# OT Baptism vs. NT Baptism



## JBaldwin (Feb 2, 2010)

We just started studying John's Gospel on Sunday mornings, and so I have spent a little time studying on my own. In the course of my study on chapter 1, I've read commentators who keep referring to OT baptisms. Other than saying, washing, cleansings, etc. none of the commentators would elaborate. 

As I studied further I got to thinking about John's baptism and the baptism in the NT. So here are my questions:

1. What is/are OT baptism(s)?
2. What, if any, connection is there to NT baptism?

While I explored this topic years ago, I had very little understanding of reformed or covenant theology at the time. Can anyone in here enlighten me?


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 2, 2010)

There is the passage in Hebrews which refers to the "diverse washings," which is referring to a type of "baptism" (because of the the Greek word used). The following context describes the various blood sprinklings as indications of what the author has in mind. The purity rituals and cleansing from sin is probably what is mind, the difference being that the blood of animals cannot take away our sin, but only the shed blood of Christ.

However, there is another use of baptism that should probably be considered, but care must be taken because (as far as I can see), there is no OT use or direct warrant for it. It seems that during the intertestimental period (that is, between the conclusion of the OT revelation and the beginning of the NT revelation -- i.e., between the conclusion of Malachi and the coming of John), there arose a tradition of proselyte baptism for converts to Judaism. In this sense, it was also a "cleansing" (a ritual purification). It was reserved for Gentiles seeking to become Jews. This appears to be part of the outrage at the baptism of John -- previously, only Gentiles were considered to be impure enough to undergo such a baptism, but John was calling Israel to repentance. In effect, he was saying they were just as dirty before God as Gentiles and needed the same cleansing, and that didn't exactly fly with the religious establishment.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 2, 2010)

> However, there is another use of baptism that should probably be considered, but care must be taken because (as far as I can see), there is no OT use or direct warrant for it. It seems that during the intertestimental period (that is, between the conclusion of the OT revelation and the beginning of the NT revelation -- i.e., between the conclusion of Malachi and the coming of John), there arose a tradition of proselyte baptism for converts to Judaism. In this sense, it was also a "cleansing" (a ritual purification). It was reserved for Gentiles seeking to become Jews. This appears to be part of the outrage at the baptism of John -- previously, only Gentiles were considered to be impure enough to undergo such a baptism, but John was calling Israel to repentance. In effect, he was saying they were just as dirty before God as Gentiles and needed the same cleansing, and that didn't exactly fly with the religious establishment.



Was this baptism an immersion or a sprinkling? Was John's baptism connected with this tradition (of baptizing Gentiles)? Was it a new commandment from God? and Does it have any connection with NT baptism?


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 2, 2010)

Coming from a Presbyterian, I do not believe it was by immersion (at least immersion as it is thought of today; see Warfield's article on the archeological evidence for baptism in his Works), but I do not know of anything definitive one way or the other. Since the Hebrews reference refers to the various baptisms as "sprinklings," that usage would not be unwarranted. But otherwise, I do not know.

It would be very difficult to rationalize the proselyte baptisms as being a new commandment. The baptism of John paved the way for the ministry of Jesus, of course, but there were obvious differences (one was not being baptized "into Christ"; there was no Trinitarian formula, etc.).


----------



## Kevin (Feb 2, 2010)

The OT baptisms, include the sprinkling with blood but also include several with water, water mixed with ashes, and oil, etc.

The priests had several cleansings (baptisms) for purity including the ritual cleansings of those cured of leprosy, and other purposes. 

I do not agree with Pastor Tim that John was engaged in any kind of proselyte baptism. John was a priest & his baptism was one of the priestly baptisms. It was learned from his training as a priest & not from any imagined practice that was not given by God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 2, 2010)

I hadn't contemplated this before. 



> We learn in Luke that John the Baptist's father was a priest and therefore a Levite. Why does this matter? Luke captures the Davidic aspect of Christ by highlighting the fact that Christ was baptized (i.e. anointed) by a Levite.
> 
> King David and all of his successors were anointed King and Messiah by Levites. John the Baptist does the honor for Christ who is the Davidic King of all Israel. Christ is anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit through the instrumental action of the Levite John the Baptist.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 2, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I hadn't contemplated this before.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I like the thought, too. But where do we get that David and his successors were anointed by Levites? I'm trying to think of a Scripture reference but can't come up with it. David himself was first anointed by Samuel (an Ephrathite) and then anointed again upon becoming king of Judah and again when he became king of all Israel. But 2 Samuel doesn't say who performed those latter anointings. The quote sounds sensible to me, but can you help me find a reference that supports it?


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 2, 2010)

Kevin said:


> I do not agree with Pastor Tim that John was engaged in any kind of proselyte baptism. John was a priest & his baptism was one of the priestly baptisms. It was learned from his training as a priest & not from any imagined practice that was not given by God.



Kevin, let me clarify. I did not mean that John was specifically engaging in another type of proselyte baptism. I do not disagree with your point (the priestly heritage of John), and that does give us great insight on the purification aspect of it. However, I am thinking more along the lines of the question that is asked of John in John 1:25 -- "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" Keep in mind that those who are asking him are themselves priests and Levites (John 1:19), so this seems to be something distinct from those sorts of washings.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 2, 2010)

Jack K said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I hadn't contemplated this before.
> ...


 
Maybe it is more of an assumption because the oil used in anointing was probably something that was the responsibility of the Levites. But also notice the reference to Solomon. 

(Exo 30:25) And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.

(1Ki 1:34) And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 2, 2010)

This thread, among others, may answer some of the Qs of the OP:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/baptismal-mode-pre-christian-era-judaism-early-christian-era-56220/

A number of times in the NT John's baptism is contrasted with and distinguished from prior established ceremonial ablutions by being called "a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins", which is what is also involved in Christian baptism. Christian baptism in the name of the Triunity is a "baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins" because one of the things it symbolises is the washing away of sin at which point there is also true repentance. 

Little can be derived from the mode of Jewish ceremonial ablutions

(a) Because there is a Q if they were doing it as commanded by God.

(b) In their misplaced zeal the Rabbis focussed on the external and maybe were concerned that every part of the unclean person's body be touched by water.

(c) In the mikveh (baptismal pools) the Jews used, we do not know if they bathed in the normal way people bathe, sitting or stand in the bath and applying water to themselves or if they underwent immersion. And if they did undergo immersion was it necessary according to God's law, or was it a superstitious rite to make sure every part was touched by water?

(d) The Presbyterian position is that immersion is unnecessary and that people were baptised sitting or standing in water with water poured or sprinkled over them, or sometimes were baptised while sitting or standing in a dry place with water sprinkled or poured over them. Jewish and Christian immersion grew out of misplaced superstition, baptismal regeneration theories, and a misinterpretation of Romans 6:4. I.e. because we are buried with Christ in baptism we should be buried in water at water baptism. But how can we be e.g. planted (as on the Cross) in water (verse 5)? We are spiritually baptised into everything that Christ has done for us, and that baptism is symbolised in water baptism, but everything that Christ has done for us is not and cannot be symbolised by water baptism.

Here are some articles on ritual washings by Jews, some of which involve far more than immersion. Bear in mind that what Jews do, or did in the past, isn't necessarily biblical and sometimes involved unbiblical and superstitious, and sometimes frankly rather weird, additions.

Niddah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conversion to Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mikveh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 2, 2010)

Also, from H. Westerink's _A Sign of Faithfulness_:



> If a Gentile wanted to be incorporated into the people of Israel, he had to submit to various ceremonies., among them circumcision. Be even more, he also had to be baptized. Due to the divine instruction about the ceremonial significance of water and washing from the Old Testament, Israel customarily used water in connection with incorporating Gentile converts into God's people. ... This was no 'innovation' in [John's] preaching, for he preached the spirit and power of Elijah and all the prophets of the old covenant (Luke 1:17). The baptism practiced by John sprang from the repeated old covenant instruction about ceremonial washings, bathings, and sprinklings.


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2010)

JBaldwin said:


> We just started studying John's Gospel on Sunday mornings, and so I have spent a little time studying on my own. In the course of my study on chapter 1, I've read commentators who keep referring to OT baptisms. Other than saying, washing, cleansings, etc. none of the commentators would elaborate.
> 
> As I studied further I got to thinking about John's baptism and the baptism in the NT. So here are my questions:
> 
> ...


 
As to number two, it seems that Paedos are not entirely in agreement over the connection between John's baptism and NT baptism. See this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/baptism-john-ecclesiastical-ordinance-47315/


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 2, 2010)

Since the Baptism of John, a baptism of repentence, was looking forward to Christ, and NT is a sign that all is sealed and complete, would it be safe to say that NT baptism replaces the washings (baptisms) in the OT because we are now washed in the blood of Christ, and our water baptism is a sign that our cleansing is complete?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 3, 2010)

JBaldwin said:


> Since the Baptism of John, a baptism of repentence, was looking forward to Christ, and NT is a sign that all is sealed and complete, would it be safe to say that NT baptism replaces the washings (baptisms) in the OT because we are now washed in the blood of Christ, and our water baptism is a sign that our cleansing is complete?



I've never thought of the OT ablutions in relation to John's baptism and subsequent baptism like that. It may be a good point. Under the typological system of Moses, the washings which pointed to regeneration/baptism in the Holy Spirit into Christ/washing in the blood of Christ were partial and incomplete and had to be repeated because they pointed to the ultimate reality. We just have one water baptism to show that we are complete in the regeneration that Christ does in our hearts.

Of course OT saints were only converted once aswell, but they were taught iin a typological way which bore the marks of its imperfection, including incompleteness and repetition. 

I tend to believe that John's baptism and Christian baptism blend rather seemlessly into one another, like Abrahamic and Mosaic circumcision, because we do not read of any of the disciples, who were originally baptised by John, being re-baptised except for one possible case in Acts 19, which Rev. Winzer has shown may not be a case.

We do not know what baptismal words ("formula") John the Baptist used. But we know that his baptism was from Heaven and that the words he used would have been approved of Heaven ( Matthew 21:25)

Jesus disciples also baptised before the Great Commission was issued with its baptismal formula. Jesus Himself did not baptise with water because He was going to baptise his Church into Himself by/with the Spirit, the reality to which water baptism pointed. The saints alive in Jesus' day could only be baptised spiritually into the God-Man Christ Jesus, when He had ascended to the Father. Hence they experienced spiritual baptism _after_ their conversion. 

All subsequent disciples have been baptised by Christ into Himself by/with the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion, which is probably the main reason we don't find the Apostles in their letters ever encouraging people to seek baptism with/by/in the Holy Spirit.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 3, 2010)

Thanks Richard, things are becoming a bit clearer.


----------

