What was the Purpose of Jesus' Baptism?

[Aunty Jane]

This is a question from another thread which I believe deserves a thread of its own.

Baptism by full immersion in the Jordan River was first carried out by John the Baptist for the Jews who had transgressed the Law. (Luke 3:3) It was a public symbol of their repentance and John B had been sent ahead of the Messiah to "prepare the way" (Luke 1:76-77) so those who submitted to John's baptism demonstrated that they were in the right frame of mind and heart to accept the Messiah's teachings. (Luke 1:16-17)
John's baptism was not to be permanent however, as he said that the one coming after him would go on increasing, whilst his work was decreasing. (John 3:30)

There is no record of baptism being a Jewish practice up until then, so it was a new concept to them.

The Greek word for baptize is "baptō" which means "to dip...or immerse"....so no sprinkling of water will ever baptize anyone because of what full immersion baptism symbolizes.

Jesus came to John at the river to present himself for baptism. John at first was hesitant because he had been baptizing in symbol of repentance for sins committed, but Jesus was sinless and John knew it. He told Jesus that he was the one who needed to be baptized by him. But Jesus said: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

The baptism of Jesus therefore, must have had a meaning and purpose quite different from John’s baptism, as Jesus “committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22) So he could not submit to an act symbolizing repentance, since he had nothing over which to repent. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that John objected to baptizing Jesus.

So the questions open for discussion are....what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Why did it need to be full immersion?
And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Thoughts....?

 

[Johann]

This is a question from another thread which I believe deserves a thread of its own.

Baptism by full immersion in the Jordan River was first carried out by John the Baptist for the Jews who had transgressed the Law. (Luke 3:3) It was a public symbol of their repentance and John B had been sent ahead of the Messiah to "prepare the way" (Luke 1:76-77) so those who submitted to John's baptism demonstrated that they were in the right frame of mind and heart to accept the Messiah's teachings. (Luke 1:16-17)
John's baptism was not to be permanent however, as he said that the one coming after him would go on increasing, whilst his work was decreasing. (John 3:30)

There is no record of baptism being a Jewish practice up until then, so it was a new concept to them.

The Greek word for baptize is "baptō" which means "to dip...or immerse"....so no sprinkling of water will ever baptize anyone because of what full immersion baptism symbolizes.

Jesus came to John at the river to present himself for baptism. John at first was hesitant because he had been baptizing in symbol of repentance for sins committed, but Jesus was sinless and John knew it. He told Jesus that he was the one who needed to be baptized by him. But Jesus said: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

The baptism of Jesus therefore, must have had a meaning and purpose quite different from John’s baptism, as Jesus “committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22) So he could not submit to an act symbolizing repentance, since he had nothing over which to repent. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that John objected to baptizing Jesus.

So the questions open for discussion are....what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Why did it need to be full immersion?
And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Thoughts....?

Matthew 3:13-15 (NIV)

13. Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.

14. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

15. Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.


While baptizing people, John the Baptist had been proclaiming that the Baptism of the coming Messiah Jesus’ would be even more significant than his.

Matthew 3:11 (NIV)

11. “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

However, when Jesus later came to him and had asked to be baptized; John felt unqualified. He instead, wanted Jesus to baptize him. So why did Jesus end up taking baptism?

Firstly, John’s baptism was a call to repentance for all people; however, Jesus did not perform this act for the repentance of sins because He never sinned.

Rather, through His baptism, Christ identified with us sinners as He would ultimately bear our sins, and His perfect righteousness would be imputed to us.

Jesus was baptized for the following reasons:

It pictures His death and resurrection;
It records Jesus’ initial public identification with those whose sins He would bear;
it asserted His messiahship publicly by the testimony of the Father received directly from heaven
To begin His public ministry that is the mission to bring the message of salvation to all people;
He was confessing the sins on behalf of the nations, as Nehemiah, Ezra, Moses, and Daniel had done in the Old Testament;
He was showing support for John’s Ministry;
He was identifying with the contrite people of God, and not with the critical Pharisees who were only watching; and
To give us an example to follow in obeying the act of baptism.
Jesus, the perfect man, did not need baptism for the repentance of sin, but He accepted the act of baptism in obedience and as a service to the Father who showed His approval and favor upon Him.
J.

 

[charity]

Baptism by full immersion in the Jordan River was first carried out by John the Baptist for the Jews who had transgressed the Law. (Luke 3:3) It was a public symbol of their repentance and John B had been sent ahead of the Messiah to "prepare the way" (Luke 1:76-77) so those who submitted to John's baptism demonstrated that they were in the right frame of mind and heart to accept the Messiah's teachings. (Luke 1:16-17)
John's baptism was not to be permanent however, as he said that the one coming after him would go on increasing, whilst his work was decreasing. (John 3:30)

There is no record of baptism being a Jewish practice up until then, so it was a new concept to them.

The Greek word for baptize is "baptō" which means "to dip...or immerse"....so no sprinkling of water will ever baptize anyone because of what full immersion baptism symbolizes.

Jesus came to John at the river to present himself for baptism. John at first was hesitant because he had been baptizing in symbol of repentance for sins committed, but Jesus was sinless and John knew it. He told Jesus that he was the one who needed to be baptized by him. But Jesus said: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

The baptism of Jesus therefore, must have had a meaning and purpose quite different from John’s baptism, as Jesus “committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22) So he could not submit to an act symbolizing repentance, since he had nothing over which to repent. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that John objected to baptizing Jesus.

So the questions open for discussion are....what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Why did it need to be full immersion?
And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Thoughts....?

Hello @Aunty Jane,

* John the Baptist tells us the Divine purpose for him baptizing, in John 1:31:-

'This is He of Whom I said,
After me cometh a Man which is preferred before me:
for He was before me.
And I knew Him not:
but that He should be made manifest to Israel,
therefore am I come baptizing with water.'
(Joh 1:30-31)

* Expanding this statement we have John's witness statement:-

'And John bare record, saying,
I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,
and it abode upon Him.
And I knew him not:
but He that sent me to baptize with water,
The Same said unto me,
"Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him,
the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.'
(Joh 1:32-34)

Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

This is a question from another thread which I believe deserves a thread of its own.

Baptism by full immersion in the Jordan River was first carried out by John the Baptist for the Jews who had transgressed the Law. (Luke 3:3) It was a public symbol of their repentance and John B had been sent ahead of the Messiah to "prepare the way" (Luke 1:76-77) so those who submitted to John's baptism demonstrated that they were in the right frame of mind and heart to accept the Messiah's teachings. (Luke 1:16-17)
John's baptism was not to be permanent however, as he said that the one coming after him would go on increasing, whilst his work was decreasing. (John 3:30)

There is no record of baptism being a Jewish practice up until then, so it was a new concept to them.

The Greek word for baptize is "baptō" which means "to dip...or immerse"....so no sprinkling of water will ever baptize anyone because of what full immersion baptism symbolizes.

Jesus came to John at the river to present himself for baptism. John at first was hesitant because he had been baptizing in symbol of repentance for sins committed, but Jesus was sinless and John knew it. He told Jesus that he was the one who needed to be baptized by him. But Jesus said: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

The baptism of Jesus therefore, must have had a meaning and purpose quite different from John’s baptism, as Jesus “committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22) So he could not submit to an act symbolizing repentance, since he had nothing over which to repent. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that John objected to baptizing Jesus.

So the questions open for discussion are....what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Why did it need to be full immersion?
And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Thoughts....?

@Aunty Jane said:-
(1) What was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
(2) Why did it need to be full immersion?
(3) And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Hello again, @Aunty Jane,

As I have already stated in reply#3, the baptism performed by John was divinely appointed for one purpose, that the Lord Jesus Christ should be made manifest to Israel. Prophecy concerning John the Baptist, tells us that he came to 'prepare' the way of the Lord, as a forerunner. He preached, saying, 'Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' (Mark 3:2). For their King was among them. His baptism was also for repentance and the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), and the making known of the knowledge of salvation (Luke 1:77)

* Baptism was no New Testament rite or custom (Mark 7:8, Luke 11:38). The enquiry by the Pharisees of John the Baptist was not to ask the meaning of Baptism, but why he baptized, if he were neither Christ, Elijah nor that prophet? (John 1:25), which again, clearly shows, that baptism was no new thing.

* Peter and Paul refer to the Old Testament in regard to baptism, in 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:10, (referring to the Ark and the flood, the crossing of the red sea 'in' Moses, and carnal ordinances of the tabernacle respectively), each relate to baptism in terms of identification, but neither refers to baptism in water, all is carried out on dry land (Exodus 14:22; Exodus 15:19; Psalm 66:6).

* The 'divers washing' of the Old Testament are 'baptisms', including the washings of the Priests in the performance of their duties, the washings at the purifying of the leper and others who contracted any form of defilement. These 'baptisms' are summed up unto the heading, 'carnal ordinances' imposed until the time of reformation (Hebrews 9:8-10). These the Hebrew believers are exhorted to 'leave' in (Hebrews 6:4), and not 'lay again'.

Just further thoughts.
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[user]

This is a question from another thread which I believe deserves a thread of its own.

Baptism by full immersion in the Jordan River was first carried out by John the Baptist for the Jews who had transgressed the Law. (Luke 3:3) It was a public symbol of their repentance and John B had been sent ahead of the Messiah to "prepare the way" (Luke 1:76-77) so those who submitted to John's baptism demonstrated that they were in the right frame of mind and heart to accept the Messiah's teachings. (Luke 1:16-17)
John's baptism was not to be permanent however, as he said that the one coming after him would go on increasing, whilst his work was decreasing. (John 3:30)

There is no record of baptism being a Jewish practice up until then, so it was a new concept to them.

The Greek word for baptize is "baptō" which means "to dip...or immerse"....so no sprinkling of water will ever baptize anyone because of what full immersion baptism symbolizes.

Jesus came to John at the river to present himself for baptism. John at first was hesitant because he had been baptizing in symbol of repentance for sins committed, but Jesus was sinless and John knew it. He told Jesus that he was the one who needed to be baptized by him. But Jesus said: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

The baptism of Jesus therefore, must have had a meaning and purpose quite different from John’s baptism, as Jesus “committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22) So he could not submit to an act symbolizing repentance, since he had nothing over which to repent. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that John objected to baptizing Jesus.

So the questions open for discussion are....what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Why did it need to be full immersion?
And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Thoughts....?

Apparently it is quite significant considering Jesus, who knew no sin, walked from Nazareth to Bethabara (probably about 50-60 miles) to be baptized by John the Baptist. When John the Baptist told Jesus that it needed to be the other way around (him being baptized by Jesus), Jesus told him that it was necessary to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:13-17).

Many think the "natural" realm we live in is all there is to it, and that being a Christian is just a matter of their profession of faith. However, the Spiritual realm runs parallel. And, as a result, far too many simply fail to recognize, or benefit, from it.


The Natural Realm - Gospel Message:
1.) Death,
2.) Burial and
3.) Resurrection of Jesus Christ.


The Spiritual Realm Parallel - Gospel Message:
1.) Repentance (dying out to sin, self and the world)
2.) Baptism (by immersion -Romans 6:3) in the Precious Name of Jesus for the remission of sin, and
3.) Being born again - the infilling of the Holy Ghost "the Bible way", and rising to walk in the newness of life in Christ.


Peter applied this very same "Death, Burial, Resurrection" doctrine when asked, point blank, What shall we do to be saved...

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

 

[Robert Gwin]

This is a question from another thread which I believe deserves a thread of its own.

Baptism by full immersion in the Jordan River was first carried out by John the Baptist for the Jews who had transgressed the Law. (Luke 3:3) It was a public symbol of their repentance and John B had been sent ahead of the Messiah to "prepare the way" (Luke 1:76-77) so those who submitted to John's baptism demonstrated that they were in the right frame of mind and heart to accept the Messiah's teachings. (Luke 1:16-17)
John's baptism was not to be permanent however, as he said that the one coming after him would go on increasing, whilst his work was decreasing. (John 3:30)

There is no record of baptism being a Jewish practice up until then, so it was a new concept to them.

The Greek word for baptize is "baptō" which means "to dip...or immerse"....so no sprinkling of water will ever baptize anyone because of what full immersion baptism symbolizes.

Jesus came to John at the river to present himself for baptism. John at first was hesitant because he had been baptizing in symbol of repentance for sins committed, but Jesus was sinless and John knew it. He told Jesus that he was the one who needed to be baptized by him. But Jesus said: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

The baptism of Jesus therefore, must have had a meaning and purpose quite different from John’s baptism, as Jesus “committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22) So he could not submit to an act symbolizing repentance, since he had nothing over which to repent. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that John objected to baptizing Jesus.

So the questions open for discussion are....what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Why did it need to be full immersion?
And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Thoughts....?

Great topic Jane, although many associate baptism with cleansing of sin, and it does according to the Bible Mk 1:4, you accurately pointed out that Jesus was no sinner. Clearly then baptism means more than just a cleansing of sin.

We see through the assignment of Jesus that baptism was a requirement at some point for a disciple. Part of our teaching all things that Jesus commanded is that our sins are forgiven not from baptism, rather through the sacrifice of Jesus' flesh and blood offered one time in our behalf. So our baptism, like Jesus' baptism stands for something else. It actually is a literal act that symbolizes death to our former life course of sin, to a rebirth of a new life, a dedicated life to God. I think that is the best way I can explain it. It is a public demonstration of our faith maam

 

[Aunty Jane]

There are some things that are scripturally sound in your list here and others that I believe are speculative.

Jesus was baptized for the following reasons:

If I may, I would like to identify what I believe is in accord with the scriptures in your list there.....and what may be implied but is really not written.

It pictures His death and resurrection;

I agree with this. Full immersion baptism is a symbol of death, burial and resurrection. It is the same symbol that all Christians should understand so that infant baptism is shown to be invalid. It must be undertaken in accord with full knowledge before you commit to becoming a disciple of Christ. It carries with it an obligation that no infant can make, nor is it something one can do devoid of knowledge of the obligation attached to it. It is as much an act of dedication as marriage.

It is not the act of baptism itself, devoid of knowledge and true commitment, that means anything.

John B said that he would decrease whilst Christ increased. So those baptized by John B did not undergo the same baptism as Jesus and his later disciples did. Those who were baptized by John formed the nucleus of those who would need to be baptized twice. Once as a symbol of their repentance over breaking God's law, and the other to demonstrate that they had accepted Jesus as their Messiah and Savior.

There are several baptisms mentioned in the scriptures...those are just two of them. (Matthew 3:11)

It records Jesus’ initial public identification with those whose sins He would bear;

I find no real Biblical reference for that. The fact that he sought out those whom the religious leaders considered spiritually ‘lost’.....was because it was to those “lost sheep” that Jesus was sent. (Matthew 15:24) He understood their plight just by walking amongst them. He died for all mankind, who would end up coming from all walks of life in every nation. (Acts 10:34-35)

it asserted His messiahship publicly by the testimony of the Father received directly from heaven
To begin His public ministry that is the mission to bring the message of salvation to all people;

Yes, there is Biblical testimony to support both those points. His baptism was a symbolic 'dying' to his former course of life, being 'buried' under the water, and being 'raised' to carry out the will of his Father....as it was always the will of the Father that was foremost in his mind. (John 6:38; John 4:24) Confirmation was heard that this was indeed God's son and that his Father was well pleased with his willingness to to carry out the role he was sent to fulfill.

He was confessing the sins on behalf of the nations, as Nehemiah, Ezra, Moses, and Daniel had done in the Old Testament;

Not sure if there is support for this either because in his role as "redeemer" this was not necessary. The redemption laws in Israel only required that the redeemer pay in full the price that was demanded to release the debtor. Jesus did that.

He was showing support for John’s Ministry;

He was the beneficiary of John's ministry, but I don't see that he actively supported John in that ministry...I believe it was the other way around.
Since John was the only one baptizing in preparation for the Messiah's coming, who else was going to baptize Jesus? Yet John's hesitation indicates that he was not entirely sure that it was right. Jesus reassured him. He and Jesus were related through their mothers....both being pregnant at the same time by divine intervention.

He was identifying with the contrite people of God, and not with the critical Pharisees who were only watching; and
To give us an example to follow in obeying the act of baptism.

I agree with the second part of that, but not finding anything in the scriptures to indicate the first part. Jesus exposed the Pharisees by castigating them publicly on many occasions. The people who followed Jesus knew exactly what he thought of them.(Matthew 23)

Jesus, the perfect man, did not need baptism for the repentance of sin, but He accepted the act of baptism in obedience and as a service to the Father who showed His approval and favor upon Him.

Yes...I believe you are spot on with that one. It was the beginning of his mission as Messiah and he knew it was going to be brief. Daniel had prophesied that Messiah would be "cut off" after three and a half years and that proved to be correct.

 

[Deborah_]

So the questions open for discussion are....what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Why did it need to be full immersion?
And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Baptism as such wasn't practised within Judaism prior to John the Baptist, but they did baptise Gentile proselytes (as well as circumcising them). And ritual washing was part of the consecration ritual for the high priest - followed by anointing with sacred oil (Exodus 29:4-7).
So I think it's significant that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit immediately after His baptism. He was being consecrated as our High Priest, first by washing and then by anointing.

I'm not sure that there was a need for full immersion. But that is apparently what John did.

The difference between Christian baptism and John's baptism is that we are baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We thus submit not only to the authority of the Father (as the recipients of John's baptism did) but also to the authority of Christ and of the Spirit. And this makes a big difference post-baptism. See Acts 19:1-7, where Paul finds a group of "disciples" (who have only been baptised in John's way) who do not show any evidence of the Holy Spirit operating in their lives.

 

[user]

The difference between Christian baptism and John's baptism is that we are baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We thus submit not only to the authority of the Father (as the recipients of John's baptism did) but also to the authority of Christ and of the Spirit. And this makes a big difference post-baptism. See Acts 19:1-7, where Paul finds a group of "disciples" (who have only been baptised in John's way) who do not show any evidence of the Holy Spirit operating in their lives.

Matthew 28:19 is not the only account of the great commission ...

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


Let's see what they did with that...



Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:14-16 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


If we do a word search for "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" we render only one (1) hit = Mat 28:19
They knew to obey the command (baptize in Jesus name) instead of repeat verbatim the command (Matt 28:19)


And, I too agree baptism is by immersion (not sprinkling)...

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 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.

God Bless!

 

[Aunty Jane]

* Baptism was no New Testament rite or custom (Mark 7:8, Luke 11:38). The enquiry by the Pharisees of John the Baptist was not to ask the meaning of Baptism, but why he baptized, if he were neither Christ, Elijah nor that prophet? (John 1:25), which again, clearly shows, that baptism was no new thing.

Thank you for your post Charity.
The OT speaks of ceremonial washing, but this was in no way the kind of baptism that Jesus participated in, nor was it the kind of baptism that John B preached.

Jesus’ baptism and his anointing with holy spirit after it, was the day he ceased being “Jesus, son of the carpenter”, to being “Jesus the Christ”. (anointed one)

* Peter and Paul refer to the Old Testament in regard to baptism, in 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:10, (referring to the Ark and the flood, the crossing of the red sea 'in' Moses, and carnal ordinances of the tabernacle respectively), each relate to baptism in terms of identification, but neither refers to baptism in water, all is carried out on dry land (Exodus 14:22; Exodus 15:19; Psalm 66:6).

1 Peter 3:18-22 in context reads....
"For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him." (NASB) Sorry but I find modern translations easier to read and comprehend.

Yes, as you said....symbolically, Noah and his family going “through the water” was a form of salvation for them. It is necessary for us too to go "through the water" but not in a vessel. We imitate Jesus by going "through the water" bodily ourselves, and for a very specific purpose. It is the day we die to our own will and put the will of the Father first in our lives. Jesus said that those not doing so when the judgment comes will not fare well. (Matthew 7:21-23)

The ceremonial washing made the cleanliness of one serving God, something of great importance. Physical cleanliness was ‘next to godliness’. But neither of these meant the same thing as the baptisms performed in Jesus’ day. That was something new.
Full immersion was a symbolic death, burial, and resurrection, which was a reflection of the Jewish belief in the resurrection, as opposed to the concept of an immortal soul, which was adopted later from Greek Platonism.

* The 'divers washing' of the Old Testament are 'baptisms', including the washings of the Priests in the performance of their duties, the washings at the purifying of the leper and others who contracted any form of defilement.

Not the same at all. Baptism for Christians is what Peter alluded to....”not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.
It is the sin atoning value of Jesus' blood that provides the cleansing, (1 John 1:7) not the water of Christian baptism. The sin atoning value of his sacrifice provided forgiveness and the resulting clear conscience, knowing that all past sins have been forgiven.

That is how I understand what the scriptures say about it.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

If we do a word search for "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" we render only one (1) hit = Mat 28:19

Did you know that there is no such thing as a "Holy Ghost" in all of scripture?
The holy spirit is not a 'ghost', but this is what Christendom's older English translations used to imply to support their trinity. Using the word "ghost" conjured up ideas that the holy spirit was a person....but nowhere in the scriptures is God ever called "God the Son" or "God the Holy Ghost". Nowhere is the holy spirit ever called "God".

Being baptized "in the name of" these three, is acknowledging the role that each one has played in the life of the one submitting to baptism.....the truth from the Father....his teachings, who came through the son, and the sin atoning value of his blood, all made possible by the operation of God's holy spirit.

They knew to obey the command (baptize in Jesus name) instead of repeat verbatim the command (Matt 28:19)

Can I just ask you....what do you think it means to be "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"?

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 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.

Now we are getting onto another facet of baptism....."baptism into [Christ's] death".

Who is the "we" spoken about here? And what do you believe is the "newness of life"?

 

[user]

Did you know that there is no such thing as a "Holy Ghost" in all of scripture?
The holy spirit is not a 'ghost', but this is what Christendom's older English translations used to imply to support their trinity. Using the word "ghost" conjured up ideas that the holy spirit was a person....but nowhere in the scriptures is God ever called "God the Son" or "God the Holy Ghost". Nowhere is the holy spirit ever called "God".

Being baptized "in the name of" these three, is acknowledging the role that each one has played in the life of the one submitting to baptism.....the truth from the Father....his teachings, who came through the son, and the sin atoning value of his blood, all made possible by the operation of God's holy spirit.


Can I just ask you....what do you think it means to be "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"?


Now we are getting onto another facet of baptism....."baptism into [Christ's] death".

Who is the "we" spoken about here? And what do you believe is the "newness of life"?

My position is Paul's inspired teaching here is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, a personal identification and a burial with Christ, not with three separate persons of a trinity - hence my reference to Luke 24:47. Only Jesus Christ died and was buried on our behalf.

If we have identified with Christ's death and burial, we will also identify with His resurrection. Just as God raised Christ from death, so we should rise from repentance and water baptism to walk in newness of life. The verse is not speaking merely of future bodily resurrection after physical death, but of new life now. We receive this newness of life through the indwelling of Christ's Holy Spirit....

Romans 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit..."

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Romans 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The negative aspect of conversion is death to sin, which is symbolized and completed by burial with Christ in water baptism. The positive aspect of conversion is new life in Christ, which we receive by the Holy Spirit.

 

[user]

Nowhere is the holy spirit ever called "God".

Please explain what you mean.

My position is, the Holy Spirit is Almighty God's very own SPIRIT. And, is also the Spirit of Christ.

Genesis 1:2 "...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

John 14:16-17 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

If we have identified with Christ's death and burial, we will also identify with His resurrection.

Precious friend, in my "baby days" of a traditional denomination, I also
believed in their symbolic teaching: "physical water identification."

Then God Corrected me with His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided! The
ONE Baptism (Eph 4:5) Of Today, Under GRACE, Is Actually God's Spiritual
Identification With His Crucifixion, Death, Burial, And Resurrection, and
Baptism By The ONE Spirit (1Co 12:13), Into The Spiritual Organism,
Seated In The Heavenlies, The Body Of Christ!

Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged, Enlightened, Exhorted, And Edified In
The LORD JESUS CHRIST, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!

Uncertainty of water baptism!
Bible Answer To Confusing church Bewilderment!

GRACE And Peace...https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/gods-very-simple-will-under-his-pure-grace.39214/

 

[charity]

Thank you for your post Charity.
The OT speaks of ceremonial washing, but this was in no way the kind of baptism that Jesus participated in, nor was it the kind of baptism that John B preached.

Jesus’ baptism and his anointing with holy spirit after it, was the day he ceased being “Jesus, son of the carpenter”, to being “Jesus the Christ”. (anointed one)


1 Peter 3:18-22 in context reads....
"For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him." (NASB) Sorry but I find modern translations easier to read and comprehend.

Yes, as you said....symbolically, Noah and his family going “through the water” was a form of salvation for them. It is necessary for us too to go "through the water" but not in a vessel. We imitate Jesus by going "through the water" bodily ourselves, and for a very specific purpose. It is the day we die to our own will and put the will of the Father first in our lives. Jesus said that those not doing so when the judgment comes will not fare well. (Matthew 7:21-23)

The ceremonial washing made the cleanliness of one serving God, something of great importance. Physical cleanliness was ‘next to godliness’. But neither of these meant the same thing as the baptisms performed in Jesus’ day. That was something new.
Full immersion was a symbolic death, burial, and resurrection, which was a reflection of the Jewish belief in the resurrection, as opposed to the concept of an immortal soul, which was adopted later from Greek Platonism.


Not the same at all. Baptism for Christians is what Peter alluded to....”not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.
It is the sin atoning value of Jesus' blood that provides the cleansing, (1 John 1:7) not the water of Christian baptism. The sin atoning value of his sacrifice provided forgiveness and the resulting clear conscience, knowing that all past sins have been forgiven.

That is how I understand what the scriptures say about it.

Hello @Aunty Jane,

Thank you for responding.

I stand by what I said in responses #3 & 4#. Arguing about the Scriptures achieves nothing I believe. We can only state our case, and leave it to the Scriptures themselves to arbitrate.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

Precious friend, in my "baby days" of a traditional denomination, I also
believed in their symbolic teaching: "physical water identification."

Then God Corrected me with His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided! The
ONE Baptism (Eph 4:5) Of Today, Under GRACE, Is Actually God's Spiritual
Identification With His Crucifixion, Death, Burial, And Resurrection, and
Baptism By The ONE Spirit (1Co 12:13), Into The Spiritual Organism,
Seated In The Heavenlies, The Body Of Christ!

Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged, Enlightened, Exhorted, And Edified In
The LORD JESUS CHRIST, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!

Praise God! @GRACE ambassador,

I second that.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[user]

Precious friend, in my "baby days" of a traditional denomination, I also
believed in their symbolic teaching: "physical water identification."

Then God Corrected me with His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided! The
ONE Baptism (Eph 4:5) Of Today, Under GRACE, Is Actually God's Spiritual
Identification With His Crucifixion, Death, Burial, And Resurrection, and
Baptism By The ONE Spirit (1Co 12:13), Into The Spiritual Organism,
Seated In The Heavenlies, The Body Of Christ!

According to your statement, this is rendered thus....

John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water(Spirit) and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Good luck with that.

 

[Deborah_]

Did you know that there is no such thing as a "Holy Ghost" in all of scripture?
The holy spirit is not a 'ghost', but this is what Christendom's older English translations used to imply to support their trinity. Using the word "ghost" conjured up ideas that the holy spirit was a person...

The 17th century translators used the word 'ghost' because it had a slightly different range of meaning back then - it could have the same meaning as 'spirit' (rather like 'Geist' in modern German). Nothing to do with their belief in the Trinity. Christians had already believed for centuries that the Holy Spirit is a Person, so that idea wasn't "conjured up" by the translation. These days, the word 'ghost' has a much narrower meaning: it means somebody who has died (which the Holy Spirit certainly hasn't!). So we really shouldn't call Him "the Holy Ghost" any more - it gives people totally the wrong idea.

 

[Bob Estey]

This is a question from another thread which I believe deserves a thread of its own.

Baptism by full immersion in the Jordan River was first carried out by John the Baptist for the Jews who had transgressed the Law. (Luke 3:3) It was a public symbol of their repentance and John B had been sent ahead of the Messiah to "prepare the way" (Luke 1:76-77) so those who submitted to John's baptism demonstrated that they were in the right frame of mind and heart to accept the Messiah's teachings. (Luke 1:16-17)
John's baptism was not to be permanent however, as he said that the one coming after him would go on increasing, whilst his work was decreasing. (John 3:30)

There is no record of baptism being a Jewish practice up until then, so it was a new concept to them.

The Greek word for baptize is "baptō" which means "to dip...or immerse"....so no sprinkling of water will ever baptize anyone because of what full immersion baptism symbolizes.

Jesus came to John at the river to present himself for baptism. John at first was hesitant because he had been baptizing in symbol of repentance for sins committed, but Jesus was sinless and John knew it. He told Jesus that he was the one who needed to be baptized by him. But Jesus said: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

The baptism of Jesus therefore, must have had a meaning and purpose quite different from John’s baptism, as Jesus “committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22) So he could not submit to an act symbolizing repentance, since he had nothing over which to repent. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that John objected to baptizing Jesus.

So the questions open for discussion are....what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Why did it need to be full immersion?
And how does Christian baptism differ from what John B performed?

Thoughts....?

Off the top of my head, it occurs to me Jesus, I believe, was trying to set an example for us, and he wanted us to get baptized. I wonder, though, if baptism isn't symbolic of a spiritual process we experience.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The 17th century translators used the word 'ghost' because it had a slightly different range of meaning back then - it could have the same meaning as 'spirit' (rather like 'Geist' in modern German).

Yes, that is exactly where it came from. Those who read the word "ghost" in archaic English immediately identified the holy spirit as a holy ghost.
We all know what a "poltergeist" is and it has nothing to do with God. It is "from German Polter, “noise” or “racket”; Geist, “spirit”), in occultism, a disembodied spirit or supernatural force credited with certain malicious or disturbing phenomena, such as inexplicable noises, sudden wild movements, or breakage of household items." (Britannica)
So these are references to demonic spirits that cause a disturbance in order to create fear.

Nothing to do with their belief in the Trinity. Christians had already believed for centuries that the Holy Spirit is a Person, so that idea wasn't "conjured up" by the translation.

Perhaps I should have said that it was the perpetuation of a belief that manifested in the early centuries but was only officially recognized by "the church" as official doctrine....("God the Father"..."God the Son"....and "God the Holy Ghost") in the 4th century.
We have to wonder why it took over three hundred years for "the church" to formally accept something that is not taught in any part of the Bible. It wasn't the only pagan idea that they adopted.

These days, the word 'ghost' has a much narrower meaning: it means somebody who has died (which the Holy Spirit certainly hasn't!). So we really shouldn't call Him "the Holy Ghost" any more - it gives people totally the wrong idea.

It is meant to give people the wrong idea unfortunately, and those who stick to those old translations like to cling to it because of what it suggests rather than what it actually said in the original language. Sadly many seem to think that the Bible was written in archaic English by God himself and will accept no other translation.

We are much better equipped to understand those original languages now and technology provides a wide distribution of that knowledge, so there is no excuse to cling to outdated Bibles because they say what people want to believe.