there is no evidence that they ever, as a congregation, authorized the baptism of anyone. On the contrary, these baptisms are ascribed to Jesus himself—John writes that Jesus “tarried with them, and baptized” (3:22) and that “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John” (4:1). The only caveat given is that Jesus did not perform these baptisms personally (4:2).

But although these instances of baptism before Pentecost are instructive, what really matters for our present survey is what happens from Pentecost on. This is particularly when we would expect to discern a pattern of baptism being performed by specially authorized representatives of local churches, if such a pattern does exist.

When we carefully examine the instances of baptism from Pentecost on, we may be surprised to find that only two administrators of baptism are ever identified by name. These two men are Philip and Paul. Luke affirms that Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, and Paul writes that he personally baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1. But apart from these, we have no explicit scriptural testimony as to who administered any baptism from Pentecost on.

Who baptized the Jews who believed on the Day of Pentecost? The twelve apostles (Acts 2:14)? Others of the hundred and twenty (1:15)? All of them working together? Did each new convert who was baptized begin to assist in baptizing others? We do not know, because scripture does not say. We know only that “they that gladly received his word were baptized” (2:41). Luke does not record that the congregation specially appointed any administrators of baptism.

Who baptized the men and women who received Philip’s preaching in the city of Samaria? Probably Philip. But were there any disciples who accompanied Philip, who might have assisted him? Again, we do not know, because scripture does not say. We know only that “they were baptized, both men and women” (8:12) and that Simon the Sorcerer “was baptized” (8:13).

Who baptized the Ethiopian eunuch? Philip (8:38).

Who baptized Paul? Probably Ananias, but again this is never explicitly affirmed. We do know that Ananias exhorted Paul to be baptized (22:16). Nevertheless, Luke only writes that Paul “arose, and was baptized” (9:18). Was Ananias or whoever else baptized Paul authorized by a local church? Here too, scripture is silent.

Who baptized Cornelius and his friends and family? Possibly Peter himself, although the brethren from Joppa who accompanied him might have assisted (10:23). It may be more likely that Peter’s companions performed all of the baptisms. We only know that Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (10:48). Was Peter given authority by a local church to baptize? Scripture never even hints at it, and it would have been quite unnecessary, since Peter had already been sent by Christ to baptize (Matthew 28:19). Were the brethren from Joppa authorized by a local church to administer baptism? We do not know, because scripture does not say.

Who baptized Lydia and her household? Probably Paul. We know that he baptized others. But might not Silas have helped baptize Lydia and her family? Again, we do not know, because Luke only records that “she was baptized, and her household” (Acts 16:15).

Who baptized the Philippian jailer and his family? Probably Paul or Silas, or both of them. Luke writes that he “was baptized, he and all his, straightway” (16:33). There were now other disciples in Lydia’s household who might have assisted, but the account suggests Paul and Silas didn’t see them until the next day (16:40), while the jailer and his household were baptized that same night.

Who baptized the first converts in Corinth? Paul himself tells us that he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). At the same time, he also implies that many others were also baptized, whom he did not personally immerse. Luke simply records that “many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8).

Who baptized the certain disciples found at Ephesus (assuming the interpretation that they were)? Again, probably Paul. We know he laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit (19:6). But again, Luke doesn’t really say who baptized them—he only writes that “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:5).

We’ve just reviewed every instance of baptism recorded in the New Testament, seeking to discern a pattern of baptism being performed by administrators specially authorized by local churches. What have we found?

Certainly, we’ve found plenty of occasions where this might have been the case. It’s true that none of the accounts we’ve reviewed is incompatible with this possibility.

But does what merely might have been really constitute a scriptural pattern? Yes, we have an idea that we can read into the text of scripture and does not contradict it. But does that make our idea a binding scriptural precedent? Of course not.

What we’re really looking for is a pattern that flows out of the text of scripture—something that scripture actually affirms. And to be honest, we’re not finding much that scripture explicitly affirms about the administrator of baptism, at least not in the historical instances we’ve just reviewed. In fact, it’s striking to see how little the New Testament actually says about the administrator of baptism.

But we’re not quite finished yet. As we’ve mentioned, scripture affirms that both Philip and Paul administered baptism. We need to take a closer look at these two men. If we can establish that either of them was specially authorized by a local church to administer baptism, we may find our pattern after all. We’ll look at the cases of each of these men in our next two posts.

This is the eleventh in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

We have finished our review of the various ways that baptism has been thought of as an act which is performed by a local church, and we’re now ready to ask the most central question of our present study—is an administrator who has been authorized by a local church essential to the validity of baptism?

Since the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice, this is a question that can only be settled by scripture. Therefore, we will seek to answer it by considering a different but very closely related question—does scripture command that baptism be performed only by an administrator who has been authorized by a local church?

If it is a scriptural command that baptism must be performed by an administrator who has been authorized by a local church, then baptisms performed by administrators who are not so authorized may very well be invalid.

On the other hand, if this is not a scriptural command, then there is no biblical basis for invalidating baptisms solely due to the lack of an administrator authorized by a local church. In fact, we would be bound to consider such baptisms valid, since we are forbidden to impose requirements beyond those which are revealed in scripture.

Those who have argued that this is a scriptural command have done so in two ways:

First, many have made the case that it is an explicit scriptural command that arises from the imperatives of the Great Commission. They propose that the entirety of the Great Commission was given exclusively to the local church as an institution, and therefore only local churches may lawfully administer baptism through their duly authorized representatives.

Second, some have argued that it is an implicit scriptural command that can be inferred from the clear and consistent pattern of the New Testament. In other words, from Pentecost on, the baptisms recorded in scripture can be seen to have been performed only by administrators who were specially authorized by local churches, and this constitutes a binding precedent which is functionally equivalent to a command.

As we move forward, we’re going to assess both of these arguments. In our next post, we’ll begin to consider the evidence for the claim that there is a discernable pattern in the New Testament of baptism being performed by specially authorized representatives of local churches. From there, we will proceed to an exegesis of the Great Commission and related texts.

This is the tenth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

We’re still considering the question, is baptism an act of a local church? Some Baptists have argued that it is, and they have proposed three different models of how baptism is a congregational action:

1. The direct church action model - Local churches may not delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism. The validity of baptism is dependent on the personal presence and action of the congregation in each case.

2. The ordination model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism, but only to ordained ministers. The validity of baptism is dependent on the baptism and ordination of the administrator.

3. The appointment model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism to any member appointed by the church. The validity of baptism is not dependent on the baptism or ordination of the administrator.

Two posts ago, we examined the direct church action model advanced by J.R. Graves, and we rejected his theory that the validity of baptism depends on the physical presence of a congregation in every case. In our last post, we assessed the ordination model held by many older Baptists in America, and we concluded that there is no scriptural basis for making the validity of baptism depend on the personal baptism or ministerial ordination of the administrator. In this post, we will consider the third of these models, which I have termed the appointment model.

Like the ordination model, the appointment model recognizes the validity of baptisms that are administered by a duly authorized agent of a local church, even when the congregation may not be physically present. However, in the appointment model, the validity of baptism depends solely on the authorization of the local church and not the personal qualifications of the administrator.

In this model, a church may appoint one of its members to administer baptism, even if he has never been ordained to the ministry with the laying on of hands. In fact, if an appointed administrator is later discovered to have been unordained, unbaptized, or even unregenerate, the baptisms he performed are nevertheless valid because they were authorized by a local church. In other words, the only essential qualification for an administrator of baptism is the appointment of a local church.

This view first arose in the middle of the 19th century, in conjunction with the rise of Landmarkism. It was most clearly advocated by A.C. Dayton in his book Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions published in 1858, with an introductory essay by J.R. Graves. Dayton’s arguments were very influential—in fact, it would be Dayton’s appointment model that would go on to be widely adopted by Landmark Baptists, rather than Graves’ direct church action model.

In his book, Dayton explains that the administration of baptism is an official act of a church which does not depend on the personal qualifications of the administrator:

We surely ought to know that for a Baptist Church to recognize one’s official acts he must be a Baptist minister in good and regular standing in some Baptist church. It is not because he has been baptized that we recognize his official acts, but because he is a member and a minister duly authorized to perform them; and when he ceases to be either the one or the other, those churches who know the facts, must and will, if they be faithful in their duty, disown him as a brother, and repudiate his official acts if he should continue to perform them.

The validity of his official acts does not depend on his baptism, or on his piety, or on his orthodoxy, but on the authority which he has received from the Church. So long as he retains this authority, therefore, his acts are valid, and when it is withdrawn the churches must regard them as invalid, as they must the official acts of one who has never received such authority.

(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 86-87, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)

Although he refers here to a Baptist minister, Dayton later makes it explicit that, in his view, the validity of baptism does not depend on the ordination of the administrator:

Elder Waller represents us as contending that “the administrator must be a minister in good standing in a gospel church, or rather, he must be a regular Baptist minister.”

We do not take this ground. We say that the validity of the act, so far as regards the administrator, does not depend upon his baptism, or upon his ordination, but upon the authority to baptize, which he has received from the Church.

(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 127-128, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)

Although he realizes that not every Baptist will agree with him, in Dayton’s view, a local church may appoint even an unordained member to administer baptism:

We have not, in this volume, attempted to determine whether baptism administered by one who is unordained as a minister or evangelist would be valid. We may have incidentally given our personal opinion upon this point, but this was not the question before us … We have, on our part, taken it for granted that the Church may appoint any member she pleases to administer the rite.

(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 184, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)

Dayton goes on to apply his appointment model of baptism to a number of hypothetical scenarios. Would a baptism be valid if it were administered by a minister who lacked valid baptism himself, yet acted with church authority? Dayton says yes.

A Baptist minister, acting by authority of a Baptist Church, has baptized converts, but without having been himself properly baptized—that is to say, he was immersed by a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, or a Campbellite … Is a baptism conferred by him a valid baptism?

We answer upon the principles already laid down, most certainly it is. So long as the Church regards him as a member and a minister, so long, for all official purposes, he is a member and a minister, and a want of right baptism no more invalidates his official acts performed in the name of the Church and by the authority of the Church than a want of right faith would have done.

(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 259-260, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)

What about baptism performed by an unregenerate man acting on behalf of a local church? Dayton holds it to be valid.

An unconverted man is received by the Church as a true convert, and elevated to the ministry. He baptizes scores or hundreds, and at length falls into open sin and is excluded. Does this invalidate the baptisms administered by him while he remained a minister in good standing?

Not at all. So long as he was a member and a minister, his official acts were valid for all Church purposes, whatever his secret personal character before God may have been. The Church in her ignorance believed him to be a true believer, such he professed to be, as such she entrusted to him her ordinances. When she is undeceived, she must depose and exclude him; but till she does so, his official acts are valid.

(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 260-261, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)

On the other hand, what about a true believer, properly baptized, and legitimately ordained to the ministry, who has been unjustly excommunicated? Would baptisms administered by such a man be valid? Not without the authorization of some local church, Dayton says.

A Baptist minister, and a good and pious man, has, without any sufficient fault of his, been excluded from the Church, or deposed from the ministry, and yet goes on baptizing, as though he had been the subject of no such action. Are such baptisms valid?

Clearly, they are not. The validity of the baptism, so far as the administrator is concerned, does not depend, as we have seen, upon his piety or upon his baptism, but upon the authority which he has received, directly or indirectly from a true Church of baptized believers to administer it. He could take no such authority with him out of the Church, and no Baptist Church could recognize any official act of his, however innocent she might believe him to be, unless he had first been restored to Church membership, and again authorized to administer the ordinances by the same Church that deposed and excluded him, or by some other of equal authority with it in the kingdom of Christ.

(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 261, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)

Thus, in Dayton’s view, the only essential qualification for an administrator of baptism is the authorization of a local church. No personal defect can invalidate the baptisms performed by one acting in an official capacity on behalf of a local congregation. And conversely, no baptism can possibly be valid unless it performed by an administrator duly appointed by a local church.

Certainly, this appointment model of baptism has much to commend it. It is remarkably simple. It also doesn’t suffer from the serious defects we’ve discovered in the direct church action model and the ordination model. In light of these inherent advantages, it’s not surprising that the appointment model went on to become the standard view of Landmark Baptists.

There’s really only one question left for us to ask. Is it scriptural?

We’ll begin to answer that question in our next post.

This is the ninth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

We’re still considering the question, is baptism an act of a local church? Some Baptists have argued that it is, and they have proposed three distinct models of how baptism could be a congregational action:

1. The direct church action model - Local churches may not delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism. The validity of baptism is dependent on the personal presence and action of the congregation in each case.

2. The ordination model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism, but only to ordained ministers. The validity of baptism is dependent on the baptism and ordination of the administrator.

3. The appointment model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism to any member appointed by the church. The validity of baptism is not dependent on the baptism or ordination of the administrator.

In our last post, we assessed the direct church action model most notably advanced by J.R. Graves, ultimately concluding that it was unscriptural. In this post, we will consider the second of these models, which I have termed the ordination model.

Unlike the direct church action model, which requires the personal presence and action of a local church in every instance of baptism, the ordination model recognizes the validity of baptisms that are administered by a duly authorized agent of a congregation, even when that congregation may not be physically present. In this model, the authority to admit candidates to baptism does not require the action of a local church in each case, but rather this authority may be delegated to individual agents who are empowered to act on behalf of a particular local church.

However, the ordination model requires more than just the specific authorization of a local church for the valid administration of baptism. In order for a baptism to be valid, the administrator must be both validly baptized himself and an ordained minister. These additional requirements mean that even if a local church were to authorize one of its unordained members to administer baptism, all of the baptisms he might perform would nevertheless be invalid.

The ordination model of baptism was widely held by Baptists in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was most notably advocated by several prominent Baptist associations, and the clearest definitions of this model can be found in various associational minutes.

For example, the Philadelphia Baptist Association—perhaps the most influential Baptist association in America—ruled in 1788 that a baptism can only be valid if it is performed by an administrator who is both baptized and ordained:

In answer to a query from the first church in New York, of last year, held over to this time, respecting the validity of baptism, administered by a person who had never been baptized himself, nor yet ordained; we reply, that we deem such baptism null and void:

First. Because a person that has not been baptized must be disqualified to administer baptism to others, and especially if he be also unordained.

Second. Because to admit such baptism as valid, would make void the ordinances of Christ, throw contempt on his authority, and tend to confusion: for if baptism be not necessary for an administrator of it, neither can it be for church communion, which is an inferior act: and if such baptism be valid, then ordination is unnecessary, contrary to Acts xiv. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 14; Tit. i. 5, and our Confession of faith, Chap. XXVII.

Third. Of this opinion we find were our Associations in times past; who put a negative on such baptisms in 1729, 1732, 1744, 1749, and 1768.

Fourth. Because such administrator has no commission to baptize, for the words of the commission were addressed to the apostles, and their successors in ministry, to the end of the world, and these are such, whom the church of Christ appoint to the whole work of the ministry.

(Gillette, Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, 1851, p. 238, https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_ad-gillette-am_1851_ia40330206-02)

This statement is so clear as to be unmistakable. It explicitly addresses the validity of baptism—not merely its regularity—and it unequivocally denounces any baptism performed by an administrator who is either unbaptized or unordained as invalid.

Fourteen years later, in 1802, the Elkhorn Baptist Association in Kentucky was asked essentially the same question and provided essentially the same answer:

Query from South Elkhorn.—What constitutes valid Baptism?

Answer.—The administrator ought to have been baptized himself by immersion, legally called to preach the gospel, [and] ordained as the Scriptures dictate; and the candidate for baptism should make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and be baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, by dipping the whole body in water.

(Spencer, A History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 2, 1885, p. 16, https://books.google.com/books?id=_6zVAAAAMAAJ)

Again, the validity of baptism is explicitly in view, and it is made to depend on both the personal baptism and ordination of the administrator.

These determinations of our Baptist forefathers are certainly worthy of our respect. We ought to take them seriously. Nevertheless, we are also bound to subject even these historic statements to the test of scripture. As Baptists, we proudly affirm the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice. Therefore, even the statements of godly men whom we love and respect are insufficient in themselves to establish doctrine. We must always ask, what saith the scripture?

For our present discussion, we’ll need to ask two questions:

1. Does the validity of baptism depend on the baptism of the administrator?

2. Does the validity of baptism depend on the ordination of the administrator?

First, does the validity of baptism depend on the baptism of the administrator?

Obviously, there is no verse in the New Testament where the personal baptism of the administrator is explicitly given as a requirement for the administration of valid baptism. That said, we do have sufficient scriptural evidence to give a definitive answer to this question.

In fact, a substantial number of the baptisms described in the New Testament were performed by an administrator who was himself unbaptized. I’m speaking, of course, of John the Baptist. John was sent by God to baptize, but as the first administrator of baptism, he himself had never been baptized by anyone. Were the baptisms that John administered nevertheless valid? Of course they were.

Now, this isn’t to say that an unbaptized administrator is normal or ordinary. We have every reason to believe that all of the other administrators of baptism in the New Testament were themselves baptized. John the Baptist is clearly an exceptional case. But his case furnishes sufficient scriptural evidence to falsify the blanket assertion that “a person that has not been baptized must be disqualified to administer baptism to others”. According to the New Testament, that statement is false.

We also need to understand that a subtle but very serious problem is created if the validity of baptism absolutely depends on the personal baptism of the administrator.

If a validly baptized administrator is essential to valid baptism, then if you were baptized by a pastor who later apostatizes or turns out to be a hypocrite, you suddenly discover your baptism was never valid in the first place. This is because if the pastor who baptized you was at that time truly unregenerate, his own baptism was invalid, as it was administered to an unbeliever.

It even follows that, if the pastor who baptized your pastor later apostatizes, then your own baptism also turns out to be invalid. And the same is true for the one who baptized him, and so on. If anyone in that historical succession of baptisms was actually an unbeliever, everyone downstream of him would not be validly baptized.

The result of these strange implications is that, since the validity of your baptism depends on the unseen spiritual condition of your administrator, there’s simply no way you can ever know that you’ve received valid baptism. This view inevitably reduces to these absurdities.

The good news is that scripture has imposed no such absurdities upon believers. They are merely the phantoms of a traditional rule created by men with good intentions. We can be very thankful that the New Testament does not make the validity of our baptism dependent on the baptism of our administrator. We are free to obey Christ in baptism and to know that we have done so.

Finally, we might ask, does the validity of baptism depend on the ordination of the administrator?

We should briefly define a term. Here we understand ordination in the common sense of a solemn setting apart of a man gifted to preach to the full gospel ministry. This is clearly how the associations we cited above understand the term—those who are “called to preach the gospel” and appointed “to the whole work of the ministry”. According to the ordination model, only men who have been so ordained may administer valid baptism.

Again, there is no verse in the New Testament where ordination is explicitly made a requirement for the valid administration of baptism. Nevertheless, we have enough scriptural data to answer this question. Aside from the example of John the Baptist, a careful reading of the Gospel of John reveals that the disciples of Jesus were administering valid baptism prior to the ordination of the apostles.

We learn in John 3 that the disciples of Jesus were actually administering baptism simultaneously with John the Baptist, prior to John’s imprisonment:

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. (John 3:22-24, cf. John 4:2)

However, according to Mark and the other synoptic gospels, the ordination of the twelve apostles occurred after the imprisonment of John:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (Mark 1:14)

And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (Mark 3:13-14)

Thus, it’s very clear that there were disciples of Jesus who were administering baptism before the ordination of the apostles—indeed, before the existence of any ordained church office. Were the baptisms performed by these early disciples valid, despite the fact that they were not then ordained to the whole work of the ministry? Of course they were.

In the end, we are compelled to reject the idea that the validity of baptism is dependent on either the baptism or the ordination of the administrator. We have no doubt that those who first pronounced these rules had the best of intentions. But these rules simply do not originate from the text of scripture, and we are therefore forbidden to invest them with divine authority.

This is the eighth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

We’re now considering the more immediate question, is baptism an act of a local church? Some Baptists have insisted that it is, and they have explained precisely how baptism is performed by a local church in a few different ways. Three distinct models of congregational action have been proposed:

1. The direct church action model - Local churches may not delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism. The validity of baptism is dependent on the personal presence and action of the congregation in each case.

2. The ordination model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism, but only to ordained ministers. The validity of baptism is dependent on the baptism and ordination of the administrator.

3. The appointment model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism to any member appointed by the church. The validity of baptism is not dependent on the baptism or ordination of the administrator.

In this post, we will consider the first of these models, what I have termed the direct church action model.

Proponents of the direct church action model assert that in order for a baptism to be valid, a local church must both act to approve the baptism and be physically present when it is administered. Any baptism without the direct action and presence of a local congregation is invalid. The authority to admit candidates to baptism belongs solely to local churches, and this authority cannot be delegated even to ordained ministers, apart from the personal presence and action of a congregation in every case.

Although few Baptists today would pronounce such stringent requirements on the administration of baptism, one very influential Baptist of the 19th century did advocate this view—J.R. Graves, the champion of Landmarkism.

In 1880, Graves published a book entitled Old Landmarkism: What Is It?, in which he sought to define the principles of the movement he had fiercely promoted for several decades. In the preface, Graves emphasizes the unique and foundational role he played in the Landmark movement:

I put forth this publication now, thirty years after inaugurating the reform, to correct the manifold misrepresentations of those who oppose what they are pleased to call our principles and teachings, and to place before the Baptists of America what “Old Landmarkism” really is …

I think it is no act of presumption in me to assume to know what I meant by the Old Landmarks, since I was the first man in Tennessee, and the first editor on this continent, who publicly advocated the policy of strictly and consistently carrying out in our practice those principles which all true Baptists, in all ages, have professed to believe.

Be this as it may, one thing is certainly true, no man in this century has suffered, or is now suffering, more than myself “in the house of my friends,” for a rigid maintenance of them.

(Graves, Old Landmarkism, 1880, p. xiii-xiv, https://books.google.com/books?id=k04NAAAAYAAJ)

Graves clearly intended his book to be a defining statement of the true principles of Landmarkism. Although he largely succeeded, some of what he wrote actually reflected his own personal views and not those of the wider movement.

One example of Graves’ idiosyncratic views is his adamant assertion that the authority of a local church to baptize cannot be delegated:

The church is alone authorized to receive, to discipline, and to exclude her own members.

This power, with all her other prerogatives, is delegated to her, and it is her bounden duty to exercise it; she can not delegate her prerogatives.

“Quod delegatur non delegatum est” is a legal maxim as old as the civil code. What is delegated can not be delegated. She can not authorize her ministers to examine and baptize members into her fellowship without her personal presence and action upon each case. A minister, therefore, has no right, because ordained, to decide who are qualified to receive baptism and to administer it. Their ordination only qualified them to administer the ordinances for a church when that church called upon them to do so. A minister has an equally just right to administer the Lord’s supper to whom, and when, and where he pleases, and one act would be as null as the other …

It is the inalienable and sole right and duty of a Christian church to administer the ordinances, Baptism, and the Supper.

That these ordinances were designed to be of perpetual observance, commemorating specific and important events or acts in the work of Christ, no intelligent Christian will deny. The rites and ordinances of an institution belong, unquestionably, to that institution, and may be rightly said to be in it. I mean by these expressions that they are under the sole control of the organization; they can be administered only by the organization as such, and when duly assembled, and by its own officers or those she may appoint, pro tempore.

(Graves, Old Landmarkism, 1880, p. 48-51, https://books.google.com/books?id=k04NAAAAYAAJ)

Thus, according to Graves, the valid administration of baptism requires a local church’s “personal presence and action upon each case” and can only be administered when a local church is “duly assembled”. Any baptism performed apart from direct church action is therefore “null”—that is, invalid. In other words, the validity of baptism is dependent on the personal presence and action of the congregation in every case.

But although J.R. Graves is a respected authority among Landmark Baptists, even his assertions must ultimately be tested by scripture. What scriptural evidence can we bring to bear upon these claims?

It turns out that Graves’ direct church action model of baptism can be easily disproven by the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch recorded in Acts 8. By now in our series, we’re already very familiar with this account. Philip was led by the angel of the Lord to a eunuch traveling back to Ethiopia from Jerusalem. Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, and the eunuch believed. The eunuch asked to be baptized, and Philip baptized the eunuch.

We might ask, was the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch valid?

According to Graves’ theory, it could not have been. No local church was present when the eunuch was baptized. No local church examined the eunuch to decide whether he was qualified to receive baptism. And even if Philip were an ordained minister of the church at Jerusalem, his ordination would only have qualified him to administer baptism when specifically called upon by the church to do so.

But of course, this is all absurd. Obviously, Luke intends for us to understand that the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip was valid. There is absolutely nothing in the text which would even suggest otherwise.

It should be abundantly clear that Graves’ direct church action theory is false. These special requirements did not arise from the text of scripture—they arose from the mind of a man.

During his personal ministry, Jesus reserved his harshest criticisms for the Pharisees, who elevated their own traditional rules to have the same authority as scripture. Once, the Pharisees confronted Jesus because his disciples did not wash their hands before eating, in violation of one of their man-made rules. Jesus answered them:

Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Mark 7:6b-7)

May God help us never to perpetuate as doctrine the commandments of men.

This is the seventh in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

Baptism is commonly understood as a local church ordinance in two respects.

First, baptism is seen as the act which unites a believer to a particular local church. That is, baptism is the “door of the church”, and in every case, the immediate result of baptism is church membership.

Second, baptism is also considered to be an act which is performed by a local church. Although the actual immersion is performed by an individual—typically, the pastor—baptism is viewed as the act of the congregation itself.

In our last four posts, we challenged the notion that baptism is the act which inherently joins a believer to a particular church. After carefully considering the scriptural evidence, we concluded that it is more accurate to understand baptism as a prerequisite for orderly admission to a local church.

Next, we will be asking the question, is baptism an act of a local church? The question is deceptively simple. In fact, it will take us several posts to fully unpack it.

To begin with, we may easily observe that baptism is not inherently the act of a local church. In other words, congregational action is not part of the essential nature of baptism. The career of John the Baptist is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove this.

It is clear that John was administering baptism before the existence of local churches. He did so, not as the agent of any congregation, but rather in his own individual capacity as “a man sent from God” (John 1:6). Nevertheless, as we have argued before, the baptisms administered by John were in all essentials the same as those later administered by the disciples of Jesus. We therefore conclude that baptism is not inherently the act of a local church.

We may also conclude here that, if baptism is not the act which inherently unites a believer to a local church, and baptism is not inherently the act of a local church, then it follows that baptism is not inherently a local church ordinance. That is, the essential nature of baptism is not so dependent on a local church that it cannot be validly practiced apart from one. Again, this explains how John’s baptism could be valid despite the fact that he baptized at a time when local churches did not exist.

Nevertheless, our study is far from over. Although it might be admitted that baptism is not inherently a local church ordinance, some Baptists adamantly insist that baptism was made a local church ordinance by Jesus Christ when he delivered the Great Commission. According to them, Christ gave the Great Commission specifically and exclusively to local churches, and therefore from Pentecost onward, baptism can only be validly administered by a local church.

As we move forward, it will be necessary for us to very carefully consider the Great Commission. But before we dive into detailed exegesis, it will be helpful to begin by discussing how various Baptists have thought of precisely how baptism is performed by a local church. Three distinct models of congregational action have been proposed:

1. The direct church action model - Local churches may not delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism. The validity of baptism is dependent on the personal presence and action of the congregation in each case.

2. The ordination model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism, but only to ordained ministers. The validity of baptism is dependent on the baptism and ordination of the administrator.

3. The appointment model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism to any member appointed by the church. The validity of baptism is not dependent on the baptism or ordination of the administrator.

We will assess each of these proposed models in our next three posts.

This is the sixth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

We’re still considering the immediate question, is baptism the act which inherently unites a believer to a particular local church?

Previously, we have seen that since John the Baptist was administering baptism prior to the existence of local churches, addition to the membership of a local church cannot be part of the essential nature of baptism.

We’ve also seen that the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip could not have united him with any particular church, because no congregation could have possibly given its consent to receive the Ethiopian eunuch into membership when they had never even heard of his conversion. Therefore we find that, even after Pentecost, baptism does not inherently join a believer to a local church.

Although the scriptural evidence we have already provided is more than sufficient to establish this fact, it will also be beneficial for us to consider how Baptists have historically thought of the relationship between baptism and local church membership before finally moving on in our study.

We must emphasize at the outset that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice. What makes a doctrine true is not that Baptists have historically believed it, but only that the Bible teaches it. Therefore, we must never appeal to church history as having any kind of inherent authority. Nevertheless, it is still helpful to consider doctrine from a historical perspective. At the very least, if we can find a certain doctrinal view represented in historic Baptist theology, we can show that it is not new.

As early as the middle of the 17th century, some Baptists have argued that baptism should precede the observance of the Lord’s Supper. They believed that it would be disorderly to admit even a true believer to communion if he were unbaptized. This practice came to be known as “closed communion”, and this principle was affirmed in the 1646 revision of the First London Baptist Confession:

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or that are made disciples; who upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

(A Confession of Faith of Seven Congregations or Churches of Christ in London, 1646, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A80328.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext, emphasis mine)

In the same year, Benjamin Cox, one of the signatories of the First London Confession, published an appendix to the confession, writing on behalf of the churches. With respect to closed communion, Cox writes:

Though a believer’s right to the use of the Lord’s Supper does immediately flow from Jesus Christ apprehended and received by faith; yet inasmuch as all things ought to be done not only decently, but also in order … and the word holds forth this order, that disciples should be baptized … and then taught to observe all things (that is to say, all other things) that Christ commanded the Apostles … and accordingly the Apostles first baptized disciples, and then admitted them to the use of the Supper … we therefore do not admit any to the use of the Supper, nor communicate with any in the use of this ordinance, but disciples baptized, lest we should have fellowship with them in their doing contrary to order.

(Cox, An Appendix to a Confession of Faith, 1646, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A80728.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext, emphasis mine)

Nevertheless, some Baptists continued to admit unbaptized believers to the Lord’s Supper, a practice which came to be known as “open communion”. Later in the 17th century, the controversy between closed communion Baptists and open communion Baptists was brought into public view through several published works arguing for each position.

One of the foremost advocates for open communion was John Bunyan, the now-famous author of The Pilgrim’s Progress. In 1672, Bunyan published a work entitled A Confession of My Faith, in which he presented a number of arguments in favor of open communion. He specifically responds to the objection that water baptism is the “initiating ordinance” which unites a believer to a church:

Question. But do you not count that by water baptism, and not otherwise, that being the initiating, and entering ordinance, they ought to be received into fellowship?

Answer. No. But tarry, and take my sense with my word. For herein lies the mistake, to think that because in time past, baptism was administered upon conversion, that therefore it is the initiating and entering ordinance into church communion, when by the word no such thing is testified of it. Besides, that it is not so, will be manifest, if we consider the nature and power of such an ordinance.

(Bunyan, A Confession of My Faith, 1672, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A30136.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext, emphasis mine)

Bunyan then proceeds with an elaborate argument proving why baptism does not join a believer to a church. If we stopped here, we might assume Bunyan’s opponents were actually in favor of this idea.

However, a response to Bunyan’s work was published the next year by Thomas Paul, a closed communion Baptist associated with the renowned William Kiffin. Kiffin himself would eventually become perhaps the most well-known advocate for closed communion, and he wrote the preface to Paul’s book, the full title of which is Some Serious Reflections On that Part of Mr. Bunion’s Confession of Faith: Touching Communion With Unbaptized Persons.

In his book, Paul gives a rather interesting reply to Bunyan’s lengthy argument against baptism being the “initiating ordinance” into church fellowship:

Your great noise about an initiating ordinance, wherein you spend time enough, I shall take no notice of. I know none that assert it to be the inlet into particular churches, though it prepares them for reception. It’s consent on all hands, and nothing else, that makes them members of this or that particular church, and not faith and baptism.

(Paul, Some Serious Reflections, 1673, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A70907.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext, emphasis mine)

Surprisingly, Paul says that Bunyan’s argument is completely irrelevant, because none of the advocates of closed communion that he knows of holds baptism to be the “initiating ordinance”. In Paul’s view, baptism simply prepares believers for membership in a particular local church. It is only mutual consent between a believer and some particular congregation which makes him a member of that local church.

All that being said, some closed communion Baptists—including William Kiffin—later did go on to use language describing baptism as an “initiating ordinance”. Nevertheless, other closed communion Baptists continued to reject the idea that the act of baptism inherently unites a believer to a particular local church.

Writing about a century later, the noted Baptist theologian John Gill carefully described baptism as an act which prepares a believer for admission into a local church:

[Though baptism] is not a church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God, and a part and branch of public worship. When I say it is not a church ordinance, I mean it is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it. It is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it. It does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church. Persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were.

(Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Vol. 3, 1796, p. 288, https://books.google.com/books?id=HYtQAQAAMAAJ, emphasis mine)

But even though Gill understood baptism as simply a prerequisite for local church membership, he remained resolutely committed to closed communion. In the same work, a few pages later, he writes:

After the ordinance of baptism follows the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. The one is preparatory to the other, and he that has a right to the one has a right to the other, and none but such who have submitted to the former ought to be admitted to the latter.

(Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Vol. 3, 1796, p. 315, https://books.google.com/books?id=HYtQAQAAMAAJ, emphasis mine)

Several decades after this, in 1833, the New Hampshire Baptist Convention produced a declaration of faith, which went on to be published in 1853 by J. Newton Brown, and has since become known as The New Hampshire Confession of Faith. There are still many Baptist churches in America today that subscribe to this venerable confession. The New Hampshire Confession acknowledges baptism as preparatory to church membership and the Lord’s Supper:

We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect, in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life; that it is pre-requisite to the privileges of a church relation; and to the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ; preceded always by solemn self-examination.

(Brown, The Baptist Church Manual, 1858, p. 17, https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/5718/Brown-Baptist%20Church%20Manual%201853-ocr.pdf, emphasis mine)

After this, in 1858, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary adopted the Abstract of Principles, which also embodies a similar view of baptism as a prerequisite for church membership:

Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord’s Supper.

(Abstract of Principles, 1858, https://www.sbts.edu/abstract-of-principles/, emphasis mine)

It is important to note that if baptism is indeed a prerequisite for local church membership, then it certainly cannot be the act which itself results in local church membership.

Although we have seen that this understanding of baptism as simply a prerequisite for local church membership has been well represented in Baptist thought for the past four centuries, it bears reiterating that we are not making an appeal to church history as having any kind of inherent authority. Again, what makes a doctrine true is not that Baptists have historically believed it, but only that the Bible teaches it. Nevertheless, it is clear this view is by no means new among Baptists.

This is the fifth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

We’re still seeking to answer the more immediate question, is baptism the act which joins a believer to a particular local church? In our last post, we looked at the baptism of John, and we argued that since John the Baptist was immersing prior to the existence of local churches, joining a believer to a particular local church cannot be an inherent function of baptism. Next, we want to consider the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip.

But first, we need to talk about an important concept related to local church membership—the concept of voluntary mutual consent.

Baptists have long held that no one can be compelled against his will to become a member of a particular local church. This is a common error of state churches—unbelieving infants are added as members of a state church simply as a result of their being born in a certain country or parish, and the process is completely involuntary. But this is wrong, because addition to church membership must be voluntary on the part of the one seeking admission.

By the same token, no local church can be forced to admit a member against its own wishes. In other words, the reception of members must also be voluntary on the part of the church.

And of course, it isn’t enough for just one party to voluntarily desire such a union, but rather, both parties must agree concerning the candidate who wishes to be admitted to church membership. That is, the decision must be mutual.

Finally, a believer becomes a member of a particular local church by agreement, or consent. And once this agreement has been reached, the relationship is formed, and the candidate immediately becomes a member of that local church.

A remarkable incident in the life of Paul illustrates this principle. Three years after he was miraculously converted on the road to Damascus (Gal. 1:15-18), Paul sought to be united with the disciples of the church at Jerusalem:

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed [attempted] to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. (Acts 9:26-28)

Although Paul desired to associate himself with the members of the church at Jerusalem, he was initially rejected by the disciples, who obviously remembered that he had once fiercely persecuted the believers. They were still afraid of Paul and thought his claim of conversion was insincere. Nevertheless, after Barnabas interceded on Paul’s behalf before the apostles, Paul was ultimately brought into full fellowship with the disciples at Jerusalem.

Specifically, Paul is said to have been “with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem”, which appears to refer to full communion with the church at Jerusalem. A similar phrase is used earlier in Acts in reference to “these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us” (Acts 1:21), where it clearly indicates the most intimate degree of fellowship.

This brief but important account demonstrates that Paul was united to the disciples at Jerusalem by voluntary mutual consent. Although we often take it for granted today, it bears repeating that believers can only be added to the membership of a particular local church with the consent of the congregation.

Now, let’s proceed to briefly consider the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip recorded in Acts 8.

The angel of the Lord directed Philip to a specific road that led from Jerusalem to Gaza (v. 26). Having reached the road, he found an Ethiopian man—a eunuch—returning from worshiping in Jerusalem (v. 27). The man was reading a passage in Isaiah 53, and Philip used this text as a springboard to preach Jesus to him (v. 32-35). As a result, the eunuch believed on Christ and asked to be baptized (v. 36). Philip and the eunuch went down into a nearby body of water, and Philip baptized the eunuch (v. 38). Immediately, the Spirit carried Philip to another location, and the eunuch continued on his way back to Ethiopia, rejoicing in his Savior (v. 39-40).

This account furnishes some vital evidence as we seek to understand whether baptism is the act which unites a believer to a particular local church. Actually, we need only ask one simple question—what local church was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized into?

Some have argued that, since baptism is clearly “the door of the church” elsewhere in scripture, it would be right for us to assume that the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized into the membership of the church at Jerusalem, or some other local church. But the fundamental problem with this interpretive approach is that it simply reads into the text what one wishes to find—a blatant case of eisegesis. It’s obvious that the text itself gives no hint that the baptism of the eunuch united him to any particular local congregation.

Another common response is that, although the text does not explicitly say that the Ethiopian eunuch was joined to a local church by baptism, it also does not explicitly say that he wasn’t! In other words, the best case that can be made here that baptism is not the “door of the church” is an argument from silence. However, even this attempt to evade the clear implications of this account just won’t hold water.

In fact, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch provides positive and definitive evidence that baptism does not join a believer to a local church. And this is where the concept of voluntary mutual consent becomes important.

We’ve already seen that believers can only be added to a particular local church with the consent of the congregation. But how could the congregation at Jerusalem, or any other congregation, possibly give its consent to receive the Ethiopian eunuch into membership, when they had never even seen him? Even after his baptism, as he was making his way back to Ethiopia, no congregation in the world had ever even heard of his conversion.

Local church membership is a relationship based on mutual agreement, and yet the text of Acts 8 completely rules out the possibility of any such agreement between the eunuch and any local church. Therefore, we must conclude that the Ethiopian eunuch was not united to any particular local church by the act of baptism.

Yet again, a straightforward reading of scripture compels us to admit that baptism does not inherently join a believer to a local church.

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

We’re still considering the immediate question, is baptism the act which joins a believer to a particular local church? In our last post, we critiqued two common arguments in favor of this view. We’ll now begin to consider the scriptural evidence that baptism does not inherently join a believer to any local church.

The earliest baptisms recorded in the New Testament were, of course, administered by John the Baptist. It was John who was sent by God to preach the gospel of the kingdom, baptize repentant believers, and ultimately introduce Jesus the Messiah to the nation of Israel.

Some paedobaptists and open communion Baptists have argued that John’s baptism was essentially different from the baptism administered by the disciples of Jesus. In this view, the baptism of John was merely preparatory and therefore cannot properly be considered full Christian baptism. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to reject this view.

A clear and convincing case for the continuity of the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ was made by John Gill. He writes:

John had a mission and commission from God, he was a man sent of God, and sent to baptize …

Now his baptism, and that of Christ and his apostles were the same. Christ was baptized by John, and his baptism was surely christian-baptism; of this no one can doubt …

And it is observable, that the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ and his apostles, were at the same time; they were contemporary, and did not one succeed the other: now it is not reasonable to suppose there should be two sorts of baptism administered at the same time; but one and the same by both.

The baptism of John, and that which was practised by the apostles of Christ even after his death and resurrection from the dead, agreed, -

1. In the subjects thereof …

2. In the way and manner of the administration of both …

3. In the form of their administration …

4. In the end and use of baptism …

Now since there is such an agreement between the baptism of John, as administered before the death of Christ; and between the baptism of the apostles, after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ; it is a plain case, it was not limited to the interval of time from the beginning of John’s ministry to the death of Christ; but was afterwards continued …

(Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Vol. 3, 1796, p. 290-291, https://books.google.com/books?id=HYtQAQAAMAAJ)

Indeed, the Gospel of John explicitly represents John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus baptizing simultaneously:

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (John 3:22-23)

There is, therefore, no essential difference between John’s baptism and that administered by Jesus’ disciples. This being the case, we can learn something further about the essential nature of baptism.

All four gospels make it clear that John the Baptist was already baptizing disciples prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ. The synoptic gospels place the inception of Jesus’ public ministry after the imprisonment of John (Matthew 4:12-17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 3:19-20ff). Likewise, the Gospel of John emphasizes that the baptism of Jesus was the necessary precursor to John the Baptist’s proclamation of him as the Messiah (John 1:29-34).

Although it is a fact often overlooked, it is vital to recognize that since John the Baptist was administering baptism before Jesus himself was baptized, John was necessarily baptizing before the existence of any local churches. There simply were no Christian congregations when John began to administer baptism.

Nevertheless, as we’ve established above, the baptisms administered by John even in the earliest period of his ministry were essentially one and the same with the baptisms administered later by the disciples of Jesus. That is, even the earliest baptisms of John were fully Christian baptisms, even though they did not result in local church membership.

The conclusion is therefore unavoidable that addition to the membership of a local church is not part of the essential nature of baptism. In other words, joining a believer to a particular local church is not an inherent function of baptism.

We might ask, when John baptized his first disciples, what local church were they baptized into? The question is an absurdity precisely because it is obvious that local churches did not at that time exist!

The only way to possibly evade the force of this line of reasoning would be to argue for some kind of essential disparity between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ. But as we have learned from Gill, the notion of two fundamentally different forms of water baptisms flies in the face of both scripture and reason.

In light of the foregoing, we believe it is simply undeniable that uniting a believer to a particular local church is not an inherent function of baptism.

Admittedly, this is in stark contradiction to what is taken for granted by most Baptists today. But should a scriptural truth be dismissed simply because it does not agree with the view held by the majority?

This is the third in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here, and the second post can be found here.

We are now addressing the question, is baptism the act which inherently unites a believer to a particular local church? Although many Baptists today would say that baptism is what joins a believer to a local church, this is a proposition that must be tested by scripture. To begin with, we’ll consider the two primary biblical arguments that have been advanced in favor of this view.

One biblical argument which is often made in support of the idea that baptism is the “door of the church” is based on the experience of the church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. In Acts 2, after Peter’s powerful preaching, we read:

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

At first glance, it’s easy to read this verse as saying that the three thousand believers who were added to the church at Jerusalem became members of this local church by the very act of their being baptized. Indeed, some Baptists have pointed to this verse as irrefutable proof that baptism is what effectually adds believers to a local church. However, if we look carefully at what the verse explicitly affirms, it actually makes two distinct statements joined by the conjunction and (Greek kai).

The first statement affirms that those who gladly received the word preached by Peter were baptized. The second statement affirms that on the same day, three thousand believers were added to the church. Of course, Luke intends for us to understand that in both statements, he is speaking of essentially the same group of people. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the text that requires us to understand that these believers became members of the church at Jerusalem by the act of baptism. This supposition is not a necessary inference from the text, and therefore it is not something that scripture affirms, at least not in this passage.

Although the idea may sound strange to many today, understanding baptism and addition to church membership in this passage as two separate actions is not a new interpretation among Baptists. The eminent Baptist theologian John Gill draws out this distinction in his discussion of baptism in his Body of Practical Divinity, first published in 1770. He writes:

[Baptism] does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it.

(Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Vol. 3, 1796, p. 288, https://books.google.com/books?id=HYtQAQAAMAAJ)

We’ll have more to say about Gill’s views as we move forward, but clearly he sees the baptism of the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost and their admission into church membership as two distinct actions.

In spite of what is often heard today, we believe a careful reading of Acts 2 reveals that it actually lends no support to the view that baptism is what adds believers to a particular local church.

Another biblical argument in favor of the view that baptism is the “door of the church” is based on a statement that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 12. He writes:

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

The phrase commonly translated into English as “baptized into one body” has been understood by some Baptists as indicating that believers are united to a particular local church by baptism. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to reject this interpretation.

First, the preposition translated here as into (Greek eis) is used in many different senses throughout the New Testament. In fact, Paul on more than one occasion uses this preposition in in contexts where it obviously must not be understood as making baptism the effectual means of union:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Jesus Christ were baptized into (eis) his death? (Romans 6:3)

For as many of you as have been baptized into (eis) Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27)

Should we understand Paul’s phrase “baptized into Jesus Christ” as teaching that it is the act of baptism which effectually brings believers into union with Christ? Certainly not! The preposition eis in these verses is rather to be understood in its legitimate sense of in reference to or with respect to. In these passages, Paul is simply saying that believers are baptized in connection with Jesus Christ and his death. In like manner, Paul’s use of eis in 1 Corinthians 12:13 may be understood in the same sense—that believers are baptized with respect to one body.

Another important factor that refutes the idea that Paul is here representing baptism as the effectual means of uniting with a particular local church is his use of the first person. However we may understand the shared reality being described in this verse, it is clear that Paul is including himself as a participant in it right alongside the Corinthian believers.

Paul writes that in one Spirit, “we all” have partaken of baptism with respect to one body and have “all” been made to drink of one Spirit. He uses the first person plural pronoun “we” with two first person plural verbs. He uses the word “all” twice and the word “one” three times. It would scarcely be possible to place more emphasis on the concept of unity in a single verse than Paul does here.

But was Paul baptized into the same local church as all of the Corinthians? Of course not. Paul was baptized in Damascus (Acts 9:18). One might reply that Paul was baptized into the same kind of local church as the Corinthians, but the text simply will not support this. Both Paul and the Corinthians were baptized with respect to one and the same body.

We therefore conclude that Paul’s phrase “baptized into one body” really furnishes no support to the view that baptism is the “door of the church”.

Having critically assessed the two main biblical arguments that have been put forward in favor of the view that baptism is the act which joins a believer to a particular local church, our next post will consider the scriptural evidence against this view.

This is the second in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? If you haven’t already read the first post introducing the series, you can find it here.

As we move forward, it will be necessary to address a number of more specific subordinate questions. To begin with, we’ll need to ask, is baptism a local church ordinance?

In its broadest sense, the word ordinance means something that has been ordained, or commanded. It is most commonly used in English Bible translations to refer to the various laws given by God to Israel in the Old Testament.

The word ordinance has also come to be used by Baptists in a more specific sense. When early English Baptists composed the Second London Baptist Confession in the late 17th century, they adopted much of the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, they consistently replaced every instance of the term sacrament with the term ordinance.

Thus, while the Westminster Confession says that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the “only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel” (ch. 27, sect. 4), the Second London Baptist Confession affirms:

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. (ch. 28, para. 1)

As a result of this shift in terminology, it became common for Baptists to say that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only two church ordinances. However, as some have helpfully pointed out, this language is regrettable, since Jesus Christ has just as certainly commanded such duties as prayer, singing, and scripture reading, which would also properly be called ordinances.

When Landmarkism arose in the middle of the 19th century with its exclusive emphasis on the local church, some Baptists began referring to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as local church ordinances. This terminology reflects the view that these two ordinances are inherently and inseparably linked to each local congregation.

Baptism is often understood as a local church ordinance in two respects.

First, baptism is seen as the act which inherently unites a believer to a particular local church. In other words, baptism is the “door of the church”. In every case, the immediate result of baptism is church membership. Therefore, it can never be performed apart from a previously existing local church.

Second, baptism is seen as an act that is inherently performed by a local church. Of course, the congregation delegates the actual administration of immersion to an individual agent—usually, the pastor. Nevertheless, baptism is properly the act of the congregation itself. It is the church which baptizes, not any individual.

Although these two propositions would be widely accepted by Baptists today—even by many who would not identify themselves as Landmark Baptists—it’s vital for us to consider whether they are, in fact, biblical truths. We cannot receive them merely because so many others do. Rather, we must carefully test them in the light of scripture.

We intend to address each of these two propositions concerning baptism in the coming weeks. Our next post will consider the question, is baptism the act which joins a believer to a particular local church?

Baptists have long held that a proper subject—that is, a believer—is essential to valid baptism. Even today, the vast majority of those who would identify themselves as Baptists still view the sprinkling of unbelieving infants not merely as a defective or irregular baptism, but as no baptism at all. The mode of immersion is also widely considered to be another essential element of valid baptism, so that even believers who have been sprinkled or poured upon would be regarded as unbaptized. It has also been argued that a proper purpose is essential to valid baptism and that baptisms explicitly performed in order to impart regeneration are therefore invalid.

Some Baptists have also insisted that a proper administrator is absolutely essential to valid baptism. Under this view, even the immersion of a believer with proper symbolic intent would be invalid and no baptism at all if it were performed by anyone but a properly qualified administrator. Although this view has been argued for in a few different ways over time, it invariably makes the qualification of the administrator dependent on prior baptism. As a result, the validity of all present-day baptisms rests on an unbroken historical succession of qualified administrators, all the way back to the first church in Jerusalem.

Few Baptists today see this kind of historical succession as a requirement for the administration of baptism. Nevertheless, those who do represent a sincere and vocal minority. To them, requiring baptism to be performed by a proper administrator is simply following the scriptural pattern of the New Testament. If faithfully adhering to a biblical view of baptism logically necessitates some form of historical succession, so be it.

These concerns are often dismissed out of hand, but they ought to be taken seriously. We should be willing to ask the question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? Certainly, this is a question that deserves a clear, comprehensive answer on the basis of scripture.

Over the next few months, this is just what we hope to provide. This is the first in a series of blog posts in which we will be carefully considering the validity of baptism with respect to the administrator. Our aim is to develop an answer, first and foremost, from scripture itself. Whenever it may be helpful, we’ll also provide additional context through the lens of Baptist history.

Along the way, it may be necessary to challenge certain premises that are so widely accepted among Baptists that they may almost seem self-evidently true. This is not motivated by a blind antipathy to tradition. It’s simply an acknowledgment that if our reasoning is to be completely grounded in scripture, we cannot afford to take anything for granted. Rather, we must “prove all things”.

We’ll need to begin by asking, is baptism a local church ordinance? No doubt for some, the proposition is so obviously true, so eminently biblical, that it would be almost sacrilegious even to ask such a question. Nevertheless, the question is so fundamentally connected with the administrator of baptism that it cannot be avoided in our present study.

Thankfully, there is a great deal of scriptural data that can be brought to bear on this important question. We will begin to formulate an answer in our next post.

What does the Greek word ekklesia mean in the New Testament? The word is commonly rendered church in English Bible translations, yet this very word church may hinder rather than help in understanding what ekklesia meant to the writers of scripture themselves. In its most basic usage, an ekklesia is an assembly. But is this all that the word ever conveys? Does ekklesia have an absolutely fixed meaning in the pages of the New Testament, or are there signs of a gradual development in its usage over time?

These are the questions that Robert A. Baker sought to answer in the doctoral thesis he submitted to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1943 entitled An Introduction to the Study of the Development of Ecclesiology. Regrettably, this helpful work was never published, but it is available upon request in electronic facsimile from the SWBTS libraries. Robert Baker himself went on to publish a dozen books and served as president of the Texas Baptist Historical Society and as chairman of the Southern Baptist Historical Commission.

In this important study, Baker seeks to trace the word ekklesia from its Greek origins and later Roman context, through its use in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) and Jewish writings of the intertestamental period, all the way to its various usages in the New Testament:

It is hoped that a contribution will be made to the literature of this field in six respects:

1. a study of the influences affecting the word ekklesia prior to the New Testament era;

2. a survey of the Hebrew background of ekklesia in the Old Testament;

3. a catalogue and description of the word in the Septuagint;

4. a study of the use of ekklesia by the writers of the Apocrypha, by Philo, and by Josephus;

5. a literary classification of the word in the New Testament literature;

6. the introduction of a new factor in interpreting the word ekklesia in the New Testament—the flux of language. (p. iv-v)

Baker begins with a detailed investigation of where the idea of the ekklesia first arose. He suspects the concept may have originally been imported from Nordic tribes which seem to have held similar popular assemblies:

The despotic monarchies of the Mediterranean world could hardly have been the source for a democratic system. This germ of democracy is known to have existed among the Nordic peoples, and there is some evidence that these tribes migrated southward into Greece. It is certain that nothing in this theory conflicts with all our known history. (p. 23-24)

Regardless of its precise origin, it is clear the ekklesia is an ancient institution. Having noted that the noun ekklesia is a derivative of the verb ekkaleo meaning “to call out”, he writes:

The written language of the Greeks is usually dated from three to four centuries after they had settled in the peninsula. By this time, the conception of an ekklesia had been well established. It is generally agreed that when the derivative of the verb meaning “to call out” was applied to this assembly, the idea was not of segregation but of summoning …

It is probable that the earliest ekklesia found the members acting more in the capacity of warriors and fathers than as citizens. Hort speaks for many as he says that the “calling out” was simply the calling of the men together from their houses for an assembly, and later, the calling of Greek citizens from their homes to the assembly. (p. 24-25)

For Baker, the very existence of these secular assemblies rules out the commonplace understanding of the Christian use of ekklesia as indicating the “called-out ones”—those who have been called out by God in a spiritual sense. The temptation to define ekklesia on the basis of its etymology must be resisted:

It would hardly be fitting to interpret the word found in the New Testament as carrying an etymology so susceptible to Christian teachings when surrounding the Christian ekklesia were numerous wicked and seditious (and more ancient) ekklesiai bearing the same name. (p. 25)

After discussing how much influence the Greek culture may have had on the later Mediterranean Jews, he concludes that early Christians derived their understanding of ekklesia from their intimate familiarity with the word’s use in the Septuagint, and not from direct experience with Greek or Roman political assemblies:

The disciples of Jesus were devout, uncultured Jews who knew no formal culture. Their conception of ekklesia sprang from their early training (as all Jews were trained) in the Scriptures, probably the Septuagint version. They would not be familiar with the classical etymology or connotation unless such were embedded in that writing …

The conception of an autonomous religious or political assembly was not unfamiliar to the disciples. Before the Greeks wandered into the country that bears their name, the Hebrews had a well-articulated means for group expression in the qahal. As will be noted later, in many instances this word was translated by ekklesia in the Septuagint. (p. 45-47)

Having establishing how influential the Greek Old Testament was on the writers of the New Testament, Baker proceeds with an exhaustive inductive study of the use of ekklesia in the Septuagint:

Perhaps the best method for determining why, for example, ekklesia was used as a translation of qahal instead of some other word in a given case is to study the various Hebrew words for “gathering” or “assembly” and notice how they were translated in the Septuagint. Likewise, as a predicate for grasping the vital background of ekklesia, the word qahal should be defined in its nature and relation to other Hebrew terms. (p. 59)

Baker then embarks on a lengthy and painstaking review of every translation in the Septuagint of the Hebrew word qahal, which is sometimes translated as ekklesia, and other times as sunagoge. He finally concludes with the following vivid illustration:

It will help to visualize the distinctions to be made between the two words by viewing the entire content of qahal as being in the form of a spectrum with seven bands of prism-filtered light.

The largest band, constituting well over half of the whole, represents ekklesia; the next largest, constituting about one-third of the whole, represents sunagoge; the other one-sixth is divided fractionally between the remaining five Greek words that interpret qahal. There is an evident distinction between the coloring of the ekklesia band and the band representing sunagoge, but as they approach in the spectrum they seem to fade into each other.

In its purest coloring, ekklesia is a particular corporeal assembly for immediate autonomous deliberation. It must be capable of assembling at one time in one place to consider a cause and, must not only be capable, but must have actually accomplished that assembly before it can be termed an ekklesia. The capability of assembling for autonomous action, whether true prior to or subsequent to the actual meeting, is not contemplated as constituting an ekklesia in the mind of the Septuagint writer.

On the other hand, in its brightest shade, a sunagoge consists of a gathering that does not consider a cause, was not specifically summoned for deliberation, and does not need to be capable of assembling at one time. (p. 143-144)

In other words, the Septuagint exclusively uses the word ekklesia to describe actual assemblies. It has no application to any group which is not presently assembled. Furthermore, this usage is seen to extend to any kind of gathering, regardless of the underlying purpose of the meeting. Baker points out that in 1 Samuel 17:47, David even addresses the opposing armies of the Philistines and the Israelites as a single ekklesia (p. 92)! He explains:

The use of modifiers in the Septuagint shows definitely that ekklesia was not a “technical” word that had particular organizational connotations or pre-suppositions concerning a certain quality, number or type of constituents, or, for that matter, any particular kind of purpose in meeting. It seems that the purpose for which the ekklesia was meeting might be known to but a few and yet the name ekklesia applied. That is, in the Septuagint use of the word, there was no demand for a common intellectual or spiritual unity with the physical unity that was essential. (p.146-147, emphasis in original)

Baker then assesses the use of ekklesia in the Apocrypha and in the Jewish literature of Philo and Josephus. He finds that, although there are some slight shifts in usage, the word maintains largely the same narrow range of meaning in this extrabiblical Jewish literature that it has in the Septuagint:

Throughout the Septuagint and the other writings studied, it seems apparent that the content of the word ekklesia was determined by its modifiers. Thus, there may be found “wicked” ekklesiai, ekklesiai “of saints,” etc. The word ekklesia, that is, may be likened to a vehicle, whose content depends on its modifiers and environment. The word does not signify the nature nor the purpose of its constituency: it points to their group identity and autonomous prerogatives.

It is reiterated that with two exceptions (one in the Septuagint and one in the Apocrypha), the word ekklesia is found always to describe a corporeal, physical unity of people. Furthermore, the article is never found with the word unless there is a reason, usually contextual, for its appearance. (p. 176-177, emphasis in original)

Having completed a comprehensive survey of the use of ekklesia in the Septuagint and other Jewish literature, Baker now proceeds to consider the word in the New Testament itself. He divides the uses of ekklesia into three broad literary categories which he sees as three distinct phases of development in the word’s usage.

His first broad classification is what he terms the “literal” uses of ekklesia, in which the word is used in reference to any kind of actual assembly:

Literally, an ekklesia is an autonomous group of people physically united or unified. Physical unity is the characteristic of a literal ekklesia. As has been noted in this study, spiritual or mental oneness is not a factor in a literal ekklesia. (p. 186-187, emphasis in original)

His second classification is for the “technical” uses of ekklesia—that is, where the word itself stands specifically for an actual assembly of Christians:

The second category, or technical use of the word, is a distinct development from the literal use of the word. It may be applied to a meeting of Christian people in ekklesia. That is, the distinction between a literal use of the word and the technical use of the word ekklesia is seen in the fact that the former has physical unity only, while the latter has both physical and spiritual unity …

It did not take the world long to discover that when Christians had an ekklesia, it was different from any other ekklesia because of the characteristic of spiritual unity in Christ. Thus, when the word ekklesia developed into a distinctly Christian word, its content was not limited simply to physical unity but to the spiritual unity as well which every Christian ekklesia had — and without which it was not a Christian ekklesia. (p. 187-188, emphasis in original)

His third and final classification is for “metaphorical” uses of ekklesia, in which the word eventually comes to only convey spiritual unity in Christ:

The third category, the metaphorical use of the word ekklesia, is a philological development beyond the technical use … In applying the term metaphorical to the use of the word ekklesia, it is meant that some characteristic idiom of the Christian or technical use of the word ekklesia has in turn become identified with the word ekklesia as well as with the thing the technical word described.

The peculiar characteristic of the Christian ekklesia was its spiritual unity, since the physical unity it enjoyed was a part of the untechnical meaning of the word … Gramatically speaking, the Locative of Place becomes a Locative of Sphere — en to Christo [in Christ]. This movement is in exact accord with the known principles of word development. (p. 188-190, emphasis in original)

Using this framework, Baker classifies five uses of ekklesia as strictly literal:

There are five literal uses of the word ekklesia in the New Testament: Acts 19:32, 19:41, 7:38; Hebrews 2:12; Acts 19:39 …

Acts 19:32 and 19:41 have been a cause of difficulty for those who have based their concept of ekklesia upon the classical use of the term … Dr. Dargan even asserts that these two occurrences do not constitute a proper use of the word ekklesia. Dr. Robertson comments sharply on the riotous character of this unruly mob and his language raises a question as to whether he saw ekklesia here as a proper usage. Lenski, on the other hand, and Ramsay, insist upon the accuracy of Luke’s usage. Ramsay, in his discussion, points to two types of ekklesia: one, the regular or lawful ekklesia, and the other, a mass meeting of any kind … This passage seems to present conclusive evidence that the word ekklesia had broadened its meaning far beyond the strictly classical sense …

Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12 refer to the ekklesiai in the Septuagint. These are literal assemblies. Perhaps some explanation should be made concerning the unity of these ekklesiai. There may have been some nationalistic feeling and perhaps religious coherence, but there was not a Christian unity in any sense.

The remaining occurrence, Acts 19:39, is a reference to a “lawful assembly,” which was discussed in contrast with the mob in connection with Acts 19:32 by Ramsay. This passage shows the extreme width that the word ekklesia had attained: both a riotous mob and an orderly and authoritative legislature were termed ekklesiai. (p. 192-195, emphasis in original)

Baker identifies four uses of ekklesia as representing a usage somewhere between a literal and a technical use, which he sees as indicating a stage of development toward the fully technical use. He calls these uses “sub-technical”:

With reference to the remarks introducing the use of ekklesia in a literal sense, there are four occurrences of the word in the early writings of Paul that should be placed on the borderline of the literal use, or in what may be called the sub-technical use. These are the occurrences in 1 Thess. 1:1 and 2:14 and 2 Thess. 1:1 and 1:4.

There are some characteristics about these four uses (the only occurrences in Paul’s first two epistles) indicating the word ekklesia had not yet come be identified definitely with a Christian assembly, even in the minds of the Christians receiving the epistles. The nature and extent of the modifiers suggest this.

In the opening verse of each epistle, ekklesia is followed by the adjective form of the city, modifying it as to place, then it is further modified by a Locative of Sphere, defining the particular kind of ekklesia; i.e., the kind of ekklesia which is “in God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.” In 1 Thess. 2:14, the word is modified fully as to place and again by the Genitive (of Possession, perhaps) “of God,” and the Locative of Sphere — “in Christ Jesus.” In 2 Thess. 1:4, ekklesia is modified only by the Genitive (of Possession or Description).

The unusual definitive forms in the opening verses of each of these two epistles are not repeated in any other epistles of Paul. Since it is known that the word ekklesia received its content from its modifiers in all the pre-New Testament writings which have been studied, and that various ekklesiai, other than Christian assemblies, existed in every city, it seems clear that Paul’s modifying descriptions of the ekklesia were of necessity added because the word ekklesia had not yet become a technical Christian word. (p. 195-196, emphasis in original)

Baker is not surprised to find that the vast majority of the uses of ekklesia in the New Testament are technical, where it means not just any assembly, but specifically a Christian assembly, without any separate modifiers to that effect:

The technical uses of the word ekklesia constitute by far the great majority of occurrences in the New Testament. This is to be expected. It is the Christian use of a word in Christian literature. It is the basis for Christian ecclesiastical polity. A local assembly spiritually united in Christ, with an autonomous nature, is a Christian ekklesia. It will hardly be necessary to go through a list of these uses individually and “prove” each one, since most of them are so clearly possessed of the two characteristics of the technical usage as to render discussion unnecessary.

One verse, however, where the word appears twice, should receive brief comment. In Matthew 18:17, Christ enjoins the disciples to tell a matter to the ekklesia as a final effort to secure a reconciliation between brethren as to some difficulty. It is clear that the ekklesia here must have a physical unity in order to be informed of the offense, and from the authority which Christ ascribes to the ekklesia, it apparently has a Christian unity … The ekklesia here, then, seems to be a local body of believers with Christian unity. (p. 202-203, emphasis in original)

Baker moves on to assess the metaphorical uses of ekklesia, in which the meaning is found in spiritual unity alone, without reference to physical unity. He notes some instances of the word that seem to fall between the technical and metaphorical uses, seeing these as additional evidence for the gradual development of the word’s meaning:

It has been noted that the occurrences of the word in both of the Thessalonian epistles should be termed “sub-technical” since there is every evidence that the word as it is used in those early letters had gone, as yet, little beyond the literal stage. Likewise it is true that there are some uses of ekklesia that are on the borderline between technical and metaphorical usage. As classified in this study, the group includes the following occurrences: Acts 8:1, 8:3, 9:31, 1 Cor. 15:9, Galatians 1:13, Philippians 3:6, and perhaps 1 Cor. 12:28 …

Acts 8:1 describes how a great persecution arose against the ekklesia which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout all the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. Acts 8:3 continues by describing how Saul made havoc of the ekklesia, entering into every house and haling men and women to prison …

Luke says that there was a great persecution against the ekklesia (accusative singular) and they all (nominative plural) were scattered abroad, except the apostles. In this verse Luke makes the members of the ekklesia the equivalent of the ekklesia itself. “They all” could have no antecedent except “members of the ekklesia” and these were called simply “the ekklesia.” The exception made with respect to the apostles shows that this is exactly what he means — the people, whether assembled or scattered, were the ekklesia. Even with the apostles left in Jerusalem, the scattered disciples constituted the ekklesia …

Verse 3 is consistent with this view. “Saul made havoc of the ekklesia by entering in house by house” (a distributive use of kata, with the participle eisporeuomenos having the force of mode or manner). If the members of the ekklesia were in their houses, they could not be assembled in physical unity. They, themselves, whether physically united or not, constituted the ekklesia.

Likewise, the passage in 9:30 is favorable to this view. The very functions ascribed to the ekklesia of verse 30 suggest personality. “The ekklesia throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace” being edified and they walked in fear of the Lord and comfort of the Holy Spirit were multiplied …

This use of ekklesia, then, seems to be a semi-metaphorical or extra-technical usage. It is a clear indication of the development of the word ekklesia as the word leaves the conception of a physical assembly and approaches the spiritual assembly. The Locative of Place, the literal necessity for an ekklesia, is giving way to the Locative of Sphere (en Christo [in Christ]), the metaphorical concept. This does not mean that the literal has disappeared; it means that the spiritual had been emphasized as an independent concept … In the passage now being studied, the physical unity cannot be maintained, but these scattered members of Christ’s body have one characteristic that makes them constitute an ekklesia — spiritual unity.

In 1 Corinthians 15:9, Paul remarks that he “persecuted the ekklesia of God.” This is a direct reference to Acts 8:1, 2, which has just been studied. The same is true of Galatians 1:13 and Philippians 3:6.

In 1 Corinthians 12:28, after discussing the oneness of the body into which believers come and asserting that “ye are Christ’s body (no article) and members and particular,” Paul says, “And God hath set some in the ekklesia, first apostles, secondarily prophets …” From the context of this entire chapter, it seems that Paul is using ekklesia as the equivalent of soma, used sixteen times in the last twenty verses of the chapter. Paul universalizes that soma in verse 13 to include “we all” — Jews, Gentiles, bond, free. The ekklesia here, then, cannot be a literal usage nor a technical usage, as there seems to be no corporeality. This passage, too, could be termed “sub-metaphorical” — not that it is not a metaphorical use, but that it has departed so slightly from the technical use. The emphasis here likewise has been transferred from the meeting itself to the persons meeting. In that sense there is a complete spiritual unity in Christ, without spatial assemblage. (p. 207-215, emphasis in original)

Finally, Baker identifies thirteen uses of ekklesia which he considers fully metaphorical:

In addition to this group, there remain thirteen other uses of the word ekklesia which have been classified as metaphorical. There has been a difference of terms in describing this use of ekklesia. Dana calls it a “spiritual and ideal” usage; Salmond in The Expositor’s Greek Testament calls it a “spiritual fellowship”; Hort calls it a “unity” and a “new society”; Dargan calls it the “universal” ekklesia; Broadus calls it the “ideal congregation or assembly”; Sampey calls it a figurative use “of all who are spiritually united to Christ as his body”; Robinson calls it a “general body never actually assembled” and “the universal spiritual church or kingdom”; Westcott calls it a “unity”; Hodge says that it is “the company of the redeemed here and in heaven, which constitutes one body …” Similar views along this general thought are held by Meyer, Lenski, Cambridge Bible, et al.

One thing is true concerning all the definitions given: they are metaphorical from a literary standpoint. They have not the literal idea of spatial or corporeal physical unity, but maintain a spiritual or Christian unity …

Matthew 16:18 is a passage around which much controversy has centered. It will probably suffice here to set out this student’s view without attempting to refute or discuss others. An examination of the text shows that the possessive pronoun mou is in the emphatic position with respect to the noun and article. This seems to have a comparative force, since the emphatic mou suggests that the ekklesia will be characterized by the content which Jesus gave it, as over against some other kind of ekklesia … The remainder of the context shows that He did not refer to the ekklesia of Jerusalem, later established, since that particular local congregation has succumbed to the power of death, and Jesus promised that such power would not prevail against His ekklesia. The contrast then would seem to extend to a spiritual ekklesia with His content, as over against a spatial or corporeal ekklesia of the Old Testament — “My ekklesia based on the spiritual content which I will give growing out of a God-revealed experience of grace, as over against the physical assembly of Israel.” … Thus, this occurrence of ekklesia may be described as referring to the spiritual body of believers united in Christ …

In Hebrews 12:23, the use of the word ekklesia has occasioned difference of opinion with respect not only to the classification of the word ekklesia, but to the interpretation of the phrase. This ekklesia does not appear to be corporeal. While the word probably is used in the sense of “assembly,” it is metaphorically used, since there is no actual physical assemblage on the earth …

In Colossians 1:18, Paul says of Christ: “He is the head of the body, the ekklesia,” with the word ekklesia in apposition to somatos. The ekklesia appears to refer here to the entire body of those spiritually joined to Christ … It is an ekklesia growing out of the immediate relationship of believer to God in Christ … Colossians 1:24 is a similar usage …

There are nine occurrences in Ephesians which have been classified as metaphorical: 1:22, 3:10, 3:21, 5:23, 5:24, 5:25, 5:27, 5:29, 5:32. The authorities just quoted agree, in the essentials, that these occurrences have the same content as the Colossian passages. (p. 215-221, emphasis in original)

Having finished classifying every usage of the word ekklesia in the New Testament using his literary framework, Baker relates his hypothesis regarding the progressive development of the word’s meaning. His hypothesis is centered on the writings of Paul, which are sufficiently extensive to permit this kind of analysis:

The hypothesis is not a complicated one; i.e., it posits that the word ekklesia in the writings of Paul has developed progressively in meaning from the literal to the technical to the metaphorical. Paul’s Early Epistles, although written approximately fifteen or twenty years after this word was introduced into the Christian vocabulary, show clear evidence of its literal use; his Major Epistles show unmistakable evidence of a predominantly technical use; his Prison Epistles show unmistakable evidence of a predominantly metaphorical meaning … The evidences of development in the writings of Paul are surprisingly constant, especially with reference to the development of this particular word …

The primary evidence is, of course, to be found in a surface examination of Paul’s changing concept of the word ekklesia. It has been shown in non-Christian writings that at the beginning of the Christian era the word ekklesia had a common, literal meaning of “assembly.” Internal evidences in Christian literature itself, particularly in the book of Acts, affirm this to be true. Paul’s use of the word ekklesia in his Early Epistles fits exactly into this background … Then, relative to Paul’s Major Epistles … of the thirty-nine occurrences of the word in his second group of writings, it is used in the technical sense thirty-six times. Finally, in his Prison Epistles, the word occurs twelve times in the metaphorical sense out of the sixteen occurrences …

In corroboration of this primary evidence, attention is called to four internal factors that suggest this progressive development in Paul’s use of the word ekklesia.

The first evidence consists of the early predominance of descriptive modifiers denoting the definite sphere in which the word ekklesia moves, and their omission in the later writings …

The second internal evidence of progressive development in the concept of ekklesia consists of the appearance in the early uses of this word of the plural form (ekklesiai) and its complete omission in later writings …

The third internal evidence is suggested by this second and is seen in the use of the article. This evidence, of necessity, is meager … It is significant that the article is never omitted in any metaphorical use of ekklesia …

A fourth evidence for the hypothesis herein set forth is the progressive change in Paul’s method of addressing his epistles. Most of the commentaries remark upon the significance of the fact that in the early writings of Paul, his salutation was addressed to ekklesiai, while in his later writings the salutation was addressed to individuals as they are related to Christ. In the two Thessalonian letters, the two Corinthian letters, and the Galatian letter, Paul salutes the ekklesia in each city; in Romans, Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians he addresses the “saints” and “faithful in Christ.” (p. 226-231, emphasis in original)

The final chapter of Baker’s thesis is a brief historical review of the development of ecclesiology, with an emphasis on Baptist ecclesiology.

Although it is to be lamented that Baker’s doctoral thesis never found a wider audience, he has certainly done a great service to students of ecclesiology. It is unlikely that anyone will readily accept every conclusion he arrives at. (I don’t.) Nevertheless, his exhaustive study of ekklesia in the Septuagint and other Jewish literature, along with his framework of literary classification, are enormously helpful contributions to the literature on this subject.

It is commonly asserted that ekklesia has only one fixed meaning in the New Testament—an actual assembly—and that this unchanging meaning must constrain our interpretation of the many metaphors for the church that we find in scripture. Baker’s thesis shows us why this is simply untrue. The meaning of any word develops over time. This is especially true of the word ekklesia, the meaning of which was absolutely revolutionized by the first advent of Christ. To rightly interpret the New Testament, we must seek to understand the meaning of the word ekklesia from its usage in context, and not the other way around.