Jesus' Sermon on the Mount - Who was He Speaking to?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristopherPaul

Puritan Board Senior
Jesus\' Sermon on the Mount - Who was He Speaking to?

At His sermon on the mount, specifically in Matthew 6, Jesus expounded upon the law, issued blessings to those who were meek and humble and those who are persecuted for their faith, He blessed those who prayed unlike the hypocrites, who fasted in secret, who stored treasures in heaven, etc, etc, etc.

Ultimately can or should we conclude that he was speaking to His Church?

6:3-4 "But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

If a kind and humble atheist gave to the poor in secret, will God the Father reward him?

6:5 - "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

Will God reward the devout Jew (who does not believe Jesus is the Christ) who prays in secret as Jesus instructed?

6:16-18 - "Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Will God reward a humble Muslim who fasts in this way?

Moving on, what about worrying?

6:25-34 - "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? "And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? "And why are you worried about clothing ? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! "Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?' "For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

God's elect should certainly not need to worry because they seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, but what about the sons of disobedience?








Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by ChristopherPaul]
 
Chris...

One of the phrases Jesus keeps using is, "Your Father." In all of this sermon, He's telling us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like and what our Father expects of us and will do for us. To me, these are all sayings appropriate to any who are a part of the kingdom.

Therefore, if there is a promise that God will be a God to us and to our children, then I do not see any reason to believe that Jesus speaks to any here but who are God's children.

If He tells us not to worry, then we should by all means form the lives of our children around the precious promises that He will keep them as well. Just about all of Christendom teaches their children these principles from the sermon on the mount. So there should be no reason to believe that God is the Father of our children only if they reach some age and have given a full and complete confession of faith.

Everyone teaches their kids to "believe" and "do" all of the things in this sermon. Jesus says that whoever does these things, the will of His Father, is a part of His family and can call God, Father.

It is only in our trying to determine who is and who is not saved that clouds this interpretation. We should be able to say that all who believe and do what Jesus says here, are in fact, children of God. This does not mean that they are saved. It merely means that they are visually a part of His family.

In Christ,

KC
 
He is addressing the Kingdom of God, which is:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
 
Even more specific:

Matthew 5:1-2 Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying..."

No doubt many heard, but the teaching was directed from the Rabbi to his disciples. He did not stand on a rock to address the multitudes, instead, he went up a mountian (a difficult place for all to follow) and then sat down (to sit with "them").
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
He is addressing the Kingdom of God, which is:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
:ditto:
Key here is that he is addressing the visible Church here as well.

Christ's teaching here, as elsewhere, is oft as much a repudiation of the faulty teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees and the fences that had put around the Word, as much as teaching His Church the true meaning and requirements of the Law. Elsewhere He repeatedly corrects "...you have heard it said..." errors in direct contrast to those who had corrupted God's Word. Notice at the end of the Sermon:

(Matthew 7:28-29) And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

When scribes taught, they would say "Rabbi Gamaliel says..." and spoke on the authority of their Rabbinical school. Christ spoke on His own authority and was often challenged on this point because it was so out of step with the way Rabbis taught at the time.

So the sermon is to all who are listening but I think it goes without saying that the only hearers that could be blessed are those who are Christ's. The bar for true righteousness is just too high for a mere civic virtue to receive such blessings.
 
Martin...

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Christopher asked
Now for the big question: Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?

Not unless they believe.

You might be able to claim this on paper (or on the computer screen), but you can't really apply this in practice, can you? If that is the case, we cannot preach anything but the evangel to anyone who has not yet confessed faith in Christ.

Moreover, we teach our children to do these things from the sermon on the mount and we expect them to obey it. And some of them bear fruit because of this teaching. We tell them to believe it, and they are obedient to us. But if they walk away, they haven't really believed. So now we are in a real predicament in our thinking. How have these blessings been shown, but no real belief?

You are left with the only alternative that you believe that God bestows blessings because we have done our part. A child is a child of his own making because he has believed and his reward is blessing.

But isn't this backwards from the rest of Scripture? Aren't we blessed first? Aren't we promised first? Aren't we made children first, before we recognized as children? You're expecting the impossible. Not only that, but you're suggesting that it is because of our own will that we are blessed, we must believe first, right?

Rather, aren't we blessed before being born? If we are born of the Spirit, does not this happen prior to our belief? If anything, we are loved before we love, are we not?

To say that what the sermon on the mount teaches is only for those who believe, in other words, a byproduct for those who believe, renders the promise of God as merited by those who believe. This is backwards from God's perspective.

While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly. This is blessing before belief. And yet, you seem to see it the otherway around...there is belief before blessing.

I find this not only contrary to my own experience, but also contrary to the Scriptures. They are clear. The promises come before the blessing, and the blessing comes before belief. Otherwise, we are not chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world, but chosen in Him as soon as we believe in Him.

I am not discounting the fact that we are given faith to believe before we believe. But this faith is a free gift. It was given before anything was done. Therefore, the promises of God are given as a blessing before faith, not after. If that is the case, God's promises are divided into two classes, those that are salvific in nature, and those that are given after salvation is accomplished. But there is no such division in Scripture. All of the promises of God are in Christ, and in Him, yea and Amen. Therefore, the promises of God precede faith and salvation.

You may argue that God promises something that He doesn't intend to make good on. But really, who are we to say this to God. His purposes and judgment are altogether true and good. Just because we don't understand how it works, does not mean that children are excluded from the promises and blessings of God until they profess faith.

I don't know about you, but God certainly blessed me with true spiritual blessings before I really believed. I grew up in a Christian home. God put me in that home. It certainly was a blessing that He didn't wait for me to believe in order to make it come to pass.

He was taking care of me, too, long before I knew Him or believed in Christ. He spared my life at birth, when I really should have died. And if we recall Psalm 139, we know that God's grace was on us even before one of our days came into being. Does God plan the steps, both of the righteous and unrighteous? You better believe it. Therefore, whatever God promises to those who believe, is bestowed long before they ever believe.

Call it common grace or whatever, there are promises of God we may realize before we truly believe. This is why all are without excuse, for God's ways and power and Godhood are clearly known to His creatures.

So, you can't really mean to discount all that God does in a person prior to a profession of belief. Again, you may suggest it in this forum, but in practice, you simply can't live that way.

In Christ,

KC
 
The Sermon on the Mount is the "par excellance" sermon on the exposition of the Law. No doubt, dittoing KC, the Law is written on every heart, and is bound to be obyed by all (Rom. 1-2). Otherwise, the warnings to those who do not keep the Law becomes meaningless, as an example. The Gentiles even became a law unto themselves in this way. So Christ's sermon leaves no one unscathed.

Christopher asked, "Do any of these promises, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?"

I would ask the question this way:

"Do any of these promises, curses, blessings, and rewards, apply to our children?"

The answer to this is a resounding YES, especially if they have been ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven (which belongs to them) as covenant members.
 
Kevin wrote:-
So, you can't really mean to discount all that God does in a person prior to a profession of belief.

I do not do so. God says, 'I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.' I clearly see the operation of God in my life before I believed.

I was answering Christopher's question. The 'kind and humble atheist' cannot count upon the blessing of God, since neither his kindness nor humility will stand before the searching eye of a thrice holy God; they are as filthy rags. He must be justified by faith or not at all.

And that is the case whether or not the atheist's parents are believers (Ezek 18 ).

Martin
 
Martin...

Children of believers are not atheists. I'm not sure why you mentioned this. The question is, to whom is Jesus speaking? You claim that it is only one who has professed faith in Christ. And we would not disagree with you. However, in practice, everyone in the world is taught the sermon on the mount as something they should heed and do. Our children are taught from a very young age.

We contend that the promises and blessing, and as Matthew has also added, cursing, is to those who heed the teaching of the Lord and those who do not. Jesus was speaking just as much to those who were of the faith, as against those who were not.

So, the question remains for you. Do you believe in both theory and practice that the sermon on the mount is only for those who have professed faith? Or, is it also for their children?

If you do not believe we should teach our kids all the principles of the sermon on the mount, and further assure them of God's blessing when they heed it, then every Sunday School in the world has been completely conflicting and confounding to the least of these. I cannot remember a time when I did not know about the beatitudes or seeking first the kingdom. If this is only for believers, then the Bible must err in saying that God can be "tasted" to see that He is good, since we know that there are those who have tasted and have turned their backs.

You really can't have it both ways. It is inconsistent and places focus on what we do instead of what God has promised.

In Christ,

KC
 
Hello Kevin,
Children of believers are not atheists. I'm not sure why you mentioned this.
I mentioned it because it was mentioned in Christophers original post. However, I did not say that children of believers were all atheists; that would be a strange view to take. But it is no less strange to suppose that the children of believers cannot be atheists. Is that your view?

You continue
If you do not believe we should teach our kids all the principles of the sermon on the mount, and further assure them of God's blessing when they heed it, then every Sunday School in the world has been completely conflicting and confounding to the least of these. I cannot remember a time when I did not know about the beatitudes or seeking first the kingdom.
Doubtless it is a good thing for all people, Christian or not, to be humble, merciful, peacemakers etc. But if anyone supposes that this will ipso facto make them right with God then he has believed a lie. You have touched here on what I see as the deadly danger of junior Sunday Schools- that they encourage those who attend to think of themselves as Christians when there is not the slightest reason for them to suppose any such thing. 'They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, saying, "Peace, peace!" When there is no peace" (Jer 6:14 ).

Like you, I grew up knowing various parts of the Bible, including the Sermon on the Mount, and I formed the impression that because I was British, because I was baptized, because my parents were vaguely Christian, therefore I was a Christian so long as I tried to be generally kind to others. No one ever confronted me with with original sin, and naturally I watered down in my own mind the requirements of the Bible to suit my own rather low level of righteousness, telling myself that fornication was not actually adultery, so it was really not too bad, and so forth. I was a sinner, on my way to hell, and nobody told me! Everybody told me that I was a Christian. Even the Evangelicals I met told me that Jesus loved me, so that was alright, wasn't it? Nobody preached the law to me to drive me to Christ; if they preached it at all, it was to tell me to try a bit harder. Anyway, why should I come to Christ if I was a Christian already?

Mercy, humility and peace-making are not the requirements of Christianity (Matt 5:20 ). Rather they are the fruit of Christian conversion. Sunday Schools should be teaching children that they need to repent and trust Christ for salvation, not telling them that they can be saved by their works or that they are saved already and their works are in some way pleasing to God. That is the way to produce little Pharisees, who thank a God they do not know for a righteousness they do not possess (Luke 18:9ff).

I have actually heard a Sunday School teacher say, "Now children, let's all say 'thank you' to Jesus that we're not like that nasty Pharisee!"

There is quite a bit of good, evangelistic Sunday School material for children produced in Britain. The Metropolitan Tabernacle is well known for it. www.MetropolitanTabernacle.org

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Martin...

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Hello Kevin,

I mentioned it because it was mentioned in Christophers original post. However, I did not say that children of believers were all atheists; that would be a strange view to take. But it is no less strange to suppose that the children of believers cannot be atheists. Is that your view?

My children aren't going to be atheists, not and live under my roof. I don't know why Christian parents would allow this. I find it highly unlikely that any children in Christian homes would grow up to be atheists. Backslidden, yes. But totally unbelieving of God, not likely.

Doubtless it is a good thing for all people, Christian or not, to be humble, merciful, peacemakers etc. But if anyone supposes that this will ipso facto make them right with God then he has believed a lie. You have touched here on what I see as the deadly danger of junior Sunday Schools- that they encourage those who attend to think of themselves as Christians when there is not the slightest reason for them to suppose any such thing. 'They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, saying, "Peace, peace!" When there is no peace" (Jer 6:14 ).

In other words, they are only Christians IF they have made a profession of faith? I don't know about you, but I am not going to trust in my own heart on this issue. Why else would we need assurance? Why would we need to be encouraged?

Another thing, Jesus could not have been talking to anyone here, yet. No one had professed faith in Christ here. Who was He talking to under your constraints? They had repented and been baptized, but not in the trinity and not professing faith in Christ the Son.

Further, what peace are you referring to? The "peace, peace" to which you are referring is speaking peace to those who have obstinately turned their backs on God. You're taking this quite out of context if you believe that we may not give our children assurance that God may indeed save them if it is His will to do so.

Like you, I grew up knowing various parts of the Bible, including the Sermon on the Mount, and I formed the impression that because I was British, because I was baptized, because my parents were vaguely Christian, therefore I was a Christian so long as I tried to be generally kind to others. No one ever confronted me with with original sin, and naturally I watered down in my own mind the requirements of the Bible to suit my own rather low level of righteousness, telling myself that fornication was not actually adultery, so it was really not too bad, and so forth. I was a sinner, on my way to hell, and nobody told me! Everybody told me that I was a Christian. Even the Evangelicals I met told me that Jesus loved me, so that was alright, wasn't it? Nobody preached the law to me to drive me to Christ; if they preached it at all, it was to tell me to try a bit harder. Anyway, why should I come to Christ if I was a Christian already?

I am sorry that you were ever near the gospel but never heard it. We do not live that way, nor is your situation what we are espousing. There is great danger in doing what you saw. But that is not our practice. So, please don't project your experience on all Presbyterians. Your experience is not nearly always the case and should be seen as an abuse of doctrine and practice.

Mercy, humility and peace-making are not the requirements of Christianity (Matt 5:20 ). Rather they are the fruit of Christian conversion. Sunday Schools should be teaching children that they need to repent and trust Christ for salvation, not telling them that they can be saved by their works or that they are saved already and their works are in some way pleasing to God. That is the way to produce little Pharisees, who thank a God they do not know for a righteousness they do not possess (Luke 18:9ff).

Then the Sunday Schools would be always trying to gain a confession and never preach anything else. That is ludicrous. Discipleship does not begin with Point "A", confession and repentence, and cannot go further until that is accomplished. Show me Scripture that even suggests that. The application of the law is a tutor to Christ. In your view, there can be no application until profession. Sorry, that is a very narrow view and it is infantile, spiritually speaking.

I have actually heard a Sunday School teacher say, "Now children, let's all say 'thank you' to Jesus that we're not like that nasty Pharisee!"

Again, I am sorry for your experience. That should never be condoned. But that is not our practice.

There is quite a bit of good, evangelistic Sunday School material for children produced in Britain. The Metropolitan Tabernacle is well known for it. www.MetropolitanTabernacle.org

From the above website:
Lessons for Life
Lessons for Life 1 - 4 each contain a year's Sunday School lessons (aside from special services and anniversaries). Here are lessons with a distinctive challenge for young people growing up in these perilous times. They avoid the presentation of Bible narratives as mere stories, so that the Word of God speaks powerfully to the young, pressing home the great arguments and appeals of the Gospel. These lessons, proved for over twenty-five years in Sunday Schools of all sizes (and situated in some of Britain's toughest communities), have been revised by the author for all who want soul-winning to be the keynote of their Sunday School ministry. They provide a memorable view of all the major events and doctrines of the Bible, and are supplemented by excellent visual aid suggestions and drawings. The Lessons for Life books visual aids (see below) help to apply the lesson and captivate the children's attention. The four volumes provide a lesson series extending over four years. Each lesson contains sufficient material to suit all age-groups, so that teachers may select the amount of narrative and application appropriate for their class.

The final volume in the series includes a presentation of the ten commandments, specially prepared to equip the young to face the alarming challenges of these morally perilous last days.

I see that they are evangelistically focused, but look how they end up. The final volume is application of the law that is to equip the young. How does it equip them if they've not confessed faith? According to you, they can't be given spiritual blessings that would equip them if they have not confessed faith yet.

Sorry, but this is typical of "soul-winning." And it is completely backwards from the biblical narrative. Law leads to Christ. Sounds like they're trying to gain the confession, and then they can preach the law. That's backwards. Not only that, but it isn't fulfilling the great commission to do so. We are not to make converts, but disciples. Their focus, by their own words, is on soul-winning. Sorry, but Christ already won those who are His. Their focus is in the wrong place.

Metropolitan Tabernacle is much better than some, but they are not the end all, be all. I have a respect for their ministry, but they have come a long way from Spurgeon, in the wrong direction.

In Christ,

KC
 
How did Jesus view the children compared to the twelve?

Can a Baptist confidently say that the children of believers are a stiff necked people? Is that the language the Bible uses for our children or just for the heads of households who are sons of wrath?

Does a Baptist actually believe that their two-year old child has grounds to worry about starving to death because they are do not have the mental maturity to confess with their mouths? Or has God provided confidence to be fed based on the faith of the parent?
 
Christ said:

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

The Kingdom belongs to them.

The children were: paidion paidion - infants, children, little ones, of a male child just recently born

We also see that these little children that they did not run up to Jesus on thier own, but were brought to Christ -

Luke 18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them.

bre,foj brephos which means 1) an unborn child, embryo, a foetus 2) a new-born child, an infant, a babe

The children were tender and young in that they were brought, which appears more evidently in that they were infants.

Mothers were bringing thier infants to be blessed of the Messiah, making a covenant priveledge, and Christ told them (the disciples) that they should not hinder them from coming (the mothers bringing the infants, though Christ was being overrun) since the Kingdom belongs to them.

Toioutos estin - acts as a correlative pronoun which is demosntrative to the verb "is" and means that one is "such a kind of" or "that such a thing belongs to the properties of" the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is not that one should act like a little child, like in other verses, but that Christ specifically designates that covenant children own the Kingdom of heaven.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by webmaster]
 
Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
And so we should. We should be bringing them to the Lord in prayer the moment they are born, and even before, asking Him to bless them. But Jesus did not baptize the little children, he only baptized believers (John 4:1 ).

This is not that one should act like a little child, like in other verses, but that Christ specifically designates that covenant children own the Kingdom of heaven.
This is the very theology that led to the collapse of the Church in England in the early 18th Century, and kept India and Burma in darkness until the time of Baptists Carey and Judson. Not only is it not Gospel, but it is not remotely evangelical. If it were true, then it would be back to High Church Anglicanism for me!

It is the simple trusting faith of the small child of which the Lord speaks. Look at the very next verse. v17. 'Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.' This can only mean two things. Either adults are barred from the kingdom of God, or whoever would enter that kingdom must set aside his intellectualism and his worldly wisdom and come like a little child, with simple child-like trust.

On the whole, I vote for the second alternative.

Martin
 
Martin...

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
And so we should. We should be bringing them to the Lord in prayer the moment they are born, and even before, asking Him to bless them. But Jesus did not baptize the little children, he only baptized believers (John 4:1 ).

I'll let 'ole Doc Matt have the rest, but I'd like to know where you get the special insight to see that 1) Jesus baptized anyone, and that 2) these were all professing adults.

Disciple and talmidim are comparative terms. The talmidim were the young ones who were taught to be "disciples" or learners of Moses. I don't think you can make a very strong case from the Bible that disciple must always mean adult. Because from the Jewish tradition, that would be incorrect.

I'd also like to point out that Jesus' disciples did not baptize believers either. What did they believe in? They didn't understand because the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified. So to say that these were believers only, is a stretch. They weren't baptized in the trinity, nor had they professed faith in Christ. They had simply confessed their sins, repented to God the Father, and followed Christ. I assume that your definition of believer is rather a moving target. Perhaps, you can explain what a believer is in John 4 and how that believer is different from Acts, and further, how that believer in John 4 knows that he is different from the believer in Acts.

In Christ,

KC
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
And so we should. We should be bringing them to the Lord in prayer the moment they are born, and even before, asking Him to bless them. But Jesus did not baptize the little children, he only baptized believers (John 4:1 ).
Let's examine the Scripture you use:
John 4:1-2
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),
That demonstrates what? Only proves that:
1. You believe only adult believers are disciples.
2. Infants are therefore not disciples.
3. Therefore, Jesus did not baptize infants.

Of course, the conclusion rests on the a priori assumption which is complicated by all the Scriptures that enjoin us to teach our children.

This is the very theology that led to the collapse of the Church in England in the early 18th Century, and kept India and Burma in darkness until the time of Baptists Carey and Judson. Not only is it not Gospel, but it is not remotely evangelical. If it were true, then it would be back to High Church Anglicanism for me!
And, of course, egalitarian baptistic theology has led to the dumbing down of the Gospel and the spread of all sorts of pseudo-Christian movements like Pentacostalism and Charismania which emphasize experience above the Word.

A study of Evangelicalism will reveal sufficient evangelical zeal for proponents of either side and will also reveal departures from the truth in some quarters. This has no bearing on the argument.

It is the simple trusting faith of the small child of which the Lord speaks. Look at the very next verse. v17. 'Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.' This can only mean two things. Either adults are barred from the kingdom of God, or whoever would enter that kingdom must set aside his intellectualism and his worldly wisdom and come like a little child, with simple child-like trust.

On the whole, I vote for the second alternative.

Martin
Ah yes so He really wasn't pronouncing a blessing upon the little children but only pretending to do so to help us see how we ought to believe.

So let me get this straight - He used people outside of the New Covenant to give those of us inside the New Covenant a model on faith?

Wait, I'm confused...
 
So let me get this straight - He used people outside of the New Covenant to give those of us inside the New Covenant a model on faith?

Rich,

Brother I needed that laugh! Truly Luther and Calvinesqe, that's a compliment!

Larry
 
Originally posted by kceaster


I'll let 'ole Doc Matt have the rest, but I'd like to know where you get the special insight to see that 1) Jesus baptized anyone, and that 2) these were all professing adults.


In Christ,

KC

Joh 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
Joh 3:23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized
Joh 3:24 (for John had not yet been put in prison).
Joh 3:25 Now a discussion arose between some of John's disciples and a Jew over purification.
Joh 3:26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness--look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him."

Can someone tell me who was baptizing in these verses?

was baptizing is ἐβαÌπτιζεν in the Greek in verse 22

he is baptizing is βαπτιÌζει in verse 26

An inquiring mind wants to know.
 
Originally posted by gwine
Can someone tell me who was baptizing in these verses?

was baptizing is ἐβαÌπτιζεν in the Greek in verse 22

he is baptizing is βαπτιÌζει in verse 26

An inquiring mind wants to know.
I don't know. It seems as if it is Jesus baptizing but then John 4:2 casts doubt on that. Just because there is a Chapter break there from St. Jerome doesn't mean that the thoughts at the end of Chapter 3 and the beginning of Chapter 4 are disconnected. The "therefore" at the beginning of Chapter 4 clearly connects the two.

Would it change anything for you or I either way if Jesus did baptize or didn't? Maybe He did baptize at a different point that's not recorded here if we agree that John 4:2 says He did not.

One thing the Scriptures do not say is that Jesus only baptized adults. Any conclusion as to whether He baptized only adults or included children is strictly by inference.
 
Would it change anything for you or I either way if Jesus did baptize or didn't? Maybe He did baptize at a different point that's not recorded here if we agree that John 4:2 says He did not.

Not really. Just wondering whether the Greek referred to Jesus or to his disciples.


One thing the Scriptures do not say is that Jesus only baptized adults. Any conclusion as to whether He baptized only adults or included children is strictly by inference.

Agreed. I was not wondering about that part.
 
Just wondering whether the Greek referred to Jesus or to his disciples.

Hello brother.

Both baptizei (present) and ebaptizev (imperfect) are in the 3rd person singular of the verb baptize, so they both refer to a person as opposed to persons. It can only be referring to the person Jesus.
 
Marcos,

Please help me here:

Greek words are italicized:
John 3:22-4:2
After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized (ebáptizen). 23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. 24 For John had not yet been thrown into prison.
25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified "” behold, He is baptizing (baptízei), and all are coming to Him!"
27 John answered and said,"A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said,'I am not the Christ,' but,'I have been sent before Him.' 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
4:1 Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized (baptízei) more disciples than John 2(though Jesus Himself did not baptize (ebáptizen), but His disciples), 3 He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

Same Greek words are used in Chapter 4 to say very plainly that Christ Himself did not baptize.
 
Rich wrote:-
Ah yes so He really wasn't pronouncing a blessing upon the little children but only pretending to do so to help us see how we ought to believe.

So let me get this straight - He used people outside of the New Covenant to give those of us inside the New Covenant a model on faith?

Wait, I'm confused...

Well, the last bit's right anyway.

1. Of course Jesus blessed the children. Where do I suggest that He didn't? What neither He nor His disciples did was baptize them.

2. Our Lord used many illustrations for our benefit, including an unjust steward and a judge who didn't fear God. Why shouldn't He use little children?

Come on, Rich; you're better than this!

Grave & Peace,

Martin
 
The answer to the question of whether or not the Lord Jesus baptized is not too difficult on the basis of John 4:1.

Our Lord commanded and supervised the baptisms and His disciples performed them.

It is also made clear that those who were baptized were disciples.

Martin
 
Rich, that is interesting, brother. Maybe they're in the singular because the baptisms are attributed to Jesus, even though He Himself didn't actually perform any. I wonder...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top