The truth about scriptual Baptism

[FreeinChrist]

I would disagree that Jesus was immersed by John, John was witness to it.

Guess we agree to disagree.

John the Baptist was a Rabbi with authority (or in the Hebrew S'mikah), we know this because John had disciples and not students (there is a difference).

Jesus had disciples which confirms that he was a Rabbi (and had S'mikah). In the 1st century there were two kinds of Rabbi’s. One was a Torah teacher, they got their authority to teach from the community and their teaching had to be in “agreement” with that of the community, they couldn’t come up with new interpretations of the Text. A Torah Teacher is kind of like a pastor at a major denomination today, they can’t (without major problems) teach anything that is outside that denominations “statement of faith”.

The other kind of Rabbi was a Rabbi with S’mikah. S’mikah meant authority, and as such this kind of Rabbi had the authority to teach new interpretations of the Scriptures (like Jesus teaching what are the most important commandments). A Rabbi with S’mikah had the entire OT (Genesis to Malichi) memorized.

Not the apocrypha? I ask because there are those who claim it is scripture because ti was included in the Septuagint

In the 1st century there are only about 10-12 Rabbi’s with S’mikah. Typically out of about 10,000 Rabbi students and disciples, only about 1 would go on to become a Rabbi with S’mikah, in instruction and training was that difficult. Rabbi's with S'mikah in the 1st century would also preform miracles, this is why we see people not being "too impressed" when Jesus would heal people and such.

Where did you get this?
Yes, people were impressed with Christ - crowds followed Him around.

So, how did a Rabbi get his S'mikah? Two Rabbi's that had S'mikah had to lay hands upon you for you to get it per Jewish Law. Who "gave" Jesus His S'mikah? First, John the Baptist as he had S'mikah, and second (but not least of all) God. What happened when Jesus came up out of the water?

Where did John lay hands on Jesus if he did not baptize Him?

What was/is Jesus according to the passage in Hebrews (Hebrews 8:6) I referenced? A preist, our High Preist. According to Jewish tradition, what was one of the cerimonies a preist had to go through before accepting his preistly duties??? Exodus 29:4. See the connection?

There was no sacrifice associated with the Baptism of Jesus Christ. His sacrifice was 3 years later.
There were many washings under the OT Law.

We tend to insert our own Greek thinking meanings for why Jesus did certain things. When I believe we have the answers for them all in the Scriptures if we will just look for them. I also believe that the cultural and historical evidence can be used to give us insight as to the background of the things Jesus did.

I don't know that I can agree with your interpretations here. Seems you are adding extrabibilical ideas.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Andyman-
Are you a Baptist?
Just wondering, I could not tell by your profile and your responses.
GEL

 

[Andyman_1970]

Was Jesus a Jew?

One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi in the 1st century and did the things a Jew and a Rabbi would do in the 1st century. Are there things Jesus did that were not included in the Scriptures? Based on historical and cultural evidence we can get an idea (notice I said and idea) of some of the things Jesus would have done.

Not the apocrypha? I ask because there are those who claim it is scripture because ti was included in the Septuagint


I never mentioned the apocrypha.

Where did you get this?
Yes, people were impressed with Christ - crowds followed Him around.

Read some Flavius Joesephus, a 1st century Jewish historian. He wrote alot about John the Baptist, and Jesus' followers. Now granted it's not Scripture, and I don't hold it as such, but it does give us some insight as to how things were done in the 1st century and thus insight into the Scriptures.

Do a google search on the word "mikvah", or go to the messianic board on here, those folks have a wealth of information regarding Jewish culture.

Where did John lay hands on Jesus if he did not baptize Him?

The Jewish tradition to "baptize" (mikvah) was to immerse yourself 3 times, if Jesus was a Jew why would he deviate from that? It's my opionion based on the historical and cultural evidence that He immersed Himself.

There was no sacrifice associated with the Baptism of Jesus Christ. His sacrifice was 3 years later.
There were many washings under the OT Law.

Sometimes a sacrafice was fasting, what did Jesus do right after He was baptized?

I don't know that I can agree with your interpretations here. Seems you are adding extrabibilical ideas.

You don't have to that's fine. So they are extrabiblical, however they do not contradict the Scriptures, only some long held "ideas" people have about the Scriptures but not the Text itself. This information is no more "extra biblical" than say using a commentary to help explain a certain subject in the Text.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman-
Are you a Baptist?
Just wondering, I could not tell by your profile and your responses.
GEL

You bet I am, SBC.

You can't tell by my responses, how so? I'm not sure how to take that.

An SBC pastor shared the Gospel with me when I was 26 (8 years ago) and immediatly after I asked my then girlfriend (now wife) how to ask Jesus into my life. I have gone to SBC churches ever since. I teach a college and young adult Sunday School class and a men's discipleship class.

I don't have "baptist" on my profile because first and foremost I am a follower of Jesus.

 

[Sephania]

Then Jesus said
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.


Dr. Merrill Tenney, the editor of the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible said, "Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish and pagan forms...." Since early Christianity was a part of the Judaism of Jesus' day, it is without question that baptism in today's church was originally Jewish. Further evidence comes from Scholars like William Lasor and David Daube who tell us of the early church's practice of baptism by self immersion after the custom of the Jews.

Read the rest here, very enlightening http://www.bebaptized.org/Jewishroots.htm

“The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.” (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989)


I believe that we are "baptised" in the living water and the H2O is in preparation of that.
​

 

[Crazy Liz]

I don't know that I can agree with your interpretations here. Seems you are adding extrabibilical ideas.

Since the Bible does not describe the procedure in detail, it would seem you are adding extrabiblical ideas, too. That seems to be the point of this thread. We all have to fill in some gaps from scripture. How do we do that? There are several ways:

1) Tradition. Unless we can find evidence the procedure was changed at some point, we assume it has always been done the way we have always seen it done.

2) History. Look at other historical sources to see what they describe. Find out if any Jewish literature of the Second Temple period or early rabbinic period describes a procedure for baptism. Research the ancient literature for other uses of the same word.

3) Just read scripture and use your own imagination to fill in the details.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with any of the above. However, I couldn't justify using any of the above methods to resolve a conflict over what procedure is scriptural, which is the claim of the OP. ISTM the OP accepts only #1 and #3, but not #2. No procedure posted here comes purely from scripture.

Actually, that is one of the issues I have with "Bible only" theology in general. It seems prone to throw out history, tradition and any other information that could help us fill in scriptural gaps as accurately as possible, and substitute the individual's own imagination. One can easily deceive oneself into thinking one is insisting on what is biblical simply by rejecting other sources of information, without recognizing the part that must then be filled in by one's own imagination.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Andy, I was just wondering. I meant I could not tell by your posts, what kinda church you attended. I might have overlooked some posts that you made about your church.
I think its great that you are saved and in God's perfect will!
Praise the Lord!

 

[theseed]

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus was immersed. Mat 3:16 gives a hint, but does not "prove" that he was immersed. As one scholar pointed out, that phrase "went up immediately from [or out of] the water" could also equally describe someone who stood in the water to be sprinkled or poured upon, but never actually went under.

The word baptize cromes from baptizmos, which means immersed. Also, "comming out of the water" is not possible with sprinkling or pouring.

 

[theseed]

The historical and cultural evidence would suggest He was immersed, but He immersed Himself.

Doesn't it say that John the Baptist did it?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Was Jesus a Jew?

One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi in the 1st century and did the things a Jew and a Rabbi would do in the 1st century. Are there things Jesus did that were not included in the Scriptures? Based on historical and cultural evidence we can get an idea (notice I said and idea) of some of the things Jesus would have done.

Not the apocrypha? I ask because there are those who claim it is scripture because it was included in the Septuagint


I never mentioned the apocrypha.

I know you didn't mention it. I don't believe the apocrypha should be a part of the Bible like others beleive. I was just interested in the comment that they memorized Genesis through Malachi, though my understanding is that the order of the Tanakh has Zechariah as last.

Where did you get this?
Yes, people were impressed with Christ - crowds followed Him around.

Read some Flavius Joesephus, a 1st century Jewish historian. He wrote alot about John the Baptist, and Jesus' followers. Now granted it's not Scripture, and I don't hold it as such, but it does give us some insight as to how things were done in the 1st century and thus insight into the Scriptures.

I have read Josephus's works - or parts, I should say. I have concerns about his work. One, he is not a Christian. Two,, he was not so appreciated by the Jews either because...three, he worked for the family of General Titus who destroyed Jersusalem and wrote from a proRoman view. Four, he exaggerated - alot! Five, there seems to be some alterations that occurred later, particularly in regards to Jesus. His works need to be taken with more than a few grains of salt.


So I don't think other Rabbi's, who were truly obeying the Law, were doing miracles. I really question that.
And I do beleive that scripture supports that people were impressed with Jesus Christ.

Where did John lay hands on Jesus if he did not baptize Him?

The Jewish tradition to "baptize" (mikvah) was to immerse yourself 3 times, if Jesus was a Jew why would he deviate from that? It's my opionion based on the historical and cultural evidence that He immersed Himself.

That doesn't answer the question.

There was no sacrifice associated with the Baptism of Jesus Christ. His sacrifice was 3 years later.
There were many washings under the OT Law.

Sometimes a sacrafice was fasting, what did Jesus do right after He was baptized?

But you referred to Exodus 29:4 and the procedure was different and there was an animal sacrifice involved.

 

[Propadeutic]

Doesn't it say that John the Baptist did it?

Yes. The verbs used are all aorist passive, and John is specified as the agent. He was baptized by John (hyp' Ióannou). See Matt. 3:13-14, 16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21. It is not valid to rewrite the text based on our partial knowledge of Jewish customs of the time. Most of our sources for Jewish customs post-date the NT anyway, and baptism is not identical to any existing Jewish practice.

It also bears mention that John was acting as a prophet, an office separate from that of priests and rabbis. His authority came not from his knowledge of the Scriptures alone, but from the fact that he received revelation directly from God.

 

[Propadeutic]

I was just interested in the comment that they memorized Genesis through, though my understaning is that the order of the Tanakh has Zechariah as last.

The Hebrew order is:
Law
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Prophets
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings (=former prophets)
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve (=latter prophets)

Writings
Psalms, Job, Proverbs
Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther (=the five; no set order)
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles

The apocrypha appeared in the Greek Septuagint, from which we got our English order. (Some were originally written in Greek.) The Jews in Judea did not treat the apocrypha as Scripture, did not schedule them for reading in the synagogue, and did not require their memorization.

 

[Andyman_1970]

So I don't think other Rabbi's, who were truly obeying the Law, were doing miracles. I really question that.

That's fine, do some research on Jewish history, or not it makes no difference to me. My point in the whole Rabbi background is the Teachers of the Law did not do miracls, but Rabbi's with S'mikah did. Some were impressed with Jesus the Text tells us, the Text also tells us some weren't.

Matthew 7:28-29 also give us an indication and makes the distinction between Jesus (with S'mikah, authority) and the Torah Teachers (teachers of the Law).

 

[Andyman_1970]

Most of our sources for Jewish customs post-date the NT anyway,

They do, which ones and what dates?

and baptism is not identical to any existing Jewish practice.

I disagree, why would John the Baptist a Jew initiate a different act of repentance than one that was already in place? The mikvah was used by Jews as sign of repentance, isn't that what John was teaching to the Jews?

It also bears mention that John was acting as a prophet, an office separate from that of priests and rabbis. His authority came not from his knowledge of the Scriptures alone, but from the fact that he received revelation directly from God.

I agree, but the Text tells us he had disciples, did prophets have disciples? I'm not aware that they did, only Rabbi's with S'mikah did. I didn't assert that the memorization of Scripture somehow confered authority, it didn't. In the Jewish rabbinic tradition one had to get S'mikah from two others that had it (ref Moses and Aaron laying hands on the preists).

 

[Propadeutic]

Again, I point to the NIDNTT's article on Baptism, which spends several pages on exactly this question. "The earliest references to proselyte baptism belong to the latter half of the 1t cent. A.D. While they indicate the probability of its being a pre-Christian institution, the uncertainty they manifest as to the significance of the rite...suggest that its adoption was gradual and that its interpretation was still evolving during the 1st cent. A.D." (Beasley-Murray, "Baptism," NIDNTT).

The sources cited include the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles (1st cent.), the Mishnah (spec. Tohoroth and Zabim, late 2nd cent.), and the Talmud (A.D. 500). The Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are Christian reworkings of writings discovered at Qumran, but the Qumran texts don't indicate proselyte baptism. (The Qumran texts also do not use the word baptizo for their practice.)

There were Jewish rituals similar to baptism. Gentile proselytes to Judaism underwent a baptism (again, possibly post-NT), but to require Jews to do this would be an innovation. Any rituals in which Jews washed were repeated, whereas Christian baptism is a one-time ordinance. The Jewish purifications are attested by Josephus by not with the word baptizo, and are more properly called lustrations.

There are indications that Elijah and Elisha had disciples ("the sons of the prophets"), and John mimiced Elijah in several ways. Remember also that John was the first prophet in 400 years. There was no existing category for him to fit into. He also introduced an entirely different phenomenon and taught directly against the common Jewish understanding of the law (e.g., no confidence in being children of Abraham). Additionally, "disciples" is not exclusively a technical term, and the disciples of John and of Jesus had different roles that those of normal rabbinic disciples.

 

[Andyman_1970]

A quick post before I head to bed..............

I was thinking about this as I was cleaning the garage tonight:

John's baptizm was a baptism of repentance right? But Jesus didn't need to be baptized for repentance, He was being washed/mikvah/baptized to annoint Him for the preisthood. So if the traditional Jewish method for a mikvah of repentance was self-immersion, this would not have been the case for Jesus. So when someone is washed/mivkah'd/baptized into the preisthood, does someone else perform/help in the cerimony? So contrary to my earlier post that Jesus "self-immersed", He may not have.............hhhhhhhhmmmmm we learn something new everyday, or at least confirm something every day (that history/culture backup the Scriptures).

Anyway, have a good evening everyone, talk to you tomorrow.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Again, I point to the NIDNTT's article on Baptism, which spends several pages on exactly this question. "The earliest references to proselyte baptism belong to the latter half of the 1t cent. A.D. While they indicate the probability of its being a pre-Christian institution, the uncertainty they manifest as to the significance of the rite...suggest that its adoption was gradual and that its interpretation was still evolving during the 1st cent. A.D." (Beasley-Murray, "Baptism," NIDNTT).

Interesting, cool info.

There were Jewish rituals similar to baptism. Gentile proselytes to Judaism underwent a baptism (again, possibly post-NT), but to require Jews to do this would be an innovation.)

I'm not certain of the source (Midrash I think), but there is a text that gives a story of Adam bathing in the stream that orginated in the Garden after his exile from it as a way of repenting for what he had done. I'll have to find that souce.

Any rituals in which Jews washed were repeated, whereas Christian baptism is a one-time ordinance.

Kinda like Jesus is our "once and for all" Sacrafice, our mikvah is a "once and for all". As Christians we are not under the Law (duh, I know), so just like we dont have to make sacrafices at the temple, we don't need to wash constantly for the repentance of sins.

Additionally, "disciples" is not exclusively a technical term, and the disciples of John and of Jesus had different roles that those of normal rabbinic disciples.

The Hebrew term Talmid, I disagree with you, is a technical term and does differentiate between "students" (Torah Teachers) and "disciples" (Rabbi's with S'mikah).

Thanks for the info Propadeutic, I'll put that to good use.

 

[Koey]

The word baptize cromes from baptizmos, which means immersed. Also, "comming out of the water" is not possible with sprinkling or pouring.

My arrogant and vain comment to this would be that certainly when my children are playing in the river, I tell them to come out of the water. That is not to say they were immersed in the water at all, but merely playing up to their ankles. Again may I point out in my rudeness that although baptizo means literally "immerse" it is not always used literally, often being used to mean simply wash. The literal immersion argument is for this reason fallacious.

Let me also point out that I believe in immersion, but if we are going to argue for it, let's use good arguments, not bad ones.

Koey the Rude one

 

[Andyman_1970]

It also bears mention that John was acting as a prophet, an office separate from that of priests and rabbis.

I found this tonight during my study.

John 1:21 John tells the preists and Levites that were questioning his if he was a prophet, and he says "no".

Anyway, the Text supports that John was a Rabbi and had S'mikah (authority).

 

[FreeinChrist]

Jhn 1:19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"Jhn 1:20 And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."Jhn 1:21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he *said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."Jhn 1:22 Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?"Jhn 1:23 He said, "I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said." NASB

The Prophet is referenced here:

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; KJV
So John was still a prophet...just not the Prophet of Deuteronomy.