I've tried to phrase my confusing question to get the clearest answers, but don't know how well I've done. Basically I am asking each person who responds for two answers: to the first question, and to one of the second two. Thank you sincerely.

Did the New Testament Jews understand baptism to be equivalent to circumcision in administration and significance, with the only change being that ceremonial headship was now expanded to women?

For those who think they did understand this: why did they continue to ceremonially circumcise their male sons and demand that the Gentiles be circumcised to have fellowship with them in the covenant?

For those who think they did not understand this: why are we to assume that there would have been an outcry if their babies had not been baptised?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

Patience must dwell with Love, for Love and Sorrow
Have pitched their tent together here:
Love all alone will build a house tomorrow,
And sorrow not be near. -Christina Rossetti

I can say for certain that they didn't understand that they did it with waders on after a Rabbi had commanded "Every head bowed, every eye closed...I see that hand over there."

When asking about the Jew and baptism it's better to ask what the Jew understood about baptisms.

Ceremonial washings and cleansings were baptisms for the Jew as well so there isn't necessarily a Covenant headship to it in all the senses that it would take on in the ritual life of the Jew. In one account in the Apocryphal literature a woman is said to "baptize" herself in a pool in the middle of the camp referring to a washing. Clearly she is not stripping down in the sight of all the men.

Don't have time for more now. After midnight here so I'll let others weigh in.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Thanks Rich -- when you have more time: do you think, then, that their understanding of baptism was tied more to the ceremonial sprinklings in the old covenant than to their understanding of circumcision -- thus the confusion? Or was it tied to both?

Thanks for asking these questions. I was going to ask similar ones myself in this very forum.

I am looking forward to this thread because I see these as very reasonable, logical, pertinent questions.

Thanks

__________________
Daniel Franzen
Church Creek Presbyterian (PCA)
Charleston, SC

I think this might be the case. I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on this but I've read some on Edersheim on this point. They did baptize Priests before their ministry as well as proselyte converts in addition to circumcision so they were part of initiatory rites but various washings (including these) were purification rituals as water was a purifying agent. In fact Hebrews notes that nearly all things are purified with blood and even the application of blood upon the altar was a "baptism" of sorts. The reason why it states that nearly all things are purified with blood is that water and fire also purified ceremonially. A leper had to wash himself after he was healed for instance as did a male or female after they were coming out of their period of defilement.

I think the question: "Why would parents have objected to their kids not being baptized?" needs to be re-directed. It's not so much that, in the OC, the parents would have wondered why they were now undergoing a cleansing rite that their kids weren't required to receive. It is what was now attached to this sign that was much more than a ceremonial cleansing rite. There were still baptisms for Jews that were still performing some ceremonial cleansings even after Christ. We notice Paul, before he is arrested, goes to the Temple to participate in one. It could be said that Paul had participated in a small b baptism. Of course all those ceremonial rites were abolished with the Temple's destruction and why Paul did this is a discussion in itself that I'd be interested in.

But Paul also understood that there was now a big B Baptism that Christ had instituted that was much more than a ceremonial cleansing rite and was now an initiatory sign for the New Covenant.

So the question for the Jew wouldn't be first - "why am I not making my child go through this cleansing rite like we had in the OC?" but, instead, "Why is my child excluded from the New Covenant?" I'm sorry, but anybody who knows the Jewish mind realizes that the silence on this objection is so loud that it is deafening. It cannot simply be brushed aside.

Thanks again Rich. I was thinking about the verses in Hebrews today. So would you believe that they understood baptism, though in the light of ceremonial washings, to be administered as an initiation in the same way that circumcision had been (to their children, etc), except for the inclusion of women?

Thank you for that information, Dennis, and for clarifying my question. I'm not asking about non-Christian Jews but about the understanding of the early New Testament Jews who were Christians. I am confused because if the Jews baptised their children and then circumcised them, they must have seen the two as different things. If they did indeed see them as two different things, I think that detracts somewhat from the argument from silence about the outcry that there would have been if babies were not baptised. I would love to understand the paedo answer to this dilemma as it has perplexed me for a long time, and it's hard to even begin to evaluate something I don't understand.

You can actually read a decent history/explantation from the Jewish perspective here.

You asked if "the New Testament Jews understand baptism to be equivalent to circumcision in administration and significance?"

This is what I was taught. ...More later if I can..

__________________
Beth
Tolle Lege, Tolle Lege!

excerpt from article linked by Beth in above post:
Is this an accurate statement? 'John helping Jesus back to shore after self immersion'?
What would they mean by 'self immersion' if John baptized Jesus?
(sorry if this is off topic Heidi)

__________________
Nancy L./ www.foundersbaptist.org
Spring, TX

Your will, Lord Jesus Christ! Nothing more... nothing less... nothing else.

That is a really good question, and one I haven't studied.

The article states, "The candidate would totally immerse themselves by squatting in the water with a witness or baptizer doing the officiating. Note the New Testament points out the fact that Jesus came up straightway out of the water (Matthew 3:16)." but this is out of my area of knowledge.

I think that the Apostles instructed them on the significance of Christian Baptism so that, whatever else they understood other baptisms accomplished, this Baptism was a sign of the New Covenant to be administered to disciples in order to mark them as members of the visible New Covenant and signify all the benefits of union with Christ for those that had faith in Him.

In other words, it's not that the Jews would have immediately seen a Baptism and understood what it all signified but it was an understanding gained through the instruction of the Apostles on its significance. You can actually see that, in Galatians, not only do the Judaizers mis-identify the nature of baptism but the nature of circumcision itself.

Hence, since circumcision and baptism signify the same thing in the Scriptures, it is not that one necessarily thinks of the right of circumcison when one thinks of baptism but one thinks of the same object that both pointed to. One was given for the Old Covenant and excluded women, the other was given to women as it was to a number of groups who had been excluded from participation in the OC including women, Samaritans, eunuchs, gentiles, etc .... and didn't exclude children who had always been marked out from the world by a sign that pointed to the same object - Christ and His benefits for those that have faith.

By the way, Dennis, because you're giving helpful answers, I'll overlook that you're not a paedobaptist and are answering questions here....

Okay: to try to summarize what I am understanding of the paedo position: the Jews were being instructed in the significance of baptism and as they at times did not even understand the nature of circumcision, there were going to be some misunderstandings about the two. But, the understanding was clear enough that baptism was an admittance into the new covenant that, whatever they were thinking about the continuance of circumcision and the old one, their Jewish minds would have been horrified if their children had not received baptism too, along with women and gentiles.

I can *almost* understand that. It leads to some further questions (for instance, why weren't their Jewish minds horrified about the inclusion of women in baptism) but I'll have to think through those before trying to clarify further.

Ouch! I didn't even notice the forum. It was sort of like when Josh accidentally posted in the Women's Forum. I won't do it again!!!! How embarrassing. Meine Entschuldigungen mein Kapitän

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I was wondering if you'd had a miraculous conversion experience in the past hour or so. :-)

The question is a little difficult to answer because it seems to be asking us to discover a mindset lying behind the New Testament witness. The question should simply be, Does the NT warrant the conclusion that baptism has come in the place of circumcision as a sign of entrance into covenant with God? We are not therefore seeking to know how a Jewish Christian would have understood his baptism in relation to his circumcision, but whether the NT teaches Jesus Christ is the fulfilment of circumcision and has instituted baptism in its place.

Obviously, from the paedobaptist point of view, the question is answered in the affirmative. Rom. 4-6, Gal. 3, and Col. 2, all teach that circumcision signified justification, adoption, and sanctification in Christ. The same passages teach that baptism signifies union with Christ and participation in the saving benefits of justification, adoption, and sanctification. That being the case, we are warranted to draw the conclusion that baptism does in fact signify and seal to the NT believer what circumcision represented to the OT believer.

Concerning Jews who continued to be circumcised, it is clear from the NT that it was not done as a matter of covenantal significance, but merely as a cultural accommodation to the Jews in order to facilitate the preaching of the gospel amongst them. Given the clear teaching of the Epistle to the Galtians on this subject, it is safe to conclude that the Jews ought not to have placed any significance in their circumcision as a covenant marker, especially seeing as it was an ethnically exclusive marker, and led to the alienation of the Gentiles.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I think that's a good summary since it is from the Apostles that we learn of the full significance of circumcision.

Who says nobody was? Paul takes the time to point out that there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, etc...so he sees a need to point that out in terms of participation in the Covenant. There's no question they were horrified about Gentiles.

You never know. Some are probably like I have been at times over the past four years. Paedo one day and credo the next.

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Rev. Winzer, I will think more about what you've said and the passages you've cited. I have a question for my own further thinking: do you believe that one should throw out 'arguments from silence' in considering these issues (as they seem mostly based on assuming that we know the mindset 'lying behind' as you say the things that are recorded). In other words, one should not take into consideration whether the Jews would have made an outcry if their children had not been baptised, but simply whether the Scriptures give warrant that children should be baptised apart from such assumptions?

But...

I believe that the most likely possibility for which of the OC baptisms Jesus recieved (from John) is that he (here) recieved the High Priests water baptism.

This is one of the 3 baptisms the High Priest recieved, the other 2 being with blood & oil.

If we claim that Christs baptism is anyother then we have two problems. First, when did he get the water baptism. Second, what possible water baptism did he recieve? Certainly he did NOT recieve Johns baptism for repentence, John correctly objected to giving this to Christ. So what is it?

IMO the baptism of Jesus & the baptism of repentence are the elephant in the living room of all creedo discussions of "NT" baptism. Short of a full apreciation of the OT baptisms, and the role of these baptisms in the transition period, the creedo has a truncated view of the biblical doctrine (OT & NT).

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

I don't think we should conjecture as to how the Jews might have "felt;" but we do have the clear warrant of the Word for knowing that the Jews would have naturally thought in terms of infant inclusion in the covenant. That being the case, the silence of the NT as to infant excommunication is somewhat deafening. But please note, this is not an argument from silence. The argument is based on the clear evidence of infant inclusion. The silence is only mentioned in order to answer those who conjecture infant excommunication on nothing more than consequential arguments which are neither good nor necessary.

In Acts 2, it is clearly stated that the promise annexed to baptism is for the Jewish children; and it is very difficult to envisage a scenario where the fathers would have saved themselves from the untoward generation which murdered Christ whilst their infants were still held guilty for the atrocious sin of their fathers.

I do understand what you are saying. But that seems to throw one back into considering for instance that it is recorded that they continued to consider circumcision in the same light as they wanted to insist on it for the Gentiles for fellowship; and so there seems an argument that they must not have understood baptism in the same way as a paedo understands it, to replace circumcision. I am trying to --make a mental leap and grab onto another paradigm without falling into confusion at the moment; so forgive me if that demonstrates that I am confused after all that's been said. I plan to give this more thought.

Heidi,

What I noted above is that the Judaizers neither understood baptism nor circumcision as the Apostles had taught or they would not have been insisting upon circumcision. Part of Paul's polemic is correcting this understanding. I think that is clear that Paul repudiates the "same light" that the Judaizers understood circumcision was not the light that the Scriptures understood of it. Again, we need to remember that, even for circumcision, the Jew learned more about what this sign had always signified. Prior to the revelation of Christ, they could not have fully understood Who the Seed was nor the full import of His work.