Featured Old Covenant baptism

Old Covenant baptism is (sort of) found in Mark 7:2-4. ‘Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed (Gk. Anniptos) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash (Gk. Nipto) their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (Gk. Baptizo). And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing (Gk. Baptismos) of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.’

Now we’re looking here at two different scenarios. Whatever the Pharisees were doing they always gave their hands a ceremonial wash before eating. However when they had been in the market-place and had potentially come into contact with all sorts of sinners and Gentiles, a mere hand-wash was quite insufficient; they would bathe their whole selves, and if any furniture were to become unclean for any reason they would place it in water in order to cleanse it. Surely not the dining couches? Yes, even them. They did it in the desert, why not in Israel? ‘Anything on which any of them [unclean reptiles] falls when it is dead shall be unclean, whether it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack, whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water’ (Lev 11:32). According to Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century Jewish authority, if an item was too big to immerse completely, half of it was dunked in the water, then it was taken out, turned around, and the other half immersed. However, we need not imagine a large piece of furniture, anymore than we suppose that the paralytic in Mark 2:12 carried away a four-poster bed; Jews ate as they reclined and the ‘couches’ were probably nothing more than rolls of matting laid out.
[from my blog: What About Baptism?]

 

Is Leviticus 15:11-14 invented righteousness?

 

First of all, your link to the discussion gives Trench's discussion. Since Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament was first published in 1906 before most of the papyrii were discovered, it is not considered to be reliable as to meaning. I have the book, but rarely consult it. This entry is a good example of Trench's errors, since he describes baptismos and baptisma as "washing" rather than their true meaning of "immersion." Why? Trench was an Anglican, and thus wanted to sprinkle babies.

Secondly--oh wait, my first paragraph makes the rest of your post moot, since you are going from a flawed source on the Greek.

 

That's pretty close to my take.

 

John's baptism was acceptable only as concerns its purpose: a baptism "on account of repentance," not a baptism picturing the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The passage that shows that Christ Himself baptized has now been discussed.

 

I don't think this works.
John 4:2. 'Though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples [did].' This is the usual rendering.
I understand that you take this as meaning, 'Jesus Himself did not baptize, except for His disciples.' If the text had 'apostles' rather than 'disciples,' you might possibly be right, but whom else would He possibly baptize except disciples? He wasn't about to baptize the Pharisees! The text as you would have it makes no sense.

Also, the Lord Jesus is not the One who baptizes with water; He baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

 

Look at the context of the first three chapters. These were disciples who actually accompanied Jesus, so there were not many of them at this point in Christ's ministry. (A. T. Robertson says only six.)

I assume you are talking about Matt. 3:11 (and the parallel synoptic verses). The wording there (John's contrasting statement) does not preclude Jesus baptizing with water.

 

​

It's a standard Baptist belief. All the Baptists I know baptize with the formula, "Buried with Him in baptism; raised to walk in newness of life."

Rom. 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."

 

Meaning 'an incomplete Gospel does not send one to heaven'? Did OT saints have a complete gospel? BTW, these in Acts 19 were 'believers' and are referred to as 'disciples'.

Compare:
.
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: Mt 3
8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. Mk 8
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. Jn 1

With:

2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given.
5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Acts 19

Since there's no mention of 'water' in the context, I'm not convinced that 'water baptism' is what's in view here.

 

Also comparing.

And Ananias went away, and did enter into the house, and having put upon him his hands, said, 'Saul, brother, the Lord hath sent me -- Jesus who did appear to thee in the way in which thou wast coming -- that thou mayest see again, and mayest be filled with the Holy Spirit.' And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, he saw again also presently, and having risen, was baptized, Acts 9:17,18 YLT

Is the laying on of hands, the healing blindness, physical and spiritual, receiving the Holy Spirit; The baptism?

 

The baptism of Christ was that of the Spirit. Cornelius's clan was baptized in the Spirit, WITHOUT the laying on of hands, and BEFORE water baptism.

 

True.

Maybe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is just the receiving of the Holy Spirit, sans water and or the laying on of hands.