Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[meandean]

My view on Ephesians 4:5 right now is that the “one baptism” is the one “baptism into Christ” in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18, Galatians 3:26-27, Romans 6:3ff), which is why Christ (the “one Lord”) is mentioned immediately prior to it, as is faith (“one faith”). In other words, this is perfectly consistent with all that I’ve said above. The Lord, faith, and baptism go together. There is one, and only one, baptism into Christ. It is a baptism that normally has two aspects, an external (our bodies washed with water) and an internal (our consciences cleansed by the blood of Christ through the Spirit of God), but it is one baptism into Christ, and that is what matters. The essence of it, as you have indicated, is internal cleansing by the Spirit. But, as I have pointed out, this is not opposed to its external aspect, water, being applied. The two are united as the one baptism into Christ. This is, I believe, what the Church has always taught (see John Chrysostom on Acts 10:48 and Ephesians 4:5, for example), and is what the Scriptures and the practice of the apostles (where water baptism continues and where Spirit baptism and water baptism are performed together) teach.

It’s also worth mentioning here that those who were closest in time to the apostles – taught by them or those who knew them directly or indirectly – agree with my view, but disagree with yours. This is some interesting evidence. Justin Martyr, writing in AD 151, only roughly 50 years after the death of the last apostle – he was about as far away from them as we are from, say, JFK – writes: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (“First Apology,” 61). Justin says that belief meets grace in baptism and interprets the texts that I interpret in the same way that I interpret them. Irenaeus, who apparently knew Polycarp, who himself was apparently a student of the apostle John, writes: “As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34). The Shepherd of Hermas, written in AD 80-160 (potentially during the lifetime of some of the apostles!), says, “‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is.’” The Didache (written somewhere from AD 50-120 (again either during or close to the life of the apostles), says: “Concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.”

I write all of this for your consideration, trusting in the grace of God alone to lead us into truth. To Him be all the glory, who saved us by His grace alone, not by works but through faith in His promises, which faith receives His grace where, when, and how He wills.

(I need to add: I’ve intentionally written very long posts here. I hope that they are helpful. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to continue to contribute to online discussions in this lengthy manner. While I appreciate the dialogue, it is very unlikely that I will allow myself to keep up with it to this extent – especially given that I have already done so times before – though, of course, I may be able to offer some brief replies to questions/comments. God bless.)

if like you say water baptism is necessary, then why would paul not remember everyone he baptized, don’t you think this would have been a high priority? and what about the disciples, why wasn’t it necessary to record peter and the twelve being water baptized?

 

[JDAX]

if like you say water baptism is necessary, then why would paul not remember everyone he baptized, don’t you think this would have been a high priority? and what about the disciples, why wasn’t it necessary to record peter and the twelve being water baptized?

Notice, first, that your arguments here are not appeals to Scripture or to the traditions of the Church, but instead to bare human reasoning about what might be the case. This is not how we are to determine doctrine. We should determine doctrine from Scripture, informed by tradition, using reason at the end only as a handmaiden. I simply can’t see into the mind of the apostle Paul to know what was going on in his memory, nor can you, so we can’t base doctrine on such conjectures. Likewise, I can’t psychically discern why it wasn’t necessary for anyone to record the disciples being baptized, nor can you. To attempt to base our doctrines on such things is to appeal to something other than Scripture and the Church (really, it is to appeal to shifting sand), which is not how we ground our doctrine. The plain statements of Scripture show that the disciples often baptized with water, often commanded it, often associated it with Christ, the Spirit, salvation, forgiveness, etc., and often portrayed it as important.

All of the above said, I can still make some reasonable conjectures in response to your concerns. First, it seems that Paul does not remember who exactly he baptized because, as he tells us in the context, he was not primarly a baptizer, but a preacher of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17; yes, preaching the gospel and baptizing are two different things; as I noted, baptism appears to occur in the New Testament after first hearing the good news preached). He preached and only baptized in rare occasions, out of expediency, but preaching was his focus. Indeed, he cites this as the very reason that he baptized few of them (and perhaps also as the reason that he does not remember all of the baptisms he performed), using the Greek connective gar (“for,” i.e., "for Christ sent me not . . . "). Instead, it appears that Apollos was the one who usually took care of the baptisms, after Paul had preached. See 1 Corinthians 3:5-6: “The Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it.” A bit later, he also says, “I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it” (1 Cor. 3:10). Also, his point may be that what essentially or absolutely matters is the reception of the gospel, not baptism itself – indeed, as I have noted, baptism itself is not absolutely necessary, though perhaps it is normatively so. Furthermore, he may be emphasizing that it is not important to remember who you baptized or who baptized you, but just to remember that you were baptized when you received the good news, and baptized into Christ. That’s what’s essential, not the matter of who did it to whom. So all of these things may plausibly explain Paul’s memory. Or, perhaps Paul was just forgetful. That’s certainly a possibility, and just because Paul is forgetful wouldn’t mean that baptism is unimportant – indeed, other texts of Scripture count against that. So there’s no obvious reason that there’s some problem here. And again, I emphasize that this is all conjecture unsupported by Scripture (except for my point about Apollos doing the watering).

Why doesn’t Scripture record the disciples being baptized? Again, this is all conjecture. However, there are reasonable thoughts here as well. First, the baptism of John was being given to “all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan” (Matthew 3:5) before Christ found the disciples, so it is perhaps likely that they received at least this water baptism. But even if not, Scripture explicitly tells us that the disciples received the Spirit from Christ in a special way, different from the rest of mankind. For he found them together in a room after his resurrection and breathed upon them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). This is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit (that comes later, in Acts), but is rather the indwelling of the Spirit that is likely normally received in baptism by others (when they are “born of water and Spirit,” John 3:5). Since the disciples received the Spirit this way, in this special commission, and are the ones who are themselves called to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing” (Matthew 28:18), they themselves are uniquely brought into the Spirit by Christ Himself. In other words, Christ commissioned them by giving them the Spirit directly, and then telling them to go and baptize the rest of the world. The rest of the world receives this baptism, but the disciples themselves do not because they are the ones who are commissioned specially, and given the Spirit directly from Christ, in order to baptize the rest of the world. That’s quite plausible, since the giving of the Spirit is one of the apparent blessings mentioned together with water baptism in Scripture (Ezekiel 36, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Acts 8:36-38, also the earlier believers in Acts 8 who appear to have received the indwelling of the Spirit but not yet the Spirit’s gifts, etc.). The apostles received that indwelling of the Spirit in another, special way, so they don’t need to receive the baptism themselves.

On the other hand, maybe the disciples were baptized by Christ. Who knows? John himself tells us that “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book” (John 20:30), and who knows if we know them all? Why didn’t John record those? He doesn’t exactly say, so we’re left to conjecture. But again, all that this is is the mere conjecture of sin-tarnished human reason, consistent with many possibilities. I’d rather stick to what Scripture says; our conjectures are nothing next to the word of God. God bless.

 

[savedsinner]

I think what confuses many people with the different passages about baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit mentioned in the book of Acts is the fact that it is talking about three different things which were going on.

These three things are:

1. People who had not been baptized at all before.
2. People who had only been baptized with the baptism of John.
3. People who had been baptized but not confirmed (the Laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit).

 

[teak421]

The Hebrew word for water is pronounced mayim (spelled Mem-Yud-Mem). To a Jewish way of thinking, water, with a double-mem, is feminine in nature.

Reprinted from: donmeh-west.com/hiddenwater.shtml

For example, first consider the word “water,” alone. Reading from right to left, we see that it begins with an “open” letter Mem, continues in its middle with the single letter Yud, and ends with a “closed” letter Mem. What does this come to tell us? Come and see: To begin with, the Mem, according to Kabbalah, represents the “Womb of Binah,” where God resides as Yud, the Holy Seed. (for example, see R. Michael L. Munk, The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet, p. 144, 149). Thus, we see that Heaven “contains” the Womb of God, and this womb “separates” from the Whole to fall as water upon the earth, bringing with it the Holy Seed by which Tuma, or Death, is replaced by Chayim, or Life. Moreover, notice that mayim begins with the “open,” and ends with the “closed” forms of the letter Mem. According to Kabbalah, this tells us that the water of heaven brings with it that which is revealed (open) and concealed (closed) – that what begins as revealed becomes concealed, and must be “broken open” to find God in its center:

“When the upper world was filled and became pregnant, it brought forth two children together, male and female, these being heaven and earth after the supernal pattern. The earth is fed from the waters of heaven which are poured into it. These upper waters, however, are male, whereas the lower are female, and the lower are female, and the lower are fed from the male and the lower waters call to the upper, like a female that receives the male, and pour out water to meet water of the male to produce seed.” (Zohar 1:29b-30a)

Tab,

I strongly suggest reading Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth. The first chapter deals with the baptism of Christ.

Teak

 

[mercygate]

Tab,

I strongly suggest reading Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth. The first chapter deals with the baptism of Christ.

Teak

Tabcom has, unfortunately, permanently left the building.

 

[Joero]

Notice, first, that your arguments here are not appeals to Scripture or to the traditions of the Church, but instead to bare human reasoning about what might be the case. This is not how we are to determine doctrine. We should determine doctrine from Scripture, informed by tradition, using reason at the end only as a handmaiden. .

That is not a mere conjecture because the scripture explicitly says that Jesus, at the beginning of his ministry, was baptizing people (John 3: 22) and it was being confirmed by the disciples of John the baptist (John 3: 25-26). This was the word of Jesus that would help us think that his apostles were already baptized by him, " Those who have taken a bath are completely clean and do not have to wash themselves, except for their feet. All of you are clean - all except one." (John 13: 10).

First, it seems that Paul does not remember who exactly he baptized because, as he tells us in the context, he was not primarly a baptizer, but a preacher of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17; yes, preaching the gospel and baptizing are two different things; as I noted, baptism appears to occur in the New Testament after first hearing the good news preached). He preached and only baptized in rare occasions, out of expediency, but preaching was his focus. Indeed, he cites this as the very reason that he baptized few of them (and perhaps also as the reason that he does not remember all of the baptisms he performed)

You were quoting 1 Cor… 1: 17 and said that Paul did not remember those whom he baptized. I think you were missing some verses prior to that. In 1 Cor. 1: 14-16 it is very clear that Paul remembers those he had baptized and he was naming them like Crispus, Gaius and Stepahanas and his family.

So all of these things may plausibly explain Paul’s memory. Or, perhaps Paul was just forgetful. That’s certainly a possibility, and just because Paul is forgetful wouldn’t mean that baptism is unimportant – indeed, other texts of Scripture count against that. So there’s no obvious reason that there’s some problem here. And again, I emphasize that this is all conjecture unsupported by Scripture (except for my point about Apollos doing the watering)

Paul said “There is no difference between the one who plants and the one who waters; God will reward each one according to the work each has done” (1 Cor. 3: 8).

 

[meandean]

Notice, first, that your arguments here are not appeals to Scripture or to the traditions of the Church, but instead to bare human reasoning about what might be the case. This is not how we are to determine doctrine. We should determine doctrine from Scripture, informed by tradition, using reason at the end only as a handmaiden. I simply can’t see into the mind of the apostle Paul to know what was going on in his memory, nor can you, so we can’t base doctrine on such conjectures. Likewise, I can’t psychically discern why it wasn’t necessary for anyone to record the disciples being baptized, nor can you. To attempt to base our doctrines on such things is to appeal to something other than Scripture and the Church (really, it is to appeal to shifting sand), which is not how we ground our doctrine. The plain statements of Scripture show that the disciples often baptized with water, often commanded it, often associated it with Christ, the Spirit, salvation, forgiveness, etc., and often portrayed it as important.

All of the above said, I can still make some reasonable conjectures in response to your concerns. First, it seems that Paul does not remember who exactly he baptized because, as he tells us in the context, he was not primarly a baptizer, but a preacher of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17; yes, preaching the gospel and baptizing are two different things; as I noted, baptism appears to occur in the New Testament after first hearing the good news preached). He preached and only baptized in rare occasions, out of expediency, but preaching was his focus. Indeed, he cites this as the very reason that he baptized few of them (and perhaps also as the reason that he does not remember all of the baptisms he performed), using the Greek connective gar (“for,” i.e., "for Christ sent me not . . . "). Instead, it appears that Apollos was the one who usually took care of the baptisms, after Paul had preached. See 1 Corinthians 3:5-6: “The Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it.” A bit later, he also says, “I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it” (1 Cor. 3:10). Also, his point may be that what essentially or absolutely matters is the reception of the gospel, not baptism itself – indeed, as I have noted, baptism itself is not absolutely necessary, though perhaps it is normatively so. Furthermore, he may be emphasizing that it is not important to remember who you baptized or who baptized you, but just to remember that you were baptized when you received the good news, and baptized into Christ. That’s what’s essential, not the matter of who did it to whom. So all of these things may plausibly explain Paul’s memory. Or, perhaps Paul was just forgetful. That’s certainly a possibility, and just because Paul is forgetful wouldn’t mean that baptism is unimportant – indeed, other texts of Scripture count against that. So there’s no obvious reason that there’s some problem here. And again, I emphasize that this is all conjecture unsupported by Scripture (except for my point about Apollos doing the watering).

Why doesn’t Scripture record the disciples being baptized? Again, this is all conjecture. However, there are reasonable thoughts here as well. First, the baptism of John was being given to “all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan” (Matthew 3:5) before Christ found the disciples, so it is perhaps likely that they received at least this water baptism. But even if not, Scripture explicitly tells us that the disciples received the Spirit from Christ in a special way, different from the rest of mankind. For he found them together in a room after his resurrection and breathed upon them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). This is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit (that comes later, in Acts), but is rather the indwelling of the Spirit that is likely normally received in baptism by others (when they are “born of water and Spirit,” John 3:5). Since the disciples received the Spirit this way, in this special commission, and are the ones who are themselves called to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing” (Matthew 28:18), they themselves are uniquely brought into the Spirit by Christ Himself. In other words, Christ commissioned them by giving them the Spirit directly, and then telling them to go and baptize the rest of the world. The rest of the world receives this baptism, but the disciples themselves do not because they are the ones who are commissioned specially, and given the Spirit directly from Christ, in order to baptize the rest of the world. That’s quite plausible, since the giving of the Spirit is one of the apparent blessings mentioned together with water baptism in Scripture (Ezekiel 36, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Acts 8:36-38, also the earlier believers in Acts 8 who appear to have received the indwelling of the Spirit but not yet the Spirit’s gifts, etc.). The apostles received that indwelling of the Spirit in another, special way, so they don’t need to receive the baptism themselves.

On the other hand, maybe the disciples were baptized by Christ. Who knows? John himself tells us that “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book” (John 20:30), and who knows if we know them all? Why didn’t John record those? He doesn’t exactly say, so we’re left to conjecture. But again, all that this is is the mere conjecture of sin-tarnished human reason, consistent with many possibilities. I’d rather stick to what Scripture says; our conjectures are nothing next to the word of God. God bless.

why i asked is that we know that baptism is 100% judaism. it was a giant requirement,as was circumcision. but baptism to the jew meant only one thing, immersion for the forgiveness of sins. it was a spiritual cleasing for the right relationship with god. and i believe paul knew this by being a pharisee(phillipians 3).so he would never take this act lightly, nor would the others. you once mentioned " baptized into christ". i believe you hit the nail squarely on the head with these words. may i ask what convinced you of these words?

 

[JDAX]

This is likely going to have to be my last post in this thread, given my time constraints. Sorry about that. Thank you all for the discussion, and God bless.

That is not a mere conjecture because the scripture explicitly says that Jesus, at the beginning of his ministry, was baptizing people (John 3: 22) and it was being confirmed by the disciples of John the baptist (John 3: 25-26). This was the word of Jesus that would help us think that his apostles were already baptized by him, " Those who have taken a bath are completely clean and do not have to wash themselves, except for their feet. All of you are clean - all except one." (John 13: 10).

Thanks for this contribution. That’s an interesting thought. I’m not entirely sure of its merits, though, but only because shortly after the quotes from John 3:22,25-26, it is said in John 4:1-2 that “the Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.” Still, the quote from John 13:10 is interesting, and does seem to indicate that the apostles (excepting Judas) have been cleansed in a special way, which would reinforce my thoughts.

You were quoting 1 Cor… 1: 17 and said that Paul did not remember those whom he baptized. I think you were missing some verses prior to that. In 1 Cor. 1: 14-16 it is very clear that Paul remembers those he had baptized and he was naming them like Crispus, Gaius and Stepahanas and his family.

I wasn’t forgetting those verses, though I didn’t cite them. You’re right that Paul remembered some whom he baptized. The issue was just that he didn’t remember whether he had baptized any others at Corinth besides them. One of my points is that this is no huge surprise. Some of us have a tendency, it seems, to think of the apostles as superhumans and forget that, though they were divinely inspired in their writings, and were gifted with certain graces, they were still “chief among sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15) who struggled with sin (Romans 7) and were, among other things, not all-knowing. They were still human beings (even if specially-graced human beings), so we can’t reasonably expect them to have absolutely infallible memories and that sort of thing. We might ask ourselves, then: how many long-term baptizers do we know who actually do remember all of the circumstances about when, where, and who they baptized? Probably not many, if any at all. It might be especially difficult to remember such things when one is a constantly traveling missionary who has been preaching the gospel in various places for years (and baptizing and appointing others to baptize throughout the course of those years), who has been dealing with constant disputes in various churches about various circumstances (writing numerous letters regarding them), who has been having various run-ins with the law, and so on. Since Paul was in precisely those circumstances, it is not surprising that he, as a non-omniscient human being like the rest of us, may have simply forgotten (as he seems to tell us) whether he baptized anyone else while he was in Corinth besides Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. He likely emphasizes this to show that no teacher should be concerned with keeping a tally of how many people he’s baptized, so as to build himself up in the eyes of others and risk making a faction. Besides this, it just doesn’t seem that the apostles were concerned with keeping lists of those they baptized (does it seem like they’re making a list as they baptize the 3000 in Acts 2?); their central concern is just to go, preach, and then baptize and teach, although they also apparently leave others to take care of the baptizing (see Apollos). So, no real surprise that Paul remembers Stephanas, Gaius, and Crispus, but is not sure about any others. Again, the real issue is that any inference we attempt to make about the importance of baptism, or about what baptism does, on the basis of the fact that Paul couldn’t remember absolutely everything is mostly conjecture, and any real concern about this is done away with in light of the other Scriptures that are quite explicit about baptism.

Besides what I’ve just said, I do want to add that there is material in the context of 1 Corinthians 1:16 that itself suggests the importance of water baptism for Paul, too. For remember, Paul is writing to those who are saying, “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,” and “I am of Cephas,” and so on (1 Cor. 1:12). In other words, these people are saying that they belong to Paul, or to Apollos, etc. Notice that Paul’s immediate questions in response to these claims are: “Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13). Now, why would Paul ask them if they were baptized into the name of Paul here, and list it next to such important things as the crucifixion and the unity of Christ? What does baptism have to do with their claim that they belong to Paul (or Apollos, etc.)? Well, the most obvious connection is this: the answer is no, you were not baptized into the name of Paul, you were baptized into the name of Christ; therefore, Christ is not divided, and you all belong to him, not Paul (or Apollos or anyone else). The implication is: being baptized into the name of Christ makes it the case that you belong to Him (not to Paul), such that you are one in Him and He remains undivided. This suggests that being baptized into Christ’s name plays some role in being such that you belong to Him. So baptism is important for Paul in at least that respect (and, again, in additional respects, according to the rest of Scripture). Indeed, notice again that Paul mentions baptism along with Christ’s unity and crucifixion (1 Cor. 1:13), which is an odd thing to do if it is unimportant to him, since the other elements mentioned along with it (Christ’s undividedness and his crucifixion) are of extreme importance to him.

Along these same lines (here’s a source to look into further, since I’m having to leave), Church of Christ scholar Jack Cottrell writes the following: “In the early church,] baptism was so important that the human agent who did the baptizing often was made the object of special allegiance rivaling the worship of Christ and leading to factions within the church (see vv. 12-13) . . . Paul is glad he baptized only a few so that the circle of his converts could not use this as a means of setting themselves apart from other Christians [1 Cor. 1:15]. His reasoning presupposes the importance of baptism, not its unimportance . . . Paul’s extensive teaching in other passages [of Scripture] on the important meaning of baptism . . . would not be consistent with the view that he is denigrating baptism in this passage. Finally, such a view contradicts the main lesson about baptism to be learned from 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, viz., that it is considered to be important enough to be listed in the most exclusive company. Verse 13 says, ‘Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?’ Here we see three things to be considered by those who are in danger of dividing the church through their secondary allegiances to human leaders. (a) The church is Christ’s body. When you divide the church, you divide his very body. Do you want to be guilty of such an offense? (b) It was Christ who was crucified for you; it was Christ who performed the deed that purchased the church with his own blood. Don’t put me (Paul) on this exalted level with Christ; I have not redeemed you. (c) You were baptized into the name of Christ, not Paul. Don’t attach any human name to this act which relates you to the one head of the Church” (Baptism: a Biblical Study, pp. 13-14).

Paul said “There is no difference between the one who plants and the one who waters; God will reward each one according to the work each has done” (1 Cor. 3: 8).

The translation “there is no difference” is actually not a good translation; in fact, it’s an interpretation rather than a straight translation, since those words are just not there in the Greek. What the Greek says is, “And he who is planting and he who is watering are one, and each shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor.” Paul’s point here is not that they don’t have different tasks – manifestly, they do, for one is “he who plants” (the planter) and one is “he who waters” (the waterer) – but that they are one in unity, and each will likewise receive reward according to the work they have done in the same manner. This is consistent with what I said, though thanks again for pointing it out!

God bless you all, and best wishes.*

 

[JDAX]

you once mentioned " baptized into christ". i believe you hit the nail squarely on the head with these words. may i ask what convinced you of these words?

I just saw that you wrote this comment as I posted my last one, so I’ll briefly respond to your question, although, as I said, it’s unlikely that I’ll be able to continue to contribute here after this (in fact, I initially came here to make only one post!). I think we both agree that baptism into Christ is the essential thing here. I was convinced of these words by Paul’s words that “you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:26-29).

I’ll add: notice here that faith and baptism are again connected: you are sons of God through faith, for (i.e., because) all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. This nicely parallels the other texts I mentioned above, on water baptism, where it was suggested that faith/repentance/belief submissively receives grace located in baptism (Acts 2:38, Acts 8, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16). It also parallels Paul’s concerns about the (water) baptism he (and Apollos and others) have been administering in 1 Corinthians 1, for there the issues are also precisely that “you belong to Christ” (rather than Paul or Apollos), and that there are no divisions among you.

It is, ultimately, the one baptism into Christ that cleanses consciences, for only the blood of Christ can truly do that (though again note that the internal cleansing is connected, as in Hebrews 10, with the outward washing of our bodies in pure water; see also Ephesians 5:25-26, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, in addition to the other texts already mentioned); water in itself is nothing; baptism into Christ is the issue; “what counts is a new creation,” and that new creation is in Christ. It is just that, in Scripture, God’s creating work is often connected with water (not only in Genesis, when the Spirit moves upon the water in the beginning of creation, but also in baptism, when the Spirit (through the word) and water come together to deliver us unto a new creation that is the “newness of life” (Romans 6) into which we are “born again” (John 3:3-5), just in the way that the water through (or by) which they were saved destroyed the old creation and delivered man unto a new creation in the days of Noah (1 Peter 3:21) (see also in this regard Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, 1 Corinthians 6:11)). God bless, and all the best to you.

 

[Joero]

why i asked is that we know that baptism is 100% judaism. it was a giant requirement,as was circumcision. but baptism to the jew meant only one thing, immersion for the forgiveness of sins. it was a spiritual cleasing for the right relationship with god. and i believe paul knew this by being a pharisee(phillipians 3).so he would never take this act lightly, nor would the others. you once mentioned " baptized into christ". i believe you hit the nail squarely on the head with these words. may i ask what convinced you of these words?

I’m sorry to say, meandean, that I oppose to your statement that baptism is 100 % Judaism. In the Mosaical law, circumcision was necessary to have the person be incorporated into the body of the chosen people of God, though it was not Moses who started it but the Patriarchs, particularly Abraham. In christianity, equivalent to circumcision, it is baptism by water but not necessarily by immersion.

 

[meandean]

I’m sorry to say, meandean, that I oppose to your statement that baptism is 100 % Judaism. In the Mosaical law, circumcision was necessary to have the person be incorporated into the body of the chosen people of God, though it was not Moses who started it but the Patriarchs, particularly Abraham. In christianity, equivalent to circumcision, it is baptism by water but not necessarily by immersion.

thats fine that you disagree . as well as i, for in christianity, circumcision is of the heart, not water baptism. the talmud explains baptism very clear of the tanakh, the jewish bible. the roots of christianity are in and from the jews.

 

[Joero]

thats fine that you disagree . as well as i, for in christianity, circumcision is of the heart, not water baptism. the talmud explains baptism very clear of the tanakh, the jewish bible. the roots of christianity are in and from the jews.

I may agree with you on some points with regard to that, since John the baptist came to this world prior to the coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, to prepare the people of Israel for the Messiah’s coming. But let us first listen to what the scriptures say about it why did it happened! In Heb.8: 7-10 it says "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one. But God find fault with his people when he says ‘The days are coming, says the Lord, when I will draw up a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. They were not faithful to the covenant I made with them, so I paid no attention to them. Now this is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel in the days to come, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people.’ "

But when the Messiah came to this world, what did the sciptures say? In John 1: 11 it says " He came to his own country but his own people did not receive him."
Although there were those few who received him but not the whole people of Israel to whom the prophesies were intended for them.

 

[JDAX]

thats fine that you disagree . as well as i, for in christianity, circumcision is of the heart, not water baptism. the talmud explains baptism very clear of the tanakh, the jewish bible. the roots of christianity are in and from the jews.

I couldn’t resist coming back to commit on this one issue, since it seems like it’s not nearly as clear-cut as either of you seem to be making it. The evidence for convert-baptism in Judaism prior to Christianity is not conclusive, and is still a subject of debate. I’ll simply quote the work of G. R. Beasley-Murray (again, from Baptism in the New Testament), and allow you to investigate further if you’d like:

“The question whether Jewish proselyte baptism was historically antecedent to the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus, and if so the extent to which it influenced the Christian rite, are extraordinarily difficult to answer with any degree of confidence. The issues are more complex than is generally admitted . . . If proselyte baptism was a universally accepted institution in Judaism before the Christian era, how are we to explain the fact that there is not one clear to testimony to it in pre-Christian writings and its complete absence of mention from the writings of Philo, Josephus, and the Bible, particularly the New Testament? . . . In the Joseph and Aseneth story, Joseph refuses to kiss Aseneth because she was unclean, but on conversion she was cleansed without baptism . . . The first indubitable references to proselyte baptism belong to the first century A.D. They are generally set int he closing decades of the century . . . In the Mishnah a discussion is recorded as having taken place between R[abbi] Eliezer, a Shammaite, and R[abbi] Jehoshua, a Hillelite, as to the relative importance of circumcision and baptism; the controversy is placed about A.D. 90 . . . Jewish practice and thought was itself apparently undergoing modification and consolidation in the period when the Christian Church took its rise” (pp. 18-31).

In other words, there is no clear evidence of Jewish convert-baptism before the Christian Church arose, and there are even debates between rabbis about its significance 60 years after Christ’s Crucifixion. Likewise, there is not conclusive evidence that it significantly influenced Christianity. The Talmud actually was not written until well after the beginning of Christianity, and the debate between Jewish rabbis about convert-baptism that it includes (in the Mishnah) is placed, according to Beasley-Murray, around A.D. 90, after Christianity had already begun. As I said, though, I’ll leave it at that and allow you to investigate the issues.

 

[Joero]

I couldn’t resist coming back to commit on this one issue, since it seems like it’s not nearly as clear-cut as either of you seem to be making it. The evidence for convert-baptism in Judaism prior to Christianity is not conclusive, and is still a subject of debate. I’ll simply quote the work of G. R. Beasley-Murray (again, from Baptism in the New Testament), and allow you to investigate further if you’d like:

“The question whether Jewish proselyte baptism was historically antecedent to the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus, and if so the extent to which it influenced the Christian rite, are extraordinarily difficult to answer with any degree of confidence. The issues are more complex than is generally admitted . . . If proselyte baptism was a universally accepted institution in Judaism before the Christian era, how are we to explain the fact that there is not one clear to testimony to it in pre-Christian writings and its complete absence of mention from the writings of Philo, Josephus, and the Bible, particularly the New Testament? . . . In the Joseph and Aseneth story, Joseph refuses to kiss Aseneth because she was unclean, but on conversion she was cleansed without baptism . . . The first indubitable references to proselyte baptism belong to the first century A.D. They are generally set int he closing decades of the century . . . In the Mishnah a discussion is recorded as having taken place between R[abbi] Eliezer, a Shammaite, and R[abbi] Jehoshua, a Hillelite, as to the relative importance of circumcision and baptism; the controversy is placed about A.D. 90 . . . Jewish practice and thought was itself apparently undergoing modification and consolidation in the period when the Christian Church took its rise” (pp. 18-31).

In other words, there is no clear evidence of Jewish convert-baptism before the Christian Church arose, and there are even debates between rabbis about its significance 60 years after Christ’s Crucifixion. Likewise, there is not conclusive evidence that it significantly influenced Christianity. The Talmud actually was not written until well after the beginning of Christianity, and the debate between Jewish rabbis about convert-baptism that it includes (in the Mishnah) is placed, according to Beasley-Murray, around A.D. 90, after Christianity had already begun. As I said, though, I’ll leave it at that and allow you to investigate the issues.

The Catholic Church had a pronouncement on this matter already.
See this link:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

 

[meandean]

I may agree with you on some points with regard to that, since John the baptist came to this world prior to the coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, to prepare the people of Israel for the Messiah’s coming. But let us first listen to what the scriptures say about it why did it happened! In Heb.8: 7-10 it says "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one. But God find fault with his people when he says ‘The days are coming, says the Lord, when I will draw up a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. They were not faithful to the covenant I made with them, so I paid no attention to them. Now this is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel in the days to come, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people.’ "

But when the Messiah came to this world, what did the sciptures say? In John 1: 11 it says " He came to his own country but his own people did not receive him."
Although there were those few who received him but not the whole people of Israel to whom the prophesies were intended for them.

its facsinating what the jews do to an olive tree when the trunk gets to big. they cut it down. i wondered why, since it had been there for so long. but when the trunk of the tree gets to big, the tree itself cannot produce the fruit it once had, so they cut it down. they leave the roots and out of the stump comes a new shoot, a new branch… sound familiar? isaiah 11: 1 talks about out of the stump of jesse will come a new shoot. jesus is this new shoot, for jesus came from shoot town or branch town. the word nazer means shoot or branch, and jesus town was nazereth. also the olive tree is also known as the annointed tree or the messianic tree. but as you can see, the roots remain, the new life will produce abundant fruit.there can not be fruit if we are not attached to the branch. we must be grafted in.

 

[Joero]

its facsinating what the jews do to an olive tree when the trunk gets to big. they cut it down. i wondered why, since it had been there for so long. but when the trunk of the tree gets to big, the tree itself cannot produce the fruit it once had, so they cut it down. they leave the roots and out of the stump comes a new shoot, a new branch… sound familiar? isaiah 11: 1 talks about out of the stump of jesse will come a new shoot. jesus is this new shoot, for jesus came from shoot town or branch town. the word nazer means shoot or branch, and jesus town was nazereth. also the olive tree is also known as the annointed tree or the messianic tree. but as you can see, the roots remain, the new life will produce abundant fruit.there can not be fruit if we are not attached to the branch. we must be grafted in.

Yes, you are right! This is what Paul says in Romans 11: 17-24.

 

[meandean]

Yes, you are right! This is what Paul says in Romans 11: 17-24.

cool.so why do you think john the baptist was so surprised by jesus wanting to be baptised by him?(matt 3:14)

 

[Joero]

cool.so why do you think john the baptist was so surprised by jesus wanting to be baptised by him?(matt 3:14)

On that particular verse you have cited, we noticed that John the Baptist was surprised why should he be the one who would baptized Jesus when it should be the other way around!
But on the succeeding verse (verse 15), I think, that’s the answer to your query.