Hebrews 9:10

[william jay schroeder]

Does this not make communion and water baptism not needed or commanded. "They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings-external regualations applying until the time of the new order".

 

[mark kennedy]

It's probably a reference to the ceremonial washings of the Levetical priesthood. It is translated baptisms but I dare say that it has little to do with actual water baptism. Baptism and the Lord's Supper came as part of the Reformation and while they are important neither are really nessacary form salvation. Hope that helps.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[JohnJones]

From verse 11 it is obvious that he refers in verse 10 to things established before Christ became High Priest. Christ became High Priest at the resurrection, and He established baptism after that, namely at the end of Mt 28 and Mark 16. Therefore, verse 10 is refering to OT washings for cleanliness, not baptism. Furthere, baptism is necessary to salvation, being the first time that sins are forgiven, as we find in the story of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 and Acts 22 that although he saw Jesus on the road, repented, and prayed for 3 whole days, he was still not forgiven of his sins until he was baptized in water, for Ananias came to him on the 3rd day and said "What are you waiting for? Get up and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16) Thus, we find that although we believe, have repented, and have prayed without ceasing, our sins are still not forgiven until we are baptized. Thus in Heb 10:22 the same writer says "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (i.e. Christian baptism)." As for the statement above that communion is not necessary to salvation, I refer you to the words of Christ Himself, namely "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53)

 

[Tavita]

From verse 11 it is obvious that he refers in verse 10 to things established before Christ became High Priest. Christ became High Priest at the resurrection, and He established baptism after that, namely at the end of Mt 28 and Mark 16. Therefore, verse 10 is refering to OT washings for cleanliness, not baptism. Furthere, baptism is necessary to salvation, being the first time that sins are forgiven, as we find in the story of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 and Acts 22 that although he saw Jesus on the road, repented, and prayed for 3 whole days, he was still not forgiven of his sins until he was baptized in water, for Ananias came to him on the 3rd day and said "What are you waiting for? Get up and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16) Thus, we find that although we believe, have repented, and have prayed without ceasing, our sins are still not forgiven until we are baptized. Thus in Heb 10:22 the same writer says "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (i.e. Christian baptism)." As for the statement above that communion is not necessary to salvation, I refer you to the words of Christ Himself, namely "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53)

From what you say above I don't understand my own conversion experience. The night I was born again, my heart was circumcised, I was given a heart of flesh for a heart of stone. For two years until being baptised in water, out of a good conscience, the Lord showed me several areas of my life where I had been forgiven and set free (I do have faith that I was entirely forgiven and set free, I refer to the areas that He made known to me). Could not the 'having our bodies washed with pure water', refer to the washing of the water of the word?
However, I do agree that baptism is necessary.

 

[Tavita]

Thus, we find that although we believe, have repented, and have prayed without ceasing, our sins are still not forgiven until we are baptized. (John 6:53)

This sounds like an outward law along the same lines as the law of Moses. Isn't this adding to our Lord's sacrifice?

 

[JohnJones]

Could not the 'having our bodies washed with pure water', refer to the washing of the water of the word?

Baptism is the "washing of water by the word" (by the word = according to, commanded in, the word) in Eph 5:26 and is where a believer is "born of water and of the Spirit" in John 3:5 and is the "washing of rebirth (regeneration) and renewing by the Holy Ghost" in Titus 3:5. Further, the circumcision made without hands mentioned in Col 2:11 cannot occur without nor outside of baptism, for verse 12 makes it plain that this operation takes place only in baptism and even then only if the recipient of baptism believes that it will take place in his/her baptism. Some then think they have received the said circumcision and have not because they are yet unbaptized. Some think they have received it and have not, although baptized, because at the time of their baptism they thought they already had it whereas they were supposed to believe that they would receive it therein. Others still were baptized believing that they would receive it while being baptized, and thus did received it - these ones are saved.

This sounds like an outward law along the same lines as the law of Moses. Isn't this adding to our Lord's sacrifice?

You can accuse the apostles of adding to our Lord's sacrifice if you choose. I will not, however, do so. Peter said with reference to the flood, that it symbolized baptism which now saves us because it is where we plead for a clean conscience by the resurrection of Christ, 1 Peter 3:21. The NIV translates Peter's words this way: "this water [the flood] symbolizes baptism that now saves you also...It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," -- Obviously since it saves BY the resurrection of Christ, not appart from Christ, it is not adding anything, but it is merely accessing. Baptism adds nothing to Christ's sacrifice - it accesses that sacrifice. Why were Paul's sins not washed away until baptism? Plainly because until baptism he had not accessed the sacrifice of Christ. Thus, Paul says in Galatians 3:26-27 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, because as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." When we believe we receive power to become sons of God as John 1:12 says "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" but this power although received, remains un-utilized until we are baptized as Gal 3:26-27 says "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, because as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Thus, when we believe we receive the power to become sons of God, but we are not yet the sons of God, not until we are baptized, for then the power that we received is finally put to use.

 

[Tavita]

Further, the circumcision made without hands mentioned in Col 2:11 cannot occur without nor outside of baptism, for verse 12 makes it plain that this operation takes place only in baptism and even then only if the recipient of baptism believes that it will take place in his/her baptism.

I see the baptism referred to in this passage, v12, as from Strong's 908, baptisma, as the overwhelming afflictions and judgements to which the Lord voluntarily submitted on the cross. And of the sufferings His followers would experience, not of a vicarious character, but in fellowship with the sufferings of their Master.

This baptism is the identification of the baptism into His death and sufferings, in which we died with Him, and is not necessarily pointing to baptism with water.

Some then think they have received the said circumcision and have not because they are yet unbaptized. Some think they have received it and have not, although baptized, because at the time of their baptism they thought they already had it whereas they were supposed to believe that they would receive it therein. Others still were baptized believing that they would receive it while being baptized, and thus did received it - these ones are saved.

And so, this operation will only take place in my baptism if I believe it takes place then and only then? That means I'm not truly saved and have been deceived for approx 25 years? And for two years before my baptism (in which I still wasn't really saved cus I believed I was) I didn't walk with the Lord and suffer persecution for Him or receive any gifts of the Spirit or understand the scriptures, etc etc? I wasn't washed in the Blood or regenerated?

You can accuse the apostles of adding to our Lord's sacrifice if you choose. I will not, however, do so.

I wasn't making accusations, I was simply asking questions.

Peter said with reference to the flood, that it symbolized baptism which now saves us because it is where we plead for a clean conscience by the resurrection of Christ, 1 Peter 3:21. The NIV translates Peter's words this way: "this water [the flood] symbolizes baptism that now saves you also...It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," -- Obviously since it saves BY the resurrection of Christ, not appart from Christ, it is not adding anything, but it is merely accessing. Baptism adds nothing to Christ's sacrifice - it accesses that sacrifice. Why were Paul's sins not washed away until baptism? Plainly because until baptism he had not accessed the sacrifice of Christ. Thus, Paul says in Galatians 3:26-27 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, because as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." When we believe we receive power to become sons of God as John 1:12 says "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" but this power although received, remains un-utilized until we are baptized as Gal 3:26-27 says "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, because as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Thus, when we believe we receive the power to become sons of God, but we are not yet the sons of God, not until we are baptized, for then the power that we received is finally put to use.

I hear a lot of what you're saying and can agree with most. But I still can't come to grips with the fact that you are saying that I'm still not properly saved because I didn't 'do' it right.
And really, you're saying I need to be baptised again now to receive salvation.

I just realised something, I can't be saved by accessing His death burial and resurrection through baptism, because I already thought I was. There is no hope for me now.

 

[herev]

Baptism and the Lord's Supper came as part of the Reformation

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark, I'm curious as to what you mean by this statement--I'm confused

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark, I'm curious as to what you mean by this statement--I'm confused

The Reformation of Christ with regards to the Mosiac and Levetical law was what I actually had in mind. Apparently the Jewish community was drifting back into ritualistic shadows of the things found it Christ. This was a big concern for Paul in his letter to the Galations especially with regards to circumcision.

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so follish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Galations 3:2,3)​

Baptism symbolizes the death of the old man and a rising from the dead (so to speak) where the person walks in newness of life. A little background might be helpfull here, did you know that brides where baptised in that time? What it represented was the womans death to here life as a child and a daughter and her new life as a wife and mother. This was not a Levetical ceremony and it has nothing to do with the Mosiac law really. The context of the verse in question is obviously refering to the Levetical law so there is very little chance the writter had New Testament baptism in mind.

The Lord's Supper was comomerative of Christ's death and it represents the New Testament (the covenant not the books) being the Reformation refered to in this passage. There is really no way this could refer to New Testament baptism because the passage specifically says that the 'meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.' This is a reference to the ordinances of the worldly sanctuary and the context is crystal clear that this is a reference to Old Testament rituals not New Testament ones.

What was probably happening here is that the Christians in this group were drifting back to the Levetical system, maybe to avoid persecution. The point being that this has no real bearing on New Testament baptism or the Lord's Supper unless you make those things into works that earn you salvation. Were you to do that you would most likely be practicing the same error and would be better off not having participated in either of them in the first place.

 

[herev]

thanks, I thought you were saying that the church didn't practice those things until the reformation

The Reformation of Christ with regards to the Mosiac and Levetical law was what I actually had in mind. Apparently the Jewish community was drifting back into ritualistic shadows of the things found it Christ. This was a big concern for Paul in his letter to the Galations especially with regards to circumcision.

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so follish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Galations 3:2,3)​

Baptism symbolizes the death of the old man and a rising from the dead (so to speak) where the person walks in newness of life. A little background might be helpfull here, did you know that brides where baptised in that time? What it represented was the womans death to here life as a child and a daughter and her new life as a wife and mother. This was not a Levetical ceremony and it has nothing to do with the Mosiac law really. The context of the verse in question is obviously refering to the Levetical law so there is very little chance the writter had New Testament baptism in mind.

The Lord's Supper was comomerative of Christ's death and it represents the New Testament (the covenant not the books) being the Reformation refered to in this passage. There is really no way this could refer to New Testament baptism because the passage specifically says that the 'meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.' This is a reference to the ordinances of the worldly sanctuary and the context is crystal clear that this is a reference to Old Testament rituals not New Testament ones.

What was probably happening here is that the Christians in this group were drifting back to the Levetical system, maybe to avoid persecution. The point being that this has no real bearing on New Testament baptism or the Lord's Supper unless you make those things into works that earn you salvation. Were you to do that you would most likely be practicing the same error and would be better off not having participated in either of them in the first place.

 

[mark kennedy]

thanks, I thought you were saying that the church didn't practice those things until the reformation

Well, understand that this isn't the Protestant Reformation it's the reformation of Christ. I don't have any first hand resourses but I think it is safe to say the the Protestant Reformers most likely took that name for their movement from this verse.

 

[StevenL]

"I just realised something, I can't be saved by accessing His death burial and resurrection through baptism, because I already thought I was. There is no hope for me now."


Tavita...from what little I've seen of you here, I know that you know better than that, my wonderful sister!

 

[Tavita]

"I just realised something, I can't be saved by accessing His death burial and resurrection through baptism, because I already thought I was. There is no hope for me now."


Tavita...from what little I've seen of you here, I know that you know better than that, my wonderful sister!

It's ok, Steve, I was being a little sarcastic.

 

[JohnJones]

I see the baptism referred to in this passage, v12, as from Strong's 908, baptisma, as the overwhelming afflictions and judgements to which the Lord voluntarily submitted on the cross. And of the sufferings His followers would experience, not of a vicarious character, but in fellowship with the sufferings of their Master.

This baptism is the identification of the baptism into His death and sufferings, in which we died with Him, and is not necessarily pointing to baptism with water.

If you don't actually know Greek, things like Strong's confuse you - they don't help you. By the way, I looked up the word in Strong's just now, and it does not say what you said.

I looked at G908 myself, and it says the following:

908. baptisma, bap'-tis-mah; from G907; baptism (techn. or fig.):--baptism.

Then seeing that 908 refernces 907 I looked that up and here it is:

907. baptizo, bap-tid'-zo; from a der. of G911; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, espec. (techn.) of the ordinance of Chr. baptism:--baptist, baptize, wash.

And it refered to 911 so I looked it up too:

911. bapto, bap'-to; a prim. verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N.T. only in a qualified or spec. sense, i.e. (lit.) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by impl.) to stain (as with dye):--dip.

That's not at all the same as what you posted.

And so, this operation will only take place in my baptism if I believe it takes place then and only then? That means I'm not truly saved and have been deceived for approx 25 years? And for two years before my baptism (in which I still wasn't really saved cus I believed I was) I didn't walk with the Lord and suffer persecution for Him or receive any gifts of the Spirit or understand the scriptures, etc etc? I wasn't washed in the Blood or regenerated?
[/color]

Exactly.

I hear a lot of what you're saying and can agree with most. But I still can't come to grips with the fact that you are saying that I'm still not properly saved because I didn't 'do' it right.
And really, you're saying I need to be baptised again now to receive salvation.

The fact is you never were baptized - you simply got wet. If you do not have the proper belief then it is not truly baptism. Belief is the only thing we bring to baptism.

 

[Tavita]

That may be your opinion John, but I believe I was baptised and accepted in the Beloved. And I believe I was 'saved' before being water baptised. Besides Paul's experience there are many other instances in Acts of people being 'saved' before water baptism.

(Heb 10:22) let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

He called me from a denomination that didn't put any value on water baptism, to receive water baptism. He called, I obeyed. It was accomplished in the Spirit, so it would be pointless to be baptised again. You believe I wasn't saved at water baptism because I didn't 'know' I was being saved then, or didn't 'know' what I was doing, I must believe that God is bigger than my limited understanding and knowledge and covers my immaturity and inexperience.

 

[tqpix]

Does this not make communion and water baptism not needed or commanded. "They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings-external regualations applying until the time of the new order".

Just for reference:

[bible]Hebrews 9:10[/bible]