MJ Only The Messiah's Baptism: Moving Beyond the Ritual Washing

AbbaLove said:

Tennet's presentation get's interesting at 00:33:00 minutes. Perhaps 33 minutes is just coincidence. For an intro leading up to "33" begin at 00:32:33 minutes ...
​

"It's about the early Messianic Jews who were followers of Yeshua and battling Rome over the eucharist and were also battling Rome over water baptism. Rome wanted 'their water baptism' because it gave them control over who would come into the kingdom giving them power over the people, dignitaries and even kings." (paraphrased)​

Click to expand...

I can see what he is saying having that kind of power.

Abbalove

AbbaLove said:

Tennet's presentation get's interesting at 00:33:00 minutes. Perhaps 33 minutes is just coincidence. For an intro leading up to "33" begin at 00:32:33 minutes ...
​

"It's about the early Messianic Jews who were followers of Yeshua and battling Rome over the eucharist and were also battling Rome over water baptism. Rome wanted 'their water baptism' because it gave them control over who would come into the kingdom giving them power over the people, dignitaries and even kings." (paraphrased)

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for posting this Abbalove! And I promise the 33 was a coincidence (gulp!) I am not in that club! Sorry I was so late in seeing your post here. After feeling like no one (except you) wanted to hear 1st Century Jewish truth I sort of gave up for several months. Like Peter, I guess I said "I go a fishing." But I really appreciate you posting this and thank you much! And thank you @visionary for your comment too.

I think the transition from physical to spiritual also relates to the transition of viewing the Holy Spirit baptism as something new, where as the regular mikvah was standard mo.

AbbaLove said:

​

Could this partially explain why Nakdimon (who was a ruler of the Judeans) was puzzled by Yeshua's statement in John 3:3 ...

“Yes, indeed,” Yeshua answered him, “I tell you that unless a person is born again from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”​

Was it then really fair of Yeshua to chide Nakdimon for not understanding the meaning of being born again?

John 3:10-11
10 Yeshua answered him, “You hold the office of teacher in Isra’el, and you don’t know this?
11 Yes, indeed! I tell you that what we speak about, we know; and what we give evidence of, we have seen; but you people don’t accept our evidence!​

Click to expand...

"I tell you unless a person is born again from above" cuts deep into the ideology of descendant privilege. Born again has a great many advantages that those who have not experienced it will not understand. It is part of the reason that so many prophets were killed for their messages.

"..but you people don't accept our evidence!" is a knife in the back of scholarly studies, not knocking the studies, just the lack of connection to God Himself whom enlightens the truth in its proper setting. It is like a mechanic who has never seen a engine, has a phd, but lacks experience.

AbbaLove said:

OK, so will try not to make this too confusing. Your book should help answer my questions.

Expecting to find your signed books in my mailbox tomorrow on President's Day

Click to expand...

Hi Abbalove, and thank you for your good questions!

I am sorry to do this the "easy" way, but I feel it's best to let the book do the talking instead of me writing out new answers and maybe missing something! So here below is from Chapter 9 of the book where it covers many of the "questionable" baptisms (i.e. were they water, or Holy Spirit, or were they using the term "baptism" to refer to the spiritual washing that comes when one believes and is washed by the shed blood of the Messiah). So here is that part describing the Eunuch:
9.8 Acts 8:38: The Water Baptism of the Eunuch

(See reasons 1–6, 11, and 12.)


NAS Acts 8:36–40 36And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip found himself at Azotus; and as he passed through he kept preaching the gospel to all the cities, until he came to Caesarea.


First of all, notice above the verse that is italicized (which I boldfaced, verse 37). This italicizing means that it was not part of the original Greek scripture. It thus appears that a scribe may have wanted this to look more like a Christian baptism, so he added those words and they were accepted, even though they are not in the majority of Greek manuscripts (Bruce Metzger in his textual commentary says it “is a Western addition”[1]). So someone in the west (Rome) most likely wanted a clear confession of a faith-type statement before this supposed “Christian baptism” could be administered to this Gentile eunuch.

Notice also that it was the eunuch who brings up baptism/washing (not Philip). It was also the eunuch who ordered his own driver to stop the chariot at the water, not Philip (i.e., when you remove the spurious verse). So this again is possibly the common water baptism that a Gentile proselyte needed to undergo to be considered a ritually clean member of Israel’s commonwealth. Phillip saw nothing wrong with it and obliged his request.

Whatever this instance may have been, some apostles did continue water baptizing after the resurrection and into the New Testament. Even Paul did it for a short time until he came to understand that Christ did not send him to water baptize. Water baptism was an ingrained part of Jewish purification since it was required at the Temple and for a Gentile to be considered clean. Thus, it is perfectly normal to continue seeing some water baptisms until the new paradigm and understanding fully came in.

This is especially so when you consider how they continued to meet daily in the Temple and how this was a meeting place for some years (Acts 2:46; 5:12; 21:26; 24:17–18), which required water baptisms/immersions for ritual cleansing before entering (as seen in chapter 2).

As we saw in the earlier section above, the disciples of Jesus were water baptizing (John 3:22, 23), but Jesus was not joining in with them (John 4:1).


[1] Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 359.

AbbaLove said:

For example did Paul water baptize the jailer and his family (Acts 16:33) or do you believe it was a Holy Spirit baptism or both ?

Click to expand...

And here is some on Paul and the jailer:

9.11 Acts 16:30–33: The Prison Baptism/Washing Stumps the Commentators

(See reasons 1–10 and 12.)

On the surface, this looks like Paul is again administering water baptism. However, since Paul emphatically states that Christ did not send him to baptize, then why would he be here water baptizing? This is another set of scriptures that, when examined more closely in Greek while considering the Jewish idioms on “washed” and “baptized,” a different picture emerges.

In the verses leading up to this event, a big earthquake occurs and then Paul and others have their prison doors opened and their chains unfastened. The jailer, knowing that this is supernatural, is in shock and cries out to Paul as to how he can be saved. Paul does not say it’s by water baptism using the correct formula:


NAS Acts 16:30–33 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.


When the jailer asks Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved, they reply that it’s by believing in the Lord Jesus, and immediately the jailer and his household are washed by believing. This fits perfectly with the New Covenant Jewish usage of the word “baptism”—that when one believes in the Messiah, they are washed (baptized), cleansed, and thus saved. Paul does NOT say, “Oh my, I almost forgot, you also need to be water baptized using the correct formula, because you can’t be saved without that.”

Commentators who strongly believe in water baptism also agree that there is a problem here with this being a normal water baptism. Since this took place in a prison (in the Gentile city of Philippi, part of the Roman colony), it just does not have the look of a standard water baptism. They say that with no water for an immersion/baptism, there must have been some other way to administer baptism, and that must be what happened with Paul here. They are correct, because this was the New Covenant spiritual washing/baptism that occurs when one believes, so no water is needed for this washing.

To delve into this further, we will examine what two of these commentators say about Acts 16:32–33. First, Adam Clarke brings out the sense of the Greek word translated as “immediately” (verse 33), and he does not see how this can fit for a water baptism for their whole household in this Gentile prison:


Acts 16:32


And, by the way, if he and all his were baptized straightway, parachrhma, immediately, instantly, at that very time, dum ipsa res agitur, it is by no means likely that there was any immersion in the case; indeed, all the circumstances of the case, the dead of the night, the general agitation, the necessity of despatch, and the words of the text, all disprove it. The apostles, therefore, had another method of administering baptism besides immersion, which, if practiced according to the Jewish formalities, must have required considerable time, and not a little publicity.


It is therefore pretty evident that we have in this chapter very presumptive proofs:



1. That baptism was administered without immersion, as in the case of the jailor and his family; and

2. That children were also received into the church[1]


Other commentators like Barnes (also big on water baptism) express the same doubts, saying that this does not look like water baptism here:


And was baptized. This was done straightway; that is, immediately. As it is altogether improbable that either in his house or in the prison there would be water sufficient for immersing them, there is every reason to suppose that this was performed in some other mode. All the circumstances lead us to suppose that it was not by immersion. It was at the dead of night; in a prison; amidst much agitation; and was evidently performed in haste.[2]


The reason that this does not look like a regular water baptism is because it most likely wasn’t. These commentators are correct, but they might be missing the real reason why. It was probably because this was another instance of the Messiah’s New Covenant baptism/washing that came by believing in the Messiah and his baptism/washing. In verse 32, the jailer and everyone in the household all believed, and verse 33 shows that they were immediately “washed” by believing.

This is just what Paul and Silas told them was the way to cleansing and salvation—not through a water baptism. Paul would not return to the Old Covenant immersions in water here because he knew those were no longer imposed by God. When the jailer asks how to be saved, Paul does not respond by saying that it’s by water immersion but instead he says that it is by believing in the Lord Jesus.


[1] Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 3, p. 819.

[2] Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, p. 479.

AbbaLove said:

In a Derek Prince video he expresses his belief that the 3,000 in Acts 2:41 were water baptized. I had always thought they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. Are there any existing 1st Century records or clues to whether or not the 3,000 were both water baptized and baptized by the Holy Spirit ? From your extensive research did you come to any consensus?

Click to expand...

Abbalove, this section (still from Chapter 9) I believe will cover your questions on what Derek Prince believes, I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

9.6 Acts 2: The Promise of the Father

(See reasons 1–6, 11, and 12.)

The events in Acts 2 occurred at the second annual Feast of the Jews called Pentecost, where approximately 120 disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit of God (Acts 2:1–4). We spiritually fulfill the first feast—the Passover—when we receive the Messiah’s baptism; this is the washing that comes from believing in the Messiah’s shed blood and resurrection for forgiveness and salvation. Then we are ready to spiritually fulfill the second Feast—Pentecost—by being filled with God’s Spirit.


NAS Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.


Peter says that this amazing event fulfilled what was prophesied by the prophet Joel—that a time was coming when God would pour out His spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:16–18). This was the promise of the Father. Prior to this event, God’s Holy Spirit was given at rare times to high-ranking men like kings and prophets (see Exodus 31:2–3; Micah 3:5–8; Luke 1:67), but now it was available to any Israelite (both men and women) and even to Gentiles, as would happen later in Acts 10.

Yet, this event in Acts 2 is a totally different situation than what occurred with the baptism in Acts 10, which specifically mentioned a water baptism for those new Gentile believers. Here in Acts 2, no water is mentioned, possibly because Peter is now speaking to law-observant Jews who would have already been ritually clean to gather and appear at the Temple, as was required for this Feast day. Being ritually clean, they would have already had the necessary immersion/baptism in water that was required for gathering together at the Temple for Pentecost. Tradition has handed down to us that Acts 2:38 was another water baptism, but that does not necessarily make that belief correct.

Notice below that Peter says they need to be baptized in the name of Jesus “for the forgiveness of your sins.” And water baptism is not what forgives sins. Believing in Jesus and the atonement that his shed blood provides (i.e., the Messiah’s Spirit baptism) does that—not when we are ritually dipped in water. It is very possible that Peter, under God’s anointing, was referring to the Messiah’s washing/baptism here:


NAS Acts 2:37–38 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


Peter had preached that Jesus was the promised son of David and what the religious leaders had done to him. These observant Jews were then pierced to the heart and wanted to know what to do. However, when Peter says to be washed/baptized in the name of Jesus for forgiveness, he may not be going backward to water baptism; it is at least possible that he is moving forward to the Spirit baptism the Messiah wanted. After all, Peter had just told them that Jesus received “from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit” and that this, just poured forth on the disciples, is what they now see and hear:


NAS Acts 2:33 “Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.


This verse above shows that Peter understands that this is a spiritual “pouring forth,” a spiritual baptism/washing and filling. So this may be speaking of believing in Jesus for cleansing and forgivingness and thus being spiritually baptized/washed. After believing in Jesus for salvation (the Spirit baptism), one is then prepared to receive the infilling of the Holy Spirit:


NAS Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


If Peter means you have to repent and be water baptized for forgiveness (and to receive the Holy Spirit), then he would be wrong here, for God forgave and filled many with the Holy Spirit who were not water baptized (Acts 10:44–48). And God certainly does not fill unforgiven, unwashed, sin-burdened people with the Holy Spirit.

Peter says to repent and be baptized/washed in the name of Jesus and all that that name stood for (nothing says in water), and then you will receive the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus, those who believed Peter’s words concerning Jesus may have been spiritually washed (i.e., without water):


NAS Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.


As we saw earlier in chapter 3, baptizing in the name of Jesus does not refer to a ritualistic mode of how to water baptize someone (i.e., “I now baptize you in the name of Jesus”) any more than “teaching in the name of Jesus” refers to someone who must ritually state before each sermon, “I now teach you in the name of Jesus.” That is not what Acts 2:38 or Acts 4:18 meant when they said “in the name of Jesus”:


NAS Acts 4:18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.


Teaching in the name of Jesus, speaking in the name of Jesus, and baptizing/washing/immersing in the name of Jesus can all refer to a teaching, speaking, or a washing (baptism) that has Christ as the source and subject of what is happening or being brought forth.

It must be remembered (as this book has shown) that first-century Jews did not have a Roman-style baptism in mind when they used this word. Peter says nothing of water baptism here. There was no lake nearby, the Jordan River was over fifteen miles away, and nothing says that these 3,000 ritually clean new believers in Jesus all lined up at a nearby mikveh.

Additionally, no proof exists that Jesus told the disciples that they would be bringing a new water baptism. In fact, both he and John always contrasted the water baptism to the Spirit baptism that he would bring in (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16). So if Peter is bringing in a water baptism here, then he is doing it of his own accord, not yet having the New Covenant revelation as Paul came into.

Although the disciples of course already believed before this day, they did not receive the Messiah’s baptism until Pentecost. For various reasons, the Messiah’s promised Spirit baptism did not begin immediately after the resurrection but at Pentecost, just as Jesus said several days earlier:


NAS Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”


The Messiah does not say here, “Oh, and I almost forgot, be sure to bring the new water baptism, with the new formula in my name.” And as we have seen, that is not what Matthew 28:19 meant.

Those 120 gathered for Pentecost, including the apostles, not only received the baptism in the Holy Spirit (the Messiah’s baptism/washing) on this day, but they also received the infilling of the Spirit (Acts 2:4) at the same time, just like the Gentiles did later in Acts 10:44–46.

One reason that the Messiah’s baptism did not begin immediately after the resurrection is that he still walked among them in the flesh for 40 days. The scripture says that the Messiah became a life-giving spirit and this spiritual washing began at Pentecost, when they were also filled.


NAS 1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

visionary said:

I think the transition from physical to spiritual also relates to the transition of viewing the Holy Spirit baptism as something new, where as the regular mikvah was standard mo.

Click to expand...

Yes, very good point Visionary, I fully agree.

AbbaLove said:

Could this partially explain why Nakdimon (who was a ruler of the Judeans) was puzzled by Yeshua's statement in John 3:3 ...

“Yes, indeed,” Yeshua answered him, “I tell you that unless a person is born again from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

Click to expand...

Abbalove and Visionary I really enjoy your comments on the born from above in John 3, here is what I wrote on that section if you are interested:

9.3 John 3: Born Again, and the Supposed Baptismal Regeneration

(See reason 1.)

I cover this portion of scripture, not because it has anything to do with water baptism, but only because certain individuals like Tertullian have attached it to water baptism, saying it proves it is necessary for salvation. This scripture occurs when Nicodemus, a high-ranking member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, comes to Jesus secretly by night with some questions. Remember that the Greek words translated as “born again” can also mean “born from above”:


NAS John 3:1–5 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Him by night, and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


The Messiah obviously refers to what Nicodemus said about the mother’s womb (the first “birth”), saying that more than this is needed to see the kingdom of God—that is, being born (generated) from above by the Spirit of God. Nicodemus was a scholar among the Jews. And as a side note, his question was obviously not a serious one (a man going into his mother a second time to be born again), but asking such a question was a common Jewish method of seeking another clue to the parable that Jesus spoke.

Tertullian speaks of this portion of scripture when he lays down the prescript that Jesus here refers to water baptism:


“without baptism, salvation is attainable by none,” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life”),…[1]


This concept from Rome gave birth to the doctrine called “baptismal regeneration,” where one is birthed, cleansed from sin, saved, and regenerated in the waters of baptism. However, Jesus does not mention baptism anywhere in this discussion. In fact, he is saying that one can see the kingdom of God only when “born again” (“born from above”) by the spirit. And one is clearly born from above after accepting the Messiah and getting cleansed from sin, not after being baptized in water.

God proves this in Acts 10:44–48, where the Gentiles believe in the word of God, are washed from their sins, and then God fills them with the Holy Spirit—all while they had not been water baptized. We know that God does not fill unclean, unsaved sinners with His Holy Spirit.

Jesus makes his words on being born “again” (or, from above) clear in this context, where he explains that the one born of water (through the water sac in their mothers’ womb) is flesh, and would still need to be regenerated from above by God’s Spirit:


NAS John 3:6–8 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”


Without being regenerated from above by accepting the Messiah, our spirit cannot directly access God (John 14:6; Romans 8:10; Hebrews 10:19). The Messiah was showing the need to be born from above by being “born of the spirit” (verse 8). He was not teaching what became known in Rome as baptismal regeneration through a water baptism rite.

Just a few verses later, the Lord makes this clear in his conversation with Nicodemus—that salvation and cleansing (born again) come by believing:

NAS John 3:15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.

NAS John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

There is nothing here about water baptism saving anyone—it’s believing in the Messiah and thereby receiving the spirit washing. This is the Messiah’s baptism, where the believer is washed/baptized and is then ready to receive the Holy Spirit infilling (Acts 2:4; 8:14–17; 9:17; 19:6).

NIV Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,


[1] Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 674–675.

AbbaLove said:

(1) Do you know if other Apostles (Peter, John, James, Paul) baptized converts with a total water immersion as a most important New Covenant obligation being very meaningful and even essential to one's "born again" new birth?

Click to expand...

Abbalove and Visionary I hope I am not posting too much!!

But I think this section showing a transitional period going on with the apostles in the book of Acts might be interesting to fill in some blanks:

9.5 Water Baptisms in the Book of Acts: A Time of Transition

(See reasons 1–12.)

There is no question that the apostles did not understand all spiritual truth after the resurrection and early on in the New Covenant. This may sound heretical to some, but please consider the following scriptures. Just the night before his crucifixion, Jesus told the apostles that they were still not ready for all of the truth he wanted to teach them:

NAS John 16:12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

Then, on the day of the resurrection, they prove they did not have a complete understanding because they refused to believe Mary Magdalene and the other women who said that Jesus had risen from the dead (just as he had promised) and that they had seen him. Jesus strongly reproves them for this:

NAS Mark 16:14 And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.

Then, way down in Acts, chapter 10, we see that Peter is still refusing to eat with Gentiles and is seeing all Gentiles as unclean, until God reveals this New Covenant truth to him:

NAS Acts 10:28b and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

So there is no question that the apostles were coming into new truth as they went along. Some of the water baptism events in Acts are therefore part of this transition period, especially when we consider the scriptures contrary to water baptism from Paul. Keep in mind that they were still meeting regularly in the Temple (Acts 2:46; 5:42), where immersion in water (baptism) was a requirement before entering (as covered in chapter 2).

Out of all of the apostles, Paul was the most advanced at moving into a better understanding of the New Covenant. The scriptures show that he was also the best Bible scholar with the most revelations (2 Corinthians 12:7; Galatians 2:11; 2 Peter 3:15). Paul was educated in the scriptures under Gamaliel, apparently from a young age (Acts 22:3).

We have also seen that, early on in his ministry, Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth, where he founded and built up the Corinthian Church (Acts 18:7–11). During those eighteen months, he baptized only a handful of believers because he understood the truth on water baptisms very early on. He wrote to the Corinthians, later saying that “Christ did not send me to baptize.” He also wrote to the fellowship in Ephesus and declared that there is only one baptism, not two important baptisms (Ephesians 4:5).

In his very first letter to the Corinthians (after saying that Christ did not send him to baptize), he tells them what the one remaining baptism is and that it is the Messiah’s Spirit baptism:

NAS 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Paul is teaching the Messiah’s promised Spirit baptism here, not a water one. Yet, we see other times where Paul does fulfill certain Old Covenant requirements for the sake of the ministry, to not stumble others, or for various other reasons. He wrote that he became as a Jew that he might win them (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus, he sometimes went along with certain religious norms so that he could continue to minister to certain groups. One example of this is where Paul follows certain requirements of the law, such as giving notice of his ritual purification to enter the Temple with the appropriate animal sacrifices offered:

NAS Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple, giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Another example in the Book of Acts is where Paul has Timothy circumcised, even though Paul actually taught against circumcision (Acts 21:21; 1 Corinthians 7:18–19; Galatians 5:2–4). He had Timothy circumcised so they could freely minister to certain Jewish groups who would otherwise have been concerned with ritual purity:

NAS Acts 16:3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

So there were various times when requirements of the ceremonial law were adhered to so as to freely enter the Temple in Jerusalem or minister to those who had not yet received the truth. Thus, when we see Paul having Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3, we would not use that to prove God requires circumcision today. Or, when we see Paul enter the Temple after the ritual purification (even having an animal sacrifice offered for him), it does not mean that God requires animal sacrifices for us today. When we see Peter refusing to eat with Gentiles at various times, we would not say this is a requirement for today. And if we still see them water baptizing (required for entering the Temple and for any Gentile conversion), this does not prove that God requires this washing for us today, because we now have the New Covenant washing—the spiritual washing that the Lord Jesus provides.

God was leading these believers to understand that they were now in the promised New Covenant, showing that natural events under the law were pointing to spiritual truth in the Messiah’s time. Therefore, the natural Passover lamb pointed forward, and now in the Book of Acts, the natural Feast of Pentecost gave way to the spiritual experience of Pentecost. And another part of this transition was moving from the natural baptism/washing in water to the promised spiritual washing that Jesus brought in—the Holy Spirit washing.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

With all of these points in mind, it is at least possible that some of the baptism events listed in the Book of Acts may have been referring to the Spirit baptism/washing. Therefore, some points will be mentioned in certain events that show that water baptism may not have been the focus. Although all of these events in Acts could have indeed been water baptisms, yet when the baptism is not specified as water, it may have referred to the promised Holy Spirit washing that Jesus brought in. Either way, there was a gradual change-over into the New Covenant, and moving beyond the various water baptisms was a part of this transition:

NIV Hebrews 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

I like "bathing" of regeneration because of the mikvah imagery as in a good soak, which is more involved than just "washing"which gives the imagery of cleaning off the dirty spots....lol

Both are good terms, "washing" is necessary, but "bathing" is a luxury. Queen Esther was bathed in beautiful oils for six months before meeting the king. The purpose of the regeneration is prep work before meeting our King.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Regeneration is the process of renewal, restoration, and growth and in that order, we see our spiritual journey mikvah from one level of understanding and spiritual growth to the next. "Born again" is the first step, then comes the learning to "walk in the spirit" in the truth transforming in His Image and then transfiguration.

AbbaLove said:

One thing that captured by attention in your above replies is your use of the NIV when quoting Titus 3:5 (rebirth instead of "washing of regeneration" as in most every other reputable translation). Is it true that according to the earliest Greek manuscripts that " washing of regeneration" (KJV, NAS) is a RCC interruption? Even YLT (which is suppose to be literal) reads "bathing of regeneration". For all its bad mouthing the NIV translation of Titus 3:5 is possibly the better. Then again it depends on how one chooses to differentiate between what they consider the proper definition distinction between that of "regeneration" vs rebirth (born again).

Click to expand...

Hello Abbalove!

That was a great catch you made on the rebirth in Titus 3:5!

It's amazing but in my rush to just get the book complete I never really caught the significance of that! If I had caught that I would have for sure pointed that out in the book (I'll explain why further below!) I only chose the NIV there because it makes the last sentence in that verse appear as one thing (which I think is correct) whereas other versions seem to make it two separate things, here is the NAS and the NIV comparing those two parts of the verse:

NIV: He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

NAS: by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

To me the NAS makes it seem more like two things, where I see it as one, a washing (of rebirth and renewal) by the Holy Spirit. And to answer your question on which verse is more accurate to the Greek I think for sure the NIV was, but the NAS "regeneration" is not so bad if taken in the right way I guess, here below is the Greek word from two Greek Lexicons:

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

3944 παλιγγενεσία

παλιγγενεσία (T WH παλιγγενεσία (cf. Tdf. Proleg., p. 77 bottom)), παλιγγενεσίας, ἡ (πάλιν and γένεσις), properly, new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation



The New Analytical Greek Lexicon: A new birth; regeneration, renovation

The actual Greek word comes from joining two Greek words (I Anglicized the Greek words below):

Palin = again

Genesis = origen, birth

Hence, rebirth, or generated again, new birth, etc...

The reason why this is so important (and should have been in the book!) is because I was always taught that the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" was when a believer was filled with the Holy Spirit. But as I was writing the book I realized that could not be true, because it was the same as the Messiah's Baptism, and that occurred when one was "born again" (new birth, washed in the blood by believing in Messiah). And that being "filled" with the Holy Spirit was a second phase (just like Passover is being washed in the blood of the Lamb, and Pentecost is when the infilling of the Holy Spirit began, I am meaning the spiritual fulfillment of these Festivals). Chapter 8 in the book goes into how these two events are separate for the believers. I truly wish I would have caught your point as that would have been my best proof text!!

visionary said:

I like "bathing" of regeneration because of the mikvah imagery as in a good soak, which is more involved than just "washing"which gives the imagery of cleaning off the dirty spots....lol

Both are good terms, "washing" is necessary, but "bathing" is a luxury. Queen Esther was bathed in beautiful oils for six months before meeting the king. The purpose of the regeneration is prep work before meeting our King.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Regeneration is the process of renewal, restoration, and growth and in that order, we see our spiritual journey mikvah from one level of understanding and spiritual growth to the next. "Born again" is the first step, then comes the learning to "walk in the spirit" in the truth transforming in His Image and then transfiguration.

Click to expand...

Great points Visionary, and edifying to consider!

One key in all this is how the first-century Jews used this Greek word baptism (especially the believers in Messiah), as opposed to how Rome used the word (and thus how it came down to us, as more of a ritualistic rite). Those spirit filled Jews in the New Covenant saw and applied so many things from their past as having spiritual fulfillment. They knew that Messiah fulfilled what the Passover pointed to, they knew that the Temple pointed forward (to us as "living stones" for God's habitation). And they knew that the baptism/washings of the past were also fulfilled when one is baptized/washed by believing in the Messiah. With the Greek word for baptism meaning washing/immersion/dipping it could also be applied spiritually, and it often was:

NAS 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Your points are spot on as we are first washed by believing (born again, or regenerated from above), but then, as the spiritual bride being made ready, there is a process with growth involved!