WHO CONTROLLED BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER?
WHEN OVERSIGHT BECAME CONTROL OF ACCESS
We have followed a developing pattern.
In the New Testament, local churches had elders who were also called bishops or overseers.
By the early second century, we find one bishop distinguished from the elders.
Later, bishops of important cities gained authority and influence beyond a single congregation.
We also saw the growing importance of apostolic succession.
But now we come to something that may have affected ordinary Christians more directly than any of these developments.
Who could baptize?
Who could serve the Lord's Supper?
Who could receive it?
And who could refuse it to someone?
These questions matter because baptism and the Lord's Supper are not merely administrative matters.
They concern a Christian's relationship with Christ and fellowship with His people.
So once authority over these acts became concentrated in one office, that office possessed enormous practical power.
1. BEGIN WITH BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus commanded His disciples:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them...”
— Matthew 28:19
On Pentecost Peter said:
“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”
— Acts 2:38
Those who received the message were baptized.
— Acts 2:41
When Philip preached in Samaria:
“they were baptized, both men and women.”
— Acts 8:12
Philip later baptized the Ethiopian.
— Acts 8:36–38
Ananias told Saul:
“Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
— Acts 22:16
When Cornelius and his household believed, Peter asked:
“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people?”
— Acts 10:47
Then he commanded them to be baptized.
Something is noticeably absent.
There is no instruction that baptism is valid only if a bishop performs it or authorizes it.
2. PAUL EVEN DISTANCED HIS OWN IMPORTANCE FROM THE ACT
The Corinthians had begun attaching themselves to prominent teachers.
Some said:
“I follow Paul.”
Others:
“I follow Apollos.”
Others:
“I follow Cephas.”
Paul rejected this kind of thinking.
Then he said:
“I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.”
— 1 Corinthians 1:14
He remembered baptizing the household of Stephanas as well.
Then he said:
“For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.”
— 1 Corinthians 1:17
Paul was not belittling baptism.
He was preventing people from attaching special status to the person who performed it.
That is worth remembering.
The effectiveness of baptism did not depend upon having been baptized personally by an apostle.
3. THE EARLY DIDACHE IS INTERESTING
The Didache gives detailed instructions concerning baptism.
It says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It prefers running water but allows other water.
If sufficient water is unavailable, it permits pouring water three times upon the head.
It also discusses fasting before baptism.
But notice something.
The Didache does not say:
Wait for the bishop.
It speaks directly to the Christian community about baptizing.
Later in the same document it tells the churches to appoint bishops and deacons.
So this very early Christian document knows about bishops, but its baptismal instructions do not reserve baptism exclusively to them.
That is significant.
4. THE DIDACHE ALSO DISCUSSES THE LORD'S SUPPER
The Didache contains prayers associated with the Eucharist.
It says that only those baptized in the name of the Lord should eat and drink from it.
It also tells Christians to assemble on the Lord's Day, break bread, give thanks, confess their sins, and be reconciled with one another.
Again, we do not find the later statement:
The Eucharist is valid only when the bishop or someone authorized by him administers it.
The church participates together.
5. THEN IGNATIUS SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT
Early in the second century, Ignatius wrote to the church at Smyrna.
We looked at part of his statement earlier.
Now we need to see its full importance.
Ignatius said Christians should follow the bishop, respect the presbytery, and honor the deacons.
Then he wrote:
“Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”
He continued by saying that the proper Eucharist was the one administered by the bishop or by someone to whom the bishop had entrusted it.
Then:
“It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast.”
That is a major development.
Compare the two patterns.
NEW TESTAMENT
“Repent and be baptized.”
IGNATIUS
Baptism is not to be performed without the bishop.
The issue is not whether Ignatius respected baptism.
Obviously he did.
The question is:
Where did the apostles give a local bishop this authority?
6. WHY WOULD IGNATIUS DO THIS?
We should understand his circumstances before judging his reasoning.
Ignatius was deeply concerned about division and false teaching.
He wanted Christians united.
One bishop provided a visible center of unity.
If Christians gathered around one bishop, unauthorized rival groups would have greater difficulty forming competing assemblies.
So the logic is understandable:
one church
one bishop
one Eucharist
one fellowship.
It helped answer the question:
Which group is the real church?
Look for the bishop.
But something important happened in the process.
The bishop was becoming more than a shepherd.
He was becoming the recognized guardian of the church's sacramental life.
7. JUSTIN MARTYR GIVES US ANOTHER SNAPSHOT
Around the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr described Christian worship for the Roman emperor.
His account is fascinating.
He says that after baptism the new Christian was brought to the assembly.
The Christians prayed together.
Bread and a cup of wine mixed with water were brought to the one presiding over the brethren.
He offered thanksgiving.
The people responded:
Amen.
Then the deacons distributed the bread and wine and carried portions to Christians who were absent.
Justin also explains who could participate.
A person had to believe Christian teaching, have been baptized, and live according to Christ's commands.
This tells us that participation in the Eucharist already marked recognized membership in the Christian community.
But Justin's description is still worth comparing carefully with Ignatius.
He speaks of the president and the deacons, while Ignatius explicitly connects the validity of the Eucharist with the bishop or his authorized representative.
8. NOW THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS
Suppose the bishop controls participation in communion.
A Christian who is in fellowship with the bishop receives the Eucharist.
A Christian whom the bishop excludes does not.
Now communion has become more than sharing the Lord's Supper.
It also becomes a visible boundary between:
inside
and
outside.
The word excommunication literally reflects this idea.
A person is removed from communion.
That is powerful.
And church discipline itself is certainly biblical.
Jesus gave instructions about a brother who refused to repent.
— Matthew 18:15–17
Paul told the Corinthian congregation to discipline the sexually immoral man.
— 1 Corinthians 5
But notice who acts in 1 Corinthians 5.
Paul says:
“When you are assembled...”
— 1 Corinthians 5:4
The congregation was involved.
Paul did not tell them:
The bishop will decide this for you.
9. DISCIPLINE IS BIBLICAL — BUT WHO EXERCISES IT?
This distinction is extremely important.
The New Testament does not teach:
Everybody decides for himself whether he is in fellowship with the church.
There was real discipline.
There were boundaries.
False teachers were rejected.
Immoral Christians could be removed from fellowship.
Elders guarded the flock.
But that is not the same question as:
Does one bishop personally control access to the sacraments?
We must not confuse the two.
Rejecting later episcopal control does not require rejecting biblical church discipline.
10. BY CYPRIAN'S TIME THE BISHOP'S AUTHORITY IS MUCH STRONGER
Move forward another century.
Cyprian became bishop of Carthage in the third century.
During persecution under the Roman emperor Decius, some Christians denied Christ or participated in pagan sacrifices.
They became known as the lapsed.
After the immediate danger passed, a serious question arose:
Could these people return to communion?
And if so:
Who decided?
Cyprian's letters allow us to watch the problem unfold.
Some presbyters began restoring the lapsed and giving them the Eucharist before the process Cyprian believed necessary had been completed.
Cyprian objected strongly.
He complained that they had acted before proper repentance and confession and before the laying on of hands by the bishop and clergy.
Here we can see how much the bishop's position has developed.
Restoration to communion is now closely tied to episcopal authority.
11. CONTROL OF COMMUNION MEANS REAL AUTHORITY
Consider the practical consequences.
If communion with the church is expressed through the Eucharist...
and the bishop controls admission to the Eucharist...
then the bishop possesses tremendous authority over a Christian's recognized standing in the church.
The bishop can say:
You may receive.
Or:
You may not receive.
That does not merely determine who gets bread and wine.
It publicly identifies who is regarded as being in fellowship with the church.
That is why disputes about communion became so serious.
12. BAPTISM ALSO BECAME CONNECTED WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CHURCH
Cyprian went even further.
He argued that baptism performed outside the true church by heretics or schismatics was not valid Christian baptism.
Therefore, people coming from such groups needed to be baptized when entering the church.
His reasoning connected valid baptism very closely with the true church and its legitimate ministry.
Not everyone agreed with Cyprian.
Stephen, bishop of Rome, opposed rebaptizing people who had received baptism outside Catholic communion when the baptism had been performed appropriately.
That disagreement is important.
It shows that even powerful bishops did not yet agree on every question concerning baptism and authority.
But both sides reveal how far the discussion had developed.
The question was no longer simply:
Has this person believed and been baptized?
It also involved:
Who baptized him?
Where was he baptized?
Was that group part of the true church?
Does the church recognize that baptism as valid?
13. SOMETHING IMPORTANT HAS CHANGED
Go back to Acts 8.
Philip meets an Ethiopian on the road.
Philip preaches Jesus.
The man sees water.
He is baptized.
There is no bishop present.
There is no diocesan approval.
There is no inquiry into whether Philip has episcopal authorization to administer the baptism.
Now move forward through the second and third centuries.
The questions increasingly concern:
authorized ministers,
recognized bishops,
valid sacraments,
church communion,
and legitimate jurisdiction.
Whatever reasons produced the change, the structure is plainly becoming different.
14. WHY THIS MATTERS
This is not merely an argument about ancient church organization.
It concerns the location of spiritual authority.
Suppose someone believes the gospel and asks:
“What prevents me from being baptized?”
What is the answer?
In Acts 8, the Ethiopian was baptized.
But if valid baptism depends upon an authorized hierarchy, another question must first be answered:
Who has authority to authorize the baptism?
Likewise, suppose Christians gather on the first day of the week to remember Jesus in the breaking of bread.
Must a bishop authorize it?
Must an ordained priest administer it?
If so:
Where did Jesus or the apostles establish that requirement?
That is the question we keep bringing back to the text.
15. THIS IS WHERE AUTHORITY BECOMES VERY PRACTICAL
A title by itself may not seem important.
Call someone:
elder
bishop
pastor
priest
and ordinary Christians may notice little difference.
But give that office exclusive authority over:
baptism,
communion,
restoration,
discipline,
ordination,
and recognition of church membership
and the situation changes.
The office now controls much of the Christian's religious life.
That is why this historical development matters.
We are no longer merely watching words change.
We are watching authority move.
PUT THE EVIDENCE SIDE BY SIDE
NEW TESTAMENT
People hear the gospel, believe, and are baptized.
The congregation gathers for the Lord's Supper.
Church discipline exists.
Elders shepherd the flock.
But no passage says baptism or the Lord's Supper is valid only when authorized by one bishop.
DIDACHE
Detailed instructions are given for baptism and Eucharistic fellowship.
Bishops and deacons exist.
But baptism is not expressly reserved to the bishop.
IGNATIUS
The Eucharist is to be under the bishop or someone he authorizes.
Baptism is not to take place without the bishop.
JUSTIN MARTYR
The baptized Christian joins the assembly.
A president gives thanks.
Deacons distribute the Eucharist.
Participation is limited to baptized believers living according to Christ.
CYPRIAN
The bishop's role in discipline and restoration to communion is much stronger.
Disputes arise over whether baptism outside the recognized church is valid.
We can see the development.
THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER ORDER IS GOOD
Order is good.
Paul said:
“All things should be done decently and in order.”
— 1 Corinthians 14:40
Elders have real responsibility.
Church discipline is biblical.
False teaching must be opposed.
Unity matters.
But none of those truths automatically answers this question:
WHO GAVE ONE OFFICE CONTROL OVER BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S TABLE?
That question must be answered from the text.
If Christ gave that authority, we should submit to it.
If the apostles established it, we should be able to find it.
But if it developed after the apostles, we should recognize it as a historical development rather than read it backward into the New Testament.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Matthew 18:15–20
Matthew 28:18–20
Acts 2:37–42
Acts 8:4–13
Acts 8:26–40
Acts 10:44–48
Acts 20:17–32
1 Corinthians 1:10–17
1 Corinthians 5
1 Corinthians 10:16–17
1 Corinthians 11:17–34
Then compare:
Didache 7, 9–10, 14–15
Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8
Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, 65–67
Cyprian's letters concerning the lapsed and baptism
Then ask:
Who controlled baptism in the New Testament?
Who controlled the Lord's Supper?
Who exercised church discipline?
And most importantly:
Can we find the later system in the apostolic text, or can we watch it developing afterward?
That distinction matters.
Because once bishops controlled admission to baptism, communion, and recognized church fellowship, their authority was no longer merely administrative.
It reached into the very question of:
WHO IS INSIDE THE CHURCH — AND WHO IS OUTSIDE?
And that growing authority was about to meet something that would change church history dramatically:
the power of the Roman Empire.
That is where we go next.