Are Preachers To Be Called “Reverend”?
By Wayne Jackson
“Do you have information as to when various denominations began to apply the term ‘reverend’ to preachers?”
The title “Reverend” has been adopted in many English-speaking denominations as a courtesy designation for clergymen. Higher orders are designated as “Very Reverend,” “Right Reverend,” or “Most Reverend.”
Professor Burton S. Easton, of the General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church, has briefly discussed this matter. He notes that only in recent times has the Catholic Church begun to employ “Most Reverend” for its Bishops and Archbishops, while certain priests (of the “Monsignor” rank) are addressed as “Right Reverend.” The Professor contends that the Catholic practice began in Ireland and subsequently spread to America. He believes the usage commenced among Protestants in England in about 1865, and has grown since then (Ferm, 661).
Those who seek to follow the apostolic pattern will reject the use of special name-associated, religious “titles” for two reasons.
No New Testament Authority
First, there is no New Testament authority for the use of such nomenclature. This argument will carry no weight with those who are unconcerned with operating within the bounds of the Lord’s authority; yet, apostolic teaching is clear that one must not venture into the domain of presumptuous religious activity (1 Cor. 4:6 ASV; Col. 3:17; 2 Jn. 9). Christians are warned against religious conduct that is grounded in their personal “will” (cf. “will-worship” — Col. 2:23).
Clerical Titles Condemned by Christ
Second, in principle, the use of “Reverend,” as a clerical title, is condemned by the Lord. In a scathing rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus spoke these words:
“But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Mt. 23:5-12).
Clearly the Savior has condemned the use of pompous titles by which Christian men exalt themselves above their fellows.
R. C. H. Lenski, a Lutheran scholar, noted: “Any title that is contrary to [the] equality of brethren in Christ Jesus, even the desire for such a title and honor, is wicked usurpation as far as our one real Teacher is concerned” (899).
Albert Barnes, the noted Presbyterian commentator, expressed a similar sentiment, suggesting that titles like “Doctor of Divinity” fall into the same category.
Nor is it appropriate to refer to the apostles as “Saint Peter” or “Saint Paul”—as some writers and speakers are accustomed to doing. I once heard a flamboyant preacher saturate his sermon with allusions to “Saint Paul” and “Saint Peter.” He slipped up along the way, however, and quoted a passage from “Saint Galatians”!
More than a century ago, A. Lukyn Williams, who authored the scholarly work on Matthew in The Pulpit Commentary series, commented that the wearing of such titles partakes of
“that sectarian spirit which began in the primitive Church, when one [person] said, ‘I am of Paul; another, I of Apollos,’ etc. (1 Cor. 1:12), and [this disposition] has continued to this day in the divisions of the one body into innumerable sects and parties, ranged under various leaders, and generally bearing their founder’s name” (397).
The use of a descriptive phrase, e.g. in this sentence, “John Doe, an elder, lives in Chicago?,” is not wrong. But to utilize special titles, “Elder John Doe,” “Rabbi Samuel Goldstein,” or “The Reverend Bob Smith,” cross the line, thus demonstrating the very attitude that Christ rebuked.
One might add, as an aside, that distinctive attire falls under the same sort of condemnation (e.g., the use of robes, clerical collars, special rings, etc.).
In commenting upon the context of Matthew 23, A. T. Robertson, a Baptist writer, observed that some religious leaders are afflicted with “an itch for notice.” He specifically takes note of both “pope” and “priest” who covet the religious recognition of “father” (180).
No Biblical Example
Third, New Testament precedent is against the august titles that the “clergy” so relish. If there was any teacher of the primitive church who might deserve a special appellation, should such have been permissible, surely it would have been Paul, whose scholastic achievements eclipsed those of his Jewish kinsmen (cf. Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:4ff). Yet, when Peter had occasion to refer to his fellow apostle, he did not allude to “Rabbi Saul” or “Doctor Paul,” but simply as — “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet. 3:15).
A Popular But Flawed Argument Against Clerical Titles
As a concluding point, we must not fail to notice that while there is ample evidence against men using the title “Reverend” to set themselves apart from others, a common argument against the use of this expression is exegetically flawed.
It is not unusual to hear this statement.
“Psalm 111:9 says, ‘Holy and reverend is his [God’s] name.’ It is therefore wrong to apply to man that which belongs exclusively to the Lord.”
Though the motive behind the admonition is noble, namely, to reserve appropriate honor to the Creator, the argument is specious.
The Hebrew form rendered “reverend” is yare, from the root yr’. The term signifies “terror, to be afraid of, to be awed by, to honor, worship,” etc. The stem form is used 485 times in the Old Testament. Most of the time it refers to God (about 80%), though it is used of human beings as well (see: Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 2.527ff).
Here are several example of the term applied to people or things besides God. The Israelite was to “fear” (respect, honor) his parents (Lev. 19:3). Jehovah’s “sanctuary” was to be reverenced (Lev. 19:30). Both Moses and Joshua had been “feared” (revered, honored) by the Hebrew people (Josh. 4:14).
So it is not correct to contend that yare was a sacred term reserved exclusively for God.
Moreover, note that in Psalm 111:9 “reverend” and “holy” are joined together. If one contends that “reverend” is restricted to God alone, he might as well allege that the term “holy” should never be used of man. And yet, clearly, that is not the case (cf. Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:15).
While the sincere Bible student wishes to reserve appropriate honor for his Creator, and thus refrain from using unauthorized titles that elevate men beyond what is appropriate, he wants to make sure that his reasoning is sound. This should be borne in mind when dealing with “reverend” in Psalm 111:9.
Note: This article is not intended to suggest that professional titles, such as “Doctor” or “Professor” are inappropriate in medical and/or academic environments.
Scripture References
1 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 3:17; 2 John 9; Colossians 2:23; Matthew 23:5-12; 1 Corinthians 1:12; Matthew 23; Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:4; 2 Peter 3:15; Psalm 111:9; Leviticus 19:3; Leviticus 19:30; Joshua 4:14; Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:15

By David Lasseter
I have been privileged to receive several responses to the material I’ve presented within my web site.  Each question submitted has caused me to search more deeply into the Word of God and discover the truths only it contains.  Recently I received a response to my study regarding infant baptism, written by Mr. Mario Derksen, the web author of Catholic Insight (http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/infant.htm).  In his response he makes several claims which I will address over the next few lessons.  However, as I was considering the points he was including in his essay it became clear to me where I needed to start as I developed my response:  Is the Bible authoritative or is it not?  If the Bible is authoritative, is it the sole authority in religious matters or are other utterances and writings of man equally authoritative?  Before this issue is clearly addressed and the answer plainly revealed, religious division is destined to flourish.
If you haven’t already, please take a few moments and read my study on infant baptism and Mr. Derksen’s response.  I believe it is important for you to fully understand the position each of us takes on the issue as we present our differing views.  In the end, what any man says is irrelevant, in that we will be judged solely by the word spoken by Jesus (John 12:48).  Each of us will stand before God as individuals and answer for our lives on earth.  For these reasons I urge you not to consider the words of any man, but determine for yourselves what authority is valid.  But keep in mind that a clear conscience is not sufficient for one to enter into heaven for eternity.  Paul states in his defense before the chief priests and their council that “I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”  (Acts 23:1)  Paul’s (Saul’s) conscience was clean as he consented to the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58-8:1).  But what did the Lord think of his actions?  Jesus asked Saul for the reason he was persecuting His church (Acts 9:4).  So despite Saul’s clear conscience, he was fighting against the Lord as he persecuted the church.  So please do not allow a warm inner glow as you consider your beliefs regarding the issues we’ll study to be your sole indication of a right relationship between you and God.  You MUST allow your mind to prevail over your emotions.  If a religious position is clearly based on invalid authority, no matter how strong are the emotional ties to that position it must be discarded.  Consequently, much of my response to Mr. Derksen’s essay will focus on authority.  I want you to form a mental image of the religious world as it stands today–some 34,000 “Christian” religious organizations (according to the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001 edition), each preaching something different but claiming the same God.  Ask yourselves “Why is this so?”  As you consider each possibility leading to such religious division I believe  you’ll eventually find the ultimate reason to be adherence to invalid authority.  As you consider my study on baptism and Mr. Derksen’s response, ask yourselves this question, “Is his teaching based on valid authority?”
Definitions
As we begin this study I want to make clear the point we’ll be proving:  The Bible is the inspired Word of God.  As is always my practice, I will start with a review of the meaning of the words we are studying.  What does the statement “The Bible is the inspired Word of God” declare?  Please bear with me as I break this sentence down into its component parts.  The Bible is (present tense) the(definite article) inspired (see below) Word(singular) of God (author).  Does it seem crazy to divide a sentence in such a fashion?  Maybe it does, but unfortunately it is necessary since men have failed to grasp the importance of this simple 8-word sentence.
Is. A simple word we use everyday. Merriam-Webster tells us the word is the third singular form of “be”.  The first definition given by Merriam-Webster tells us that is means “to equal in meaning: have the same connotation as”.  I don’t want anyone to leave our study because of an unnecessary emphasis on grammar, but it is essential we have a basic understanding of the words we use to express our ideas.  So when we say the Bible is the inspired Word of God we are saying that the Bible is equal in meaning to the inspired Word of God.  Another way to say the same thing is to use “the Bible” and “the Word of God” interchangeably.  This is something we do on a regular basis.  Since “is” represents apresent tense form of the word “be” (compared with “was”, which is the past tense form of “be”), to say “The Bible is the inspired Word of God” is to emphasize the current nature of the Bible.  Let’s look at some scriptures which support the statement regarding the current state of the Bible as the inspired Word of God.Mark 13:31: “Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.” Jesus affirms the eternal nature of the words he spoke. From the day they were uttered they were destined to last for eternity.John 12:49: The Father told Jesus what He was to say and what He was to speak. Since Jesus spoke the words of the Father, and the words spoken by Jesus are eternal, then the words spoken by the Father are eternal.  Since they are eternal, they will never cease being valid.  Therefore, they will always be in the present tense.The.  Another word spoken hundreds of times by every English speaking person, if not daily then over the span of a few days. It functions as a definite article.  Let’s return to the dictionary and review the definition.  We read that the word “the” is “used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class.”  Hmmm.  A unique or particular member of its class.  For example, “The President” is a person who is unique and is a particular member of his class.  How many of us would honestly state that the President of the United States is more than one person?  We all understand that “the” used in this manner points to one definite individual (the “definite article” function of “the”).  So when we say “The Bible is the inspired Word of God”, we are saying “The Bible is a unique member of its class in that it is the only inspired Word of God.”  Just as we have only one active President of the United States, there is only one inspired Word of God.  Because of the singular tense of “the” and “word”, I’ll include scriptures validating the use of the definite article in our sentence above after we examine “word.”Word.  In the initial statement above I used the singular “word” rather than the plural “words.”  Notice in our study of “is” we determined that “the Bible” and “the word of God” are interchangeable.  But we all know the Bible is not comprised of a single word, but of thousands of words.  What I hope to illustrate by this study is how the words contained within the pages of the Bible are woven together into a single “word” of God.  Lets look at a couple of scriptures to illustrate this point:John 5:24:  Jesus states that “he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent me has everlasting life”.  Here we see Jesus referring to the words he spoke as a body of knowledge by referring to a singular “word” which one must hear in order to receive the promises made by Jesus.John 8:47:  Jesus tells us that “He who is of God hears God’s words.”  Jesus now refers to the individual words which make up the body of knowledge known as the “word of God.”  We see this again in Matthew 4:4 when Jesus tells Satan that “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”  Each and every word making up the complete word of God is important and not to be ignored.

“FIVE VIEWS OF Mark 16:16”
INTRODUCTION
1. There is a statement of Jesus that is so plain, and yet so controversial…
a. That you rarely hear it referred to by denominational preachers, whether it be in their churches or on TV or the radio
b. That when they do, they feel it necessary to give an explanation that goes against the clear statement of Jesus
2. I have reference to the words of Jesus as found in Mark 16:16… “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
3. To illustrate what I said earlier, let’s take a look at four different views of this verse as taught by men, and then contrast those views with the one plainly stated by Jesus and supported by His apostles in their teaching and preaching… [The first view is one held by those who do not profess to be Christians, but for the purpose of our lesson should be considered. In essence, they would say…] I. HE WHO BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED “WILL NOT” BE SAVED
A. TWO SEPARATE GROUPS HOLD THIS VIEW…
1. ATHEISTS – who do not believe in God, heaven or hell, or salvation of any kind
2. JEWS, MUSLIMS, HINDUS, etc. a. Who believe in God (or gods)
b. But who do not believe that salvation is to be found in Jesus c. And that to believe and/or be baptized is contrary to the will of God B. BUT THOSE WHO ACCEPT JESUS AND THE AUTHORITY OF HIS APOSTLES REJECT SUCH A VIEW… 1. There IS a God who offers salvation (contrary to the views of atheists) – 1Ti 2:3-4 2. Salvation DOES come only through Jesus (contrary to the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) – 1Ti 2:5-6; Jn 14:6 [Though I doubt any present actually hold to this view, there are some who do, and it only begins to illustrate how some are willing to deny the plain statement of Jesus. Consider a second view…] II. HE WHO “DOES NOT BELIEVE” AND “IS NOT BAPTIZED” WILL BE SAVED A. THIS VIEW IS HELD BY “UNIVERSALISTS”… 1. Who believe that God will save everyone eventually 2. To support their view, they will isolate some verses like 1 Ti 2:6 B. BUT THOSE WHO KNOW THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST AND PAUL LIKEWISE REJECT SUCH A VIEW… 1. Jesus Himself told that there would be few who would be saved – Mt 7:13-14 2. Paul warned of those who would not be saved, but would face the wrath of God – Ep 5:5-6 [Most “Bible-believing, professing Christians” would never treat Mark 16:16 the way the first two views do. But as we consider two more views, we may start hitting closer to “home”. But please understand…that we do so, desiring to “speak the truth in love”; and we pray that your love for the truth is such that you are willing to serious consider what follows (cf. Ac 17:11). The third “view” then…] III. HE WHO “DOES NOT BELIEVE” AND “IS BAPTIZED” WILL BE SAVED A. THIS VIEW IS HELD BY MOST WHO PRACTICE “INFANT BAPTISM”… 1. By “baptizing” (actually sprinkling, not immersing) infants incapable of faith… a. They (esp. Catholics) indicate that faith is not essential to salvation b. Some (esp. Lutherans) try to get around this by saying that God imparts saving faith to the infant so baptism can still save 2. By sprinkling or pouring instead of immersion, they also indicate Jesus did not mean what He said (the reason “BAPTIZED” above is in quotes) B. BUT SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE, WE MUST POINT OUT… 1. That faith is a necessary prerequisite… a. For baptism – Ac 8:35-37 b. For salvation – Ro 10:9-10 2. That sprinkling or pouring is NOT Bible baptism… a. The Greek word used in the Bible is “baptizo”, and it means “to immerse” b. This is why baptism is described in the Bible as a “burial” – cf. Ro 6:3-4; Col 2:12 c. Sprinkling or pouring was substituted in the place of baptism (immersion) hundreds of years after Christ and His apostles d. By keeping the “tradition of men” by sprinkling or pouring, we fail to keep the “command of God” concerning baptism – cf. Jesus’ condemnation of displacing God’s commands by traditions of men, Mt 15:3-9 3. That baptizing infants is without scriptural precedent a. There are no commands or examples of infant baptism b. Since the prerequisites of faith (Mk 16:16; Ac 8:37) and repentance (Ac 2:38; 17:30) are beyond the infant’s capability, they are not suitable candidates for baptism [I am confident that those who hold to the view of sprinkling infants are honest and sincere. But despite their honest sincerity, they are just as guilty of twisting the words of Jesus as are the atheists, unbelieving Jews (and Muslims, Hindus, etc.) and the universalists. But there is another view sincerely held by many, and that is…] IV. HE WHO BELIEVES AND “IS NOT BAPTIZED” WILL BE SAVED A. THIS VIEW IS HELD BY THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN SALVATION BY FAITH “ONLY”… 1. That one is saved BEFORE baptism 2. That baptism is not essential to salvation — This view is held for all practical purposes by most members of various denominations B. BUT JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES CLEARLY TAUGHT DIFFERENTLY… 1. That faith “alone” cannot save a. As declared by Jesus – cf. Mt 7:21; Lk 6:46 b. As taught by His apostles – cf. Ro 6:17-18; He 5:9; Jm 2:14,17,20,24,26; 1Pe 1:22; 1Jn 2:3-5 2. That baptism IS essential to salvation a. According to Jesus – Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16; Mt 28:18-20 b. According to His apostles – Ac 2:38; 22:16; Ga 3:26-27; Co 2:12-13; Tit 3:5; 1Pe 3:21[Again, I believe that those who hold this view (including personal relatives) are sincere, and are not knowingly twisting the words of Jesus. Yet, I cannot help but think of such people as Paul thought of his brethren in the flesh (cf. Ro 10:1-3). This leads us to the fifth and final view, one that I believe we are compelled to accept…] V. HE WHO BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED WILL BE SAVED A. THIS VIEW TAKES THE WORDS OF JESUS AT FACE VALUE… 1. No explanations are necessary 2. Jesus says what He means, and means what He says B. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN PREVIOUSLY THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES… 1. That one must “believe” – cf. Ac 8:36-37 2. That one must be “baptized” to enjoy the forgiveness of sins – cf. Ac 2:38; 22:16CONCLUSION 1. Which of the five views of Mark 16:16 do you hold to? a. He who believes and is baptized “will not” be saved? b. He who “does not believe” and “is not baptized” will be saved? c. He who “does not believe” and “is baptized” will be saved? d. He who believes and “is not baptized” will be saved? e. He who believes and is baptized will be saved? — It should be clear that there is only view which is in harmony with Jesus’ words, as there is only one which does not involve “tampering” with the clear statement of Jesus! 2. But perhaps more importantly, with which of these views is your life consistent? a. One may hold intellectually to the FIFTH view… 1) But act as though they believed the SECOND view 2) How? By never confessing faith in Christ and being baptized! b. One may hold intellectually to the FIFTH view… 1) But act as though they believed the THIRD view 2) How? For though they may have been “baptized”, they are not living the life of faith required of one in Jesus! c. One may hold intellectually to the FIFTH view… 1) But act as though they believed the FOURTH view 2) How? For while believing in Jesus, they have never submitted to being baptized! Only those who have come to Jesus in faith and ACTED in harmony with His teachings can have the assurance of salvation. The words of the Bible are clear… “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'” “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” – Ac 2:38; 22:16

​BY WAYNE JACKSON
To the church of God in Corinth, Paul wrote the following words.
“But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the things of God no one knows, except the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11).
Four times in this text Paul uses the term “things.” Once it is employed comprehensively, “all things.” Once it is used of the “things of a man,” and twice there is reference to the “things of God.” The “things of God” are identified in the final sentence of verse 9; they are “whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.”
This is within a context in which the apostle discusses “wisdom,” a concept very popular with the Greek mind (cf. 1:20). The Greeks gloried in wisdom (1:22). But the apostolic argument is this: God’s will for man is not to be discovered in human wisdom; rather it is accessed by divine words—the gospel (cf. 1:21 ASVfn).
There is a passage in one of Plato’s Dialogues in which he quotes Socrates as saying that we do not know “how to behave toward the gods and towards men”; someone, with a “special interest” will have to come to us and remove “the darkness” (Alcibiades II.150). From this background let us note some truths explicitly affirmed, or implied, in 2:11-12.
Lessons to Learn
First, no one knows the heart of a man except the spirit of the man within him. (a) There is a spirit “in” man—Paul was no materialist. (b) No man can know the spirit of another man unless that person reveals the contents of his mind. There are no “mind-readers.” (c) The thoughts of one’s mind are made known by words.
Second, the things of God are not accessed naturally. Rather, the Holy Spirit, who “searches” all things, even the deep things of God, has revealed these matters to humanity. “Searches” is a figure of speech suggesting intimate knowledge of every detail (cf. Romans 8:27).
These sacred “things” of God are embodied in “words” (v. 13), not in dreams, visions, or other non-verbal modes of communication. One cannot know of Christ’s birth, teaching, miracles, death/resurrection, ascension, etc., apart from the “words” that convey the information regarding these historical events. These are objective truths that necessitate objective revelation.
Third, the “words” that reveal the marvelous “things of God” are those matters, declares Paul, which “we speak.” The “we” represents those of the apostolic age who were empowered by the Spirit of God to supernaturally impart the treasures of the gospel. “Words” were the vehicles of sacred communication (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Any view of the scriptures that fails to acknowledge that their “words” ultimately are the “words of God,” is false. The Lord guided the inspiration process so that precisely his message was conveyed to the apostolic writers—no more, no less. The documents containing these “words” were collected eventually into a single volume—the New Testament. There is no accessing of the will of God apart from the New Testament record.
Fourth, the “things of God” are those things that were prepared by the Lord for those who “love” him (v. 9c). Thus, the “things” are bestowed neither universally nor unconditionally. And “love” is not a mere emotion that is divorced from response. As Jesus said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15; cf. 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6).
This text from the first Corinthian epistle is rich indeed. It is very unfortunate that it has been misunderstood by so many in the religious community.
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
1 Corinthians 2:10-11; Romans 8:27; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; John 14:15; John 5:3; 2 John 6

BY WAYNE JACKSON
“Were those who were immersed by John the Baptizer required to be re-immersed on or after the day of Pentecost?”
This question has generated much discussion. Some contend that John’s disciples were obligated to submit to the baptism of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). This assumption is based almost entirely on Luke’s narrative in Acts 19:1-7. Before looking at this matter more carefully, let us make a couple of preliminary observations.
First, there is no clear, definitive statement regarding this theme in the New Testament record. Acts 19:1ff certainly does not settle the issue — it is too ambiguous for that. One must, therefore, assemble all the evidence available, and then attempt to draw what he perceives to be a reasonable conclusion.
Second, this is not a matter that is crucial to anyone’s salvation. It should not be debated “hotly,” nor should one’s view be pressed. It is not a make-or-break issue.
We believe, however, that a strong case can be made for the view that John’s work, in preparing a people for the Lord, was effective, and that those genuinely converted under John’s preaching — or for that matter under that of the Lord’s disciples (cf. John 4:1-2) — were not required to be immersed on Pentecost or afterward.
Consider the following points.
(1)John’s mission was to “make ready for the Lord a people prepared” (Luke 1:17). If, after Pentecost, the people immersed by John were required to do exactly what others (the unprepared) had to do (i.e., be immersed) what was the difference between being “prepared” and being “unprepared,” or “ready” and “not ready”? Did the “prepared” or the “ready” suddenly become “unprepared” or “not ready” the moment Pentecost dawned?
(2) Where is the evidence that anyone baptized by John was required to be immersed following Pentecost? Acts 19 surely does not demand that.
It is almost certain that the men in Ephesus had submitted to a form of “John’s baptism” long after the prophet had died. They did not even know that the Lord had already “come,” i.e., that he had accomplished his mission.
Their baptism had been predicated upon an insufficient faith regarding Jesus, and therefore, on that basis, was not valid. There is nothing in the context of Acts 19 to suggest that John’s original baptism was temporary in its effect.
(3) Is there evidence that any of the original apostles were baptized on Pentecost or thereafter? If the baptism received at the hands of John was invalid after Pentecost, the Lord’s apostles would have been as much obligated to Great Commission baptism as anyone else.
(4) Though the kingdom of Christ was not fully set in motion until the day of Pentecost, it certainly was in a preparatory phase during the Lord’s personal ministry. Jesus affirmed that his miracle-working ability signaled the fact that “the kingdom of God is come upon you” (Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20).
In connection with the “kingdom” motif, the Lord told a parable concerning two sons (Matthew 21:28-32). One of these lads represented the chief priests and elders, the upper stratum of Jewish society, while the other boy signified the publicans and harlots, the offscouring of that culture.
A point then is made regarding their respective dispositions concerning John’s baptism. The Jewish leaders mostly rejected it (Matthew 21:25; Luke 7:30), but the lower, despised classes were inclined to accept the saving grace of John’s message (Luke 3:12; 7:29).
It was within this context that Christ rebuked the chief priests and elders, saying: “Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go [present tense, but without reference to a specific time period – Lenski, p. 833] into the kingdom of God before you” (Matthew 21:31), the reason being, they “believed” John’s message and obeyed it (v. 32).
This clearly suggests that the obedience of these folks to John’s preaching granted them entrance into the kingdom of God, when it came into being on Pentecost. R.C. Foster noted that these who obeyed the message that John preached were “leading the way into the kingdom when it shall directly be established” (p. 1129).
(5) John’s message was, “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). Does not this imply that their surrender to his “baptism of repentance” (Luke 3:3) would grant them entrance into that “kingdom” when it arrived? Why require baptism in view of the coming kingdom, if that baptism had nothing to do with entering the kingdom?
(6) John baptized “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4). If the sincere people who yielded to his baptism did not receive pardon from their sins, then John’s message was deceptive. If they did receive salvation through John’s baptism (cf. Luke 1:77), why would they need salvation again on the day of Pentecost?
If it should be argued that the same, in principle, might also apply to those Jews who had offered animal sacrifices, we respond that the two cases are not equal. John’s ministry was unique. “The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached . . .” (Luke 16:16).
John’s message prepared honest Jews for entrance into the kingdom. Again we stress the point: if John preached the “gospel of the kingdom,” the implication is that those who obeyed that gospel would be a part of the coming kingdom.
(7) Biblical typology is not always a clearly defined field of study. A “type” is a shadow cast on the pages of the Old Testament by a reality that fully comes to light in the New Testament. A type (the figure) prefigures the antitype (the reality) (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21).
Some Bible types are specifically identified (cf. Matthew 12:40;1 Corinthians 5:7); others, perhaps, are merely suggested. Some expositors believe that just as Solomon, who built the temple, was a type of Christ, who built the church (2 Samuel 7:12-13), even so, David, who prepared the material for the temple (1 Chronicles 22:2-5), typified John the Baptist.
And, just as David’s material did not need any reworking when the temple was being assembled (1 Kings 6:7), so neither did John’s material require reworking on Pentecost or thereafter.
(8) As Peter and the other apostles proclaimed the gospel on the day of Pentecost, Luke records: “They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). The term “added” renders the Greek prostithemi, which signifies “to add to something that is already present or exists.” Again, “of persons who are added to a group already existing,” with Acts 2:41 cited as an example; cf. v. 47 (Danker, p. 885).
It is the view of many scholars that the language of this passage suggests that the “three thousand” represents the sum of those immersed in Jerusalem that day, and that these new converts were “added” to the body of disciples that had been prepared previously.
William Larkin, professor of New Testament and Greek at Columbia Biblical Seminary, writes: “Three thousand souls welcomed the word (compare 28:30), met its conditions and were baptized. They joined the ranks of the apostles and disciples in the nucleus of the New Testament church” (p. 60).
J.A. Alexander argued that those baptized were added to “the previously existing body of believers,” including the company of the 120 persons mentioned in Acts 1 (p. 89). J.W. McGarvey stated that those immersed on Pentecost “were added to the previous number of believers” (p. 45). See McGarvey’s full comments on whether John’s disciples had to be re-immersed on/after Pentecost in his commentary at 19:7 (p. 152). Similar comments could be multiplied many times over.
We do not believe, therefore, that a case can be made successfully for establishing the idea that John’s devout disciples were re-baptized on Pentecost or subsequent thereto.
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 19:1-7; Acts 19:1; John 4:1-2; Luke 1:17; Acts 19; Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20; Matthew 21:28-32; Matthew 21:25; Luke 7:30; Luke 3:12, 7:29; Matthew 21:31; Matthew 3:2; Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; Luke 16:16; 1 Peter 3:20-21; Matthew 12:40; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Samuel 7:12-13; 1 Chronicles 22:2-5; 1 Kings 6:7; Acts 2:41; 1 Thessalonians 5; Acts 1