Old Covenant baptism

[TCassidy]

They were Ot saints, living during the transition into the NT reality.

It has been 25 years since the crucifixion. Apollos had apparently heard the preaching of John the Baptist regarding "The Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sins of the World." But he apparently left prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. So he was preaching an incomplete Gospel. His "disciples" believed an incomplete Gospel (1 Cor 15). An incomplete Gospel does not save, and thus their baptism was invalid. Neither was Apollos ordained by any church to perform valid NT church baptism.

Those "disciples" heard the Gospel, believed, and submitted to baptism.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?]

 

[Covenanter]

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?]

That has more to do with Rabbinic tradition than OC baptisms.

Likewise the Mikvah washings. All to do with an invented righteousness to avoid the fact that they lived with a hopelessly broken Mosaic covenant.

And when John comes with a baptism of repentance, they reject him as having no authority to baptise, & reject the validity of his baptism - even though the people of Israel accepted him & it.

Cleansing the conscience is a line to follow.

 

[Rob_BW]

Is Leviticus 15:11-14 invented righteousness?

 

[Covenanter]

Is Leviticus 15:11-14 invented righteousness?

No - it is one of the "various baptisms/washings" that gave cermonial clleansing. It seems the Rabbis used that sort of law to built their own traditions on.

 

[John of Japan]

The use of βαπτισμός, βάπτισμα
Is discussed in the link.

It is surprising, if OC washing rituals are implied by baptismos that it should be used in Heb. 6:2 where Christian doctrine & ritual is proposed.

1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.​

Maybe his intention by the plural is to establish the contrast we see in Heb. 9. His choices of example baptisms - red heifer ash & water, & blood sprinkling - are hardly washings in the sense of physical cleansing. In the former case, a water wash was also needed. The blood of the covenant sprinkling persumably wasn't immediately washed off - the elders went up the mountain to see God - sanctified by the blood.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, I agree that is an acceptable understanding of the Greek. (It is also an acceptable understanding of "but" in English. "He didn't baptize anyone except He baptized His disciples.")

But I tend to see the Acts 19 verses in light of having an incomplete Gospel "not so much heard of the Holy Spirit." As they were not indwelt, they were not saved. Once saved they were then scripturally baptized. But that's just my take on the subject.

That's pretty close to my take.

 

[John of Japan]

Acts 1:21-22 indicates that John's baptism was acceptable. No suggestion that Jesus himself ever baptised.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well, probably yes. But I take the alla in 4:2 as "except for His disciples" instead of "He did not but His disciples did." A similar usage is in Mark 4:22 and 2 Cor. 1:13.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.)

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

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.

 

[Covenanter]

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.

Baptism of believers is a baptism of repentance - Acts 2 - & signifies our baptism into Christ - we die to self & are raised to new life in the Spirit - Romans 6. Where specifically do you read that the baptism of believers pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Christ rather than the spiritual death to sin & resurrection to new life? Born of water & the Spirit.

And if Jesus did baptise the disciples with water, they had to wait till Pentecost for him to baptise them with the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:21-22 indicates that they were baptised by John. No suggestion of being rebaptised by Jesus.

If Apollos had been rebaptised like the others, surely that would have been recorded along with a statement of the need for ALL those baptised by John & his disciples to be rebaptised.

Acts 18:24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man andmighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.​

 

[John of Japan]

Baptism of believers is a baptism of repentance - Acts 2 - & signifies our baptism into Christ - we die to self & are raised to new life in the Spirit - Romans 6. Where specifically do you read that the baptism of believers pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Christ rather than the spiritual death to sin & resurrection to new life? Born of water & the Spirit.

​

​

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."

 

[kyredneck]

An incomplete Gospel does not save

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'.

their baptism was invalid

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.

 

[percho]

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?

 

[kyredneck]

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.

 

[percho]

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.