Was John's Baptism Valid?

[ChristopherPaul]

Did those who were baptized by John have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?

Did those who were baptized by Jesus' disciples have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?

 

[Bladestunner316]

IF we say his baptism was not valid then were saying Jesus baptism was invalid. Im not gona say that.

 

[Puritanhead]

Didn't John the Baptist baptize the Apostles? He had an authority and calling.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Must we not conclude then that their baptism's were the same in mode and application as the Church's baptisms today?

 

[Bladestunner316]

that depends on the church-the 'christian' church is so fragmented that baptism is done differently and is meant differently almost everywhere.

blade

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Must we not conclude then that their baptism's were the same in mode and application as the Church's baptisms today?

John the Baptist did it right the first time by submersion, and then along came the unwashed Romanists and Presbyterians.



[Edited on 6-30-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Must we not conclude then that their baptism's were the same in mode and application as the Church's baptisms today?

John the Baptist did it right the first time by submersion, and than along came the Romanists and Presbyterians.

There you go!

 

[BobVigneault]

Acts 18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

It seems that from this passage that the outward sign was sufficient but his understanding was similar to that which the apostles had before Pentecost. Aquila and Priscilla had to get him caught up.

I believe John's baptism was sufficient as a boundary marker to associate the receiver with the community of faith but obviously it didn't contain the full revelation of Christ's redeeming work which would come after the Spirit was poured into the disciples.

[Edited on 1-18-2006 by BobVigneault]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Did those who were baptized by John have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?

Good question. I wonder what to do with this passage, for example:

Acts 19
3 And he said to them, "œInto what then were you baptized?"
So they said, "œInto John´s baptism."
4 Then Paul said, "œJohn indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It surely sounds like they were baptized again.

But I know some people disagree.

 

[Puritanhead]

I'm confused... It's amazing how one can read the text... and never dig into it. I confess to never contemplating this question before now.

My natural inclination is to reflexively sense a paedo-baptist plot.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I'm confused... It's amazing how one can read the text... and never dig into it. I confess to never contemplating this question before now.

My natural inclination is to reflexively sense a paedo-baptist plot.

Actually, I would think that saying John's or Jesus' baptisms were "valid" would satisfy the Baptists who insist on using Jesus' 30 year old baptism as a defense for the Credo-only position. Even if "valid", I do not think so, but nevertheless, the common Paedo response to such is that Jesus was circumcised as an infant and John's baptism was for a different purpose than the baptism's of today.

Anyway, I have no secret Paedo-plot in mind with this thread. It is a serious question and I would rather we refrain from Paedo/Credo-only debates.

 

[cupotea]

I'm of the opnion that the notion of "validity" doesn't apply to John's baptism; that it would be more accurate to say that it was "incomplete." After all, it *was* only for dealing with confession of sins. And John himself noted that Jesus would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.

Hence John's baptism belongs in essence to the old covenant, yet points to the new, and is fulfilled with the gift of the Christ Himself and the gift of the Spirit.

Immersion is a wonderful symbol. I'd like to do it all the time. But it's not necessary.

Along the same lines, at least one early congregation used a sarcophogas for their baptisms. Imagine the power of that symbol! I once told members of my congregation that if we desire the fullness of the symbol, then instead of a baptismal font, or even a pool, we should have someone make us a water-proof casket and set it up in front of the church every time we wish to celebrate the sacrament. (The looks on their faces was priceless!)

 

[BobVigneault]

I think to do this question justice we would have to read and introduce the rabbinic writings and the understanding and influences that lead to John's baptism. The mikvah, or ceremonial washing is probably a good place to start. I don't have the time to write what I would like. So many thoughts, so little time.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
I think to do this question justice we would have to read and introduce the rabbinic writings and the understanding and influences that lead to John's baptism. The mikvah, or ceremonial washing is probably a good place to start. I don't have the time to write what I would like. So many thoughts, so little time.

I too think this is very important.

I found this section from James M. Chaney's book William The Baptist very helpful in understanding why Jesus was required to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness":

P.-- "May I ask you why John baptized, and what was the nature or object of his baptism?"

W.--" John baptized because God sent him to baptize, as John himself tells us. As to the object of his baptism, he said, 'I baptize you with water unto repentance.' "

P.-- "And what does 'unto repentance' mean?"

W.-- "I suppose the meaning is, that baptism was to show them that they were sinful, needed cleansing, and should repent of their sins."

P.-- "And how was it with Jesus?"

W.-- "Of course, in his case, it was different. He, himself, tells us why he was baptized, and the object of it. 'Thus,' said he 'it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.' "

P.-- "And what does he mean by 'righteousness.' "

W.--"I think I am prepared to answer that question, as I have just been studying the first five chapters of Romans, where this word frequently occurs. Dora and I were very much interested it it. I had occasion to study this word particularly. It is a legal term, and divers from holiness, as the latter relates to inward purity, and the former has reference to our relation to the law; doing what the law directs."

P.-- "I admire your skill in interpretation. I do not see how your answer could be improved. It would seem, then, that there was some law making it necessary for Christ to he baptized."

W.-- "It would seem so from this language; but I never examined into the matter, and I am not very familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures."

P.-- "The baptism of Jesus is interesting and important for other reasons, different from those for which we are now examining it. As some of these facts are necessary for a clear understanding of this, I will mention them: Jesus is, emphatically, our Great High Priest. He is the only real priest that was ever in the world. Aaron's priesthood was typical of his, so that Aaron and his descendants may be called typical priests, and Christ the real priest. The Aaronic priesthood all pertained to the tribe of Levi, and were the descendants of Aaron. But Jesus belonged to another tribe, 'of which,' as Paul says, 'no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe, Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.' Heb. vii. 13, 14, and in verse twelve, he says, 'For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.' Now, when the Aaronic priesthood was first instituted, the tribe to which it pertained was, in a formal manner, consecrated, set apart to this high calling. Whether, in subsequent ages, every priest was thus set apart, as he entered on his priestly office, it does not appear. But when so great a change occurred as Paul speaks of, a change to another tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood, then the law of consecration should be complied with; and it was to this law that Jesus referred in the language used by him."

W.-- "Your statements are interesting and instructive, and I see very clearly that it was to such a law that he referred when he said, 'Thus it becometh me to fulfill all righteousness.' "

P.-- "If the means or mode of consecration in that first instance could be ascertained, it would afford light on the second; I. e., the consecration of Jesus, his conforming to the law, and thus fulfilling all righteousness.' "

W.-- "I wish it had been given in detail. It would have thrown light upon, and perhaps settled this question, that has caused so much wrangling among the people of God."

P.-- "That is a good wish; and I am happy to inform you that the method of consecration has been carefully preserved in the sacred records. Will you please turn to Numbers 8:5-7, and read?"

W.-- " 'And the Lord spake unto Moses, 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.

P.-- "That is the law which Christ said he must obey to fulfill all righteousness."

W.-- "Is it certain that he had reference to this law?"

P.-- "It is CERTAIN, according to his own words, that there was some law with which he must comply." "Again, it is CERTAIN that in complying with the law, it involved the use of water.

"Again, it is CERTAIN that he felt that he must comply with that law, because he was about entering upon his priestly work, not as a descendant of Aaron, or of the tribe of Levi, but as a member of another tribe -- Judah.

"Again, it is CERTAIN that the law quoted was for the very purpose for which Jesus wished to be baptized.

"Again, it is CERTAIN that if this is not the law to which referred, then no such law was in existence.

"Again, it is CERTAIN that if there was no such law on record, there would have been no propriety in Jesus saying it was necessary for him to be baptized to comply with the law.

"And the seventh thing CERTAIN is, that he referred to this law."

 

[biblelighthouse]

Why was Jesus Baptized at age 30?

Even though John baptized Jesus, we really cannot say that Christ received "John's baptism". Let me explain:

* John's baptism was for sinners (Matthew 3:1-6) --- but Jesus was not a sinner.
* John's baptism was unto repentance (Matthew 3:11) --- but Jesus did not need to repent.
* John baptized to prepare the way for the Lord (Luke 1:17) --- but Jesus didn't need to prepare to receive himself.

In fact, John himself felt that it was improper for him to baptize Jesus (Matthew 3:14). How did Jesus change John's mind? Why did Jesus need to be baptized?

Jesus simply told John that "it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). And we know from Deuteronomy 6:25 that righteousness has to do with obedience to the law. So Jesus was submitting to baptism in order to fulfill Old Testament law. Jesus had already submitted to the Old Testament law of circumcision (Leviticus 12:3, Luke 2:21), he went to the temple (Leviticus 12:2-8 and Luke 2:22-23), partook of the the Passover (Exodus 34:23, Luke 2:41), and observed the Jewish feasts (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:3, John 17:10). But what Old Testament law had to do with baptism?

Christ's baptism was the ceremonial act of His ordination to the high priesthood. Jesus Christ was (and is) a priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14, 5:5; 9:11). And according to Exodus 29:4, priests had to be washed with water as a part of their ordination.

Before any man could become a priest, three things were required:

* He must be 30 years old (Numbers 4:3,47). --- This is why Christ's age at His baptism is given as 30 years (Luke 3:23).
* He must be called of God as was Aaron, the first high priest (Exodus 28:1). --- Christ was called (Hebrews 5:4-10).
* He must be washed with water (Exodus 29:4; Leviticus 8:6) by one already a priest. --- John the baptist was a priest, inheriting the office from his father (Exodus 29:9; Numbers 25:13; Luke 1:4,13). Christ knew His call, waited until He was 30 years old and then came to John "to fulfill all righteousness," that is, to meet the last demand of the Old Testament Law for a priest before He began His public ministry.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Joseph, did you read my post?

What you said is indeed good stuff and is more detailed than my pericope, but a reiteration of the point nonetheless.

 

[Saiph]

Forgive the length, but I found this in my various theological papers folder:

I have no idea where it came from.

John's baptism is frequently omitted in discussions of Christian baptism, but this should not be the case, since John the Baptist is a pivotal figure in the overlap between the old and new covenants. It is important to remember, in this regard, that circumcision is not only a sign of blessing, but also "a sign of Christ's redemptive judgment with its benedictions and maledictions alike." If true, this means that we must expand any discussion of baptism to also include the idea that baptism also is a sign of blessing and of curse. At this point, Kline asks the rhetorical question, "must we enlarge our theology of baptism so as to see it in a more comprehensive symbol of the eschatological judgment that consummates in the covenant of which baptism is the sign?" [Kline, BOC, 50].

The answer, says Dr. Kline, is yes.

2. This need to expand our notion of baptism becomes clear when we take a look at the baptism of John, and his role in redemptive history, as the background for our discussion of Christian baptism.

B. John-- a messenger of judgment bringing God's ultimatum to his unfaithful people

1. Though it is easy to overlook this point, there is a direct connection made by John himself to Jesus in terms of their baptisms [Matthew 3:11-12]. In all of this, notes Kline, it is vital to notice that "in the revelation associated with John, baptism is emphatically a sign of eschatological judgment" [Kline, BOC, 51]. This means that John's baptism occupies a transitory role between circumcision and Christian baptism.

2. Kline's comments in this regard are extremely significant in understanding the nature of God's judgment upon unbelieving Israel, his own disobedient covenant people, now under the covenant curses because of their unfaithfulness. John comes as the last of the Old Testament prophets, announcing God's judgment upon Israel. According to Kline: "In order to see the mission of John the Forerunner in proper historical perspective it will be useful to review certain procedures followed in ancient covenant administration. Of special interest at this point is the institution of the covenant lawsuit...because of the contribution it makes to our understanding of the historical function of the prophets....When a vassal failed to satisfy the obligations of the sworn treaty, the suzerain instituted a covenant lawsuit against him. The legal process was conducted by messengers. In the first of its two distinct phases messengers delivered one or more warnings. These were couched in a form that reflected the original pattern of the treaty. Stylistically interrogation was a distinctive feature. The vassal was reminded of the suzerain's benefits and of the treaty stipulations, explanation of his offenses was demanded, and he was admonished to mend his ways. He was also confronted anew with the curses of the covenant, now in the form of an ultimatum, and warned of the vanity of all hope of escape....If the messenger of the great king was rejected, imprisoned, and especially if he was killed, the legal process moved into its next phase. This was a declaration of war as an execution of the sacred sanctions of the treaty, and so as a visitation of the oath deities against the offender, a trial by ordeal" [Kline, BOC, 52]. Thus the long succession of prophets throughout Israel's history are messengers from the Great King, fulling the terms of the covenant, and demanding that Israel give account for forgetting their covenant obligations.

3. The covenant lawsuit, notes Kline, is the context for the mission of God's prophets to Israel, including John the Baptist. "The mission of the Old Testament prophets, those messengers of Yahweh to enforce the covenant mediated to Israel through Moses, is surely to be understood within the juridical framework of the covenant lawsuit. So too the mission of John was sent with the word of ultimatum from Yahweh to his covenant violating vassal, Israel" [Kline BOC, 52]. Indeed this impending judgment upon Israel seems to be in our Lord's mind in a number of parables, especially the parable of the tenants [Matthew 21:33 ff.; Mark 21:1 ff.; and Luke 20:9 ff.]. The landowners beat some of the servants and killed others. This is certainly a reference to Jesus and John the Baptist, since the question immediately preceding this parable is the heated debate between Jesus and the leaders of Israel debating the nature of John's baptism [Matthew 21:23-32; Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8]. According to Kline, "Jesus himself was of course the lord of the vineyard's son, who was cast out and slain. Because Israel had repudiated his lordship and despised the ultimatum, God would inflict on them the vengeance of the covenant. In fact, Jesus, as the final messenger of the covenant, was declaring the verdict against Israel in the very process of speaking unto them this parable" [Kline BOC, 52, 53]. In this, we see clear evidence of a covenant lawsuit brought by the Great King against his disobedient vassal, since here, Jesus is debating with the leaders of Israel about the exact nature of his own authority [Matthew 21:23; Mark 11:28; Luke 20:2].

4. This is also the way in which the prophet Malachi had spoken. According to Kline, "To the same effect as Jesus' parable of the vineyard had been Malachi's prophetic interpretation of the coming Lord and Forerunner; he, too, depicted them as the bearers of the ultimatum and the final verdict. For Malachi spoke of two messengers, the one called `my [i.e., the Lord's] messenger' and the other, `the messenger of the covenant' [Malachi 3:1]. Of the first he wrote: `he shall prepare the way before me.' Again, Malachi spoke a coming Elijah [i.e., John; cf. Matthew 11:14; 17:12 f.; Mark 9:12 f., Luke 1:17] as a precursor of `the great and terrible day of the Lord.' His mission was to be one of warning lest Israel's Lord smite them `with a curse' [Malachi 4:5, 6]. For at his fiery advent the Lord would refine his people by judgment [cf. Malachi 3:2 ff.]" [Kline BOC, 53, 54].

5. As Kline notes, "What is narrated in the Gospels concerning the ministry of John [the Baptist] comports fully with the understanding of his role as that of messenger of the covenant to declare the Lord's ultimatum of eschatological judgment. The voice in the wilderness cried `repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' [Matthew 3:2]. It warned of `the wrath to come' and of the vanity of reliance on external earthly relationships, even descent from Abraham. If the trees did not bring forth satisfactory fruit, if they were not properly circumcised unto the Lord [cf. Leviticus 19:23-25], then they must be cursed as a cumbrance to the ground and cut off. The axe was even now `laid unto the root' to inflict this judgment of circumcision" [Kline BOC, 54]. The covenant curse, will now fall upon Israel, the unfaithful servant. The axe will now fall on the root of the tree which does not bear fruit fit for repentance [Matthew 3:8].


6. What about the water being used as a sign of eschatological judgment? In Kline's view this finds ample background in the "figurative use of water in the prophets [and] it is the cleansing property of water that is in view. Moreover, John's baptism is called a `baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins [Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3]. Consequently, the baptismal waters of John have been understood as symbolic of a washing away of the uncleanness of sins. But the possibility must be probed whether this water rite did not dramatize more plainly and pointedly the dominant theme in John's proclamation (particularly in the earlier stage before the baptism of Jesus), namely, the impending judicial ordeal which would discriminate and separate between the chaff and the wheat, rendering a verdict of acceptance, but also of rejection" [Kline, BOC, 54]. Thus if we see John's baptism in light of the covenant lawsuit, John being the last of the prophets, then his baptism is primarily as sign of the impending judgment to come upon Israel as foretold by Malachi.

C. Baptism An Ordeal in Water

1. In many ancient Near-Eastern treaty rites and ceremonies, appeal to the protection and impending wrath of the "gods" was an important part of civil procedure. In these secular rituals, Kline points out that "the two common elemental forces that functioned as ordeal powers were water and fire. So it is, too, as Peter observes, in cosmic history. God's judgment of the ancient world was by water, and the day of judgment awaiting the present heaven and earth will be an ordeal by fire [II Peter 3:5-7]....Archetype of water ordeals was the Noahic deluge. The main features of the subsequent divine river-trials were all found the judgment of the flood: the direct revelation of divine verdict, the use of water as the ordeal element, the overpowering of the condemned and the deliverance of the justified, and the entrance of the ark-saved heirs of the new world into the possession of the erst-while estates of the ungodly. The other outstanding water ordeals of the Old Testament history were those which Moses and Joshua led Israel at the Red Sea and the Jordan. These too, were acts of redemptive judgment wherein God vindicated the cause of those who called upon his name and condemned their adversaries. The exodus ordeal, with Israel coming forth safe and the Egyptians overwhelmed in the depths, striking exemplified the dual potential of the ordeal process. In the Jordan ordeal, the dispossession of the condemned by the acquitted was prominent. At that historical juncture the rightful ownership of Canaan was precisely the legal issue at stake, and God declared in favor of Israel by delivering them from Jordan's overflowing torrents. Thereby Israel's contemplated conquest of the land as vindicated as a holy war, a judgment of God" [Kline, BOC, 56]. Thus water ordeals have a significant Old Testament background--blessing and curse, which serves not only as the background for the baptism of John, but Christian baptism as well.

2. According to Kline, this puts John's baptism in redemptive-historical context. "The baptismal sign of [John's] mission...[is] a symbolic water ordeal, a dramatic enactment of the imminent messianic judgment. In such a visualization of the coming judgment John will have been resuming the prophetic tradition of picturing the messianic mission as a second Red Sea judgment and so as a water ordeal [see Isaiah 11:10-16; 27:1; 12, 13; 51:10, 11]. Indeed, read in the light of the history of covenant ordeals, the whole record of John's ministry points to the understanding of his water rite an ordeal sign rather than as a mere ceremonial bath of purification. The description of John's baptism as `unto the remission of sins,' which is usually regarded as suggesting the idea of spiritual cleaning is even more compatible with the forensic conception of a verdict of acquittal rendered in a judicial ordeal. The time had come when here in the Jordan River, where once Yahweh had declared through an ordeal that the promised land belonged to Israel, he was requiring the Israelites to confess their forfeiture of the blessings of his kingdom and their liability to the wrath to come. Yet John's proclamation was a preaching of `good tidings' to the people [Luke 3:18] because it invited the repentant to anticipate the messianic judgment in a symbolic ordeal in the Jordan, so securing for themselves beforehand a verdict of the remission of sin against the coming judgment. To seal a holy remnant by baptism unto the messianic kingdom was the proper purpose of the bearer of the ultimatum of the Great King." [Kline, BOC 56, 57]. Thus John's baptism serves to call true Israel to repentance, setting the remnant apart, and sparing them from the judgment yet to come. Thus John's baptism, is a provisional measure, and is a sign of impending judgment upon Israel and blessing upon those who repent of their sins.

3. Additional evidence for this comes from the use of the term "baptism" to refer to historic ordeals in redemptive history. Kline reminds us that "Paul described Israel's Red Sea ordeal as a being baptized [1 Corinthians 10:2] and Peter in effect calls the Noahic deluge ordeal a baptism [1 Peter 3:21]....But of particular relevance at this point is the fact that John the Baptist himself used the verb [baptidzo] for the impending ordeal in which the One mightier than he would wield his winnowing fork to separate from the covenant kingdom those whose circumcision had by want of Abrahamic faith become uncircumcision and who must therefore be cut off from the congregation of Israel and devoted to unquenchable flames. With reference to this judicially discriminating ordeal with its dual destinies of garner and Gehenna John declared `He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire [Matthew 3:11 ff; Luke 3:16 ff. cf. Mark 1:8]....[We] must remember that fire was along with water a traditional ordeal element. In fact, in the very prophecy where the Old Testament delineates the mission of the Lord and his Forerunner as final messengers of the covenant lawsuit, the messianic judgment is portrayed as an ordeal by fire with dual effects. For evil doers the fire of that day is the burning of an oven to consume them, but for those who fear God's name it is the healing rays of the sun to refine them [Malachi 4:1-2 cf. Malachi 3:2,3]" [Kline BOC, 57, 58]. Thus the way in which the biblical writers use the term "baptism" indicates that baptism is primarily an ordeal, and encompasses much more than simply the idea of "immersion" in water.

4. According to Kline, John "instituted an explicit comparison between that baptismal ordeal which was to be executed by the coming One and his own baptismal rite: I indeed baptize you with water...he will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire [Matthew 3:11]. John called attention to the great difference; his baptism was only a symbol whereas the coming One would baptize men in an actual ordeal with the very element of divine power [the Holy Spirit]....John's baptism symbolized...the coming messianic judgment....Jesus' reception of John's baptism can be more easily understood on this approach. As covenant Servant, Jesus submitted in symbol to the judgment of God of the covenant in the waters of baptism. But for Jesus, as the Lamb of God, to submit to the symbol of judgment was to offer himself up to the curse of the covenant. By his baptism Jesus was consecrating himself unto his sacrificial death in the judicial ordeal of the cross [as seen for example in the Servant Songs of Isaiah 42:1 ff.]. Such an understanding of baptism is reflected in Jesus' own reference to his coming passion as a baptism: `I have a baptism to be baptized with' [Luke 12:50 cf. Mark 10:38]. Jesus' symbolic baptism unto judgment appropriately concluded with a divine verdict, the verdict of justification expressed by the heavenly voice and sealed by the Spirit's anointing, Messiah's earnest of the kingdom inheritance [Matthew 3:16, 17; Mark 1:10; 11; Luke 3:22, cf. John 1:32, 33; Psalm 2:7 ff.]. This verdict of sonship was contested by Satan, and that led to the ordeal by combat between Jesus and Satan, beginning with the wilderness temptation immediately after Jesus' baptism and culminating in the crucifixion and resurrection--vindication of the victorious Christ, the prelude to his reception of all the kingdoms of the world [the issue under dispute in the ordeal; cf. Matthew 4:8 ff; Luke 4:5 ff.]. Further background for Jesus' conceptualizing of his sufferings as a water ordeal...is found in those supplicatory Psalms in which the righteous servant pleads for deliverance from the overwhelming waters. Of particular interest is Psalm 69, from which the New Testament draws so deeply in its explication of the juridical sufferings of Christ: ` I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me....Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up [vv. 2b, 15a; cf. Vv. 1, 2a, 14]" [Kline BOC, 58, 59]. Thus Jesus undergoes baptism because he is the covenant servant and mediator. He must undergo the ordeal in water, though he is without sin, in order to be identified with those under the covenant curses because of their own sin.

5. The theme of baptism as a water ordeal is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. "The supplicant Jonah found it possible to make literal use of this terminology of water ordeal in his appeal from the depths, and Jesus saw in Jonah's trial by water signs of his own judgment ordeal in the heart of the earth [Jonah 2:2 ff; Matthew 12:39, 40]." This theme also may be connected with the theme of water-combat that also appears without the Old Testament. "Synonymous with the motif of the ordeal by water is that of ordeal by combat with sea-monsters. Thus, the Red Sea water ordeal becomes in certain Old Testament passages a conflict of Yahweh against Leviathan [cf. Isaiah 51:9, 10; cf. Psalm 74:12-15; 89:9 10]. We are thereby reminded that the Lord was present with his people in the passage through the sea, that he underwent their ordeal, and that their salvation depended on their identification with him. Then in the New Testament there is a typological application of this imagery to Jesus' conflict with Satan in the course of his humiliation unto death [See Revelation 12, which pictures Satan as dragon and the agent of flood]. Hence, on our understanding of John's baptism in general and of his baptism of Jesus in particular, Jesus' experience in the Jordan would have been a symbolic anticipation of his ensuing combat with Satan-Dragon. We cannot, therefore, but view with new appreciation the liturgies of the ancient church when they speak of Jesus crushing the had of the dragon in his descent into the river for baptism" [Kline, BOC, 60]. It is especially interesting here to remind ourselves that in many ancient cultures, the crushing of the monster of chaos was prepatory for restoration. In this case, it is the crushing of Satan by our covenant head, Jesus, that makes way for the "age to come" and the restoration of all things.

D. Summary of John's Baptism [according to Kline]:

1. John the Baptist was the final messenger of God [the Great King] to the people of Israel. His ministry was not to the nations, but "to summon Israel unto the Lord to whom they had sworn allegiance at Sinai." If his call was not heeded, God's final judgment would fall upon in the full fury of the covenant curses. This is why his baptism is transitional and not perpetual.

2. John's call to repentance was primarily through his baptism--a baptism of blessing and of curse. Thus notes Kline, "this baptism was not an ordinance to be observed by Israel in their generations but a special sign for that terminal generation epitomizing the particular crisis in covenant history represented by the mission of John as messenger of the Lord's ultimatum." This is the final stage of the covenant lawsuit.

3. "John's ultimatum could be seen as a gracious invitation to the marriage feast of the Suzerain's Son; and John's baptism, as a seal of the remission of sins....For the passing of Jesus through the divine judgment in the water rite in the Jordan meant to John's baptism what the passing of Yahweh through the curse of the knife rite of Genesis 15 meant to Abrahamic circumcision."

4. "In each case the divine action constituted an invitation to all recipients of these covenant signs of consecration to identify themselves by faith with the Lord himself in their passage though the ordeal. So they might be assured of emerging from the overwhelming curse with a blessing. Jesus' passage through the water ordeal with the others who were baptized in the Jordan was also one in meaning with the Lord's presence with Israel in the theophany pilar during the passage through the Red Sea, and in the ark of the covenant during their crossing of the Jordan." Notes Kline, the meaning of this is found, in part, in Isaiah 43:13a.

5. "Viewed from a more comprehensive vantage point, John's baptism was a sign of the ordeal through which Israel must pass to receive a judgment of either curse or blessing, for it represented the demand of the suzerainty-law covenant, an engagement sealed by dual sanctions. The actual judgment, experienced by that generation to which John was sent, was an ordeal unto the casting off of Israel, a remnant only excepted [cf. Romans 11]. The city and the sanctuary were destroyed and the end thereof was with a flood, a pouring out of desolation [cf. Daniel 9:26, 27]. To this overflowing wrath the waters of John's baptism had pointed, as well as to the remission of sins received by the remnant according to the election of grace."

6. "By his message and baptism John thus proclaimed again to the seed of Abraham the meaning of their circumcision. Circumcision was no guarantee of inviolable privilege. It was a sign of the divine ordeal in which the axe, laid at the roots of the unfruitful trees cursed my the Messiah, would cut them off [Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9]. John's baptism was in effect a recircumcising."

Jesus' relationship to John the Baptist--continuity and discontinuity

1. If John was the last of the Old Testament prophets, announcing God's judgment upon disobedient Israel in the form of a covenant lawsuit, this means that "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 [cf. Matthew 21:23 ff; Mark 11:22 ff; Luke 20:1 ff.]....Thus as a sign of the covenant lawsuit against Israel, the baptismal rite of Jesus was, like John's, a symbol of immanent judgment ordeal of the people of the Old Covenant." At this early phase of his ministry, Jesus is making clear that Elijah has come, the messenger [John] has indeed prepared the way for the one who is to come, and at long last the messenger of the covenant has come to his temple [cf. Malachi 3:1 with Matthew 11:1-15; 17:9-13]. John's baptism has fulfilled its purpose then, preparing the way for the judgment to come in the person of the Messiah. As Kline points out, "this interpretation of Jesus' early baptizing in terms of the concurrent ultimatum mission of John is strikingly confirmed by the evident cessation of that baptism once John was imprisoned....Thus, implicitly, the Gospels trace to John's imprisonment the ending of the early Judean ministry of Jesus with its particular baptismal rite. That is, they implicitly connect the cessation of Jesus' early baptism with the termination of the ultimatum stage in the covenant lawsuit against Israel" [Kline, BOC, 63,63].

2. According to Kline, this means that "the early baptism authorized by Jesus [John's] 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 the ultimatum which it had sealed. The difference between the earlier [John's] and the later baptism [Christian] authorized by Jesus was the difference between two quite distinct periods in the history of the covenant. The later baptism [Christian] was of course ordained as a sign of the New Covenant; it was not part of the Old lawsuit against Israel [as was John's]. 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. There would be a profound continuity between Christian baptism and the earlier Johannine baptism. While, therefore, the baptismal ordinance which Christ appointed to his church would have significance appropriate to the now universal character of the covenant community and to its new eschatological metaphysic, it would continue to be a sign of consecration to the Lord of the covenant and, more particularly, a symbolic passage through the judicial ordeal, in which those under the rule of the covenant receive a definitive verdict for eternal glory or for perpetual desolation. This is borne out by the New Testament evidence" [Kline, BOC, 64, 65]. There are several points that need to be made here:

a. John's baptism of repentance was for Israel a transitory rite which ceased with his own death and with the coming of Jesus. When John, as the last of the covenant messengers was killed, the covenant curses would now fall upon disobedient Israel--she would be cut off, save for an elect remnant according to grace [Romans 9:6].

b. And now that the seed promised to Abraham had come, the blessing and curse signified by circumcision was now inappropriate. Thus a knife ritual, with the curse element that of being "cut-off" from the covenant was no longer appropriate for the people of God, especially, since Jesus would himself undergo the curse symbolized by circumcision for us, when he bore in his own body the curses of the covenant for his people upon the cross.

c. John's baptism in the Jordan is a water ordeal, since as he baptized in the waters of the Jordan, the people of God will leave the wilderness of Israel's apostasy and enter into the eternal rest long promised in the messiah, who had now come. Thus in John's baptism, this elect remnant escapes the judgment coming upon Israel, themselves undergoing the ordeal by water, "passing through" the waters of Jordan in repentance. Thus John's baptism is transitional in the sense that it is directed to Israel, for a specific purpose, for this specific moment in redemptive history.

d. Though John's baptism ceases, Christian baptism retains the character of a water ordeal through which the people of God must pass. In this sense, then, there is continuity between the baptism of John and Christian baptism.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Did those who were baptized by John have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?

Did those who were baptized by Jesus' disciples have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?

No, and no.

"There is one faith, one baptism..." Rebaptising makes a mockery of a previous legitimate baptism. To rebaptise is to say John's baptism was not legitimate.

Jesus was not sanctified by water. His baptism sanctified all water for baptism.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Joseph, did you read my post?

What you said is indeed good stuff and is more detailed than my pericope, but a reiteration of the point nonetheless.

Yes, and your post was good.


I just thought some people might like the extra detail.

 

[non dignus]

Mark,

Thanks for that long post on Kline's analysis of baptism. Wow.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Original questions:

Did those who were baptized by John have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?

Did those who were baptized by Jesus' disciples have to be rebaptized when the post Pentecost NT church was started? Why or why not?

1) I would say there is no such thing as a "re-baptism"; either you are or you aren't baptized with Christian baptism.

2) Because of continuity/discontinuity issues, I say that John's baptism (and all other OT baptisms) prefigure NT baptism, but is not synonymous with it.

3) As in Kline's/whomever's analysis, John's and Jesus' disciples' baptism (early ministry, before the resurrection) is essentially the same.

4) Everyone brought into the NT church undergoes NT baptism, beginning at Pentecost. The previous (OT) baptism by John, although transitional, is not NT, Trinitarian baptism. It is hasty, I think, to conclude that because Acts 2 mentions all the foreigners in Jerusalem, that only foreigners were among those baptized Trinitatianly by the apostles on Pentecost. The text does not distinguish among them (Peter says "you crucified him"), and these were for the most part observant Jews (including converts) from among the nations. Therefore, the Johannine disciples in Ephesus are properly baptized under NT auspices. Remember: it is Jesus who baptizes his people, mediated through his representatives/ministers, but HE is doing it.

5) Who baptizes the apostles then? Jesus equips his disciples fully for their mission. This fact is axiomatic. Therefore, if my analysis is correct--and maybe it isn't--but if it is, then either:
a) They were exempted from NT baptism; or
b) John's baptism sufficed for them only; or
c) They reciprocally baptized one another just before or along with the rest of those at Pentecost; or
d) Jesus baptized them himself, either in an textually explicit but parabolic manner such as in his washing their feet? or when "he breathed on them...'Receive ye the Holy Ghost'"?; or simply by by implication--i.e he must have done so, but the circumstances are not revealed.

Choice 'a' appeals least to me--exemption? after all, they receive the actual Spirit baptism, so why not the sign?
'b' seems to dodge the question by making an exception.
'c' removes many difficulties, but raises other questions for me. For example, why would they wait to obey Jesus? And, did they 'figure out' a procedure at the last minute, and an order?
'd', in some form, appeals most to me.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Why was Jesus Baptized at age 30?

Even though John baptized Jesus, we really cannot say that Christ received "John's baptism". Let me explain:

* John's baptism was for sinners (Matthew 3:1-6) --- but Jesus was not a sinner.
* John's baptism was unto repentance (Matthew 3:11) --- but Jesus did not need to repent.
* John baptized to prepare the way for the Lord (Luke 1:17) --- but Jesus didn't need to prepare to receive himself.

In fact, John himself felt that it was improper for him to baptize Jesus (Matthew 3:14). How did Jesus change John's mind? Why did Jesus need to be baptized?

Jesus simply told John that "it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). And we know from Deuteronomy 6:25 that righteousness has to do with obedience to the law. So Jesus was submitting to baptism in order to fulfill Old Testament law. Jesus had already submitted to the Old Testament law of circumcision (Leviticus 12:3, Luke 2:21), he went to the temple (Leviticus 12:2-8 and Luke 2:22-23), partook of the the Passover (Exodus 34:23, Luke 2:41), and observed the Jewish feasts (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:3, John 17:10). But what Old Testament law had to do with baptism?

Christ's baptism was the ceremonial act of His ordination to the high priesthood. Jesus Christ was (and is) a priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14, 5:5; 9:11). And according to Exodus 29:4, priests had to be washed with water as a part of their ordination.

Before any man could become a priest, three things were required:

* He must be 30 years old (Numbers 4:3,47). --- This is why Christ's age at His baptism is given as 30 years (Luke 3:23).
* He must be called of God as was Aaron, the first high priest (Exodus 28:1). --- Christ was called (Hebrews 5:4-10).
* He must be washed with water (Exodus 29:4; Leviticus 8:6) by one already a priest. --- John the baptist was a priest, inheriting the office from his father (Exodus 29:9; Numbers 25:13; Luke 1:4,13). Christ knew His call, waited until He was 30 years old and then came to John "to fulfill all righteousness," that is, to meet the last demand of the Old Testament Law for a priest before He began His public ministry.

Good reasoning"¦ but I respectfully disagree.
I object to your notion that Jesus was baptized in fulfillment of OT priestly regulations, thus allowing him to function as a priest. The reason is because, as Hebrews 7 tells us, Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, while the OT law restricts the priesthood to those from the tribe of Levi. Thus, Jesus was fundamentally disqualified from serving as a priest according to the Levitical system"¦ so why do you suppose he would have bothered to fulfill Levitical ordination requirements, when he was disqualified from service at the outset because he was no Levite? The crux of the argument in Hebrews 7 is that Jesus does NOT serve according to the Levitical priesthood, but according to the order of Melchizedek, which is superior to the priesthood of the Levites.
Therefore, I do not believe that Jesus' baptism and reference to "fulfilling all righteousness" in any way refers to him fulfilling priestly ordination requirements of the OT Levitical code.
You are right in noting that Jesus did not need to repent or prepare to receive himself. Have you considered that perhaps Jesus was here acting as our representative just as in the rest of his life?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In contrast, I think Joseph's observations (which certainly aren't original with him) on the subject of "priesthood" do have merit.

Ben and Joseph are approaching the Mosaic data from two different angles. Ben's argument is that the data is exclusively Levitical, therefore inapplicable to Jesus. Joseph's argument is that the Mosaic data is more fundamental than the Levites. He is arguing that certain aspects of any legitimate priesthood form a "background" to the specific Levitical application found in the text. For example, that any legitimate priest must be "clean" (or cleansed) ceremonialy; and that some methodological analogies should be expected on the principle of continuity, i.e. water-sprinkling.

This notion is in no wise far-fetched. In fact, such connections form the basis for much of the Melchizedek-Aaronic comparison/contrast in the book of Hebrews. In other words, natural questions to ask when Jesus is declared to be a "priest" would include:
1) What sort of "legitimate order" is he if he isn't a descendent of Aaron? (answered directly in Hebrews)
2) What sort of sacrifice did he bring? (answered)
3) Shouldn't a priest be "clean" to perform his duties? How was Jesus ceremonially cleansed?
4) How mature should a "real" priest be?
The last two are simply further points that, if Levitical rites were instituted according to a divine "norm", then we aren't surprised to find additional points of correlation. They suggest (though not infallibly) the content of the divine "norm".

 

[Puritanhead]

I was less confused before the discussion began.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Then here's another example:
The WCF teaches the the Sabbath is both a "moral" and "positive" commandment. If you take the position that the Sabbath ordinance (4th commandment) is to be taken at its literal sense, and that alone, then you should either repudiate it as ceremonial or adopt the 7th Day Adventist stance.

The WCF asserts that the command is moral at a more fundamental level than the basic text of the 4th commandment, and that the 4th commandment represents the specific positive direction unto the Old Covenant nation Israel. We further state that God may change the positive prescription if he desires, and in fact has changed it to the 1st Day (Lord's Day) celebration.

The connection is as follows: the Levitical rites are positive. Behind them is something more fundamental, of which the Levitical, and earlier Melchizedek's, and later the Messiah's, priesthoods are all prescriptions. We may wish to be less dogmatic about such a connection as Jesus specific age being given to us, in the context of his baptism, just happening to be the same as the priestly age prescribed for the Levites, but on the other hand, should it be discounted without consideration or appreciation?

Matthew draws some pretty amazing parallels between Jesus' life and the National History. If God hadn't inspired him, we might think it was a bit of a stretch, yes? But He did inspire, and that encourages us to search for other OT analogues to Jesus' life and ministry.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
We may wish to be less dogmatic about such a connection as Jesus specific age being given to us, in the context of his baptism, just happening to be the same as the priestly age prescribed for the Levites, but on the other hand, should it be discounted without consideration or appreciation?

Levitical rules apply to Levitical priests. No one else.
Jesus' age has nothing to do with "the priestly age" of the Levites. Why? Read that passage posited by Joseph (Numbers 4:3,47) it simply recounts a specific situation. What were the actual prescribed priestly ages?

Numbers 8:23 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 24 "This applies to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall come to do duty in the service of the tent of meeting. 25 And from the age of fifty years they shall withdraw from the duty of the service and serve no more. 26 They minister to their brothers in the tent of meeting by keeping guard, but they shall do no service. Thus shall you do to the Levites in assigning their duties."

According to this passage, Jesus could have started his priestly service 5 years prior... The bottom line is that we can draw all the allusions in the world, because we are creative beings, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything. You have verses that seem to make an "eerie" correlation between what Jesus did and what the OT priests had to do... I have a verse that shows Jesus could not have served according to that pattern.
Anyway, I think you should look to the federal aspect of Christ's ministry to ascertain why he was baptized. One thing is for sure: This isn't worth splitting a church over.

[Edited on 1-23-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree the issue isn't worth a big fight.

I said that the observation had merit, not that I thought it was the most significant thing about Jesus' baptism. As for a divine norm behind the administration (which was the main thing I was saying) that is exactly what is implied in Heb 5:1, 5; 7:21; 8:3.

Beside the federal or priestly connections noted above, here's another consideration: Jesus is the Annointed One (Messiah/Christ). When was he annointed to his office? At his baptism. His prophetic and kingly roles are also in the mix.

I'm just saying that there are benefits to considering additional implications of the baptism of Jesus. Such investigation has an honorable pedigree, and needn't be relegated to the swamp of "speculative" theology.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Either way, it was part of Christ's active obedience and I praise God for it, knowing that it is counted to my account!

 

[Puritanhead]

confused

 

[Kevin]

"was Johns baptism valid?"

Yes.

Valid as a OT baptism of (or for) repentance. Just as valid as any other of the "many baptisms" found in the old cov. i.e. as valid as the baptisms the lepers healed by Christ recieved from the priests that readmitted them to covenant fellowship.

Was it a "christian baptism"?

No.

It was not trinitarian. It was one of many baptisms that were replaced/fulfilled by the work of Christ. Paul did not consider it a "christian Baptism" (acts 19).

Ryan, don't feel bad I was confused too when I was still a baptist by all the references in the OT to baptism. As hard as I tried I could not make them fit within my system.