His lineage credentials as a priest enabled John the Baptist to baptize.
John the Baptist was Saved in his mother's womb and was Sent from God to baptize with the Authority of God, as a part of the Whole Counsel and Manifold Wisdom of God for those baptized, including Jesus Christ, to Fulfill All Righteousness.
3. Thirdly, to suppose that John took up the practice of baptizing as he found it among the Jews, and from a tradition and custom of theirs, greatly detracts from the character of John, his Divine Mission, and the Credit of baptism, as Administered by him; and is contrary to what the scriptures say concerning him. The scriptures represent John the Baptist as the first Administrator of baptism, and, for a while, the sole Administrator of baptism; for, for what other reason do they call him the Baptist, and distinguish him by this title, if it was then a common thing, and had been usual in time past, to baptize persons?
The scriptures say he was a man sent of God, and Sent by Him “to baptize with water” (John 1:6, 33).
But what need was there of a mission and commission to what was in common use, and had been so time out of mind? The Jews hearing of John’s baptizing persons, sent messengers to him, to know who he was that took upon him to baptize; who asked,
“Why baptizest thou, if thou art not that Christ, nor Elijah, nor that Prophet?” As if it was a New thing; and that it was expected he should be some extraordinary person who baptized.
But why should such questions be put to him, if this was in common use, and if any ordinary person, however any common doctor or Rabbi, had then, and in former times, been used to baptize persons?507 The scriptures speak of John’s baptism as the
“Counsel of God”: but according to this notion, it was a device and tradition of men;
and had this been the case, the Jews would not have been at a loss, nor under any difficulty, to answer the question Christ put to them, nor indeed, would he ever have put such an one;
“The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men?” for His putting the question thus, supposes the contrary, that it was not from men, but from God: and if it was not of God, but a tradition of men, they could have readily said,
“Of men”; without being confuted by Him, or exposed to the people; but being thrown into a dilemma, they took the wisest way for themselves, and answered,
“We cannot tell”...
When John first appeared baptizing, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were natural Jews, came to his baptism, and were not admitted to it, but Rejected from it, as unfit and improper persons; and others of the same Nation and profession, in their turn,
“rejected the Counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized by John”, (Matthew 3:7; Luke 7:30).
On the other hand, publicans, the Roman tax gatherers, of whom some indeed were Jews, others heathens, both equally odious, and therefore joined together, these
“justified God”, being baptized with the baptism of John; and these
“went into the kingdom of God”, into the Gospel State, before the Pharisees, and embraced its Doctrines, and submitted to its Ordinances,
(Luke 7:29 3:12; Matthew 21:31)
and even soldiers, Roman soldiers, for no other soldiers were then in Judea, were among the multitude who came to be baptized by him, to whom he gave good instructions, but did not refuse to baptize them,
(Luke 3:7, 14)
and our Lord Jesus Christ, whose forerunner John was in His Ministry and baptism, Gave Orders to His Disciples to baptize indiscriminately persons of all Nations, Jews and Gentiles, who believed in him;
and who accordingly did baptize them: so that baptism, in those early times of John, Christ, and his Apostles, was not confined to Natural Jews;
the wonder and the question upon it, as above, were not about the persons baptized, whether Jews or Gentiles, but about baptism itself, and the Administrator of it, as being altogether New...
he was often referred to as "the baptizer" or "the immerser".
Where do you think John the Baptist was called "the baptizer", or "the immerser", during his time ministry?
Yet, while you press the point that he was ever called "the baptizer", or "the immerser", in doing so, you give emphasis to the reality that John the Baptist WAS THE FIRST BAPTIZER AND IMMERSER AS THE GOD CALLED ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM, OR IMMERSION, EVER. See #8.
"The wonder and the question upon the baptism of John, as above, were not about the persons baptized, whether Jews or Gentiles, but about baptism itself, and the Administrator of it, as being altogether New..."
Jewish Ritual Immersion never involved an Administrator of that bathing, because all of it cadidates were self-immersed, while John the Baptist was Called and personally instrumental in being the first one who baptized others, as the Administrator of their baptism.
John was a religious and good man, but, with the scriptures, that he was surnamed ‘the Baptist’, to distinguish him from others; and that he ordered the Jews who lived righteous and godly lives to come to baptism, and such only did John admit of; and that baptizing was acceptable to God, when used not for removing some sins (
by which his baptism is distinguished from Jewish baptisms, which were used to purge from sin in a ceremonial sense) but for the purity of the body, the soul being before purified by Righteousness. Also he observes, with the scriptures, that multitudes flocked to John the Baptist; and that Herod, fearing that by his means his subjects would be drawn into a revolt, put him to death.
But why such flockings to him, if baptism had been a common thing?
And what had Herod to fear from that? He might reasonably conclude, that if this was no other than what had been usually practiced, the people would soon cease from following him. Nay, Josippon Ben Gorion511 the Jew’s Josephus, the historian whom they value and prefer to the true Josephus, says of that הליבט השע “he made”, instituted, and performed baptism, as if it was a new thing, founded by him; and for which later Jews express their resentment at him.
One of their virulent writers says512 “Who commanded John to institute this baptism? in what law did he find it? neither in the Old nor in the New.”
Now this would not be said by the Jews, if John had taken up his baptism from a custom of theirs; nor would they speak of the Ordinance of baptism in such a scandalous and blasphemous manner as they do, and in language too shocking to transcribe513 4.
Fourthly, the Jews will not allow that any proof of baptism can be produced out of the writings of the Old Testament, nor out of their Talmuds. Such passages in the Old Testament which speak of washing, and in which men are exhorted to
“wash” and be
“clean”,
as Isaiah 1:16 it is said, are to be understood of men cleansing themselves from their sins, and not of plunging in water;
“To plunge a man in water, is no where written; why therefore did Jesus command such baptism,” or dipping?514
and whereas the passage in
Ezekiel 16:9,
“Then washed I thee with water”, is by some interpreted of baptism; the Jew observes515
the words are not in the future tense; “I will wash thee”: but in the past tense; “I have washed thee”; and so cannot refer to baptism.
And whereas the promise in
Ezekiel 36:25,
“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness”, &c. is brought by some, I suppose he means some popish writers, as another proof of baptism the Jews replies516 “What sin and uncleanness does baptism take away? and what sin and uncleanness are there in newborn babes? Besides, says he, you do not do so; you do not sprinkle, but you are plunged into water:” which, by the way, shows that sprinkling was not used in baptism when this Jew wrote, which was in the twelfth century, as Wagenseil, the editor of his work, supposes. The same Jewish writer517 asks, “If the law of Jesus, and His coming, were known to the Prophets, why did not they observe His Law? and why did not they ‘baptize themselves’, according to the Law of Jesus?”..
But that the Jews had no notion that Christian baptism was founded upon any prior baptism of proselytes, or others, among them, as related in their Talmud, is manifest from a disputation had between Nachmanides, a famous Jew, and one brother Paul, a Christian, in the year 1263.521...
Con't
