So Where Was Baptism For Salvation In The Ot?

[Covenanter]

The title is from a post by Gorship, following several posts & questions. It needs a separate thread.

 

An answer given is:

AVBibleBeliever, on 09 May 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:

And here all along I thought you knew the scriptures. Here they are:

John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and His disciples ministry from Matthew through Acts 7 was to Israel ONLY. the gospel they preached was the gospel of the Kingdom and belief on that Gospel required repentance and baptism. If Israel believed, repented and was baptized they received salvation. If not they were condemned.

read them through look at the message and what was done when they heard the message and who it was that was preached too.

This gospel is not preached today. The gospel of Grace is preached today and it does not require repentance or baptism only belief through faith. and the gospel of Grace is for all men not just Israel as was the kingdom Gospel.

Lu 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

......

And many more Scriptures.

 

It's not easy to follow AVBB's thinking, so I suggest we try to clarify questions of baptism by further discussion.

 

Is baptism commanded or practised or prophesied in the OT?

 

Why did the Pharisees expect Christ, Elias, & that prophet to baptise?

 

Why did the Hebrews writer propose to write about baptisms? And did he?

 

What is baptism? What does it signify, & does how is is administered show every aspect of its significance?

 

How should we regard notable paedOBaptists - including the KJV translators, the hymn-writer Isaac Watts, & the leaders of the Methodist & other revivals?

 

When a godly paedOBaptist leader comes to us, should we demand he be baptised (against his own understanding) or should he be treated as an unbaptised non-member?

 

What is baptism with/of/by the Holy Spirit?

 

WOW! That's a lot more than I expected when I started writing!

 

I am NOT trying to be controversial, but to stimulate discussion.

 

 

[Covenanter]

I am convinced that baptism is for believers ONLY. My present Baptist church has a constitution that INSISTs on immersion but an amendment to the constitiution allows associate members.

 

Discussions with paedOBaptist & baptist Christians over the decades have raised interesting points. I don't expect to convince baptists, or change the mode, but try to understand the position of other Bible-believing Chrstians.

 

The late widely respected Pastor D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel (Congregational) practised baptism of believers by sprinkling. The local Congregational church, which is generally an excellent Gospel church, has a trust deed that requires the Pastor to believe in the baptism of infants. Believers are baptised by sprinkling. So, is sprinkling/pouring baptism valid as a mode of baptism? The CofE Prayer Book, approved by the KJV translators, allows sprinkling for weak & sickly children. Is there a Scriptural basis for sprinkling/pouring?

 

The normal argument for immersion is e.g. Romans 6  - which justifies our normal practice of baptism of new believers by immersion:

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? ² God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? ³ Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? ⁴ Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

We are told that the Greek for baptism means "dipping" but it is never so translated in the KJV. It is transliterated "baptism" or translated "washing." Related words are translated baptize or Baptist, etc, which occur over 100 times. It's not always baptism in water:

Mat. 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

 

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

 

The only times we see "dipped" are:

Strong's 911 - βάπτω bapto

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip ^G911 the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

 

John 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped ^G911 it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

 

Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped ^G911 in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

 

 

Strong's 909 - βαπτισμός baptismos

Mark 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing ^G909 of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

 

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing ^G909 of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

 

Heb. 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, ^G909 and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

 

Heb. 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, ^G909 and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

 

Now, does Hebrews in ch 9 proceed with the doctrine of baptisms, as he intended (if God permit) ? He there contrasts the ineffectual sprinkled washings/baptismos of the old covenant, with the blood of Christ:

¹¹ But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; ¹² neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having OBtained eternal redemption for us. ¹³ For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: ¹⁴ how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

The divers washings given as examples in Heb. 9 include the red heifer ritual of Numbers 19, the blood of the covenant ritual of Ex. 24, both of which are sprinklings. Hebrews uses "testament" where Ex. uses "covenant." I don't think the difference there is significant. We've discussed that in another thread.

 

Note that Peter also refers to sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ  so that it is not wrong to consider baptism as signifying applying the water of baptism as a figure of the blood of Jesus to the believer, by sprinkling.

 

Faced with 3,000 penitent converts on the day of Pentecost, it might be considered equivalent to the situation in Ex. 24, q.v. which Hebrews uses as an example of OT baptismos/washings. 

 

[Bro K]

One may need to determine when the OT ended; and the NT began.

[Genevanpreacher]

  Interesting subject, but another question:

 

  Could it be possible, that since our English language is built upon many languages, (just about every Germanic language in fact),

that the word baptize is not transliterated?

  Could it be that the form of immersion became known as the word baptize? 

 

  Just a thought.

 

  Example of a 'modern' form of this thought - Ask someone in the U.S. if they wank a Coke, they won't know which 'cola' you are referring to - a Pepsi, Tab, RC cola, etc., even the real Coke, Coca Cola.

  Back 'in the day' when you would ask for a Coke, there was only one, and there was no confusing what was being offered. 

  Nowadays, in our country, Coca Cola is the OBject and original name, but Coke became the generic term of any 'dark cola'.

  Maybe baptizing was formally known as immersion/dip wholly, and over time other 'forms' being introduced, the word baptize became the 'generic' term of them all.

 

Thus, many discussions on 'which' one is right.

 

Which 'coke' is best.

 

Also, Jesus' name is also transliterated?

[The Glory Land]

I am convinced that baptism is for believers ONLY. My present Baptist church has a constitution that INSISTs on immersion but an amendment to the constitiution allows associate members.

Discussions with paedOBaptist & baptist Christians over the decades have raised interesting points. I don't expect to convince baptists, or change the mode, but try to understand the position of other Bible-believing Chrstians.

The late widely respected Pastor D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel (Congregational) practised baptism of believers by sprinkling. The local Congregational church, which is generally an excellent Gospel church, has a trust deed that requires the Pastor to believe in the baptism of infants. Believers are baptised by sprinkling. So, is sprinkling/pouring baptism valid as a mode of baptism? The CofE Prayer Book, approved by the KJV translators, allows sprinkling for weak & sickly children. Is there a Scriptural basis for sprinkling/pouring?

The normal argument for immersion is e.g. Romans 6 - which justifies our normal practice of baptism of new believers by immersion:

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? ² God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? ³ Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? ⁴ Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

We are told that the Greek for baptism means "dipping" but it is never so translated in the KJV. It is transliterated "baptism" or translated "washing." Related words are translated baptize or Baptist, etc, which occur over 100 times. It's not always baptism in water:

Mat. 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

The only times we see "dipped" are:
Strong's 911 - βάπτω bapto

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip ^G911 the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

John 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped ^G911 it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped ^G911 in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Strong's 909 - βαπτισμός baptismos

Mark 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing ^G909 of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing ^G909 of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Heb. 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, ^G909 and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Heb. 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, ^G909 and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Now, does Hebrews in ch 9 proceed with the doctrine of baptisms, as he intended (if God permit) ? He there contrasts the ineffectual sprinkled washings/baptismos of the old covenant, with the blood of Christ:

¹¹ But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; ¹² neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having OBtained eternal redemption for us. ¹³ For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: ¹⁴ how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The divers washings given as examples in Heb. 9 include the red heifer ritual of Numbers 19, the blood of the covenant ritual of Ex. 24, both of which are sprinklings. Hebrews uses "testament" where Ex. uses "covenant." I don't think the difference there is significant. We've discussed that in another thread.

Note that Peter also refers to sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ so that it is not wrong to consider baptism as signifying applying the water of baptism as a figure of the blood of Jesus to the believer, by sprinkling.

Faced with 3,000 penitent converts on the day of Pentecost, it might be considered equivalent to the situation in Ex. 24, q.v. which Hebrews uses as an example of OT baptismos/washings.

You convince me, I just don't remember of what?

[LindaR]

One may need to determine when the OT ended; and the NT began.

I believe the OT (the dispensation of the Law) ended at the Cross.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

[LindaR]

Baptism in the OT was not for salvation...but for "spiritual cleansing".  It wasn't called "baptism"...it was called "mikvah"

 

Why Did John Baptize People?

 

Q. I was wondering why, seeing as baptism was not performed in Old Testament times, John the baptist started to baptize people to symbolize their repentance.  I know in the New Testament Jesus instructs people to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but John came before Jesus.

 

A. John’s baptism was an adaptation of the mikvah, or ritual immersion bath, that had been part of Jewish life for generations and symbolized a spiritual cleansing.  It was part of the preparation for undertaking a new beginning.  Jewish men took a mikvah each Sabbath in preparation for the new week.  Women took a mikvah after each monthly period as a spiritual cleansing.  On Yom Kippur the High Priest took 7 mikvot (plural of mikvah) during the ceremonies in preparation for entering the Holy of Holies.  Jesus came to John for a mikvah at the beginning of His ministry.

 

The reason John had people take a mikvah was to show that they had changed their minds (repented) about their need for a Savior and were taking a new direction regarding their salvation.  No longer would they focus on keeping the Law but would look instead to the coming redeemer whose arrival John was announcing. Today,  baptism is no longer an act of spiritual cleansing in preparation for a new direction, but a public declaration that the spiritual cleansing has already happened and the new direction has been taken.

[MountainChristian]

I believe the OT (the dispensation of the Law) ended at the Cross.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

 

I had no idea the law stopped in another place.

[Genevanpreacher]

 

Baptism in the OT was not for salvation...but for "spiritual cleansing".  It wasn't called "baptism"...it was called "mikvah"

 

Why Did John Baptize People?

 

Q. I was wondering why, seeing as baptism was not performed in Old Testament times, John the baptist started to baptize people to symbolize their repentance.  I know in the New Testament Jesus instructs people to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but John came before Jesus.

 

A. John’s baptism was an adaptation of the mikvah, or ritual immersion bath, that had been part of Jewish life for generations and symbolized a spiritual cleansing.  It was part of the preparation for undertaking a new beginning.  Jewish men took a mikvah each Sabbath in preparation for the new week.  Women took a mikvah after each monthly period as a spiritual cleansing.  On Yom Kippur the High Priest took 7 mikvot (plural of mikvah) during the ceremonies in preparation for entering the Holy of Holies.  Jesus came to John for a mikvah at the beginning of His ministry.

 

The reason John had people take a mikvah was to show that they had changed their minds (repented) about their need for a Savior and were taking a new direction regarding their salvation.  No longer would they focus on keeping the Law but would look instead to the coming redeemer whose arrival John was announcing. Today,  baptism is no longer an act of spiritual cleansing in preparation for a new direction, but a public declaration that the spiritual cleansing has already happened and the new direction has been taken.

 

 

Interesting, but John said in John 1 - "...but he that sent me to baptize with water..."

I don't know where you get your info, no matter how interesting it may be, the scriptures say God told John to baptize.

Not following any traditional 'jewish' ceremony, but just because God said.

[The Glory Land]

Jonas, was baptized in the belly of a giant fish. And he arose the third day. Victorious over death.

[Genevanpreacher]

Jonas, was baptized in the belly of a giant fish. And he arose the third day. Victorious over death.

And he repented before he was 'risen' out of it. Interesting point!

But it was a punishment formed to make him turn around, unlike baptism.

[Gorship]

It should be noted I don't hold Baptism as we know it as Christians is found anywhere but the NT. I also disagree that John the baptist was performing some sort of baptismal regeneration. I asked the question because it would sure seem odd if out of nowhere in the beginning of the NT Jews were just baptizing when they never were asked to do it in the OT. However if John the Baptist was a forerunner getting the Jewish people to get right with God as the messiah is coming... well now we're making sense.
 

 

Isaiah 40:3

King James Version (KJV)

³ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God

 

 

 

 

John 1:23

King James Version (KJV)

²³ He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

 

anyway. ciao.

[Bro K]

I believe the OT (the dispensation of the Law) ended at the Cross.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Agree!!!!

[swathdiver]

The Holy Spirit tell us in God's Word when the OT ended and the NT began:

 

Luke 16:16 - "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."

[No Nicolaitans]

The Holy Spirit tell us in God's Word when the OT ended and the NT began:

 

Luke 16:16 - "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."

 

 

If the law ended with John, then why the need for Christ to fulfill the law? I do believe that more clarification is given for the scripture that you quoted in Matthew...

 

Matthew 11:12-13

12   And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13   For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

 

God used John to prepare the people for their Messiah who would fulfill what was written in the law, prophets, and psalms concerning him. It wasn't until Jesus' death that the veil in the temple was rent.