Baptism In Ot? A Bom Problem

[Freedom]

In a response to Zerinus in another thread, Ron Beron makes the following observation:

“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”

This would be contrary to what we find in the Book of Mormon. I am interested in what others have to say about this. I could not find any other discussion or articles about this specific issue.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In a response to Zerinus in another thread, Ron Beron makes the following observation:

“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”

This would be contrary to what we find in the Book of Mormon. I am interested in what others have to say about this. I could not find any other discussion or articles about this specific issue.

Christ was asked about every aspect of his ministry, but never about Baptism, nor was John the Baptist. Seems to me that the doctors of religion viewed it as normal.

[LeSellers]

In a response to Zerinus in another thread, Ron Beron makes the following observation:

“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”

This would be contrary to what we find in the Book of Mormon. I am interested in what others have to say about this. I could not find any other discussion or articles about this specific issue.

Apostasy is a very complex and wonderful (in the sense of "I wonder about that") thing. We have echos of baptism for the remission of sin in the "Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah" Ron mentioned, but we are not (by virtue of the IX Article of Faith) bound to reject anything that is not explicitly in the Bible.

The fact that Moses originally recorded (or copied from Enoch himself) the baptism of Adam for the remission of his sins is evidence enough for me that baptism was then established as the rebirthing process by which one enters the kingdom and family of God.

Lehi

Edited October 18, 2011 by LeSellers

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Apostasy is a very complex and wonderful (in the sense of "I wonder about that") thing. We have echos of baptism for the remission of sin in the "Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah" Ron mentioned, but we are not (by virtue of the IX Article of Faith) bound to reject anything that is not explicitly in the Bible.

The fact that Moses originally recorded (or copied from Enoch himself) the baptism of Adam for the remission of his sins is evidence enough for me that baptism was then established as the rebirthing process by which one enters the kingdom and family of God.

Lehi

Could you expand on this a little...

[David T]

Christ was asked about every aspect of his ministry, but never about Baptism, nor was John the Baptist. Seems to me that the doctors of religion viewed it as normal.

What John was doing was in fact new, or 'novel', and actually quite remarkable. While related to other immersive rituals, it was different and unique in several important ways. It had specific apocalyptic overtones, was specifically tied to the person of the Prophet John, was a once-for-all experience (different from most other washing rituals) that people (including leaders among the Pharisees who viewed John as a Prophet) traveled in the wilderness to experience, and was viewed as a renewed commitment towards the ideals of God's Kingdom that would serve as a sign or seal of protection against the (very near) burning apocalypse. I wrote a blog post expressing perhaps how Jesus might have viewed this Baptism in his own cultural context and personal development, and how this commitment may have been a direct antecedent to receiving his own 'First Vision'.

This is how I summed up my blog post:

I find this reading highly satisfying - not that Jesus was baptized because baptism in itself was a known specific commandment (there is a lot of historical issues on hand that make this a difficult subject), but rather because a prophet was presenting an opportunity to declare and commit to one's general obedience to the revealed will of God - and that is what Jesus submitted to, and as a result, was given a marvelous personal revelatory vision - one which was not expected, and resulted in his needing to get away in meditative prayer and fasting in the wilderness in order to work out what it meant to and for him.

Edited October 18, 2011 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

Apostasy is a very complex and wonderful (in the sense of "I wonder about that") thing.

Could you expand on this a little...

Apostasy can take many forms. Its author is Satan, whose work and glory is to bring to pass the immorality and infernal life of man.

He uses a host of tools, not least of which is theology (the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture). He has, as we can easily demonstrate, tampered with the scriptures found in the Bible, and he has altered the ways men understand what is in the Bible, even when he has not modified them.

I believe that the loss of the concept of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins was in the original texts of Moses, et al., but that men, acting under the influence of Satan either removed these references or taught their own opinions on the matter such that people further down the line would not see the connection between what the original authors wrote in those books that would eventually become the Bible. We have seen here the observation that John's baptism was unremarkable, even to the Pharisees, and he was explicit that his ordinance was for the remission of sins. So, at least for me and a few others, it must have been a feature of historical Judaism, otherwise people would have raised something of a ruckus

Apostasy is complex in that Satan uses many approaches to reach his end: some against individuals and many against entire covenant communities (the House of Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ). He uses politics and economics, he uses philosophy and reason, he uses anything that will undermine the faith of one or a million people. I say "uses", but I mean "abuses", for each of these is an invention of God. Satan is not a creator, he is a destroyer, a mimicker. He takes good things and twists them to evil purposes.

Apostasy is "wonderful" (remember my stipulation) in that it perplexes me: how could Satan be so dedicated to his hatred of God and His work and glory that, even when he knows he must ultimately lose, insists on undermining us. He is content (or even happy) to perish, as long as he can make all men miserable like unto himself. It boggles the mind.

Lehi

Edited October 19, 2011 by LeSellers

[Vance]

So, at least for me and a few others, it must have been a feature of historical Judaism, otherwise people would have raised something of a ruckus

The Pharisees would have gone ballistic had it been something new.

[David T]

The Pharisees would have gone ballistic had it been something new.

That's not really accurate. As I understand, they weren't as much in opposition to novelty as they were to novelities that took power from them. Many Pharisees did view John as possibly being a legitimate prophet. His Baptism was presented on a divine seal of someone's commitment to the Kingdom of God, and a sign of safety for the coming destruction. That would have been highly attractive, and it also didn't set anyone (especially John) as a messianic leader, while still maintaining a hope for the (soon) destruction of the Romans, and other impious individuals standing in the way of the Messianic Kingdom. The Pharisees saw themselves as a guardian and preparator of the Messianic Kingdom. John's ministry stated that it was coming very soon, and get prepared to save yourselves from the burning of the Day of YHWH. The Baptism of John was a sort of sign of a 'Passover' that would occur at That Day.

The Pharisees would have loved a sign ratifying their righteous endeavors, and ratifying their place as true guardians of the Law and Covenant.

Jesus being presented as a Messianic King Figure, however, when he was very much opposed to the Pharisees, was far more of a political problem than John ever was.

Edited October 18, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Deborah]

If there is a difference in the description of baptism in the OT and the BOM I wonder if it's more of a condition of how Christ was taught. It seems to me that the OT peoples were pretty stubborn and were taught by symbols and ordinances which weren't quite so clear cut to most of the people, similar in tone and purpose of the Parables. The BOM people were specifically led by the hand of the Lord to a land set apart. Their teachings were much less hidden in meaning as they were a people who from the onset were separated from the world.

We of course with events that have transpired can see the symbolic references in the OT to such ordinances and no doubt the prophets were very much aware of the deeper meanings, but I wonder if baptism was that common a practice given the apostasy that had taken place in Israel over and over again. Not to say it wasn't done but was it as widespread as it became with the Advent of Christ.

[Vance]

That's not really accurate. As I understand, they weren't as much in opposition to novelty as they were to novelities that took power from them. Many Pharisees did view John as possibly being a legitimate prophet.

???

So John, as you presume, implements a new and "novel" ordinance that draws people out away from their influence and they wouldn't perceive that as a threat to their status?

His Baptism was presented on a divine seal of someone's commitment to the Kingdom of God, and a sign of safety for the coming destruction.

A seal that they had no control or say over, and yet they would be ok with?

Really?

That would have been highly attractive, . . .

To whom?

. . . and it also didn't set anyone (especially John) as a messianic leader while still maintaining a hope for the (soon) destruction of the Romans, and other impious individuals standing in the way of the Messianic Kingdom.,

Totally ignoring Matt 3.

The Pharisees saw themselves as a guardian and preparator of the Messianic Kingdom.

True.

John's ministry stated that it was coming very soon, and get prepared to save yourselves from the burning of the Day of YHWH. The Baptism of John was a sort of sign of a 'Passover' that would occur at That Day.

Totally ignoring Matt 3.

The Pharisees would have loved a sign ratifying their righteous endeavors, and ratifying their place as true guardians of the Law and Covenant.

Yes, they would have like that. But that isn't what John was giving them. See Matt 3. and Luke 3.

Jesus being presented as a Messianic King Figure, however, when he was very much opposed to the Pharisees, was far more of a political problem than John ever was.

I think you have it backwards. It was the Pharisees that opposed Jesus.

[David T]

Vance,

Mark 1 is the earliest account of the ministry of John, and appears the least affected by early Christian apologetic recrafting.

There is a strongly supported view that Jesus' submission to John's baptism for the remission of sins was a little bit of an embarrassment for the early Christians, but was so well known, that rather than removing the association with John completely, it was simply recrafted to have John specifically showing much more deference to Jesus.

John does not specifically indicate anything towards Jesus at all in Mark. In Matthew and Luke, the story is expanded upon to have John specifically call out and show deference to Jesus as he baptized him (Luke even makes Jesus related to John, and have John show deference as a fetus - even though the lineages wouldn't work - John is said to be a Levite/Aaronid, and Jesus is said to be of Judah). In John, the latest version of the story, the actual Baptism of Jesus is removed, with only references to John recognizing the spirit descending upon Jesus as the (Anonymous in Mark) eschatological figure while he's baptizing others.

It's highly possible that Jesus initially went to John - who he viewed as a great prophet - out of pious devotion and dedication to YHWH and his Kingdom, and as a result of this act of humility had a powerful personal revelation of his divine mission, after which Jesus appropriated the symbol and practice of John's baptism for his own new understanding, and began his own ministry, distinct and separate from that of John.

There's some powerful and highly attractive things in this view for Latter-day Saints.

Also: While it's true the Pharisees opposed Jesus, the opposition was hardly one-sided.

Edited October 18, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Vance]

Vance,

Mark 1 is the earliest account of the ministry of John, and appears the least affected by early Christian apologists.

So?

There is a strongly supported view that Jesus' submission to John's baptism for the remission of sins was a little bit of an embarrassment for the early Christians,

Ad populum. So?

but was so well known, that rather than removing the association with John completely, it was simply recrafted to have John specifically showing much more deference to Jesus.

It was "so well know" that it was easy to "simply recraft"?

John does not specifically indicate anything towards Jesus at all in Mark.

So, how, exactly, does this decrease the legitimacy of Matthew's account?

In Matthew and Luke, the story is expanded upon to have John specifically call out and show deference to Jesus as he baptized him (Luke even makes Jesus related to John, and have John show deference as a fetus - even though the lineages wouldn't work - John is said to be a Levite/Aaronid, and Jesus is said to be of Judah).

So, how, exactly, does this decrease the legitimacy of Matthew's account?

In John, the latest version of the story, the actual Baptism of Jesus is removed, with only references to John recognizing the spirit descending upon Jesus as the (Anonymous in Mark) eschatological figure while he's baptizing others.

Nor does he correct or disagree with Matthew.

It's highly possible that Jesus initially went to John - who he viewed as a great prophet - out of pious devotion and dedication to YHWH and his Kingdom, and as a result of this act of humility had a powerful personal revelation of his divine mission, after which Jesus appropriated the symbol and practice of John's baptism for his own new understanding, and began his own ministry, distinct and separate from that of John.

So, we are to disregard Matthew account and accept speculation?

There's some powerful and highly attractive things in this view for Latter-day Saints.

Well, you will have to expound on them because they aren't obvious to some of us.

Also: While it's true the Pharisees opposed Jesus, the opposition was hardly one-sided.

Which do you suppose came first?

[wenglund]

Perhaps what we now know as baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost was, in Old Testament Times better know as washing and anointing--a higher version of which we practice in the temple today.

Whatever the case, I think it is fair so say that there were not a few cleansing and purification rituals that predate John the Baptist, and this across a broad spectrum of ancient religions. (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 18, 2011 by wenglund

[David T]

It was "so well know" that it was easy to "simply recraft"?

It was well known that Jesus and John got along, and that they were associated. Details are easily altered concerning a specific event in history with the retelling, especially as carried initially by oral tradition within a community.

So, we are to disregard Matthew account and accept speculation?

It's worth analyzing in its cultural context and development of the community story, just as it is with modern hind-sight expanding and mythologizing of certain aspects of Mormon History that don't necessarily correspond to the earliest documents expressing them.

Well, you will have to expound on them because they aren't obvious to some of us.

As expressed in my blog post linked above, it creates some fascinating parallels with the pattern of Joseph's First Vision. It also shows the Living Prophet (in this case, Jesus Christ) appropriating an earlier religious expression and giving it a new interpretation and deeper renewed meaning. It also adds significance to the D&C revelation noting that Sydney Rigdon (a novel eschatological expounder of a restorationist movement with an emphasis on the sin-cleansing powers of Baptism whose language and teachings served as a serviceable preparatory framework for the developing and fragile early Mormonism and Church) would play the role of John the Baptist in the latter days.

Which do you suppose came first?

Most likely Jesus knew about and disagreed with the Pharisees long before the Pharisees took note of Jesus at age 30-something.

Edited October 18, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Vance]

It was well known that Jesus and John got along, and that they were associated.

That isn't the part in question and is therefore irrelevant.

Details are easily altered concerning a specific event in history with the retelling, especially as carried initially by oral tradition within a community.

I don't see this as specifically supporting your opinion.

Just as it is possible that a common Jewish washing ritual came to be called baptism (from the Greek word for immersion) when the oral traditions were written in Greek.

It's worth analyzing in its cultural context and development of the community story, just as it is with modern hind-sight expanding and mythologizing of certain aspects of Mormon History that don't necessarily correspond to the earliest documents expressing them.

As expressed in my blog post linked above, it creates some fascinating parallels with the pattern of Joseph's First Vision. It also shows the Living Prophet (in this case, Jesus Christ) appropriating an earlier religious expression and giving it a new interpretation and deeper renewed meaning. It also adds significance to the D&C revelation noting that Sydney Rigdon (a novel eschatological expounder of a restorationist movement with an emphasis on the sin-cleansing powers of Baptism whose language and teachings served as a serviceable preparatory framework for the developing and fragile early Mormonism and Church) would play the role of John the Baptist in the latter days.

Sorry, but I don't buy all of this stuff, but if it helps you out in your quest have at it.

Just keep in mind that even though your argument against OT baptism is weak, it just may damage some fledgeling's faith.

Most likely Jesus knew about and disagreed with the Pharisees long before the Pharisees took note of Jesus at age 30-something.

Such hard evidence is hard to counter.

So, it was more likely that Jesus confronted the Pharisees first, rather than the Pharisees confronted Jesus?

Sorry, but I am not buying it.

Was Jesus more likely to feel threatened by the Pharisees, or the Pharisees by Jesus?

Or in other words, who really threatened whose kingdom.

[Darth_Bill]

Am I missing something? Both were killed due to political consideration. The idea that some narrators chose to write down certain issues and others didn't seems rather trivial. We have no problem when JS wrote different things depending on his audience. By the time the gospels were written to the small group of christians then alive, perhaps the origin of baptism was really not that important.

[Ron Beron]

In a response to Zerinus in another thread, Ron Beron makes the following observation:

“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”

This would be contrary to what we find in the Book of Mormon. I am interested in what others have to say about this. I could not find any other discussion or articles about this specific issue.

Since I am the one equated with stating the above I think some clarification is necessary. It is true that modern revelation has revealed more of the nature of baptism and it's efficaciousness, but the fact remains that the earliest uses were not for an remission of sin (in like manner the baptisms of John as mentioned by Matthew were also not for the remission of sin, but for the purpose of repentance causing the hearer a change of behavior. Later, Jesus ostensibly would baptize with fire and spirit thereby completing the necessary fullness of baptism for remission) but a particular sin such as uncleanliness. As outlined in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 1: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (583). New York: Doubleday.) the phenomenology of baptism is described as...

Rites of immersion were not uncommon in the world in which early Christianity developed. One type of symbolism with which they were frequently connected was that of purification: from sin, from destruction, from the profane sphere before entering an holy area, from something under a taboo, etc. See, e.g., Lev 16:4, 24 (the high priest before and after the rites of atonement); Leviticus 15 (on menstruating women); 1 QS 3:5–9 (cleansing from sins); Sib. Or. 4.165 (a baptism of repentance); Joseph. Ant. 18.117 (on John’s baptism); Joseph. Life. 11 (on Bannus’ ablutions for purity’s sake); Apul., Met. 11.23 (purification at the initiation into the Isis mysteries); b. Yebam. 47 ab (on proselyte baptism).

Such cleansings can take place when one stands on the verge of a new state in life or is entering into a new community or upon a new phase of life, etc. Thus they can function as rites of initiation or as rites of passage. Depending on the way in which one regards the situation being left behind and the one being entered, such rites can be connected with ideas of a new birth, of a new life, or of salvation as contrasted to nothingness, chaos, death, or destruction.

The latter highlighted sections shows that Jesus might have been following this path because John's baptism was unique because a) not self administered such as that practiced in the Mikvah b). no specific connection to Jesus nor c). to the promise of the Holy Ghost. What is most significant about John's baptism is that it was designed to prepare the way for the "coming one" similar to the ritual purifications by self-immersion of the Essenes. Therefore, such a baptism while novel was probably not unique to any observer such as Pharisees. As is previously mentioned by nackhadlow the baptism followed in many ways the eschaton of the Essenes.

[Robert F. Smith]

In a response to Zerinus in another thread, Ron Beron makes the following observation:

“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”

This would be contrary to what we find in the Book of Mormon. I am interested in what others have to say about this. I could not find any other discussion or articles about this specific issue.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You might want to have a look at Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets," BYU Studies, 31/3 (Summer 1991), 31–50.

As for the OT prophets, they were not interested in the removal of ritual pollution when they said things like:

Jeremiah 4:14

Wash your heart of wickedness, O Jerusalem

That you might be saved

Psalm 51:2

Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity,

Purify me from my sin.

Isaiah 1:16

Wash you,

Make you clean, . .

1:18

Though your sins are like scarlet,

They shall be as white as snow;

Though they are red as crimson,

They shall be like wool.

Remission of sin was uppermost on their minds, as it was on the mind of John the Baptizer (Yohanan haMatbil) in Mark 1:4. Recall also that John was a priest (kohen), the son of a High Priest (kohen gadol). He carried some gravitas for those reasons alone.

In addition, the OT regularly used the term "baptize," even though our English translations mask that fact: The 3rd century B.C. Jewish Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used the terms βάπτειν, βαπτίξειν, βαπτός to translate Hebrew טבל in such ritual washing passages as Exodus 12:22, Leviticus 4:6,17, 9:9, 11:32, Numbers 19:18-21, II Kings 5:13-14, etc. The religious technical terms used in the NT seem so foreign to the OT simply because the committees assigned to the translation for the 1611 KJV and earlier were separate and did not communicate with one another.

When John the Baptizer came on the scene, Judaism had long since adopted a requirement of baptism by immersion for anyone wishing to convert to Judaism, and that remains the rule today. The early Christian Church, being a Jewish sect, had the same requirement, and many branches of Christianity still have that requirement. In fact, Jews who wish to return from secularism to a Jewish religious life are known as ba'alei-teshuvah "repentent." So it should be no mystery why John the Baptizer's message and ritual procedure stirred no controversy. Repentance and remission of sin is still a major component of Judaism.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Luke even makes Jesus related to John, and have John show deference as a fetus - even though the lineages wouldn't work - John is said to be a Levite/Aaronid, and Jesus is said to be of Judah).

Why wouldn't the lineages work? The mothers are cousins, not siblings. Both Elizabeth and her husband are Aaronides, while Mary & Joseph seem to be Judahites. Without knowledge of the lineage of aunts and uncles (by blood and by marriage) involved it is impossible to determine the nature of any cousin relationship. Moreover, we don't even know how close that cousin relationship was (1st or 2nd cousin?).

[Ron Beron]

As for the OT prophets, they were not interested in the removal of ritual pollution when they said things like:

Jeremiah 4:14

Wash your heart of wickedness, O Jerusalem

That you might be saved

Psalm 51:2

Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity,

Purify me from my sin.

Isaiah 1:16

Wash you,

Make you clean, . .

1:18

Though your sins are like scarlet,

They shall be as white as snow;

Though they are red as crimson,

They shall be like wool.

Remission of sin was uppermost on their minds, as it was on the mind of John the Baptizer (Yohanan haMatbil) in Mark 1:4. Recall also that John was a priest (kohen), the son of a High Priest (kohen gadol). He carried some gravitas for those reasons alone.

I enjoyed reading your conclusions, but in some ways I have to disagree. While it is true that the worshiper used ritual ablutions to cleanse himself of "a sin" or ritual impurity the goal as metaphorically put in the above scriptures was to achieve overall personal inward purity. To further illustrate a scripture found in Psalms 51:7- says

51:7 Sprinkle me with water and I will be pure;

wash meand I will be whiter than snow.

51:8 Grant me the ultimate joy of being forgiven!

May the bonesyou crushed rejoice!

51:9 Hide your facefrom my sins!

Wipe awayall my guilt!

51:10 Create for me a pure heart, O God!

Renew a resolute spirit within me!

51:11 Do not reject me!

Do not take your Holy Spiritaway from me!

51:12 Let me again experience the joy of your deliverance!

Sustain me by giving me the desire to obey!

As George R. Beasley-Murray as stated in his book, "Baptism in the New Testament",

"As a leper is cleansed by blood sprinkled from a sprig of hyssop and by the washing of water, so the man who prayed this prayer, a self-confessed sinner, desires spiritual cleansing. Whether he made it the accompaniment of ablutions and worship in the Temple we cannot say;...Wheeler Robinson rightly observed that this psalm illustrates who 'the Temple worship, like all ritual, was really a framework of different spiritual values experienced by the differing worshipers'. It should not go unnoticed that important anticipation of divine cleansing in the last day. Ezk. 36:25 (I will sprinkle you with pure waterand you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols.) comes from a prophet-priest and conjoins spiritual cleansing with ceremonial purity. It is a further hint of the manner in which the ablutions used in connection with the worship and service of God had become spiritualized in the minds of many in Israel."

Therefore, while primarily a ritual aimed at a mechanical purity for daily living there was a deeper more spiritual element that evolved that enabled the supplicant to obtain an inward purity as well. By the time of the NT this concept had been well established and ingrained into the thinking of the Jewish people.

[Avatar4321]

In a response to Zerinus in another thread, Ron Beron makes the following observation:

“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”

This would be contrary to what we find in the Book of Mormon. I am interested in what others have to say about this. I could not find any other discussion or articles about this specific issue.

It would also be contrary to what we find in the Bible. Paul specifically said:

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Cor 10:1-4)

[David T]

Sorry, but I don't buy all of this stuff, but if it helps you out in your quest have at it.

Just keep in mind that even though your argument against OT baptism is weak

While I simply summarized the premise, I suggest reading the actual fully documented exploration in Meier's highly regarded standard A Marginal Jew, Volume 2: Mentor, Message, and Miracles. Especially chapters 1-13 (pp 1-233), which exhaustively explores everything known about John on his own, John and Jesus, and Jesus' response to John's teaching and practice separate from John, explores all known contemporary expressions of similar rituals, and deeply explores the context.

, it just may damage some fledgeling's faith.

It would be unfortunate (and a sign of mis-focused faith and misunderstanding of the nature of prophets and scripture) if someone would allow an adjusted understanding of history to damage their Christ-centered faith in any way.

So, it was more likely that Jesus confronted the Pharisees first, rather than the Pharisees confronted Jesus?

Sorry, but I am not buying it.

Jesus spoke and acted against Pharisaical regulation an legal interpretation. That is what caused the Pharisees to have any reason to confront Jesus - to rebut his claims and actions.

Edited October 19, 2011 by nackhadlow

[floatingboy]

Maybe I skipped over it, but no one seems to be mentioning John ch. 1 (NIV):

⁹ Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders^[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. ²⁰ He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”

²¹ They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

He answered, “No.”

²² Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

²³ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”^[d]

²⁴ Now the Pharisees who had been sent ²⁵ questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

Just looking at the nature of their questions (I admit I cannot bring any knowledge of pharisaical beliefs/traditions to the discussion), it seems as though the Pharisees, although not unfamiliar with the concept of baptism, viewed it as something that only the Messiah, Elijah, or the Prophet would do. Why is that? What does that say about their knowledge and views concerning baptism? And it does seem like they were concerned with whether or not he viewed himself as one of those three people.

[T-Shirt]

I agree with floatingboy, these verses show that the Pharisees were not concerned with baptism, but were concerned about John's authority to perform baptisms.

T-Shirt

[altersteve]

Maybe I skipped over it, but no one seems to be mentioning John ch. 1 (NIV):

Just looking at the nature of their questions (I admit I cannot bring any knowledge of pharisaical beliefs/traditions to the discussion), it seems as though the Pharisees, although not unfamiliar with the concept of baptism, viewed it as something that only the Messiah, Elijah, or the Prophet would do. Why is that? What does that say about their knowledge and views concerning baptism? And it does seem like they were concerned with whether or not he viewed himself as one of those three people.

It says they understood that a proper authority from God is required to perform baptisms, authority that John obviously had.