Jump to content

Photo

So Where Was Baptism For Salvation In The Ot?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic

#1 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,861 posts
438
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 10 May 2014 - 08:48 AM

The title is from a post by Gorship, following several posts & questions. It needs a separate thread.

 

An answer given is:

AVBibleBeliever, on 09 May 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:snapback.png

And here all along I thought you knew the scriptures. Here they are:

John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and His disciples ministry from Matthew through Acts 7 was to Israel ONLY. the gospel they preached was the gospel of the Kingdom and belief on that Gospel required repentance and baptism. If Israel believed, repented and was baptized they received salvation. If not they were condemned.

read them through look at the message and what was done when they heard the message and who it was that was preached too.

This gospel is not preached today. The gospel of Grace is preached today and it does not require repentance or baptism only belief through faith. and the gospel of Grace is for all men not just Israel as was the kingdom Gospel.

Lu 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

......

And many more Scriptures.

 

It's not easy to follow AVBB's thinking, so I suggest we try to clarify questions of baptism by further discussion.

 

Is baptism commanded or practised or prophesied in the OT?

 

Why did the Pharisees expect Christ, Elias, & that prophet to baptise?

 

Why did the Hebrews writer propose to write about baptisms? And did he?

 

What is baptism? What does it signify, & does how is is administered show every aspect of its significance?

 

How should we regard notable paedobaptists - including the KJV translators, the hymn-writer Isaac Watts, & the leaders of the Methodist & other revivals?

 

When a godly paedobaptist leader comes to us, should we demand he be baptised (against his own understanding) or should he be treated as an unbaptised non-member?

 

What is baptism with/of/by the Holy Spirit?

 

WOW! That's a lot more than I expected when I started writing!

 

I am NOT trying to be controversial, but to stimulate discussion.

 

 



#2 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,861 posts
438
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 10 May 2014 - 10:39 AM

I am convinced that baptism is for believers ONLY. My present Baptist church has a constitution that INSISTs on immersion but an amendment to the constitiution allows associate members.

 

Discussions with paedobaptist & baptist Christians over the decades have raised interesting points. I don't expect to convince baptists, or change the mode, but try to understand the position of other Bible-believing Chrstians.

 

The late widely respected Pastor D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel (Congregational) practised baptism of believers by sprinkling. The local Congregational church, which is generally an excellent Gospel church, has a trust deed that requires the Pastor to believe in the baptism of infants. Believers are baptised by sprinkling. So, is sprinkling/pouring baptism valid as a mode of baptism? The CofE Prayer Book, approved by the KJV translators, allows sprinkling for weak & sickly children. Is there a Scriptural basis for sprinkling/pouring?

 

The normal argument for immersion is e.g. Romans 6  - which justifies our normal practice of baptism of new believers by immersion:

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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.

 

We are told that the Greek for baptism means "dipping" but it is never so translated in the KJV. It is transliterated "baptism" or translated "washing." Related words are translated baptize or Baptist, etc, which occur over 100 times. It's not always baptism in water:

Mat. 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

 

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

 

The only times we see "dipped" are:

Strong's 911 - βάπτω bapto

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip G911 the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

 

John 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped G911 it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

 

Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped G911 in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

 

 

Strong's 909 - βαπτισμός baptismos

Mark 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing G909 of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

 
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing G909 of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
 
Heb. 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, G909 and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
 
Heb. 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, G909 and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

 

Now, does Hebrews in ch 9 proceed with the doctrine of baptisms, as he intended (if God permit) ? He there contrasts the ineffectual sprinkled washings/baptismos of the old covenant, with the blood of Christ:

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

The divers washings given as examples in Heb. 9 include the red heifer ritual of Numbers 19, the blood of the covenant ritual of Ex. 24, both of which are sprinklings. Hebrews uses "testament" where Ex. uses "covenant." I don't think the difference there is significant. We've discussed that in another thread.

 

Note that Peter also refers to sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ  so that it is not wrong to consider baptism as signifying applying the water of baptism as a figure of the blood of Jesus to the believer, by sprinkling.

 

Faced with 3,000 penitent converts on the day of Pentecost, it might be considered equivalent to the situation in Ex. 24, q.v. which Hebrews uses as an example of OT baptismos/washings. 

 



#3 Bro K

Bro K

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
221
Excellent
  • LocationGate City VA

Posted 10 May 2014 - 11:10 AM

One may need to determine when the OT ended; and the NT began.



#4 Genevanpreacher

Genevanpreacher

    Seeker of God's Wisdom

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
173
Excellent
  • LocationIndiana, USA

Posted 10 May 2014 - 12:06 PM

  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?


Edited by Genevanpreacher, 10 May 2014 - 12:10 PM.


#5 The Glory Land

The Glory Land

    "Trust & Obey"

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • LocationCentral Florida

Posted 10 May 2014 - 12:28 PM

I am convinced that baptism is for believers ONLY. My present Baptist church has a constitution that INSISTs on immersion but an amendment to the constitiution allows associate members.

Discussions with paedobaptist & baptist Christians over the decades have raised interesting points. I don't expect to convince baptists, or change the mode, but try to understand the position of other Bible-believing Chrstians.

The late widely respected Pastor D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel (Congregational) practised baptism of believers by sprinkling. The local Congregational church, which is generally an excellent Gospel church, has a trust deed that requires the Pastor to believe in the baptism of infants. Believers are baptised by sprinkling. So, is sprinkling/pouring baptism valid as a mode of baptism? The CofE Prayer Book, approved by the KJV translators, allows sprinkling for weak & sickly children. Is there a Scriptural basis for sprinkling/pouring?

The normal argument for immersion is e.g. Romans 6 - which justifies our normal practice of baptism of new believers by immersion:

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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.


We are told that the Greek for baptism means "dipping" but it is never so translated in the KJV. It is transliterated "baptism" or translated "washing." Related words are translated baptize or Baptist, etc, which occur over 100 times. It's not always baptism in water:

Mat. 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.


1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;


The only times we see "dipped" are:
Strong's 911 - βάπτω bapto

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip G911 the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.


John 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped G911 it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.


Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped G911 in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.



Strong's 909 - βαπτισμός baptismos

Mark 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing G909 of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.


8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing G909 of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.



Heb. 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, G909 and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.



Heb. 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, G909 and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.



Now, does Hebrews in ch 9 proceed with the doctrine of baptisms, as he intended (if God permit) ? He there contrasts the ineffectual sprinkled washings/baptismos of the old covenant, with the blood of Christ:

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


The divers washings given as examples in Heb. 9 include the red heifer ritual of Numbers 19, the blood of the covenant ritual of Ex. 24, both of which are sprinklings. Hebrews uses "testament" where Ex. uses "covenant." I don't think the difference there is significant. We've discussed that in another thread.

Note that Peter also refers to sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ so that it is not wrong to consider baptism as signifying applying the water of baptism as a figure of the blood of Jesus to the believer, by sprinkling.

Faced with 3,000 penitent converts on the day of Pentecost, it might be considered equivalent to the situation in Ex. 24, q.v. which Hebrews uses as an example of OT baptismos/washings.

You convince me, I just don't remember of what? :(

#6 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,112 posts
466
Excellent

Posted 10 May 2014 - 12:36 PM

One may need to determine when the OT ended; and the NT began.

I believe the OT (the dispensation of the Law) ended at the Cross.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.



#7 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,112 posts
466
Excellent

Posted 10 May 2014 - 02:13 PM

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.


Edited by LindaR, 10 May 2014 - 02:14 PM.


#8 MountainChristian

MountainChristian

    Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts
219
Excellent
  • LocationMountains of North Carolina

Posted 10 May 2014 - 02:34 PM

I believe the OT (the dispensation of the Law) ended at the Cross.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

 

I had no idea the law stopped in another place.



#9 Genevanpreacher

Genevanpreacher

    Seeker of God's Wisdom

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
173
Excellent
  • LocationIndiana, USA

Posted 10 May 2014 - 02:47 PM

 

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.

 

 

Interesting, but John said in John 1 - "...but he that sent me to baptize with water..."

I don't know where you get your info, no matter how interesting it may be, the scriptures say God told John to baptize.

Not following any traditional 'jewish' ceremony, but just because God said.



#10 The Glory Land

The Glory Land

    "Trust & Obey"

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • LocationCentral Florida

Posted 10 May 2014 - 03:03 PM

Jonas, was baptized in the belly of a giant fish. And he arose the third day. Victorious over death.

#11 Genevanpreacher

Genevanpreacher

    Seeker of God's Wisdom

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
173
Excellent
  • LocationIndiana, USA

Posted 10 May 2014 - 03:07 PM

Jonas, was baptized in the belly of a giant fish. And he arose the third day. Victorious over death.

And he repented before he was 'risen' out of it. Interesting point!

But it was a punishment formed to make him turn around, unlike baptism.


Edited by Genevanpreacher, 10 May 2014 - 03:08 PM.


#12 Jordan G

Jordan G

    Advanced Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
94
Excellent
  • LocationVancouver Island, Canada

Posted 10 May 2014 - 03:33 PM

It should be noted I don't hold Baptism as we know it as Christians is found anywhere but the NT. I also disagree that John the baptist was performing some sort of baptismal regeneration. I asked the question because it would sure seem odd if out of nowhere in the beginning of the NT Jews were just baptizing when they never were asked to do it in the OT. However if John the Baptist was a forerunner getting the Jewish people to get right with God as the messiah is coming... well now we're making sense.
 

 
Isaiah 40:3

King James Version (KJV)

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God

 

 

 

 
John 1:23

King James Version (KJV)

23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

 

anyway. ciao.



#13 Bro K

Bro K

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
221
Excellent
  • LocationGate City VA

Posted 10 May 2014 - 03:36 PM

I believe the OT (the dispensation of the Law) ended at the Cross.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Agree!!!!



#14 swathdiver

swathdiver

    Surrendered

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,980 posts
1,231
Excellent
  • LocationTreasure Coast

Posted 10 May 2014 - 06:06 PM

The Holy Spirit tell us in God's Word when the OT ended and the NT began:

 

Luke 16:16 - "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."



#15 No Nicolaitans

No Nicolaitans

    ♫ The B-I-B-L-E...yes, that's the book for me. ♫

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,234 posts
1,130
Excellent

Posted 10 May 2014 - 11:25 PM

The Holy Spirit tell us in God's Word when the OT ended and the NT began:

 

Luke 16:16 - "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."

 

 

If the law ended with John, then why the need for Christ to fulfill the law? I do believe that more clarification is given for the scripture that you quoted in Matthew...

 

Matthew 11:12-13
12   And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13   For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
 
God used John to prepare the people for their Messiah who would fulfill what was written in the law, prophets, and psalms concerning him. It wasn't until Jesus' death that the veil in the temple was rent.


#16 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,861 posts
438
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 11 May 2014 - 03:06 AM

  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.



#17 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,861 posts
438
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 11 May 2014 - 03:16 AM

 

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?



#18 Genevanpreacher

Genevanpreacher

    Seeker of God's Wisdom

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
173
Excellent
  • LocationIndiana, USA

Posted 11 May 2014 - 11:03 AM

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 -ismreplacing 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-h...sp?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.


Edited by Genevanpreacher, 11 May 2014 - 11:21 AM.


#19 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,112 posts
466
Excellent

Posted 11 May 2014 - 12:21 PM

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.



#20 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,396 posts
544
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 11 May 2014 - 04:51 PM

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.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500