Baptism In Ot? A Bom Problem

[David T]

The concept of 'authority to baptize' as an ordinance is a bit of anachronism. John's immersion was a sign and symbol of temporal protection for the coming Fire Storm and the End of Days. In popular belief, those protected would be guided by one of three key figures: The Messiah, Elijah, or the Mosaic Prophet.

His message was:

• His mission is to Prepare the way of YHWH
  
• The Kingdom of God is at hand - incredibly near
  
• He immersed the repentant to seal and symbolize the cleansing of their sins, their devotion to the Kingdom of God, and to protect them from the fiery destruction of the Eschaton.
  
• A further Prophetic Figure would come to actually initiate the Eschaton.
  

His location in the Wilderness, his use of water rituals in the Jordan, and his appeals to Isaiah and the Apocalyptic underpinnings of his announcement of his approaching Kingdom and his performance of a washing ritual were not individually unique - it was the combination of many of these several prophetic roles that made him stand out.

The authority of his ability to perform a water immersion ritual wasn't as much being questioned as his purpose for doing so. It wasn't asked by what authority he did it, or how he was able to do it - it was asked why? Why does this immersion mean anything, if you're not one of these specific prophetic figures? (Jesus later gave a different explanation than John did. John denied the Elijah role, whereas Jesus specifically identified John as filling the role of Elijah).

Using our modern view of "Priesthood Authority" will not help understand this event, or the reason for the question being asked. He was not performing the washing as an Aaronid priest - he was acting as an independent Prophet who had been divinely called in the wilderness, distinct from and in opposition to the currently established religious hierarchy.

Edited October 19, 2011 by nackhadlow

[floatingboy]

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

for the record, while i can see why you thought that, i was not claiming either of these things. i really wasn't making any claims, just asking questions. but i do not see that they were necessarily worried about authority, but rather purpose. after all, they say, "if you're not one of them, then why are you doing it?" almost as if they couldn't figure out why someone would baptize if they weren't one of those three people. nackhadlow addresses this in the previous post. does anyone else have something to say about it?

also, i don't see that those verses should be interpreted that they were necessarily already engaged in baptism as a practice, only that they were familiar with the concept.

[altersteve]

Using our modern view of "Priesthood Authority" will not help understand this event, or the reason for the question being asked. He was not performing the washing as an Aaronid priest - he was acting as an independent Prophet who had been divinely called in the wilderness, distinct from and in opposition to the currently established religious hierarchy.

I was always of the assumption that Christ gave the Melchizedek Priesthood (which is what I meant by "authority to baptize") to John. Isn't this true?

Edited October 19, 2011 by altersteve

[cdowis]

1 Cor 10

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

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

[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.

The Pharasees were very familiar with this ordinance, and did not question John the Baptist on his performing this ordinance.

[LeSellers]

I was always of the assumption that Christ gave the Melchizedek Priesthood (which is what I meant by "authority to baptize") to John. Isn't this true?

If so, we have no evidence of it.

John was an Aaronic Priesthood holder. When Apollos baptized in Ephesus, he did pretended to have autjprity (from John?) to baptize beleivers he had "converted", but Paul showed the erroneously baptized that their batpisms were faulty and ineffectual. Had John received the Melchizedek Priesthood, Apollos would have at least known there was a gift of the Holy Ghost (which John did not bestow, you recall).

When John restored the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood, he specficially said he was acting under the direction of Peter, James/Jacob, and John. Had he held the Melchizedek Priesthood, there would have been no specific need to have the three Apostles come to restore the Priesthood to which they held the keys: John oculd have done it himself.

I find no support for what you assumed.

Lehi

[David T]

1 Cor 10

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

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

[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.

The Pharasees were very familiar with this ordinance, and did not question John the Baptist on his performing this ordinance.

The reference is to passing under one body of water as a marker changing one's status from captivity to freedom, another meaning given John's ritual, which occurred specifically in the Jordan, the physical traditional symbol of where the Israelites crossed over into the Promised Land. A useful symbol for leaving the wickedness of the world in preparing to dwell in (or be reborn as a citizen of) the approaching Kingdom of God. A symbol used by other messianic movements both before and after John, in fact.

Edited October 19, 2011 by nackhadlow

[floatingboy]

1 Cor 10

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

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

[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.

The Pharasees were very familiar with this ordinance, and did not question John the Baptist on his performing this ordinance.

This could easily just be Paul using known imagery to lend support to the new Christian ordinance of baptism. He took a familiar and treasured story and retroactively made it symbolic of baptism. After all, they weren't literally baptized. Nor does Moses make any reference to Jesus or even the Messiah in this context. All references are to the Lord, and to his angel that was going in front of them.

I think it's important to stay on track in terms of the OP and discuss baptism in the Old Testament. Why was it not practiced in a way even approaching the overt Christian ordinance occurring in the BoM?

[T-Shirt]

for the record, while i can see why you thought that, i was not claiming either of these things. i really wasn't making any claims, just asking questions. but i do not see that they were necessarily worried about authority, but rather purpose. after all, they say, "if you're not one of them, then why are you doing it?" almost as if they couldn't figure out why someone would baptize if they weren't one of those three people. nackhadlow addresses this in the previous post. does anyone else have something to say about it?

also, i don't see that those verses should be interpreted that they were necessarily already engaged in baptism as a practice, only that they were familiar with the concept.

I read it differently. You may be right, but to me, it doesn't really fit the verses. Based on the way I understand the verses, I would paraphrase it like this:

We know that the Messiah and Elijah and the Prophet have the right to baptize and since you deny being one of these, you should not be baptizing, so why are you baptizing?

This is how I read it, thus it becomes more of an issue of authority than purpose. They seemed to already know the purpose, they just didn't think John should be doing it.

Best,

T-Shirt

[cdowis]

The reference is to passing under one body of water as a marker changing one's status from captivity to freedom, another meaning given John's ritual, which occurred specifically in the Jordan, the physical traditional symbol of where the Israelites crossed over into the Promised Land. A useful symbol for leaving the wickedness of the world in preparing to dwell in (or be reborn as a citizen of) the approaching Kingdom of God. A symbol used by other messianic movements both before and after John, in fact.

Thanks for the different interpretations. You could give it some thought and many others will come to mind.

[cdowis]

I think it's important to stay on track in terms of the OP and discuss baptism in the Old Testament. Why was it not practiced in a way even approaching the overt Christian ordinance occurring in the BoM?

It was practiced in the OT. Why do you think it was not?

Let me guess:

1. The word baptism is not mentioned in our extant OT.

2. The Bible is inerrant, and complete. Nothing missing.

3. Ergo, it was not practiced in the OT, even though the BOM specifically says that it was.(1 Ne 20:1 quoting Isaiah and the "waters of Judah", viz. the ordinance of baptism)

Is that pretty much your logic?

The ordinance of baptism was corrupted by the Jews by the time of Christ. The Pharasees recognized the ordinance and only complained whether John had the authority to baptize. They had not quibble over the ordinance itself.

Edited October 20, 2011 by cdowis

[Ron Beron]

It was practiced in the OT. Why do you think it was not?

Let me guess:

1. The word baptism is not mentioned in our extant OT.

2. The Bible is inerrant, and complete. Nothing missing.

3. Ergo, it was not practiced in the OT, even though the BOM specifically says that it was.(1 Ne 20:1 quoting Isaiah and the "waters of Judah", viz. the ordinance of baptism)

Is that pretty much your logic?

The ordinance of baptism was corrupted by the Jews by the time of Christ. The Pharasees recognized the ordinance and only complained whether John had the authority to baptize. They had not quibble over the ordinance itself.

What evidence do you have to show it was corrupted by the time of the introduction of the New Testament? It's function within the OT was primarily one of ritual purification for individual sins that accrued during ordinary life. It was certainly the case, as I previously mentioned, that the practice took on a function that went beyond the mere machinations of immersion and extended into a personal journey of spiritual enrichment. By the time of the Roman occupation the rite had taken on several new meanings one of which was an initiation into a new life or course of life such as that presided over by John the Baptist. Remember, that John baptism was not a true baptism given that it differed from the later baptism rite established by the Apostles.

[Robert F. Smith]

I was always of the assumption that Christ gave the Melchizedek Priesthood (which is what I meant by "authority to baptize") to John. Isn't this true?

John the Baptizer was an Aaronide by birth and did not need the Melchizedek Priesthood to perform his functions (although he may theoretically have had it). It was after all, John who restored the keys of baptism and the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith (D&C 13). Moreover, even unto this day, the descendants of Aaron have the right to presidency over the Aaronic Priesthood, i.e., to act as bishops without counselors -- if called by the First Presidency (D&C 68:15-21, 107:15-16).

It is for this reason also that the Aaronides among the Jews have full authority to rebuild and staff the next temple to be built in Jerusalem and to offer sacrifices thereon (Mal 3:3).

[Robert F. Smith]

The concept of 'authority to baptize' as an ordinance is a bit of anachronism. John's immersion was a sign and symbol of temporal protection for the coming Fire Storm and the End of Days. In popular belief, those protected would be guided by one of three key figures: The Messiah, Elijah, or the Mosaic Prophet.

His message was:

• His mission is to Prepare the way of YHWH
  
• The Kingdom of God is at hand - incredibly near
  
• He immersed the repentant to seal and symbolize the cleansing of their sins, their devotion to the Kingdom of God, and to protect them from the fiery destruction of the Eschaton.
  
• A further Prophetic Figure would come to actually initiate the Eschaton.
  

His location in the Wilderness, his use of water rituals in the Jordan, and his appeals to Isaiah and the Apocalyptic underpinnings of his announcement of his approaching Kingdom and his performance of a washing ritual were not individually unique - it was the combination of many of these several prophetic roles that made him stand out.

The authority of his ability to perform a water immersion ritual wasn't as much being questioned as his purpose for doing so. It wasn't asked by what authority he did it, or how he was able to do it - it was asked why? Why does this immersion mean anything, if you're not one of these specific prophetic figures? (Jesus later gave a different explanation than John did. John denied the Elijah role, whereas Jesus specifically identified John as filling the role of Elijah).

John the Baptizer was a very powerful figure who had a following which continued long after Jesus came on the scene. Indeed some of his disciples come to Jesus later.

Judging by the location and nature of his message, many scholars have suggested that John had been a member of the Essene community at Qumran before striking out on his own. His key message, for example, "in the wilderness...prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!" was a major quotation at Qumran: 1QS 8:12-15 —— I Ne 10:8∥Isa 40:3, Mat 3:3, Mk 1:3, Jn 1:23. His emphasis on purification by water was also characteristic of the Essenes (CD 10:10-13, 11:22, 1QS 3:1-12, 5:13-14), as was the principle that "...God...will purify...him with the Holy Spirit...will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth like waters for purification from all abominations..." (1QS 4:18-23), Those who qualified for membership in that community, had to repent, take an oath of allegiance, be baptized, and eat the pure meal of the Saints (1QS 5:13).

Not only did Nibley and other scholars see the Essene community as a "church of anticipation," but Robert Eisenman considered the Essenes to be actual Christians -- a minority view to be sure, but justified by the tight theological and terminological relation between Qumran and Christianity.

Using our modern view of "Priesthood Authority" will not help understand this event, or the reason for the question being asked. He was not performing the washing as an Aaronid priest - he was acting as an independent Prophet who had been divinely called in the wilderness, distinct from and in opposition to the currently established religious hierarchy.

There was a multiplicity of Judaisms in Jesus' day, no one of which was truly dominant. A century later rabbinic Judaism and Qaraism vied for dominance, with rabbinic Judaism to become dominant over a thousand years later.

Both Jesus and Paul were Pharisaic rabbis of the school of Beit Hillel. We know this because their moral and ethical teachings are all found in the rabbinic talmud, and because Paul declares the identity of his teacher (Gamliel II) and calls himself a Pharisee.

Both Jesus and John the Baptizer distinguished themselves by harking back to the message and charisma of the Classical Israelite prophets. This must have had a powerful impact on their contemporaries.

[Ron Beron]

John the Baptizer was a very powerful figure who had a following which continued long after Jesus came on the scene. Indeed some of his disciples come to Jesus later.

Judging by the location and nature of his message, many scholars have suggested that John had been a member of the Essene community at Qumran before striking out on his own. His key message, for example, "in the wilderness...prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!" was a major quotation at Qumran: 1QS 8:12-15 —— I Ne 10:8∥Isa 40:3, Mat 3:3, Mk 1:3, Jn 1:23. His emphasis on purification by water was also characteristic of the Essenes (CD 10:10-13, 11:22, 1QS 3:1-12, 5:13-14), as was the principle that "...God...will purify...him with the Holy Spirit...will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth like waters for purification from all abominations..." (1QS 4:18-23), Those who qualified for membership in that community, had to repent, take an oath of allegiance, be baptized, and eat the pure meal of the Saints (1QS 5:13).

Not only did Nibley and other scholars see the Essene community as a "church of anticipation," but Robert Eisenman considered the Essenes to be actual Christians -- a minority view to be sure, but justified by the tight theological and terminological relation between Qumran and Christianity.

There was a multiplicity of Judaisms in Jesus' day, no one of which was truly dominant. A century later rabbinic Judaism and Qaraism vied for dominance, with rabbinic Judaism to become dominant over a thousand years later.

Both Jesus and Paul were Pharisaic rabbis of the school of Beit Hillel. We know this because their moral and ethical teachings are all found in the rabbinic talmud, and because Paul declares the identity of his teacher (Gamliel II) and calls himself a Pharisee.

Both Jesus and John the Baptizer distinguished themselves by harking back to the message and charisma of the Classical Israelite prophets. This must have had a powerful impact on their contemporaries.

Eisenman also brings out the family link between Jesus, John and James. All of whom, at least according to Eisenman shared in the Zadokite or Melchizedek priesthood. Good post.

[Vance]

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.

I don't see the relevance of this with respect to OT baptism.

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.

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

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.

Not really an accurate description. He didn't teach against them, He taught for the kingdom of God. He taught the truth, that offended them because they were not of the truth. They initially sought Him out for confrontation, not the other way around.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Vance

[David T]

I don't see the relevance of this with respect to OT baptism.

The relevance is in the lineage as to how the ritual as we know it developed and originally became specifically associated with Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st Century.

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Vance,

I'd understand your concern if this was simply asserted in a Sunday School class, or from the pulpit with no explanation. This is a board specifically designed for exploring and analyzing and discussing historic and religious claims. It's not a board for testimony meetings, and for avoiding difficult subjects. There are a lot of true things that could cause some Church member's weak or misplaced faith to be diverted. That doesn't mean there's a problem with the truth, it means there's a problem with the expectations that have been taught to the individual.

I do feel there's a problem with how expectation of history and antiquity have been popularly taught or guided to be assumed within the Church, which really and truly causes misplaced expectations that do cause problems when they are not met. That's not the fault of historical reality, or those who study, express, and publish it in the proper venues.

I do not feel it is proper (generally) to contradict official narratives in official Church settings, under official assignment in a Church setting.

I do, however, see value in exploring and seeking to understand and study out the matters more fully in other outside venues. I do not have my faith placed in the narrative frameworks by which the Church uses to express the practical truths, but rather in the divine source behind the plan to guide us into becoming what our inherent potential allows.

Not really an accurate description. He didn't teach against them, He taught for the kingdom of God. He taught the truth, that offended them because they were not of the truth. They initially sought Him out for confrontation, not the other way around.

There is, practically, no difference. You are arguing for semantic differences to try to score points in an argument.

[cdowis]

What evidence do you have to show it was corrupted by the time of the introduction of the New Testament?

The text of the BOM which tells us about the original ordinance.

The apostles had a text of the OT prior to the changes made by the scribes and Pharasees, who removed texts which pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. For example,

Matt 2 [23] And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

This prophecy, available to Matthew, was removed from the OT and is no longer available to us, as is the case with other texts of the OT.

As you indicate, this ordinance had become a simple act of purification, rather than the ordinance as restored by John the Baptist. Now, you can reject the BOM text as an indication of the original ordinance, if you choose. I have trust in the BOM as authentic history, and accept the proven fact that the OT was changed and critical texts regarding Christ were removed.

It's function within the OT was primarily one of ritual purification for individual sins that accrued during ordinary life. It was certainly the case, as I previously mentioned, that the practice took on a function that went beyond the mere machinations of immersion and extended into a personal journey of spiritual enrichment. By the time of the Roman occupation the rite had taken on several new meanings one of which was an initiation into a new life or course of life such as that presided over by John the Baptist. Remember, that John baptism was not a true baptism given that it differed from the later baptism rite established by the Apostles.

His baptism did not include the ordinance of laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Christ Himself accepted the ordinance as performed by John.

Your understanding of these things are based on the incomplete records and the influence of the Bible scholars and theologians rather than modern revelation and living prophets.

Edited October 20, 2011 by cdowis

[David T]

The apostles had a text of the OT prior to the changes made by the scribes and Pharasees, who removed texts which pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. For example,

Matt 2

1. [23] And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
   

This prophecy was removed from the OT.

This is widely understood as a wordplay/misreading/expansion of Isaiah 11's use of netzer, or branch, not a reference to some mysterious missing prophecy.

The same type of scriptural wordplay/re-setting and re-contextualizing of OT texts are used by most of the Gospel Writers throughout their works to use phrases-with-authority to add support to their assertions. Prooftexting is not something new to religious apologetic efforts today

Edited October 20, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

Christ Himself accepted the ordinance as performed by John.

He received the ritual from John, and then appropriated it, and gave it greater and deeper significance. The baptism of Jesus' disciples and the baptism of John's disciples would be, for all intents and purposes, the baptisms of two different sects.

[David T]

3. Ergo, it was not practiced in the OT, even though the BOM specifically says that it was.(1 Ne 20:1 quoting Isaiah and the "waters of Judah", viz. the ordinance of baptism)

The 'waters of baptism' was a later commentary by JS, not in the original 1830 text of the BoM. I don't think there are any BoM scholars who view that as being some restored version of the Isaianic text, or even original to the Nephite record, but rather a modern commentary or expansion.

Contextual usage shows that the 'waters' had reference to 'waters' associated with conception/birth. Joseph, with his parenthetical addition, was expanding the relevance of the promises to those entering into Israelite lineage through Baptism, and not simply to the Judeans.

[cdowis]

He received the ritual from John, and then appropriated it, and gave it greater and deeper significance. The baptism of Jesus' disciples and the baptism of John's disciples would be, for all intents and purposes, the baptisms of two different sects.

Yes, and this individual calle Yeshua decided to start his own religion and "appropriated" the prophecies regarding a Messiah to himself. He took a few things here and there, and had assistance of Paul to fill out the doctrines. We now have the modern sect of the Jews called Christianity.

Straight out of the Jesus Seminar.

I rejoice that we have living prophets rather than the wisdom of man to guide us.

[Vance]

There is, practically, no difference.

Yes, there is a very important difference.

You are arguing for semantic differences to try to score points in an argument.

You are projecting.

[David T]

I rejoice that we have living prophets rather than the wisdom of man to guide us.

I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive.

I understand Jesus as having had a revelation following his experience with John that gave him a greater understanding of his identity, role, and purpose. He embraced and gathered the useful tools around him from his life and experience, and gave them renewed divine authority.

Jesus was a real person, living in real place and time, with real culture, with real influences, who recieved and was guided by revelation line upon line. Our theology fully allows for this. We need not let our hindsight understanding of his Eternal significance and identity rule these very real elements out. I feel embracing these elements help us to identify with Christ far more than the alternative.

Edited October 20, 2011 by nackhadlow

[cdowis]

The 'waters of baptism' was a later commentary by JS, not in the original 1830 text of the BoM. I don't think there are any BoM scholars who view that as being some restored version of the Isaianic text, or even original to the Nephite record, but rather a modern commentary or expansion.

I am very aware of that.

The waters of Judah is the baptismal covenant. The Biblical text is full of redactions by later prophets appropriate for their audience. In this case "baptism" is a more familiar concept than the "waters of Judah".

The problem with Bible scholars is that their analysis is based on a document which has been changed and texts have been deliberately removed, as I have demonstrated above.

Thus, the real question is why the OT does not mention explicitly the ordinance of baptism. I think the clear answer is that it was removed by the Jews who wanted to draw a clear distinction between their corrupted practices and the restored ordinance of the Christians.

Edited October 20, 2011 by cdowis

[David T]

I personally feel that God allowed Jesus to grow into his divine role and develop into the person he needed to be on his own, without a knowledge of his premortal role. I firmly believe the presentation of that knowledge at that point would have been a gift, and a powerful burden. Jesus showed himself to be loyal, trustworthy, and simply good (something that even in his humility Jesus denied!) in the context of that which had been placed before him before that sacred knowledge was entrusted with him in its fulness.

I think it is extremely powerful and faith promoting, to add the true essence of the divine knowledge we've learned through modern prophets, and insert it into the context of expanded knowledge we learn from history.

Edited October 20, 2011 by nackhadlow