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

rakovsky said:

To clarify, you accepted both A (outward symbol) and B (direct spiritual performance of cleansing) in the options that I gave?

Click to expand...

yes, it is an outward sign because there is a real cleansing taking place.

rakovsky said:

They did, in that they said that Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit, and further, Jesus'/Christian baptism became closely associated with the oncoming of the Spirit, so that the Spirit could come on soon after the baptism, as in Acts 19.
Maybe they did, if the model in Acts 19 was applied to the apostles.

Click to expand...

That's a different baptism. And by the time Paul wrote Ephesians, that baptism had ceased and there was only one baptism. We read of the miraculous kind two times, the only places where the Holy Spirit was spontaneously given without the laying on of apostles hands. Peter says he recognized it as such when Cornelius and his family received the Holy Spirit without his input. "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

Jesus told them "You will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now." His promise there was to the 11 only. It wasn't to everyone. But he must have meant for it to be twelve in total because shortly before the day of Pentecost, they pick another apostle.

And in spite of this promise, Peter commanded the audience in the temple to be baptized in water. Baptism in water was a command. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise and not to the entire body of disciples. It's impossible to obey a promise.

In Hebrews, Paul makes a reference to water baptism and makes a parallel to Numbers 19 when God commanded the water of purification. "It is for purification of sin," he tells them.

A red heifer was burned outside the camp and the ashes from the heifer are then added to the water. So the blood of the sacrifice was mixed with the water. We see this in Jesus' time too in John 2 at the wedding at Cana.

John 2
6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.

Paul's first reference to the water of purification in Numbers 19 is here..

Hebrews 8
13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Then he further references it again here.

Hebrews 13
10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

Why did he suffer outside the gate just as the red heifer did? So that his blood could be mixed with the water. And we see that at the end of John's gospel. Water and blood pour out of his side.

And John references the beginning and the end of Jesus' ministry thus.

John 5
6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Jesus began his earthly ministry with his baptism. He ended it with his side pierced from which poured water and blood. Here John says that that water testifies. Our baptism, the water, with the Holy Spirit and Jesus (who commanded it) testify on our behalf.

It was always the blood which was going to make baptism effective. And any Jew reading Paul's references to Numbers 19 would have known exactly what he was talking about there. It was the blood of the red heifer, mixed with the water that made the water of purification effective.

Recall also what John the baptist said:

"Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." What was John preaching? That by being baptized, the Jews could have their sins washed away. What do you know, on the day of Pentecost, Peter continued to preach it. All throughout acts, the apostles and disciples commanded it. Then Paul references baptism in virtually every one of his letters and we see it in Revelation too.

Baptism is far more important that it is preached today in general. There are still churches who preach it correctly but not many.

rakovsky said:

Thanks for the discussion. The most useful is information just outlining the differences between the two baptisms, eg.

1. John's Baptism and Christian Baptism were both after repentance and closely connected with repentance
2. John's Baptism and Christian Baptism both are for consecrating the person (True?)
3. John's Baptism and Christian Baptism both were part of washing away sins (or only Christian Baptism was directly involved in cleansing sins?)
4. Maybe the sins were already forgiven before John's Baptism and Christian Baptism, so the Baptism only further cleansed the believer?
5. Josephus said that only #2 above applied to John's Baptism

Specifically for Christian Baptism:

• Christian baptism is an entrance into the Church
• Christian baptism is in the name of the Lord Jesus or in the name of the Trinity
• Christian baptism is closely associated with grace, salvation, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, eg. the Descent on Jesus at His Baptism, and the Spirit's filling the baptised people in Acts 10 and 19, either before or after their baptism.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced there is any difference.

That phrase "in the name of" does not mean the speaking of names. It refers to the authority of the names. The Greek word "calling" used there means to "appeal to" as in a court. To submit to the jurisdiction and trust in the judgement.

Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”

Was Saul running around the streets listening for people who called out the name of Jesus? No, he was persecuting those who had been baptized and were following Christ's instructions.

The reason it was called "John's baptism" is because he introduced it. It became eponymous but this is not an indication in and of itself that it was different than what Jesus commanded. In fact, isn't it interesting what the number one answer is when Jesus asks his disciples, "Who do people say I am?"

John the baptist. Because, Jesus and his disciples were often baptizing. Otherwise, how could Jesus be confused with John? (We know he and his disciples were baptizing from John 3 and 4)

The other thing is what Jesus asked the Pharisees?

“I will also ask you a question,” Jesus replied. “Tell Me: 4 John’s baptism— was it from heaven, or from men?” 5 They deliberated among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will ask, ‘Why did you not believe him?’…

Who's baptism was it really? God's.

Why couldn't those who were baptized by John be added to the church? There's no reason. They were told to rely on the Messiah and God for its efficacy. It was a promise and Christ's sacrifice made it effective no matter when it was when you were baptized.

The re-baptisms we read about in acts were people who were baptized having been told the Messiah was to come when he had already come.

It was always said to wash away sins and we see that all of this more complex theology about it putting us into Christ was not preached at the time people were being baptized. The command was repent and wash away your sins. The nuances were explained after the fact, not before. We might assume that because nobody preached a sermon like the one in Romans 6 prior to people being baptized in John's era, that John's baptism was different. But Jesus was already telling people that unless they were born of water and spirit they couldn't enter the kingdom of heaven. (John 3:5) So if that refers to "Christian" baptism, he was referring to it right then, not later. Then we see him baptizing the next day. Why wouldn't that count as the same baptism he was referring to then?

rakovsky said:

Well, more specifically, he would have persecuted anyone who identified as Christian or a follower of Christ.

Click to expand...

That's what he was doing of course. I just mean to point out that this term "calling on the name of the Lord" has a different meaning than what people generally teach about it.