T
tabcom
Guest
The original citation was from savedsinner – ask him from where it was cited.
- Status
T
tabcom
Guest
For the moment, until a proper citation can be located for your approval, I’ll strike Pharisees and insert Jews.
Once again, from Alfred Edersheim’s ‘The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah’,
The following notice from Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5. 2) is not only interesting in itself, but for the view which it presents of baptism. It shows what views rationalising Jews took of the work of the Baptist, and how little such were able to enter into the real meaning of his baptism. ‘But to some of the Jews it appeared, that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and, indeed, as a righteous punishment on account of what had been done to John, who was surnamed the Baptist. for Herod ordered him to be killed, a good man, and who 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 baptizing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not for the putting away (remission) of some sins, but for the purification of the body, after that the soul had been previously cleansed by righteousness. And when others had come in crowds, for they were exceedingly moved by hearing these words, Herod, fearing lest such influence of his over the people might lead to some rebellion, for they seemed ready to do any thing by his council, deemed it best, before anything new should happen through him, to put him to death, rather than that, when a change should arise in affairs, he might have to repent,’ &c. On the credibility of this testimony see the Article on Josephus, in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of Christian Biography,’ vol. iii. pp. 441-460 (see especially pp. 458, 459).
Thus, your claim that the Jews did not recognize John, or his baptism has been refuted.
G
guanophore
Guest
How does this excerpt help you to understand the meaning of the water baptism John performed? John could have stood on the hillside preaching about the Kingdom, he did not have to stand in the Jordan dunking people…
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, you are going to have to come up with one, or accept that this is considered by your readers to be an unsubstantiated personal opinion. Jesus was not a proselytite, and neither were any of the other Jews baptized by Jesus and John. They were born Jews, and they had their initiation rites at puberty. They did not require baptism.
G
guanophore
Guest
I said that the PHARISEES did not recognize John (his ministry) or his testimony of Jesus. John had Jews coming to him in DROVES who recognized that he had been sent by God.
How do you imagine that the souls of those baptized by John became righteous?
T
tabcom
Guest
By Ger hatstsedeq (proselyte of righteousness).
It was otherwise with ‘the proselytes of righteousness,’ who became ‘children of the covenant,’ ‘perfect Israelites,’ Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism (Tebhilah), and a Sacrifice (Qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) - the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). After the destruction of the Temple promise had to be made of such a sacrifice when the services of the Sanctuary were restored. On this and the ordinances about circumcision it is not necessary to enter further. That baptism was absolutely necessary to make a proselyte is so frequently stated as not to be disputed (See Maimonides, u. s.; the tractate Massekheth Gerim in Kirchheim’s Septem Libri Talm. Parvi, pp. 38-44 [which, however, adds little to our knowledge]; Targum on Ex. xii. 44; Ber. 47 b; Kerith. 9 a; Jer. Yebam. p. 8 d; Yebam. 45 b, 46 a and b, 48 b, 76 a; Ab. Sar. 57 a, 59 a, and other passages). There was, indeed a difference between Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer, the former maintaining that baptism alone without circumcision, the latter that circumcision alone without baptism, sufficed to make a proselyte, but the sages decided in favour of the necessity of both rites (Yebam. 46 a and b). The baptism was to be performed in the presence of three witnesses, ordinarily Sanhedrists (Yebam. 47 b), but in case of necessity others might act. The person to be baptized, having cut his hair and nails, undressed completely, made fresh profession of his faith before what were ‘the fathers of the baptism’ (our Godfathers, Kethub. 11 a; Erub. 15 a), and then immersed completely, so that every part of the body was touched by the water. The rite would, of course, be accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides, Hilkh. Milah iii. 4; Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiv. 6). Baptism was not to be administered at night, nor on a Sabbath or feast-day (Yebam. 46 b). Women were attended by those of their own sex, the Rabbis standing at the door outside. Yet unborn children of proselytes did not require to be baptized, because they were born ‘in holiness’ (Yebam. 78 a). In regard to the little children of proselytes opinions differed. A person under age was indeed received, but not regarded as properly an Israelite till he had attained majority. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged. In general, the statements of a proselyte about his baptism required attestation by witnesses. But the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was doubtful.
THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES
T
tabcom
Guest
Yes, that is correct.
G
guanophore
Guest
Good for you! Now, the only problem we are facing is that Jesus, John, and all the people they baptized were already fullly recognized Jews, and no proselytes. When a person was born Jew, he or she was dedicated in the temple. Boys were circumcised. Both boys and girls had a puberty rite, called the mitzvah, where they became a son or daughter of the convenant. Jesus had this when he was 12. So, there was absolutely no reason for him to enter or participate in any rite of conversion for proselytes.
T
tabcom
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
If the Jews could not determine that Jesus was a Jew until He was baptized, then what kind of indelible mark was given to Him? He went into the desert immediatly after His baptism. When He returned, He began preaching in places where people gathered that were no where near His place of Baptism. how could they know He had been baptized? And if not, how could Baptism somehow authenticate him to them?
How do you suppose such a mistake could happen? Why didn’t the teachers in the temple mistake him for an unconverted Gentile when he was 12? Why was he in the area of the temple where Gentiles were not allowed? Why were the elders talking to him, if he was an unconverted Gentile?
Why didn’t his mother and father have to get baptized too? How come John’s parents weren’t baptized? Surely they would have been mistaken for Gentile proselytes as well!
T
tabcom
Guest
If I’m to be held accountable for my statements, I would like for you to provide a citation that shows that ‘mitzvah’ was institutionalization at the time of Jesus.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is certainly a fair request.
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year
at the feast of the Passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old,
they went up according to custom;
43 and when the feast was ended,
as they were returning,
the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.
His parents did not know it,
44 but supposing him to be in the company
they went a day’s journey,
and they sought him
among their kinsfolk and acquaintances;
45 and when they did not find him,
they returned to Jerusalem,
seeking him.
46 After three days they found him in the temple,
sitting among the teachers,
listening to them and asking them questions;
47 and all who heard him were amazed
at his understanding and his answers.
48 And when they saw him they were astonished;
and his mother said to him,
“Son, why have you treated us so?
Behold,
your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.”
49 And he said to them,
“How is it that you sought me?
Did you not know
that I must be in my Father’s house?”
Why do you suppose Jesus’ parents would go to Jerusalem every year if they were Gentiles? It was not a customary pilgrimmage for Gentiles, but only for Jews. When Jesus was 12, he completed the ceremony to become a “son of the Law”, after which time He understood that He would be about His father’s business.
I can’t post my Orthodox Jewish history book, but there are some online resources available. The bar mitzvah was not altered until the middle ages, but it is still used today in most Jewish communities.
myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Bar_Bat_Mitzvah/History.htm
jewfaq.org/barmitz.htm
neverthirsty.org/pp/series/Life/LH015/LH01.html
Did you think that the visit to the temple was just like it had been in previousl years? I mean, that nothing like a bar mitzvah happened when Jesus was 12?
Before the ceremony, he would have been considered a child, and would not be privileged to sit and talk with the teachers and elders. Since he was found there talking with them about matters of faith, we know that he had completed the ceremony and had a change of status from child to adult (in the eyes of His faith).
J
JDAX
Guest
I feel duty-bound to point out the sheer speculation and unsubstantiated claims being made by tabcom. Please forgive me if this is speaking too forcefully or seems divisive, but I am only speaking out of concern as I see it.
First, some various odds and ends. Tabcom claims that if Jesus hadn’t been proselyte baptized, then he would have been mistaken for a Gentile. But note what tabcom’s own sources about proselyte baptism tell us: “the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was doubtful.” Was Jesus the child of a Jewess? Yes, he was (Matthew even gives his entire Jewish genealogy on Mary’s side); therefore, tabcom’s own source tells us that he would have been regarded as a Jew, not a Gentile, contrary to his own assertion! Furthermore, Scripture gives us every indication that everyone knew Jesus was the child of Mary and (therefore) knew that He was a Jew. Aside from Matthew’s knowing his entire genealogy, Scripture tells us that Joseph and Mary registered themselves in the census immediately before Jesus was born (Luke 2:5-6), that numerous shepherds came and saw that Jesus was born of Mary (Luke 2:15-16), and then even spread the news to others (Luke 2:17-18). It also tells us that Jesus was presented in the temple (Luke 2:22), that Simeon the righteous Jew saw him as the child of Mary (Luke 2:25-35), that Anna also saw them in the temple and spoke about the child to various other people (Luke 2:36-38), etc. All of Jesus’ family’s friends and relatives knew about him as Mary’s child, as well (Luke 2:44). As guanophore has also pointed out, Jesus also went to the Passover feast in Jerusalem before his mitzvah, as Luke tells us, just as a Jew would (“when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom” (Luke 2:42); what custom? The custom of going to Jerusalem a year before being declared a man, which guanophore cites), and not only this, but he sat among the teachers in the Jewish temple (Luke 2:46) and even interacted with them by answering their questions in a way that amazed them (Luke 2:47). No Gentile would have been tolerated like this at that time (remember Acts, where Peter is rebuked for even entering the house of a Gentile (Cornelius)? or the condemnation that the Pharisees gave to Jesus for associating with Gentiles? Jews did not tolerate such things at this time, for Gentiles were unclean). So, it is clear both from tabcom’s own sources, and from the Scripture, that Jesus would have been regarded as a Jew and was in fact recognized as one, contrary to tabcom’s assertion. (And again, what was the reason/evidence for making that assertion?)
To summarize: Jesus was known to be Mary’s child and therefore a Jew by friends, relatives, shepherds and those to whom they spoke, Simeon the righteous Jew, Anna and all those to whom she spoke, the teachers in the temple in Jerusalem, all of the people in Nazareth (they at least know that he’s the “son” of Joseph (Luke 4:22)), etc. The Samaritan woman even immediately recognized him as a Jew even though she hadn’t seen him be baptized by John and even though she hadn’t seen his mother, so apparently his Jewishness was obvious even to strangers (John 4:9). The Galilean Jews likewise welcomed him among them as a Jew because they had seen him at Passover (John 4:45) (note: not because he had been proselyte baptized, but because they already knew him from Passover; the Galileans did not see his alleged proselyte baptism, for Galilee was somewhere else other than where John was baptizing (John 1:43)). In short, virtually everyone who encountered him knew him and knew he was a Jew. There is no record anywhere of anyone mistaking him for a Gentile prior to some alleged proselyte baptism by John, but rather quite the opposite; even before His baptism by John He is recognized as a Jew; his mother was a Jewess and He was known to be her child, and so recognized as Jewish. This is just as tabcom’s sources tell us, for as they say, “the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews.” There is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
In the next post, I will address some issues more directly pertaining to John’s baptism.
JDAX
First, some various odds and ends. Tabcom claims that if Jesus hadn’t been proselyte baptized, then he would have been mistaken for a Gentile. But note what tabcom’s own sources about proselyte baptism tell us: “the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was doubtful.” Was Jesus the child of a Jewess? Yes, he was (Matthew even gives his entire Jewish genealogy on Mary’s side); therefore, tabcom’s own source tells us that he would have been regarded as a Jew, not a Gentile, contrary to his own assertion! Furthermore, Scripture gives us every indication that everyone knew Jesus was the child of Mary and (therefore) knew that He was a Jew. Aside from Matthew’s knowing his entire genealogy, Scripture tells us that Joseph and Mary registered themselves in the census immediately before Jesus was born (Luke 2:5-6), that numerous shepherds came and saw that Jesus was born of Mary (Luke 2:15-16), and then even spread the news to others (Luke 2:17-18). It also tells us that Jesus was presented in the temple (Luke 2:22), that Simeon the righteous Jew saw him as the child of Mary (Luke 2:25-35), that Anna also saw them in the temple and spoke about the child to various other people (Luke 2:36-38), etc. All of Jesus’ family’s friends and relatives knew about him as Mary’s child, as well (Luke 2:44). As guanophore has also pointed out, Jesus also went to the Passover feast in Jerusalem before his mitzvah, as Luke tells us, just as a Jew would (“when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom” (Luke 2:42); what custom? The custom of going to Jerusalem a year before being declared a man, which guanophore cites), and not only this, but he sat among the teachers in the Jewish temple (Luke 2:46) and even interacted with them by answering their questions in a way that amazed them (Luke 2:47). No Gentile would have been tolerated like this at that time (remember Acts, where Peter is rebuked for even entering the house of a Gentile (Cornelius)? or the condemnation that the Pharisees gave to Jesus for associating with Gentiles? Jews did not tolerate such things at this time, for Gentiles were unclean). So, it is clear both from tabcom’s own sources, and from the Scripture, that Jesus would have been regarded as a Jew and was in fact recognized as one, contrary to tabcom’s assertion. (And again, what was the reason/evidence for making that assertion?)
To summarize: Jesus was known to be Mary’s child and therefore a Jew by friends, relatives, shepherds and those to whom they spoke, Simeon the righteous Jew, Anna and all those to whom she spoke, the teachers in the temple in Jerusalem, all of the people in Nazareth (they at least know that he’s the “son” of Joseph (Luke 4:22)), etc. The Samaritan woman even immediately recognized him as a Jew even though she hadn’t seen him be baptized by John and even though she hadn’t seen his mother, so apparently his Jewishness was obvious even to strangers (John 4:9). The Galilean Jews likewise welcomed him among them as a Jew because they had seen him at Passover (John 4:45) (note: not because he had been proselyte baptized, but because they already knew him from Passover; the Galileans did not see his alleged proselyte baptism, for Galilee was somewhere else other than where John was baptizing (John 1:43)). In short, virtually everyone who encountered him knew him and knew he was a Jew. There is no record anywhere of anyone mistaking him for a Gentile prior to some alleged proselyte baptism by John, but rather quite the opposite; even before His baptism by John He is recognized as a Jew; his mother was a Jewess and He was known to be her child, and so recognized as Jewish. This is just as tabcom’s sources tell us, for as they say, “the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews.” There is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
In the next post, I will address some issues more directly pertaining to John’s baptism.
JDAX
J
JDAX
Guest
Tabcom says about John’s baptism: “What was the water baptism that he [John the Baptist] performed? Proselyte baptism.”
Ask yourselves again: what is the proof that tabcom has given for this assertion? Notice that tabcom cites no Scripture to prove this. Nor is there any tradition cited to show that John was thought by anyone to perform a mere proselyte baptism. Even the quote from Josephus does not say that John was performing proselyte baptism, for there were various bodily washings besides proselyte baptism current at the time (see the earlier sources that tabcom himself notes, specifically the ones which mention the “daily bathers”, etc.). For what is proselyte baptism, as tabcom defines it? According to him, it is a “ritual of water baptism . . . performed if you were [a Jew (or gentile?)] born outside the gates of Jerusalem.” This was, tabcom tells us, a ritual “created” by the Pharisees, but never commanded by God. Now, where does Scripture or tradition anywhere say that John’s baptism was a baptism performed specifically to cleanse Jews born outside of Jerusalem, in a way consistent with the method created by the Pharisees? (The answer is, nowhere. As others have pointed out, John’s baptism seems to be given to those who are full Jews already; note once again that tabcom’s own sources suggest this; Josephus says that John “commanded the Jews to exercise virtue . . . and so to come to baptism”; nothing Josephus says suggests that the baptism was for making people who were not clean members of the Jewish community into clean members.)
In fact, Scripture gives us strong evidence against tabcom’s notion about John’s baptism. It says that the people coming to John’s baptism came to him from Jerusalem and were baptized by him (Matthew 3:5-6). Nor does it say that this was only for people from Jerusalem who were not born in Jerusalem, for Scripture tells us that “all the people of Jerusalem” and “the whole Judean countryside” went out to him and were baptized (Mark 1:4-5). These statements are entirely non-restrictive; there is no indication whatsoever that the baptism was restricted only to Jews not born in Jerusalem as a cleansing ritual, as it would be if it were mere proselyte baptism as practiced by the Pharisees. Notice this also: the Pharisees themselves come out to John’s baptism, and John himself says that his baptism is offered for them as well (he says to the Pharisees, “I baptize you”) (Matthew 3:7, 11). Now, as tabcom tells us, proselyte baptism was already a tradition of the Pharisees. This means that anyone who was a Pharisee would have either (a) been born in Jerusalem and so not needed proselyte baptism, or (b) not been born in Jerusalem but would have therefore received proselyte baptism already in order to become a “clean” Pharisee, made a member of the community by the Pharisees (for the Pharisees required this). This means that the Pharisees who came out to John the Baptist either had already been proselyte baptized (in order to become “clean” Pharisees) or would not need proselyte baptism at all (because they had been born in Jerusalem). So why do even the Pharisees themselves come to John’s baptism? The Pharisees themselves cannot still require proselyte baptism (as Pharisees, they would have already received it), so it must be for some other reason; they wouldn’t have come to John’s baptism if it was a mere proselyte baptism. Yet still they came to John’s baptism, and John himself says that it was also for them. This strongly suggests that it was not mere proselyte baptism.
But there is more. Scripture itself tells us what the purpose of John’s baptism was, and it never says that it’s purpose was merely to cleanse proselytes and make them members of the naturalized Jewish community. No, instead, Scripture tells us that John’s mission was to make Israel ready so that “he [Christ] might be revealed” (John 1:31). This suggests that his baptism was unique and had a unique function; it wasn’t like the proselyte baptisms that were already being given. John was to “give his [the Lord’s] people the knowledge of salvation [coming in Jesus Christ] through the forgiveness of their sins” (Luke 1:76-77), and he did this by going “into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 2:3). Notice that what he’s doing is giving knowledge of salvation to the Lord’s people and to Israel; the Lord’s people and Israel includes even those Jews born in Jerusalem, i.e., non-proselytes, and the knowledge which he is giving is the crucial knowledge of salvation, which knowledge was presumably for every one of them, whether proselyte or non-proselyte. He gave this knowledge by preaching his baptism, so again, he presumably preached this baptism to both proselytes and non-proselytes alike, preparing them for the coming Messiah. (More…)
Ask yourselves again: what is the proof that tabcom has given for this assertion? Notice that tabcom cites no Scripture to prove this. Nor is there any tradition cited to show that John was thought by anyone to perform a mere proselyte baptism. Even the quote from Josephus does not say that John was performing proselyte baptism, for there were various bodily washings besides proselyte baptism current at the time (see the earlier sources that tabcom himself notes, specifically the ones which mention the “daily bathers”, etc.). For what is proselyte baptism, as tabcom defines it? According to him, it is a “ritual of water baptism . . . performed if you were [a Jew (or gentile?)] born outside the gates of Jerusalem.” This was, tabcom tells us, a ritual “created” by the Pharisees, but never commanded by God. Now, where does Scripture or tradition anywhere say that John’s baptism was a baptism performed specifically to cleanse Jews born outside of Jerusalem, in a way consistent with the method created by the Pharisees? (The answer is, nowhere. As others have pointed out, John’s baptism seems to be given to those who are full Jews already; note once again that tabcom’s own sources suggest this; Josephus says that John “commanded the Jews to exercise virtue . . . and so to come to baptism”; nothing Josephus says suggests that the baptism was for making people who were not clean members of the Jewish community into clean members.)
In fact, Scripture gives us strong evidence against tabcom’s notion about John’s baptism. It says that the people coming to John’s baptism came to him from Jerusalem and were baptized by him (Matthew 3:5-6). Nor does it say that this was only for people from Jerusalem who were not born in Jerusalem, for Scripture tells us that “all the people of Jerusalem” and “the whole Judean countryside” went out to him and were baptized (Mark 1:4-5). These statements are entirely non-restrictive; there is no indication whatsoever that the baptism was restricted only to Jews not born in Jerusalem as a cleansing ritual, as it would be if it were mere proselyte baptism as practiced by the Pharisees. Notice this also: the Pharisees themselves come out to John’s baptism, and John himself says that his baptism is offered for them as well (he says to the Pharisees, “I baptize you”) (Matthew 3:7, 11). Now, as tabcom tells us, proselyte baptism was already a tradition of the Pharisees. This means that anyone who was a Pharisee would have either (a) been born in Jerusalem and so not needed proselyte baptism, or (b) not been born in Jerusalem but would have therefore received proselyte baptism already in order to become a “clean” Pharisee, made a member of the community by the Pharisees (for the Pharisees required this). This means that the Pharisees who came out to John the Baptist either had already been proselyte baptized (in order to become “clean” Pharisees) or would not need proselyte baptism at all (because they had been born in Jerusalem). So why do even the Pharisees themselves come to John’s baptism? The Pharisees themselves cannot still require proselyte baptism (as Pharisees, they would have already received it), so it must be for some other reason; they wouldn’t have come to John’s baptism if it was a mere proselyte baptism. Yet still they came to John’s baptism, and John himself says that it was also for them. This strongly suggests that it was not mere proselyte baptism.
But there is more. Scripture itself tells us what the purpose of John’s baptism was, and it never says that it’s purpose was merely to cleanse proselytes and make them members of the naturalized Jewish community. No, instead, Scripture tells us that John’s mission was to make Israel ready so that “he [Christ] might be revealed” (John 1:31). This suggests that his baptism was unique and had a unique function; it wasn’t like the proselyte baptisms that were already being given. John was to “give his [the Lord’s] people the knowledge of salvation [coming in Jesus Christ] through the forgiveness of their sins” (Luke 1:76-77), and he did this by going “into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 2:3). Notice that what he’s doing is giving knowledge of salvation to the Lord’s people and to Israel; the Lord’s people and Israel includes even those Jews born in Jerusalem, i.e., non-proselytes, and the knowledge which he is giving is the crucial knowledge of salvation, which knowledge was presumably for every one of them, whether proselyte or non-proselyte. He gave this knowledge by preaching his baptism, so again, he presumably preached this baptism to both proselytes and non-proselytes alike, preparing them for the coming Messiah. (More…)
J
JDAX
Guest
There is still more. Even the Pharisees seemed to know that John was not giving mere proselyte baptism as they did. Why? Because “some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him [John], ‘Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?’” (John 1:24-25). Notice this: the Pharisees do not understand why John is giving his particular baptism; but obviously the Pharisees knew why proselyte baptism was given (it was their own tradition, after all, and they knew the reasons for it!), so they wouldn’t have asked John why he was baptizing if they thought he was just doing the same sort of proselyte baptism as they did. Indeed, if they thought John was doing mere proselyte baptism, their own question wouldn’t have made any sense whatsoever, and would have in fact questioned their own practice. Why? Because the Pharisees themselves knew that they were not Christ, or Elijah, or the Prophet, and yet they still performed their proselyte baptism; their baptism did not require that one be Christ, or Elijah, or the Prophet, and yet apparently they thought that John’s baptism did. The question that the Pharisees asked John indicates that they thought his baptism was a special sort of baptism requiring a special sort of authority (hence they asked him why he was doing it if he wasn’t Christ or Elijah or the Prophet); their own proselyte baptism obviously didn’t require that sort of authority, or they themselves wouldn’t have done it, since they were not Christ, or Elijah, or the Prophet. Now, of course, the Pharisees were wrong to think that John was not Elijah, but, even so, they understood that Elijah performed a special baptism that was different from their mere proselyte baptism and required special reasons and authority (Elijah comes before Christ and prepares the way, as Scripture (Malachi) tell us, so presumably the baptism they were thinking of was a special baptism preparing the way for Messiah’s bringing of the Kingdom, and so something different from mere proselyte baptism). So the baptism that John performed was apparently not the same as their proselyte baptism, but played the function of preparing the way for Messiah (just as Elijah, who John is, was supposed to do). (Indeed, if John’s baptism was the same as proselyte baptism, John presumably would have just answered the Pharisees: “What are you talking about? You guys are baptizing proselytes too, and you know the reasons why, and you are not Christ, nor are you Elijah, nor are you the Prophet. I’m doing the same thing! We both know what proselyte baptism is for and that it doesn’t require this special authority you’re talking about.” But he doesn’t seem to say anything like this.)
Now tabcom also asserts that Jesus was baptized by John in order to gain recognition from the Jews. Does Scripture tell us this anywhere? No, it does not. (Again, where is this idea supported? As we have seen above, there is ample evidence that the Jews already recognized Him as a Jew and were even sometimes amazed at His understanding of the Law.) Instead, Jesus himself gives us the reason that he was baptized, in Matthew 3:15, saying that it was done “to fulfill all righteousness.” Now was the tradition of proselyte baptism part of fulfilling all righteousness? It does not seem so, for as tabcom himself notes, this tradition was not required by the Law of God, which is the standard which determines righteousness. And Scripture also tells us that John’s baptism was not a baptism after this mere tradition of the Pharisees, for John says that his baptizing was commanded/sent by God (John 1:33). So John’s baptism is different from mere proselyte baptism because it was a special one sent by God, one meant to prepare the way for the coming Messiah’s inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus’ accepting it was part of his fulfilling all righteousness (which would not have been the case for a proselyte baptism, since proselyte baptism was not required by the Law in order to be righteous).
I’ll attempt to sum this up and give some possible consideration to why Jesus had to be baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness in an upcoming reply. Hopefully that will be the last one about this subject.
Now tabcom also asserts that Jesus was baptized by John in order to gain recognition from the Jews. Does Scripture tell us this anywhere? No, it does not. (Again, where is this idea supported? As we have seen above, there is ample evidence that the Jews already recognized Him as a Jew and were even sometimes amazed at His understanding of the Law.) Instead, Jesus himself gives us the reason that he was baptized, in Matthew 3:15, saying that it was done “to fulfill all righteousness.” Now was the tradition of proselyte baptism part of fulfilling all righteousness? It does not seem so, for as tabcom himself notes, this tradition was not required by the Law of God, which is the standard which determines righteousness. And Scripture also tells us that John’s baptism was not a baptism after this mere tradition of the Pharisees, for John says that his baptizing was commanded/sent by God (John 1:33). So John’s baptism is different from mere proselyte baptism because it was a special one sent by God, one meant to prepare the way for the coming Messiah’s inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus’ accepting it was part of his fulfilling all righteousness (which would not have been the case for a proselyte baptism, since proselyte baptism was not required by the Law in order to be righteous).
I’ll attempt to sum this up and give some possible consideration to why Jesus had to be baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness in an upcoming reply. Hopefully that will be the last one about this subject.
J
JDAX
Guest
So, why does Jesus need to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness? (Note that the answer to this question is somewhat unrelated to whether or not John’s baptism was a mere proselyte baptism; that is, even if we are not satisfied with the answer to this question, the previous points about the nature of John’s baptism still apply. Still, I’ll give this some consideration here, for completeness’ sake.) John’s baptism is apparently required because it was sent by God now (unlike proselyte baptism) (John 1:33) to prepare Israel for the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven (John 1:31; Luke 1:76-77; see also Malachi 4:5), so it might be that Jesus accepted it just in order to begin that very Kingdom’s inauguration; John’s baptism prepared the way for Christ, so once Christ received it, Christ began His own ministry, and John’s faded away (“He must increase, I must decrease”); this means that Christ’s baptism “fulfilled all righteousness” in that it began the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven that John’s baptism, sent by God to prepare the way for that Kingdom, pointed to and prepared for. But there’s also another possible, perhaps compatible and supplementary, interpretation. Luke 3 suggests that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized by John and began his ministry (Luke 3:23). We also know from Hebrews that Jesus was our High Priest. Now, it just so happens that the Law of God, which set the standards for righteousness, apparently required that priests be thirty years old before they began their ministry (Numbers 4:3,23,30,35,39,43,47), and also that they be washed with water when that ministry began (Leviticus 8:5-6; Exodus 29:1-4). Is it a coincidence that Jesus receives a washing with water from John at the age of 30 when He Himself begins His ministry, and that He says that this is necessary to fulfill all righteousness (i.e., as determined by the Law)? I myself doubt that it is, so this may be what Christ’s statement means.
To sum up, though, the main point here has been this: Scripture and tradition nowhere tell us that John was doing a proselyte baptism, or that Jesus came to it for recognition by the Jews, or that He would have been mistaken for a Gentile otherwise. Scripture consistently suggests that John’s baptism was special, sent/commanded by God, for all Jews (it was sent to Israel, to the Lord’s people, and all the people of Jerusalem and the whole region of Judea, including the Pharisees, came to it, and Josephus says it was for the Jews to be virtuous), in order to prepare them for the coming Messiah (a function that proselyte baptism did not have). It tells us that even the Pharisees came to this baptism, also indicating that it wasn’t a proselyte baptism (for they either wouldn’t need it or would have already received it). It tells us that the Pharisees understood John’s baptism to be something special. It tells us that Jesus undertook John’s baptism to fulfill all righteousness, whereas we must admit that proselyte baptism of the Pharisees was not commanded by the Law of God and so not really part of fulfilling all righteousness. Scripture further indicates that, under the Law, priests are supposed to be at least 30 years of age, and receive a washing with water when they begin their ministry. This might indicate why Jesus, who is our High Priest, came to receive the washing from John at age 30 when His ministry began: it was required by the Law for Him to begin His ministry, and it was also sent by God to prepare the way for the kingdom of Heaven which He was about to inaugurate; Jesus Himself was the Messiah, so He perhaps undertook the baptism in order to begin that ministry which John’s baptism pointed to, and to “fulfill all righteousness” by being washed at age 30 before beginning his ministry as High Priest. Finally, Scripture shows us many cases where Jesus was recognized as a Jew by strangers and numerous people prior to His baptism. The sources from tabcom tell us that children of Jewesses were regarded as Jews themselves, and Jesus was a child of a Jewess. He was accepted/recognized as a Jew at Passover, by the teachers in the temple, by the Samaritan woman, by Simeon, and many, many others. We never see him being mistaken for a Gentile prior to His baptism by John or afterwards; even people who didn’t know He had received John’s baptism knew He was a Jew without that evidence (cf. the Samaritan woman). The case is thus heavily stacked against tabcom’s claim that John’s baptism is a mere proselyte baptism like that of the Pharisees, which Jesus undertook in order to “gain recognition,” in order that He wouldn’t be mistaken for a Gentile.
Thanks for all of your time, and may God bless you.
To sum up, though, the main point here has been this: Scripture and tradition nowhere tell us that John was doing a proselyte baptism, or that Jesus came to it for recognition by the Jews, or that He would have been mistaken for a Gentile otherwise. Scripture consistently suggests that John’s baptism was special, sent/commanded by God, for all Jews (it was sent to Israel, to the Lord’s people, and all the people of Jerusalem and the whole region of Judea, including the Pharisees, came to it, and Josephus says it was for the Jews to be virtuous), in order to prepare them for the coming Messiah (a function that proselyte baptism did not have). It tells us that even the Pharisees came to this baptism, also indicating that it wasn’t a proselyte baptism (for they either wouldn’t need it or would have already received it). It tells us that the Pharisees understood John’s baptism to be something special. It tells us that Jesus undertook John’s baptism to fulfill all righteousness, whereas we must admit that proselyte baptism of the Pharisees was not commanded by the Law of God and so not really part of fulfilling all righteousness. Scripture further indicates that, under the Law, priests are supposed to be at least 30 years of age, and receive a washing with water when they begin their ministry. This might indicate why Jesus, who is our High Priest, came to receive the washing from John at age 30 when His ministry began: it was required by the Law for Him to begin His ministry, and it was also sent by God to prepare the way for the kingdom of Heaven which He was about to inaugurate; Jesus Himself was the Messiah, so He perhaps undertook the baptism in order to begin that ministry which John’s baptism pointed to, and to “fulfill all righteousness” by being washed at age 30 before beginning his ministry as High Priest. Finally, Scripture shows us many cases where Jesus was recognized as a Jew by strangers and numerous people prior to His baptism. The sources from tabcom tell us that children of Jewesses were regarded as Jews themselves, and Jesus was a child of a Jewess. He was accepted/recognized as a Jew at Passover, by the teachers in the temple, by the Samaritan woman, by Simeon, and many, many others. We never see him being mistaken for a Gentile prior to His baptism by John or afterwards; even people who didn’t know He had received John’s baptism knew He was a Jew without that evidence (cf. the Samaritan woman). The case is thus heavily stacked against tabcom’s claim that John’s baptism is a mere proselyte baptism like that of the Pharisees, which Jesus undertook in order to “gain recognition,” in order that He wouldn’t be mistaken for a Gentile.
Thanks for all of your time, and may God bless you.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
I don’t know if this helps, but I remembered reading in an old (1889) Catholic book my husband found in a thrift store, that because of Ruth, Jesus was a gentile because his father Joseph was.
**
Ruth4**
9 Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelech, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records. Today you are witnesses!”
David: Ruth and Boaz are the grand-parents of David. That’s why Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to register in the census of Augustus (Luke 2:1-5). Ruth and Boaz are a primary reason why Jesus was born in Bethlehem!
Ruth 4
The Genealogy of David
13 So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. Then he went to her, and the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 The women said to Naomi: “Praise be to the LORD, who this day has not left you without a kinsman-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! 15 He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”
16 Then Naomi took the child, laid him in her lap and cared for him. 17 The women living there said, “Naomi has a son.” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the** father of David. **
**
Luke 3:23**
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
31the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
and then I found this today after reading the last post.
biblia.com/jesusbible/ruth2.htm
**
Ruth4**
9 Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelech, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records. Today you are witnesses!”
David: Ruth and Boaz are the grand-parents of David. That’s why Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to register in the census of Augustus (Luke 2:1-5). Ruth and Boaz are a primary reason why Jesus was born in Bethlehem!
Ruth 4
The Genealogy of David
13 So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. Then he went to her, and the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 The women said to Naomi: “Praise be to the LORD, who this day has not left you without a kinsman-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! 15 He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”
16 Then Naomi took the child, laid him in her lap and cared for him. 17 The women living there said, “Naomi has a son.” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the** father of David. **
**
Luke 3:23**
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
31the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
and then I found this today after reading the last post.
biblia.com/jesusbible/ruth2.htm
F
fellowChristian
Guest
I have read before that son of Heli should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph.
23And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,
** I used the NIV for the first post and the Douay-Rheims for this one**
both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin
Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption)
23And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,
Code:
24Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph,
25Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge,
26Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda,
27Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri,
28Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her,
29Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi,
30Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim,
31Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David,
32Who was of **Jesse**, who was of **Obed**, who was of **Booz**, who was of **Salmon**, who was of Naasson,
33Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas,
34Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor,
35Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale,
36Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech,
37Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan,
38Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin
Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption)
F
fellowChristian
Guest
I also found this on the geneology
bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html
bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html
T
tabcom
Guest
JDAX, I do apreciate you participation to this thread.
With respects to providing scripture and tradition to support my claim that Jesus was practicing proselyte baptism, I’ve reprinted the following:
(originally posted in #2)
The ritual of circumsion was performed on Jesus (Luke 2:21).
Joseph and Mary performed the custom of offering two turtle doves (Luke 2:24).
Jesus, as a full grown man, completed the tradition of water baptism (Matt. 3:13).
(originally posted in #26)
Ger hatstsedeq (proselyte of righteousness).
“All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism (Tebhilah), and a Sacrifice . . . .- the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5).” The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah – Alfred Edersheim 1883.
- Status