Why did John the Baptist need to be baptized?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Another view point from Judaism is that baptism/mikveh was never a salvational experience. It was for ritual cleansing and it took place and does take place multiple times in the life of a Jew.

Many young men were baptized in the name of their Rabbi to signify that they had separated themselves to the teaching of that particular Rabbi. Too often the Christian church superimposes its viewpoint over top of Judaism to interpret Judaism in its light. It really is to be the other way around.

Josephus writes about John the Baptist and his baptismal message .... it was never viewed as putting away sin (remission) but as identification ....

for a historian of the time to know this message seems to imply that John was very adamant that this was central to his message ...

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

John is sure to reiterate this issue when his disciples come to him about a purification issue and the baptizing Jesus and his disciples were engaging in .... during Christ's ministry:

22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew[i] over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."

27To this John replied, "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ[j] but am sent ahead of him.' 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less. 31"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[k] gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.


The message is clear ... on salvation and the role of baptism.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The famous (or infamous?) debate over "eis" (Greek word "for") can go either way, in my opinion. There is some ambiguity here for our 21st century ears. But whatever application you make for Acts 2:38 must be made for John's baptism in Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; Luke 3:2-3; and others.

From other accounts of John's baptism, he had folks repenting and confessing their sins while in the Jordan and then baptized them. Matt 3:6, Mark 1:5 It's a close call.

It's as Jesus approaches him that John sees the vision and hears the voice described in John 1. Then, the next day John points Him out to Peter and Andrew.

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

It seems like John conflicts with Mark's account of when the Spirit descended. I'll have to look at all the accounts more closely. Maybe John did see the Spirit descend on Jesus before he was baptized and then again after He came up out of the water.

I don't know, and I doubt know that they were. All I can conclude is that by the time Jesus meets John in the river Jesus isn't concerned with getting John baptized nor does He demand to see John's "fruit meet for repentence." John seems to be "okay" by this point. I say he got that way by faith in God. I would say the same of you. "By grace are ye saved through faith..." John was saved the same way. Abraham was saved because he "believed God..." That same salvation is available to us today.

It's not the same salvation but a similar salvation, faith apart from the works of the law is involved in both covenants.

L

eviticus 11:32-38 has the principle. A "mikvah" means a "gathering" as in the gathering of the seas in Genesis 1. That passage in Leviticus and its context deals with a sort of heirarchy of what things can contaminate what, and what it takes to cleanse things made to be unclean. Somethings have to be simply thrown out. Other things scoured and rinsed. "But if there's a fountain..." or a "mikveh" - a pool or gathering of water "wherein there is plenty of water..." then this fount could make all things clean.

The mikvehs (or more properly mikvahot) don't appear to have been expressly commanded by Moses. However, in the "just to be certain" mindset of Rabbinical Judaism they were used to cleanse the masses before the Temple festivals. After all, you never know where those people have been; especially the Galilaeans! They were always suspected of taking that dreaded short-cut through Samaria.

A mikvahot is a tradition of men. If its not expressly commanded by Moses then it's a tradition of men and I'm not sure why folks equate this to a Christian baptism. Christian baptism is commanded of Christ for a number of reasons.

You're being too rigid of a Dispensationalist again.

There is an old covenant and a new covenant which replaced the old covenant. Why struggle with labeling something this or that. It appears fairly simple to me. And if the old covenant could take away sins why bring in the new?

You said yourself that he had the Holy Ghost "from his mother's womb."

There were many people in the OT who were filled with the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus, a master in Israel, had no clue that folks were to be born again. Do you think John the Baptist was born again? The new birth is a result of the new covenant.

Sigh! Of course you do!

[Revelationist]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

John was preaching about the One who would come after him in verse 11:



But in Luke 1:15, we are told that John was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb:

Why did John tell Jesus that he needed to be baptized by Jesus since he had already been filled with the Holy Ghost before he was born?

THis may have been said already, but it was common practice for great teachers of the day to baptize their followers.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Revelationist

THis may have been said already, but it was common practice for great teachers of the day to baptize their followers.

John was sent by God to baptize. You're implying that John was copying the great teachers of the day. And by extension that God was copying the practices of men.

John 1:33 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.

[mizpeh]

Dan,

It sounds like Josephus thought John the Baptist was teaching a works based righteousness/ salvation and not a faith based salvation and that repentance, confession of sins, and bearing fruit meet for repentance were things that happened prior to being baptized by John. Or at least that is how I read it.

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

Dan, you want to site history about baptism? check out these two articles:

http://www.harvestpointecc.com/Resou...ism-Part-I.php

http://www.harvestpointecc.com/Resou...ism-Part-2.php

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You're being too rigid of a Dispensationalist again. !

I have to say, Pel, I don't have any rigid predilection for being a Dispensationalist or a Covenantalist. I might be a bit of both!

I ran across this article after being on a forum in which Zwingli's view of baptism was spoken of and not elaborated on...so I went to google what Zwingli believed. What I read in this one section reminded me of what you said and how you express the common thread of faith as it relates to salvation throughout the Bible story.

Creating Covenant Theology
The results of Zwingli’s quest were truly revolutionary. In order to justify anew infant baptism, he laid the foundation for a whole new hermeneutical approach to the Bible, usually known as covenant theology. In summary, he rejected the traditional distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and introduced that ever since (at least) Abraham there has been just one covenant of grace. What we call the "new" covenant is actually the same covenant God made with Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was merely a secondary, temporary expedient; when it was set aside the Abrahamic covenant continued on and still continues on today. The church today is under the covenant God made with Abraham. This is the concept of covenant unity (50,51).

If there has been just one covenant since the days of Abraham, then there has also been just one covenant people since that time. The Israelites of old and the Christians of today are all part of the same body, the same church (51).

Most significantly, if there is just one covenant and one covenant people, then there is also just one covenant sign. Based on this reasoning, Zwingli totally equated the meaning of baptism in the New Testament with the meaning of Old Testament circumcision’ each is simply a sign of membership in the one covenant people (51, 52).

Here, then, is Zwingli’s trilogy: one covenant, one covenant people, and one covenant sign. This new set of ideas is the basis for the usual Protestant doctrine of baptism. It is the reason many Protestant churches "baptize" infants, and it is the foundation of the commonly accepted Protestant faith-only approach to the baptism of adults.

http://www.harvestpointecc.com/Resou...ism-Part-2.php

Do you agree with this portion?

What we call the "new" covenant is actually the same covenant God made with Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was merely a secondary, temporary expedient; when it was set aside the Abrahamic covenant continued on and still continues on today.