Acts 19:1-6 and the Re-Baptism of John’s Disciples?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NT Baptism was not inaugurated until the time after Jesus ascended though.

So the Lord went to the right hand of the majesty on High without the NT baptism? And his Apostles similarly. The Baptist argues that He follows Christ in being baptised, so do they revert back to OT ,JB, baptism?
 
So the Lord went to the right hand of the majesty on High without the NT baptism? And his Apostles similarly. The Baptist argues that He follows Christ in being baptised, so do they revert back to OT ,JB, baptism?
water Baptism is not required to be saved, and the Lord Himself was born under the law, and so that baptism that he undertook was to fulfill all righteousness, but the NT water Baptism of the Great Commission waited until he died and rose again to be initiated.
 
I rather propose that Johannine baptism, Jesus' early baptism (via the Apostles), and his later "Baptism of the Great Commission" are all the essentially the same. You'll forgive me if I like the way Kline puts it:

When Jesus began his public ministry, God’s lawsuit with Israel was in the ultimatum stage. At this point, the judicial function of Jesus coincided with that of John. Jesus’ witness had the effect of confirming John’s witness of final warning to Israel, especially to Israel’s officialdom in the Judean area. And since the meaning of the baptismal rite administered by these messengers of the covenant derived from the official nature of their mission, the import of Jesus’ baptism, though separately conducted, would also be essentially the same as John’s...

In brief, then, the early baptism authorized by Jesus was a sign of God’s ultimatum to Israel. When that ultimatum was emphatically rejected, a new phase in the administration of the covenant was entered, Jesus’ ministry of baptism ceasing along with the Johannine message of ultimatum which it had sealed.

The difference between the earlier and the later baptisms authorized by Jesus was the difference between two quite distinct periods in the history of the covenant. The later baptism was of course ordained as a sign of the New Covenant; it was not part of the old lawsuit against Israel. Nevertheless, this new water baptism, appearing so soon after the other and still within the personal ministry of Jesus, would hardly bear a meaning altogether different from the earlier one.
Kline, By Oath Consigned
 
the Lord Himself was born under the law, and so that baptism that he undertook was to fulfill all righteousness,

I have heard this before, but I have yet to hear what law Jesus was fulfilling. I agree that he was fulfilling all righteousness, (Matt. 3:15) but is it a law that Jesus was fulfilling?

I thought this comment was interesting:

The point that made it so proper is stated: “it is proper for us to fulfill all righteousness.” “For us” = John and Jesus. The matter pertains to them alone. This, then, is neither the moral nor the ceremonial law. By associating himself with John in this matter of the baptism Jesus is thinking of their respective offices. It was proper that they should carry out whatever their respective positions required. It is thus that Jesus views his baptism. The view that it is an act of “righteousness” only in so far as it marks the willing obedience of Jesus, God having ordered John to baptize and Jesus (though not needing the baptism) submitting to it, makes the baptism a formality and misunderstands what John’s baptism was. It was not law but gospel, not a demand to obey but a gift of grace to be received and accepted as such. By accepting John’s baptism Jesus is in no sense obeying a law, a useless law in his case; and in no sense accepting grace and pardon, since he is, indeed, sinless. Jesus is choosing baptism by John as the right way by which to enter upon his great office, and he is doing this with a fine sense of propriety including John as well as himself. He, the Sinless One, the very Son of God, chooses to put himself alongside of all the sinful ones for whom John’s sacrament was ordained. He thus connects himself with all instances of John’s baptism; for it is his mediation that makes these truly efficacious for sinners. By thus joining himself to all these instances of John’s baptism he signifies that he is now ready to take upon himself the load of all these sinners, i.e., to assume his redemptive office.​

Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (p. 126). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.
 
I rather propose that Johannine baptism, Jesus' early baptism (via the Apostles), and his later "Baptism of the Great Commission" are all the essentially the same.

I agree.

At one point, were not John and Jesus (via his disciples) baptizing in the same place and at the same time? At this point were not their baptisms even more than "essentially" the same? What am I misunderstanding something?

John 3:22-23
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
 
I agree.

At one point, were not John and Jesus (via his disciples) baptizing in the same place and at the same time? At this point were not their baptisms even more than "essentially" the same? What am I misunderstanding something?

John 3:22-23
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
The water baptism of the NT though is something to me brand new, and had to do into effect once the Messiah came,died, raised, and ascended back to the Father . This new baptism was put into effect when the church was born on Pentecost.
 
When Christ said ,"suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," what was He meaning ? The word righteousness is often used as a synonym for the word, or law. He being born under the law was subject to it and needs fulfil it. Psalm 119 shows this use of righteousness as another description of the law. So what law did he fulfil?
Numbers 8: 6-7 explains it. The Levites had to be purified and set apart for the ministry, which the Lord also had to be. "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean." So the baptism of Christ qualified Him for the ministry, and also as flesh of flesh and representative of His people he had to undergo all that they were subject to. The Lord then was sprinkled according to the rule, no doubt through the use of a bunch of hyssop.
 
The water baptism of the NT though is something to me brand new

It is better and more complete but "brand new?" What do you think about my post you just replied to? Do you think the people that Jesus baptized (John 4:1,2) had to be baptized again after Pentecost?
 
No, would rather see this as how Reformed Baptists would tend to see it.

Preposterous! I was a particular baptist for half of my walk. All PB's are fully aware that the gospel started in Gen 3 and was given to Abraham. Gal 3:8

This is not the first time you have been corrected on this idea using scripture. Are you listening?

LBC of 1689:
Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof
1._____ The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.
( Genesis 3:15; Revelation 13:8 )
 
It is better and more complete but "brand new?" What do you think about my post you just replied to? Do you think the people that Jesus baptized (John 4:1,2) had to be baptized again after Pentecost?

Ed,
I don't believe Jesus baptized anyone...at least according to the citation you use.
 
I don't believe Jesus baptized anyone...at least according to the citation you use.

I know that. I was using it in the same sense as the Bible uses it in Jn. 4:1 - "Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John" The Bible is simply stating that the baptisms were done under Jesus' authority. I'm not stupid. :)
 
Ed,
Forgive me if my question came off as condescending; I know you are not stupid, pal. I figured I was misunderstanding.
 
Romans 6:3

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

If John's baptism was Christian baptism, how were the OT saints, baptized into Christ's death?
 
Did John the Baptist, baptize in the Trinity as the commission commands?

The Esteemed John Lightfoot says no:

Secondly, In reference to the form of John’s baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized “in the name of the Messias now ready to come:” and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Mal. 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7, 31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them “in the name of Jesus;” because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, “Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in ‘the name of Jesus,’ that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; “Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ:” and that, Acts 8:16, “They were baptized in the name of Jesus.”

But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt, 28:19. For since it was very much controverted among the Jews about the true Messias, and that unbelieving nation denied, stiffly and without ceasing, that Jesus of Nazareth was he (under which virulent spirit they labour even to this day), it was not without cause, yea, nor without necessity, that they baptized in the name of Jesus; that by that seal might be confirmed this most principal truth in the gospel, and that those that were baptized might profess it; that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias. But among the Gentiles, the controversy was not concerning the true Messias, but concerning the true God: among them, therefore, it was needful that baptism should be conferred in the name of the true God, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

We suppose, therefore, that men, women, and children came to John’s baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they standing in Jordan were taught by John that they were baptized into the name of the Messias, that was now immediately to come; and into the profession of the doctrine of the gospel concerning faith and repentance; that they plunged themselves into the river, and so came out. And that which is said of them, that they were baptized by him “confessing their sins,” is to be understood according to the tenour of the Baptist’s preaching; not that they did this man by man, or by some auricular confession made to John, or by openly declaring some particular sins; but when the doctrine of John exhorted them to repentance and to faith in the Messias, they renounced and disowned the doctrine and opinion of justification by their works, wherewith they had been beforetime leavened, and acknowledged and confessed themselves sinners.

Ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ· In Jordan.] John could not baptize in any part of Jordan, so it were within the bounds of Judea (which the evangelists assert), which had not been dried up, and had afforded a passage to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, and were now entering into the promised land.



John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 65–67.

I give some leverage to the fact that the commissional command had not yet been given...
 
I encourage everyone to read Lightfoot on the matter as he goes into great detail on John's baptism, agreeing that the baptism was actually a Proselyte ritual but as well, calling it the same baptism as the Church today; though, he describes the act itself as a plunging under the water-even going to the extent of saying that if a pinky finger were left out of the water, it is no baptism.
 
If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, would it not have to follow a trinitarian formula?

Lightfoot says that it wasn't trinitarian:

"
III. The baptism of proselytes was an obligation to perform the law; that of John was an obligation to repentance. For although proselytical baptism admitted of some ends,—and circumcision of others,—yet a traditional and erroneous doctrine at that time had joined this to both, that the proselyte covenanted in both, and obliged himself to perform the law; to which that of the apostle relates, Gal. 5:3, “I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

But the baptism of John was a ‘baptism of repentance;’ Mark 1:4: which being undertaken, they who were baptized professed to renounce their own legal righteousness; and, on the contrary, acknowledged themselves to be obliged to repentance and faith in the Messias to come. How much the Pharisaical doctrine of justification differed from the evangelical, so much the obligation undertaken in the baptism of proselytes differed from the obligation undertaken in the baptism of John: which obligation also holds amongst Christians to the end of the world.

IV. That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he “baptized in Jordan;” that he baptized “in Ænon, because there was much water there;” and that Christ, being baptized, “came up out of the water:” to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, “Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,” &c. Some complain, that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism; or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging. This is no place to dispute of these things. Let us return these three things only for a present answer:—

1. That the notion of washing in John’s baptism differs from ours, in that be baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too,—into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us who are born Christians: the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement, indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally,—that we, being polluted, have need of washing: but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain, indeed, they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water,—when, in truth, this argues washing and purification as well as that. But those who were baptized by John were blemished with another stain, and that an outward one, and after a manner visible; that is, a polluted religion,—namely, Judaism, or heathenism; from which, if, according to the custom of the nation, they passed by a deeper and severer washing,—they neither underwent it without reason; nor with any reason may it be laid upon us, whose condition is different from theirs.

2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither necessarily to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away, because it was accompanied with so much severity. “In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. R. Joshua Ben Levi said unto them, Do ye go about to take away that which hedges in Israel from transgression?” Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon the neck of all nations, which seemed too rough to the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? it is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.

3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to have been threefold in the history of the New Testament.

Secondly, In reference to the form of John’s baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized “in the name of the Messias now ready to come:” and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Mal. 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7, 31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them “in the name of Jesus;” because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, “Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in ‘the name of Jesus,’ that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; “Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ:” and that, Acts 8:16, “They were baptized in the name of Jesus.”

But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt, 28:19



John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 63–66.
 
If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, would it not have to follow a trinitarian formula?

Lightfoot says that it wasn't trinitarian:

"
III. The baptism of proselytes was an obligation to perform the law; that of John was an obligation to repentance. For although proselytical baptism admitted of some ends,—and circumcision of others,—yet a traditional and erroneous doctrine at that time had joined this to both, that the proselyte covenanted in both, and obliged himself to perform the law; to which that of the apostle relates, Gal. 5:3, “I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

But the baptism of John was a ‘baptism of repentance;’ Mark 1:4: which being undertaken, they who were baptized professed to renounce their own legal righteousness; and, on the contrary, acknowledged themselves to be obliged to repentance and faith in the Messias to come. How much the Pharisaical doctrine of justification differed from the evangelical, so much the obligation undertaken in the baptism of proselytes differed from the obligation undertaken in the baptism of John: which obligation also holds amongst Christians to the end of the world.

IV. That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he “baptized in Jordan;” that he baptized “in Ænon, because there was much water there;” and that Christ, being baptized, “came up out of the water:” to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, “Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,” &c. Some complain, that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism; or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging. This is no place to dispute of these things. Let us return these three things only for a present answer:—

1. That the notion of washing in John’s baptism differs from ours, in that be baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too,—into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us who are born Christians: the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement, indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally,—that we, being polluted, have need of washing: but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain, indeed, they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water,—when, in truth, this argues washing and purification as well as that. But those who were baptized by John were blemished with another stain, and that an outward one, and after a manner visible; that is, a polluted religion,—namely, Judaism, or heathenism; from which, if, according to the custom of the nation, they passed by a deeper and severer washing,—they neither underwent it without reason; nor with any reason may it be laid upon us, whose condition is different from theirs.

2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither necessarily to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away, because it was accompanied with so much severity. “In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. R. Joshua Ben Levi said unto them, Do ye go about to take away that which hedges in Israel from transgression?” Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon the neck of all nations, which seemed too rough to the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? it is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.

3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to have been threefold in the history of the New Testament.

Secondly, In reference to the form of John’s baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized “in the name of the Messias now ready to come:” and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Mal. 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7, 31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them “in the name of Jesus;” because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, “Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in ‘the name of Jesus,’ that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; “Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ:” and that, Acts 8:16, “They were baptized in the name of Jesus.”

But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt, 28:19



John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 63–66.
Scott, note that he claims that John and the Apostles baptized the Jews in the name of Jesus, and that they baptized the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, would it not have to follow a trinitarian formula?
Lightfoot says that it wasn't trinitarian:

We had a good discussion last night, at a small group I belong to, that was helpful to me. We were on Luke 3:1-18 about John the Baptist call to active duty.

I stated in a previous post "At this point were not their baptisms even more than 'essentially' the same"? I guess I implied that the two baptisms were exactly the same. They were not. John knew about the Holy Spirit after Jesus' baptism, but I agree that there is no evidence that he performed Trinitarian baptism. My contention is and had been that John's baptism was saving to those who truly repented and believed and that the baptisms that John and his disciples and Jesus' disciples were the same and needed not to be repeated. I admit that I could be wrong, but this is what I have thought for some while. From Genesis 3:15 and the very early believers through to Abraham's circumcision there was a lot of changes--lots more revelation--, and the changes continued under Moses where the sacrifice of redemption for the firstborn was added. But the sacrament was no more and no less effective under Moses than under Abraham.

BTW - Did you ever notice the change in the wording of the fourth commandment from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy 5? The reason for remembering the Day in Exodus wasCreation, while in Deut. 5:15 it was their deliverance from bondage. So even during Moses ministry, there were some changes.

Anyway, I think we are at a stalemate so I will probably not be posting to this thread anymore.

God bless you and thanks for your input.

Ed
 
BTW - Did you ever notice the change in the wording of the fourth commandment from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy 5? The reason for remembering the Day in Exodus wasCreation, while in Deut. 5:15 it was their deliverance from bondage. So even during Moses ministry, there were some changes.

Interesting conversation!

Just a comment on the above. The change from creation to redemption is a demonstration that what the Sabbath commemorates can change. The Christian Sabbath operates according to the same principle.

I'm not sure if the change from Exodus to Deuteronomy is evidence of an actual change from one to the next. In other words, the second was not an annulment of the first but expanded it. The Christian Sabbath celebrates creation as well as redemption and the resurrection, though the resurrection is in the forefront.

But that's another subject. ;)
 
Preposterous! I was a particular baptist for half of my walk. All PB's are fully aware that the gospel started in Gen 3 and was given to Abraham. Gal 3:8

This is not the first time you have been corrected on this idea using scripture. Are you listening?

LBC of 1689:
Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof
1._____ The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.
( Genesis 3:15; Revelation 13:8 )
I agree that the Covenant of Grace was found in the OT, but the church itself was not, and that water baptism of the NT came in with the birth of the church.
 
I encourage everyone to read Lightfoot on the matter as he goes into great detail on John's baptism, agreeing that the baptism was actually a Proselyte ritual but as well, calling it the same baptism as the Church today; though, he describes the act itself as a plunging under the water-even going to the extent of saying that if a pinky finger were left out of the water, it is no baptism.
NT water baptism was into the trinity, and was done when one had received Yeshua as their messiah, so how would the Baptizer be doing that, as Trinity not used among the Jews on the whole, and Messiah had not yet died and rose again?
 
@Scott Bushey, I'm having trouble understanding just what you're arguing for, and maybe that's my fault. Do you believe that John's baptism was substantially the same as Christian baptism, or no?
 
NT water baptism was into the trinity, and was done when one had received Yeshua as their messiah, so how would the Baptizer be doing that, as Trinity not used among the Jews on the whole, and Messiah had not yet died and rose again?

(loop started) You do understand that the OT saints were saved in the same fashion as we are? (loop completed)
 
@Scott Bushey, I'm having trouble understanding just what you're arguing for, and maybe that's my fault. Do you believe that John's baptism was substantially the same as Christian baptism, or no?

Hi Tyler,
I'm not really arguing for anything per se-just discussing and sweeping up some dust I find; Do I believe John's baptism was a Christian baptism? Yes and no. Since it was not trinitarian, that may pose a small, inconsequential problem. As well, the issue of Jewish washings plays a part in the equation-which have always been (as Lightfoot notes); like, they were germane to the faith of the Jews from early on and what John was doing may have not been seen as anything odd at that point. Ultimately, just thinking out loud. I am well aware that most prominent commentators say that the baptisms of John were Christian-to which, ultimately, I am not losing sleep over-however, I am a thinking man, hence I try and not leave many stones unturned.
 
Hi Tyler,
I'm not really arguing for anything per se-just discussing and sweeping up some dust I find; Do I believe John's baptism was a Christian baptism? Yes and no. Since it was not trinitarian, that may pose a small, inconsequential problem. As well, the issue of Jewish washings plays a part in the equation-which have always been (as Lightfoot notes); like, they were germane to the faith of the Jews from early on and what John was doing may have not been seen as anything odd at that point. Ultimately, just thinking out loud. I am well aware that most prominent commentators say that the baptisms of John were Christian-to which, ultimately, I am not losing sleep over-however, I am a thinking man, hence I try and not leave many stones unturned.
Thanks for clarifying, brother. I think we can all agree that there are elements of continuity and discontinuity between the two. Those elements are all worth discussing.
 
Lighfoot cites Maimonides:

II. All the nation of Israel do assert, as it were with one mouth, that all the nation of Israel were brought into the covenant, among other things, by baptism. “Israel (saith Maimonides, the great interpreter of the Jewish law) was admitted into the covenant by three things,—namely, by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt; as it is said, ‘None uncircumcised shall eat of the passover.’ Baptism was in the wilderness before the giving of the law; as it is said, ‘Thou shalt sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments.’ ”

III. They assert, that that infinite number of proselytes in the day of David and Solomon were admitted by baptism: “Thex Sanhedrims received not proselytes in the days of David and Solomon: not in the days of David, lest they should betake themselves to proselytism out of a fear of the kingdom of Israel: not in the days of Solomon, lest they might do the same by reason of the glory of the kingdom. And yet abundance of proselytes were made in the days of David and Solomon before private men; and the great Sanhedrim was full of care about this business: for they would not cast them out of the church, because they were baptized,” &c.

IV. “Whensoever any heathen will betake himself, and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the law upon him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation, are required: but if it be a woman, baptism and oblation.”

John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 55.

One can see that washings were the norm; it is the particular washing that is important in John's case-a shift had occurred.

Consider the gospel that Abraham rec'd, the apostles and Christ preached and the gospel of our age. All, very different in application, but yet, the same in essence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top