So Where Was Baptism For Salvation In The Ot?

[Covenanter]

  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?

 

That's not convincing - at the time of the English translations, "baptism" would have been synonymous with baptism of infants or converts - including mass baptism of a conquered people.  Baptising believers, particularly rebaptism was a capital offence - the anabaptist leaders were executed by drowning - which was considered appropriate for such heretics.

[Covenanter]

 

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.

 

Have you a Scripture reference for that, Linda? Or was a practice that started in the intertestamental years? Have I missed it, when reading the books of Moses?

[Genevanpreacher]

That's not convincing - at the time of the English translations, "baptism" would have been synonymous with baptism of infants or converts - including mass baptism of a conquered people.  Baptising believers, particularly rebaptism was a capital offence - the anabaptist leaders were executed by drowning - which was considered appropriate for such heretics.

 

Found an interesting fact about the word. It does have a past.

 

" c.1300, bapteme, from O.Fr. batesme, bapteme (11c., Mod.Fr. baptême),from L. baptismus, from Gk. baptismos, noun of action from baptizein (seebaptize). The -s- restored in later 14c. Figurative sense is from late 14c.Phrase baptism of fire "a soldier's first experience

of battle" (1857) translates Fr. baptême de feu; the phrase originally was ecclesiastical Gk. baptisma pyros and meant "the grace of the Holy Spirit as  imparted through baptism." Later it was used of martyrdom, especially by burning."

 

That takes it back to about 1000 A.D.

And since our English language is an ecclectic one when it comes to languages, I can see a building up to English from these words is possible and most likely prOBable.

 

1250–1300; Middle English  < Late Latin baptisma  < Greek bapt ( ízein ) tobaptize + -isma -ism; replacing Middle English bapteme  < Old French  < LateLatin,  as above

 

There's another.

 

Wow! and read this!

 

In researching the validity of this claim, I decided to peruse again my volume of “Mede’s Works” from the 17th century on the subject of the meaning of baptism. The binding is loose, but I was able to clearly read his sermon on Titus 3. Mede stated:

“I add…that there was no such thing as SPRINKLING…used in Baptism in the Apostle’s times, nor many ages after them.”
(Joseph Mede, 1586-1638, “Mede’s Works,” p. 62)

With some more research into 17th century Christian history, I soon discovered that the claim that the AV Translators used “baptism” in the AV so that they could justify “sprinkling” is an absolute fable! The word “baptize” was FIRMLY ESTABLISHED as an English word that meant “to dip, plunge or immerse” at the time of the translating of the AV. It did not begin to OBtain the primary meaning of “sprinkling” (in some dictionaries) until much later. And it derived this new, primary meaning, not on the basis of etymology, but on the basis of later usage among the various denominations.

“Bullokar’s English Hard Word Dictionary” of 1616 (five years after 1611!) defines “baptism” by stating:

“It commonly signifieth a dipping or washing.”

This is all Bullokar gave for “baptism” in his early dictionary. With this definition, we wonder how the AV Translators could have supposedly attempted to hide anything by using a word that was commonly taken to mean DIPPING in 1616. The Authorized Version was printed in 1611!

J.M. Pendleton, in the 19th century, writes:

“There is no historical evidence that the king was opposed to immersion…”
(“Baptist Church Manual”).

To the contrary, King James himself revealed what the word “baptize” commonly meant in his day. In 1605, he stated:

“For as God, for the just Punishment of the first great Sins in the original World, when the Sons of God went in to the Daughters of Men, and the Cup of their Iniquities of all Sorts was filled and heaped up to the full, did, by a general Deluge and Overflowing of Waters, BAPTIZE the World to a general Destruction…”
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=28345)

I do not think that King James believed that God “sprinkled” the old world with a few rain drops!

The word baptism had been an English word for centuries (see the “Oxford Dictionary”). Bede (700 A.D.) held that baptism meant immersion. In the time of Queen Mary (1553-1558), the Catholic, only immersion was allowed. Erasmus believed baptism meant immersion.

All Baptist Confessions of Faith used the word “baptism” prior to 1611. Tyndale (a Baptist) used the word “baptism” in his version. Balthasar Hubmaier entitled a book, in 1526, “Old and New Believers on Baptism.” The word baptism was an established English word that was freely used (for immersion) by Baptists before 1611.

 

That last sentence was quite eye opening.

[LindaR]

Have you a Scripture reference for that, Linda? Or was a practice that started in the intertestamental years? Have I missed it, when reading the books of Moses?

Most of the Scripture for that is found in the book of Leviticus, and a couple of verses in Numbers.  Mikvah was performed for "spiritual cleansing" and "purification".  I found some good information in this article on gotquestions.org "What is the origin of baptism?"  Also, I did a word search using the words "wash his flesh" and came up with 12 verses in the KJV (10 in Leviticus and 2 in Numbers). 

 

Leviticus 14:9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

 

Leviticus 15:7 And he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

 

Leviticus 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

 

Leviticus 16:23 And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
Leviticus 16:24 And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.

 

Numbers 19 has to do with the ashes of the red heifer.  I'll post verses 6-9 of Chapter 19:

 

Numbers 19:6 And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.
Numbers 19:7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even.
Numbers 19:8 And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even.
Numbers 19:9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.

 

Mikvah  might still be done by Chassidic and Orthodox Jews today. 

 

I have seen videos of Israel where they show some of the old "mikvahs". 

 

If you google just the word "mikvah" and click on "images" you will see that some of those mikvahs are huge...almost like a swimming pool, IMO.

[Invicta]

Most of the Scripture for that is found in the book of Leviticus, and a couple of verses in Numbers.  Mikvah was performed for "spiritual cleansing" and "purification".  I found some good information in this article on gotquestions.org "What is the origin of baptism?"  Also, I did a word search using the words "wash his flesh" and came up with 12 verses in the KJV (10 in Leviticus and 2 in Numbers). 

 

Leviticus 14:9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

 

Leviticus 15:7 And he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

 

Leviticus 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

 

Leviticus 16:23 And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
Leviticus 16:24 And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.

 

Numbers 19 has to do with the ashes of the red heifer.  I'll post verses 6-9 of Chapter 19:

 

Numbers 19:6 And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.
Numbers 19:7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even.
Numbers 19:8 And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even.
Numbers 19:9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.

 

Mikvah  might still be done by Chassidic and Orthodox Jews today. 

 

I have seen videos of Israel where they show some of the old "mikvahs". 

 

If you google just the word "mikvah" and click on "images" you will see that some of those mikvahs are huge...almost like a swimming pool, IMO.

 

Mike Moore of the Christian Witness to Israel has for the last few years been on holiday in Aberystwyth, since he found that many orthodox Jews spent a time there each year.  When he was told that they did their ceremonial washing in the sea, he went there to bear witness to Christ.  Last year they didn't go, as the previous year one of the rabbis was swept out to sea and drowned on the first day.  

[Covenanter]

Thanks Linda & Russ. I'm not sure history is on the side of Bible truth.

 

I understand the anabaptists employed affusion - pouring or sprinkling.

 

Believers' Baptism—The anabaptists were the among the first to point out the lack of explicit biblical support for infant baptism. Most of them made no issue of the mode of baptism, and practiced affusion (sprinkling), however, so they were not true baptists in the modern sense of the word. 

 

But it's bed time.

[AVBibleBeliever]

First I never implied that Baptism was for Salvation in the OT.

 

Anyone who says I said that or I suggested that baptism was necessary in the OT or makes it seem I did is a LIAR

 

I stated that it was a requirement under the Gospel of the Kingdom, which was never preached in the OT, it was only preached by John the Bapt, Jesus, and the 12 & the 70(72) disciples in the NT and it was only preached to Israel.

.

[John81]

So much unbiblical nonsense.

[paid4]

Why make something so simple into something hard. Baptism is an identifying act that a born again believer does that publically associates them with Christ. It is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of the old man. The more beautiful side of this is illustrated in Jewish marriage customs. When a woman is betrothed (engaged) to a man she goes into a deep pool, completely immerses and washes herself, and puts on new clothes as promise to stay pure until the marriage. When you're saved you accept the offer to be the bride of Christ. How beautiful a picture.

[paid4]

If the sprinkling of water brings about salvation then I'm renting a fire truck and headed downtown.  

Better yet is everyone that got caught in a thunderstorm now saved??? Laughable really

[AVBibleBeliever]

If the sprinkling of water brings about salvation then I'm renting a fire truck and headed downtown.  

Better yet is everyone that got caught in a thunderstorm now saved??? Laughable really

There were steps to the gospel of the kingdom and they were like this 1) believe, 2) repent and 3) get baptized in water (no Holy Ghost given yet) for the remission of sins. Matt 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, 7, John 3, 4

 

Under the gospel of Grace, water baptism was never required.  However, if a person wishes to be water baptized it is to be done, it is identification that they have believed on Christ's finished work of the cross for their forgiveness of sins and are saved by God's grace through faith alone.  Today the Holy Ghost spiritually Baptizes each believer into Christ the moment they believed. 1Co 12:12-14 ¶ For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.   For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.   For the body is not one member, but many.

[Genevanpreacher]

There were steps to the gospel of the kingdom and they were like this 1) believe, 2) repent and 3) get baptized in water (no Holy Ghost given yet) for the remission of sins. Matt 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, 7, John 3, 4

 

Under the gospel of Grace, water baptism was never required.  However, if a person wishes to be water baptized it is to be done, it is identification that they have believed on Christ's finished work of the cross for their forgiveness of sins and are saved by God's grace through faith alone.  Today the Holy Ghost spiritually Baptizes each believer into Christ the moment they believed. 1Co 12:12-14 ¶ For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.   For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.   For the body is not one member, but many.

 

Do you know the Biblical definition of 'remission'?

It is not forgiveness.

As in cancer, remission means it is not gone but it dwindles down to being powerless to affect the body.

Remission in the new believer, and on til death, it is the putting away of sins, the believer choosing to sin less on purpose, because of his new desire to live for God.

First there is repentance, and the after effect of that is remission, and that is what baptism shows to all watching the one being baptized. They have died to their former

persons desire to live in sin, and chosen to follow Gods ways and choose not to sin on purpose. John told the soldiers and pharisees what they were to do 

before he would agree to baptize them.

 

Look at Lukes wording in Acts 2:38, he was a physician, he would know what remission was. 

[AVBibleBeliever]

Do you know the Biblical definition of 'remission'?

It is not forgiveness.

As in cancer, remission means it is not gone but it dwindles down to being powerless to affect the body.

Remission in the new believer, and on til death, it is the putting away of sins, the believer choosing to sin less on purpose, because of his new desire to live for God.

First there is repentance, and the after effect of that is remission, and that is what baptism shows to all watching the one being baptized. They have died to their former

persons desire to live in sin, and chosen to follow Gods ways and choose not to sin on purpose. John told the soldiers and pharisees what they were to do 

before he would baptize them.

You are so correct remission of sins does not mean forgiveness of sins but a temporary setting aside, so if they kept themselves clean and without sin and OBeyed the word of God until judgement day they would receive forgiveness (remember that was before the cross).

 

John the Baptist gave them no requirement BEFORE he would baptize them, you must be reading into the Words of God a preconceived idea, because the text does not say that he told them to do this before he would baptize them.  Luke 3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
 13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
 14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

No where in the text does it say that he as telling them what to do to be baptized.  they were there to be baptized and many of them were, they asked a question along with their baptism.

 

Now I have been fully forgiven for my sins, there was no remission of them but full forgiveness without any water baptism Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:  I am redeemed and forgiven forever and ever.  And the only baptism I needed for that was  1Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

The life I now live I live just as when I first got save BY faith in Christs finished work of the cross.  And that forgiveness covers ALL my sins including any I may have committed in the past as well as today or will commit tomorrow.  

Rom 4:7 [saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
 Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
 Col 2:13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

 

Baptism was never a sign I would live a sinless life nor would I have been baptized for that reason I know that I would sin and then baptism for that reason would be no good.

 

I was baptised as Christ was, for Identification.  He Identified with man in his water baptism and I identify with him in mine.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

You are so correct remission of sins does not mean forgiveness of sins but a temporary setting aside, so if they kept themselves clean and without sin and OBeyed the word of God until judgement day they would receive forgiveness (remember that was before the cross).

 

John the Baptist gave them no requirement BEFORE he would baptize them, you must be reading into the Words of God a preconceived idea, because the text does not say that he told them to do this before he would baptize them.  Luke 3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
 13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
 14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

No where in the text does it say that he as telling them what to do to be baptized.  they were there to be baptized and many of them were, they asked a question along with their baptism.

 

Now I have been fully forgiven for my sins, there was no remission of them but full forgiveness without any water baptism Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:  I am redeemed and forgiven forever and ever.  And the only baptism I needed for that was  1Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

The life I now live I live just as when I first got save BY faith in Christs finished work of the cross.  And that forgiveness covers ALL my sins including any I may have committed in the past as well as today or will commit tomorrow.  

Rom 4:7 [saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
 Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
 Col 2:13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

 

Baptism was never a sign I would live a sinless life nor would I have been baptized for that reason I know that I would sin and then baptism for that reason would be no good.

 

I was baptised as Christ was, for Identification.  He Identified with man in his water baptism and I identify with him in mine.

 

 

??

"Then said he to the people that came out to be baptized of him..." Luke 3:7 which continues to verse 10 which says, "Then the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?"

 

I did not make it up. Did I?

[AVBibleBeliever]

Also, It was not right for covenanter to cut off the list of scriptures about baptism under the Gospel of the Kingdom and just leave the one about the son of Zacharia where it referred to the OT ordinance of the Nazarite.  In doing so he makes it seem that I suggested that there was required baptism in the OT something I never alluded to or said.

 

the additional scriptures did in fact follow a rhyme and reason of thought that was quite clear.  so leaving them out makes it as thought"It's not easy to follow AVBB's thinking".  At the least he should have put a link to the original post so you could be sure he point on my thinking was not easy to follow was true, of which it wasn't true.

 

My thinking was clear and to the point in the partially quoted quote and it could have been seen if Covenanter was being truthful concerning the original post and he wasn't.

 

If you make baptisms and washings the same you will run into huge prOBlems and that is where the landmark brider baptist have gone into their teaching that baptism is not for the Body of Christ during the church Age.

 

Covenanter please list each answer for your questions you asked.  You already have your own answers for them.  List them out and let others see what you are talking about because it is hard to follow your thinking unless you put in your answers.