Josephus' depiction of John's Baptism vs. the Christian understanding of Christian Baptism? (Solved)

[rakovsky]

(1) How does Josephus' depiction of John the Forerunner's baptism compare with the Christian understanding of Christian baptism? (2) Does Christianity follow this model:

1. The believer repents of their sins,
2. accepts Christ's sacrifice,
3. receives the Holy Spirit and Grace,
4. and then receives "water baptism", which only "seals" those processes?

In asking this second question, I am trying to look for the elements in the process of Christian Baptism.

In Book 18 of his Antiquities, Josephus describes John the Baptist's baptism this way:

... ανδρα και τοις Ιουδαιοις κελευοντα αρετην επασκουσιν και τα προς αλληλους δικαιοσυνη και προς τον θεον ευσεβεια χρωμενοις βαπτισμω συνιεναι· ουτω γαρ δη και την βαπτισιν αποδεκτην αυτω φανεισθαι μη επι τινων αμαρταδων παραιτησει χρωμενων, αλλ εφ αγνεια του σωματος, ατε δη και της ψυχης δικαιοσυνη προεκκεκαθαρμενης.

Loeb's translation:
...he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behaviour.

Ben Smith's translation:
John... was a good man and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, as to both justice toward one another and piety toward God, and so to come to baptism; for thus the baptism would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to forgive some sins, but rather for the holiness of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly cleansed beforehand by justice.

So per Josephus, the believer first practices justice and piety, cleanses the soul by right behaviour, and then undergoes water baptism for consecrating/"the holiness of" the body, not for pardoning/forgiving sins.

Wikipedia's article on John the Baptist cites a translation of Josephus' passage and comments:

• John... was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

Divergences between the passage's presentation and the biblical accounts of John include baptism for those whose souls have already been "purified beforehand by righteousness" is for purification of the body, not general repentance of sin (Mark 1:4).

That is, Wikipedia takes Josephus to mean that John's baptism was for purifying the body, not for repentance like Mark 1 says it was. Loeb's and Ben Smith's translations are normally better than Whiston's though, and says that it was for "consecration" (setting apart or making holy) of the body, rather than "purification". Also, Josephus doesn't really deny that John's baptism was for repentance, but rather Josephus (like St John Chrysostom, below) denies that it was for remission of sins or for purifying the soul.

St. John Chrysostom, in his "Discourse On the Day of the Baptism of Christ", distinguishes the Baptisms by saying that Jewish baptism cleanses the body only, and that John's Baptism combined body cleansing with instruction to repent, convert from vice to good deeds, and trusting in the hope of salvation. He wrote that John's didn't give the Holy Spirit or forgiveness, but that Christian baptism releases from sin, cleanses the spirit, bestows the Spirit's gifts:

Jewish cleansings did not free from sins, but only from bodily impurities. Not so with ours: it is far more sublime and it manifests a great grace, whereby it sets free from sin, it cleanses the spirit and bestows the gifts of the Spirit. And the baptism of John was far more sublime than the Jewish, but less so than ours: it was like a bridge between both baptisms, leading across itself from the first to the last. Wherefore John did not give guidance for observance of bodily purifications, but together with them he exhorted and advised to be converted from vice to good deeds and to trust in the hope of salvation and the accomplishing of good deeds, rather than in different washings and purifications by water. John did not say, “wash your clothes, wash your body, and ye will be pure,” but rather, “bear ye fruits worthy of repentance” (Matthew 3:8). Since it was more than of the Jews, but less than ours, the baptism of John did not impart the Holy Spirit and it did not grant forgiveness by grace. It gave the commandment to repent, but it was powerless to absolve sins. Wherefore John did also say: “I baptise you with water… That One however will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3:11). Obviously, he did not baptise with the Spirit.

But what does “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” mean? Call to mind that day, on which for the Apostles “there appeared disparate tongues like fire, and sat over each one of them” (Acts 2:3).
(Discourse On the Day of the Baptism of Christ)

Next, to show that John's baptism lacked the Holy Spirit, St. John Chrysostom quotes Acts 19, wherein Paul found disciples who had been given John's baptism, and who told Paul, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” Paul tells them "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” Next, Paul laid his hands on John's disciples whom he had found and then "the Holy Spirit came upon them".

This makes it sound like the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily come on the believer at the very moment of their baptism. But in Jesus' baptism, Jesus came up out of the water and saw the Holy Spirit coming on Him, which makes it sound as if the water baptism is connected directly with (or combined with) the Coming of the Holy Spirit on a person. The Holy Spirit came on the Apostles at Pentecost with Tongues of Fire, but I am inclined to think that they already had the Holy Spirit before then, like when Jesus sent them out to preach and do miracles.

In Josephus' explanation, there is no mention about John's Baptism looking toward the Messiah like there is in the NT descriptions. Whereas Jewish baptisms/immersions were repeated through the adherent's life, Christian baptism was a one-time baptism for the believer (Hence, "We believe... in one baptism for the remission of sin" in the Nicene Creed). I take from the fact that Jesus was only baptised once by John that John's baptism was also a one-time ritual.
Also, in Acts 19, the Holy Spirit's descent onto Paul's newfound disciples occurred after the baptism with water.

That John's baptism lacked the Holy Spirit is picked up by what Wikipedia's article on John the Baptist notes about his announcement in the NT:

John proclaims baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin, and says another will come after him who will not baptize with water, but with the Holy Spirit.

The Greek Orthodox Church of St. John the Baptist in Monterey, CA says that the "sacrament" of Christian water Baptism serves as incorporation into the Church, introduction to the Trinity's life, and as a symbol of cleansing, newness of life, a sacrament wherein one dies to sin and is born anew in Christ:

The Sacrament of Baptism incorporates us into the Church, the Body of Christ, and is our introduction to the life of the Holy Trinity. Water is a natural symbol of cleansing and newness of life. Through the three-fold immersion in the waters of Baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity, one dies to the old ways of sin and is born to a new life in Christ.

Met. Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia says something similar:

Baptism... is called the introductory Sacrament, through which we are initiated into church life... Baptism is the introductory Mystery of the Church. It incorporates the person – of whatever age – into the Body of Christ, the Church, meaning that they can call themselves a Christian. ... In the Christian tradition going down into the water depicts symbolically going down into the tomb with Christ, that is participation in his death, while emerging from the water expresses the overcoming of death, that is resurrection together with the Lord, which is the birth of a new man. “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
...
The aim of Baptism according to St Basil the Great is two-fold: firstly to abolish sin, which leads to death. This manifests the essential deliverance of man from corruption and death that was inherited through sin (the failure) of Adam and Eve. Therefore Orthodox Tradition rejects moralistic stances on the deliverance of man from the guilt of Original sin. Through Baptism man is offered the foundations to build his life in a new community of life, with Christ as its head, and with all Christians as the members, signalling a journey of ascetic effort and progress into the gift of the Holy Spirit of freedom and love.
...
Baptism is also called a ‘re-birth’, because through this we are re-born spiritually. Man is born twice, once biologically from his mother and secondly spiritually from his spiritual mother, the Church. In both cases there is a womb: in the first case it is the mother’s womb, and in the second it is the spiritual womb which is the baptismal font. Through Baptism we are born into a new life, we acquire the possibility of spiritual growth, our image according to God is cleansed and we are able to attain to the divine likeness. Through the grace of Baptism we are able to pray and call God Father and other people our brothers and sisters.
Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia. The Mystery of Baptism in the Orthodox Church

To sum up the comparison, for Josephus, John's Baptism was:

1. done after justice / right behavior thoroughly cleansed the soul
2. for the body's holiness / consecration
3. not to forgive sins (since the soul had already been cleansed)

With Christian baptism on the other hand....

1. St. John Chrysostom says that it "manifests a great grace, whereby it sets free from sin, it cleanses the spirit and bestows the gifts of the Spirit". By way of a contrast with John's Baptism, he implies that it imparts the Holy Spirit and grants forgiveness by grace, and absolves sins.
2. The GOC Church of St. John says that it serves as incorporation into the Church, introduction to the Trinity's life, and as a symbol of cleansing, newness of life, a sacrament wherein one dies to sin and is born anew in Christ
3. Met. Nektarios writes that it "depicts symbolically going down into the tomb with Christ, that is participation in his death, while emerging from the water expresses the overcoming of death, that is resurrection together with the Lord," and it signals "progress into the gift of the Holy Spirit of freedom and love."
4. HTacianas clarified below: "While Christian water baptism is for remission of sins, and does "wash away sin", It is not water baptism itself that bestows the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is chrismation that accomplishes that. But then chrismation is normally performed at the same time, so it's not unusual to speak of the entire ceremony as baptism. If you look at the men of Samaria of Acts 8:13-17, they had been baptized in Jesus' name by Christian baptism but did not receive the Holy Spirit."
   My own conclusion is that the Holy Spirit is closely associated with Baptism, but based on Acts 8 and 19, it isn't necessarily the case that it descends at the moment of the Baptism or before Chrismation/Laying on of hands. Per Acts 10 it could come before Baptism, and I take the story of Jesus' Baptism to mean that it could descend as the believer comes out of the water.
5. Orthodox Wikipedia's article on Baptism says: "baptism is 'for the remission of sins' (cf. the Nicene Creed) and for entrance into the Church; the person being baptized is cleansed of all sins and is united to Christ... In contrast to a common Protestant viewpoint, baptism is more than just a symbolic act of burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation. Baptism is believed to impart cleansing (remission) of sins and union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection"

 

[HTacianas]

(1) How does Josephus' depiction of John the Forerunner's baptism compare with the Christian understanding of Christian baptism? (2) Does Christianity follow this model:

1. The believer repents of their sins,
2. accepts Christ's sacrifice,
3. receives the Holy Spirit and Grace,
4. and then receives "water baptism", which only "seals" those processes?

In asking this second question, I am trying to look for the elements in the process of Christian Baptism.

In Book 18 of his Antiquities, Josephus describes John the Baptist's baptism this way:

So per Josephus, the believer first practices justice and piety, cleanses the soul by right behaviour, and then undergoes water baptism for consecrating/"the holiness of" the body, not for pardoning/forgiving sins.

Wikipedia's article on John the Baptist cites a translation of Josephus' passage and comments:
That is, Wikipedia takes Josephus to mean that John's baptism was for purifying the body, not for repentance like Mark 1 says it was. Loeb's and Ben Smith's translations are normally better than Whiston's though, and says that it was for "consecration" (setting apart or making holy) of the body, rather than "purification". Also, Josephus doesn't really deny that John's baptism was for repentance, but rather Josephus (like St John Chrysostom, below) denies that it was for remission of sins or for purifying the soul.

St. John Chrysostom, in his "Discourse On the Day of the Baptism of Christ", distinguishes the Baptisms by saying that Jewish baptism cleanses the body only, and that John's Baptism combined body cleansing with instruction to repent, convert from vice to good deeds, and trusting in the hope of salvation. He wrote that John's didn't give the Holy Spirit or forgiveness, but that Christian baptism releases from sin, cleanses the spirit, bestows the Spirit's gifts:Next, to show that John's baptism lacked the Holy Spirit, St. John Chrysostom quotes Acts 19, wherein Paul found disciples who had been given John's baptism, and who told Paul, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” Paul tells them "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” Next, Paul laid his hands on John's disciples whom he had found and then "the Holy Spirit came upon them".

This makes it sound like the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily come on the believer at the very moment of their baptism. But in Jesus' baptism, Jesus came up out of the water and saw the Holy Spirit coming on Him, which makes it sound as if the water baptism is connected directly with (or combined with) the Coming of the Holy Spirit on a person. The Holy Spirit came on the Apostles at Pentecost with Tongues of Fire, but I am inclined to think that they already had the Holy Spirit before then, like when Jesus sent them out to preach and do miracles.

In Josephus' explanation, there is no mention about John's Baptism looking toward the Messiah like there is in the NT descriptions. Whereas Jewish baptisms/immersions were repeated through the adherent's life, Christian baptism was a one-time baptism for the believer (Hence, "We believe... in one baptism for the remission of sin" in the Nicene Creed). I take from the fact that Jesus was only baptised once by John that John's baptism was also a one-time ritual.
Also, in Acts 19, the Holy Spirit's descent onto Paul's newfound disciples occurred after the baptism with water.

That John's baptism lacked the Holy Spirit is picked up by what Wikipedia's article on John the Baptist notes about his announcement in the NT:

The Greek Orthodox Church of St. John the Baptist in Monterey, CA says that the "sacrament" of Christian water Baptism serves as incorporation into the Church, introduction to the Trinity's life, and as a symbol of cleansing, newness of life, a sacrament wherein one dies to sin and is born anew in Christ:


Met. Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia says something similar:

To answer your question we have to split a hair regarding how Chrysostom described baptism. While Christian water baptism is for remission of sins, and does "wash away sin", It is not water baptism itself that bestows the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is chrismation that accomplishes that. But then chrismation is normally performed at the same time, so it's not unusual to speak of the entire ceremony as baptism.

If you look at the men of Samaria of Acts 8:13-17, they had been baptized in Jesus' name by Christian baptism but did not receive the Holy Spirit. Philip the deacon baptized them in water but then sent for Peter and John to come and pray over them and then lay hands on them so they would receive the Holy Spirit.

But there is also a description of a group of men who Peter prayed for to receive the Holy Spirit, and they did, and afterwards were given water baptism, see Acts 10:44-48. But generally water baptism comes first.

 

[buzuxi02]

Ritual purity in mikvehs became popular in jewish customs from about 100BCE. It was to ritually cleanse the body when the individual came into contact with something non-kosher. It was also used to consecrate someone and this is how we view baptism. There were two forms in judaism, full immersion and partial immersion (still is).
In Christianity baptism is one time event as it's a form of consecration into the Church and the individual being added to the Body.
The sacrament of penance on the other hand is our periodic partial water cleansing (John 13:8-10) .

This makes it sound like the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily come on the believer at the very moment of their baptism. But in Jesus' baptism, Jesus came up out of the water and saw the Holy Spirit coming on Him, which makes it sound as if the water baptism is connected directly with (or combined with) the Coming of the Holy Spirit on a person

the Holy Spirit does not enter and dwell in a man at baptism but through the second rite associated with it which is laying on of hands (Acts 8:15-18, 2 Tim 1:6-7). Baptism and laying on of hands are distinct but not seperate (Hebrews 6:2) The sign that gentiles were to be incorporated into the Church was when the holy Spirit fell upon them spontaneously but they were immediately baptised afterwards (Acts 10:44-48). On Pentecost the Holy Spirit fell upon them as fire but everyone before hand was already washed in baptism (John 4:1-2)

 

[rakovsky]

To answer your question we have to split a hair regarding how Chrysostom described baptism. While Christian water baptism is for remission of sins, and does "wash away sin", It is not water baptism itself that bestows the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is chrismation that accomplishes that. But then chrismation is normally performed at the same time, so it's not unusual to speak of the entire ceremony as baptism.

If you look at the men of Samaria of Acts 8:13-17, they had been baptized in Jesus' name by Christian baptism but did not receive the Holy Spirit. Philip the deacon baptized them in water but then sent for Peter and John to come and pray over them and then lay hands on them so they would receive the Holy Spirit.

But there is also a description of a group of men who Peter prayed for to receive the Holy Spirit, and they did, and afterwards were given water baptism, see Acts 10:44-48. But generally water baptism comes first.

HTacianas,
Thanks! When you say that Christian Baptism washes away sin, how does that compare with John's baptism that the NT says was one "of repentance?" John encouraged his audience to repent, and Mark said that John came "preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Josephus says that John's baptism consecrated the body because his followers were already cleansed in their soul before getting John's baptism. So in what sense was it for repentance, unless it combined repentance and forgiveness of sins with baptism?

You made a good point that in Acts 10, the believers got the Holy Spirit and then baptism, but that in Acts 8, the order was reversed.

 

[rakovsky]

The sacrament of penance on the other hand is our periodic partial water cleansing (John 13:8-10) .

In John 13, Jesus says that his disciples were clean, so that they didn't need the head and hands cleansing that Peter requesting, implying that they were already pure and didn't need to undergo Tevilah. Maybe John 13 specifically is not really clear as to whether it implies that the disciples, as Jewish believers, no longer needed to undergo Jewish Tevilah washing if they sinned and made themselves impure.

 

[rakovsky]

the Holy Spirit does not enter and dwell in a man at baptism but through the second rite associated with it which is laying on of hands (Acts 8:15-18, 2 Tim 1:6-7). Baptism and laying on of hands are distinct but not seperate (Hebrews 6:2) The sign that gentiles were to be incorporated into the Church was when the holy Spirit fell upon them spontaneously but they were immediately baptised afterwards (Acts 10:44-48). On Pentecost the Holy Spirit fell upon them as fire but everyone before hand was already washed in baptism (John 4:1-2)

Is laying on of hands now only done on clergy?
It sounds like laying on of hands is not necessary to get the Spirit, per Acts 10.
I don't know why the Spirit wouldn't in some cases go on a person at Baptism or immediately after, since eg. Jesus saw the Spirit descend at his Baptism. It seems like it would sometimes happen.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Since Josephus didn't write any of the scriptures I wouldn't put any credence in his opinion on the subject. I'd go with what John the baptist said, what Jesus said and what the apostles said. All of them consistently taught that baptism washed away your sins and that the sacrifice and authority of Jesus made this possible.

 

[Al Touthentop]

HTacianas,
Thanks! When you say that Christian Baptism washes away sin, how does that compare with John's baptism that the NT says was one "of repentance?" John encouraged his audience to repent, and Mark said that John came "preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Josephus says that John's baptism consecrated the body because his followers were already cleansed in their soul before getting John's baptism. So in what sense was it for repentance, unless it combined repentance and forgiveness of sins with baptism?

You made a good point that in Acts 10, the believers got the Holy Spirit and then baptism, but that in Acts 8, the order was reversed.

John's baptism was only called that because he was the one who introduced it. They aren't different baptisms. That's why Jesus said, "the baptism of John, was it from men or from God?"

Obviously it was from God as John said himself, "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’"

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think a distinction between John's baptism, and what the Church does, is that John happened prior to Pentecost.

 

[buzuxi02]

Is laying on of hands now only done on clergy?
It sounds like laying on of hands is not necessary to get the Spirit, per Acts 10.
I don't know why the Spirit wouldn't in some cases go on a person at Baptism or immediately after, since eg. Jesus saw the Spirit descend at his Baptism. It seems like it would sometimes happen.

The baptism of Jesus from antiquity was known as the Theophany. That it revealed the Trinitarian God but not that Jesus was devoid of the Spirit prior to it.
In Acts 10 it was a singular event to make known that the gentiles are to be included in the salvific plan.

When christianity was small the apostles would lay hands on the newly illumined but as the apostles died off and christianity spread, bishops could not be at all places. So the bishops consecrated special anointing oil called chrism to be used. This was a revival of the type of the sacred myhrr oil commanded by God in the OT: (Exodus 30:30-32)
Scripture describes the anointing by oil in the following: 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward.(1Sam 5:13)

So the Church now employs chrismation (laying on of hands is used only for ordinations) in its place. Scripture has likened the anointing of the Spirit with anointing with oil:
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.(Heb 1:9 see also psalm 45:7)

 

[rakovsky]

John's baptism was only called that because he was the one who introduced it. They aren't different baptisms. That's why Jesus said, "the baptism of John, was it from men or from God?"

Obviously it was from God as John said himself, "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’"

In the quote above, when John says that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, does he mean that unlike John's baptism that does use water, Jesus' baptism does not use water, but rather the Holy Spirit that He sends from on High? One of the gospels specified that Jesus did not baptize anyone and that only His disciples did.


It seems that John's baptism and Christian baptism are distinguishable according to the Bible. One way is that in Acts 19, Paul asks some of John's followers what they were baptized into, and they answer John's Baptism. Then He baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, then they get the laying on of hands and the holy spirit. The two kinds of baptism must be distinguishable in some way or else there would not be much point in Paul baptizing them.

 

[Al Touthentop]

In the quote above, when John says that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, does he mean that unlike John's baptism that does use water, Jesus' baptism does not use water, but rather the Holy Spirit that He sends from on High?

What John was telling them was that this person, "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," was the person he had come to "prepare the way" for and who was the Lord himself. And this Messiah would have the power to baptize in the holy spirit. It doesn't say that he would only baptize in the Holy Spirit. The significance was his ability to do it at all. Only God had that power.

One of the gospels specified that Jesus did not baptize anyone and that only His disciples did.

Jesus also baptized as we read in John 3 and 4. The grammar says that he was baptizing.

John 3:22

"After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized."

The verb form of the word baptized there is not plural and is connected with the pronoun "he." John writes there that Jesus baptized.

The scripture in John 4:1-2.

"Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)"

We ought not to try and make it dispute what was written in 3:22. In the context, what John is saying is that Jesus didn't baptize more disciples himself, but his disciples. The other significant thing about this is that Jesus directed his disciples to baptize also. Together they were baptizing more disciples than John. It wasn't a personal contest between Jesus and John as to who could baptize more.

 

[Al Touthentop]

It seems that John's baptism and Christian baptism are distinguishable according to the Bible. One way is that in Acts 19, Paul asks some of John's followers what they were baptized into, and they answer John's Baptism. Then He baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, then they get the laying on of hands and the holy spirit. The two kinds of baptism must be distinguishable in some way or else there would not be much point in Paul baptizing them.

Well, it's true that those people were re-baptized. But not because the baptism of John was somehow different. Paul explains that John was teaching about a Messiah to come. It was probably Apollos who baptized these people and was still preaching to them about a Messiah to come. Our hint that this is the probable case is that Priscilla took him aside and told him "more accurately" the word. So Jesus had already come when these people were baptized. So what they were taught and what we're taught is important.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I think a distinction between John's baptism, and what the Church does, is that John happened prior to Pentecost.

But at the day of Pentecost, Peter preached exactly what John preached regarding baptism regarding to what it accomplished.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But at the day of Pentecost, Peter preached exactly what John preached regarding baptism regarding to what it accomplished.

I don't think John ever said they needed to be baptized in the name of Christ, and John never said they would receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I don't think John ever said they needed to be baptized in the name of Christ, and John never said they would receive the Holy Spirit.

That "in the name of" means in the authority of. That's what John preached. He said that Jesus was "the lamb who takes away the sin of the world." He was clear that it was Jesus who made this possible.

And the words Peter used there were not "and you will receive the Holy Spirit." They were, "and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." In Romans Paul explains that this gift is salvation and there he calls it "the gift of God."

The gifts (plural) of the Holy Spirit are distinct from the one gift, the distinct gift that was promised in that sermon. If Peter was talking about supernatural power, it is likely we would have read about 3000 or so Jews displaying spiritual gifts. Instead we read that those spiritual gifts were imparted through the laying on of the apostles hands. Only Jesus could baptize with the Holy Spirit and we read of only two times that he did this: Acts 2, and Acts 10. And later when Peter recounts the event, he indeed says he was reminded that Jesus told them that he would baptize in the Holy Spirit. So he himself is why we associate the two events as baptism in the Holy Spirit and not every other baptism in water or display of Holy Spirit empowered gifts.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That "in the name of" means in the authority of. That's what John preached. He said that Jesus was "the lamb who takes away the sin of the world." He was clear that it was Jesus who made this possible.

And the words Peter used there were not "and you will receive the Holy Spirit." They were, "and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." In Romans Paul explains that this gift is salvation and there he calls it "the gift of God."

The gifts (plural) of the Holy Spirit are distinct from the one gift, the distinct gift that was promised in that sermon. If Peter was talking about supernatural power, it is likely we would have read about 3000 or so Jews displaying spiritual gifts. Instead we read that those spiritual gifts were imparted through the laying on of the apostles hands. Only Jesus could baptize with the Holy Spirit and we read of only two times that he did this: Acts 2, and Acts 10. And later when Peter recounts the event, he indeed says he was reminded that Jesus told them that he would baptize in the Holy Spirit. So he himself is why we associate the two events as baptism in the Holy Spirit and not every other baptism in water or display of Holy Spirit empowered gifts.

right...so after Pentecost baptism was different than John who baptized before Pentecost.

and Peter didn't preach exactly what John preached.

 

[Al Touthentop]

right...so after Pentecost baptism was different than John who baptized before Pentecost.

and Peter didn't preach exactly what John preached.

Baptism resulted in remission of sins. That's what John preached and that's what Peter preached.

Baptism was made effective by Christ. That's what John preached and that's what Peter preached and Peter preached this because Jesus commanded him to.

What's different?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Baptism resulted in remission of sins. That's what John preached and that's what Peter preached.

Baptism was made effective by Christ. That's what John preached and that's what Peter preached and Peter preached this because Jesus commanded him to.

What's different?

one preached a risen and ascended Christ Who had poured forth the Spirit, the other didn't because it didn't happen yet.

yes, that is a difference

 

[Al Touthentop]

one preached a risen and ascended Christ Who had poured forth the Spirit, the other didn't because it didn't happen yet.

yes, that is a difference

It's a difference in what was taught before and after but the result of the baptism remained the same.