# Christs Baptism and Numbers 8



## Martin (Sep 10, 2011)

I am still wading through the baptism issue. Every time I think I have it figured out something else seems to come up. While searching on here, I came across where it was talked about that Jesus baptism was His entering into His priestly roll. Numbers 8:6,7 is used to back this up. 

6"Take the Levites from among the people of Israel and cleanse them. 7Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them,

My question is, wouldn't Jesus have to do the other things required for the priests as well that are found in the following passages:

and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves. 8Then let them take a bull from the herd and its grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil, and you shall take another bull from the herd for a sin offering. 9 And you shall bring the Levites before the tent of meeting and assemble the whole congregation of the people of Israel. 10When you bring the Levites before the LORD, the people of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites, 11and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the LORD as a wave offering from the people of Israel, that they may do the service of the LORD. 12Then the Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, and you shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering to the LORD to make atonement for the Levites. 13And you shall set the Levites before Aaron and his sons, and shall offer them as a wave offering to the LORD.

I may be out of context here or have misunderstood the concept of how this passage is used in regard to the baptism of Christ. Anything to help me understand is appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 10, 2011)

Eric said:


> wouldn't Jesus have to do the other things required for the priests as well that are found in the following passages



Yes. To randomly extract only one component from what is clearly a multi-faceted procedure which is laid out in a single, integrated passage and apply it as a necessary requirement for Jesus' ministry is capricious at best. Nor have I seen any of the proponents of this theory (e.g. Rose, Adams, Spencer, Ward, Bass) address this glaring dissemblance, while they quite dogmatically use their arbitrarily selected detail as a solid "proof" for their position on sprinkling - which brings up another point: I cannot find where any theologian or biblical scholar, whether RC, EO, Lutheran, Reformed or Arminian, ever even considered the supposed connection prior to the 18th century - and then there are are only rare instances. I am always suspicious of new-found "evidences" like this, especially when they are so inconsistent and unconvincing in the first place.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 11, 2011)

Phil,

In your studies, have you found any arguments that the biblical mode was actually sprinkling prior to about the 18th if not 19th century? I haven't looked into it that deeply, but could it be said that Dale's work was sort of a watershed in that regard? (No pun intended.) That's usually the writer I see cited in support of that position. Prior to that it seems that the argument was that mode was a matter of indifference, with many writers stating that immersion was the primitive method.


----------



## MW (Sep 11, 2011)

Eric said:


> My question is, wouldn't Jesus have to do the other things required for the priests



Christ is a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," and did not serve in the line of Aaronic succession. He also never served in the earthly tabernacle; His earthly lineage being derived from Judah, not Levi. His priesthood is "for ever" and therefore eschatological, not local. There are particular analogies which are picked up in the book of Hebrews and applied to Christ, not because they are distinctive of the Aaronic priesthood but because they are simply priestly duties. The analogy only applies to priestly duties and cannot legitimately be extended to include physical things which were peculiar to Aaron and his sons.

There are good reasons for sprinkling, but this is not one of them. The example of sprinkling for purification suffices to show that the reference to "baptisms" in the New Testament does not require "immersion." That is all that is needed to refute the sloppy lexicography contained in immersionist arguments. There is no need to endeavour to stretch the argument so as to make it prove sprinkling as if it were the divinely appointed mode. We accept sprinkling as a prudent mode. We are not "sprinklists."


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 11, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Phil,
> 
> In your studies, have you found any arguments that the biblical mode was actually sprinkling prior to about the 18th if not 19th century? I haven't looked into it that deeply, but could it be said that Dale's work was sort of a watershed in that regard? (No pun intended.) That's usually the writer I see cited in support of that position. Prior to that it seems that the argument was that mode was a matter of indifference, with many writers stating that immersion was the primitive method.



The earliest assertions I have come across that sprinkling (and/or pouring) was THE apostolic mode of baptism are from the 17th century (Owen and Henry appear to so argue in places), yet always in the context of refuting the Baptist assertion that immersion is the only valid mode. The earliest proposal that sprinkling was A mode used in the New Testament was apparently made by Thomas Aquinas in 1272 AD (_Summa_, 3.66.7). One can find a few more such suggestions by RC scholars (although this view was staunchly opposed by some of their EO counterparts) between then and the start of the Reformation. The Ninth Synod of Ravenna (Italy) in 1311 was the first official church statement to indiscriminately put pouring and sprinkling on par with immersion. 

I have also found where a number of first generation Protestants suggested that sprinkling was probably used on occasion in NT times, although they generally acknowledged that immersion was normative. Most speak in terms that suggest immersion was the apostolic practice, but that pouring and sprinkling are nonetheless valid and even expressive modes to use. The perceived adversity of immersing infants (or sometimes even people in general) in cold water is by far the most common rationale specifically given for not preferring immersion. Interestingly, the first official church liturgy of any origin to prescribe pouring without so much as mentioning immersion was Calvin's Genevan Church Order (the Latin edition of 1545), even though Calvin affirmed that immersion was the NT practice and never specifically suggested that pouring or sprinkling were even sometimes used. Later polemics against the Baptists increasingly began to argue for the superiority of pouring and sprinkling, and eventually against immersion altogether (of which Dale's series is a prominent example).

At the risk of  I'll share one other historical fact that I think is intriguing to ponder (and one which I have never seen discussed in any published work on baptism). The Westminster divine who successfully led the effort in that assembly to exclude even the mention of immersion as an acceptable mode in the Directory for Public Worship, John Lightfoot, emphatically asserted in some of his writings of that era that immersion was not used in the NT. However, he did an almost complete turnabout on that issue in his magnum opus, which was published some fifteen years later.


----------

