Scott,
I believe they were baptized by Christ. It only seems natural that they were as the Scriptures report that Christ's disciples baptized more people than John the Baptist:
The (un)baptized Apostles
- Thread starter Semper Fidelis
- Start date
- Status
I believe they were baptized by Christ. It only seems natural that they were as the Scriptures report that Christ's disciples baptized more people than John the Baptist:
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I hear you. Thats another thread.
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Let me know when you guys start that thread. I'm curious why you might think (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that all the disciples weren't baptized.
(If I didn't know better, I'd think you just took a swipe at baptists..."It doesn't say that infants were baptized, just like it doesn't say that all the disciples were baptized"...but I know better).
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Rich, the problem is that the verse you quoted specifically says Jesus did not baptize.
Of course one wonders what kind of baptism was this? Was the Trinitarian formula used before the great Comission? Or was this an extension of John's baptism? Perhaps another thread....
Of course one wonders what kind of baptism was this? Was the Trinitarian formula used before the great Comission? Or was this an extension of John's baptism? Perhaps another thread....
I didn't intend to start a new thread. It would seem strange for the Apostles to engage in baptism, for Christ to have been baptized (albeit John's), and never have been baptized.
Also, the qualifier in John 4:1 doesn't indicate that Jesus never baptized anyone but merely that his disciples baptized more than John. It is also possible that, in the period between the Resurrection that He had baptized them. Seems like to confer NT authority to administer a new Sacrament it would make sense that they would receive it themselves.
Also, the qualifier in John 4:1 doesn't indicate that Jesus never baptized anyone but merely that his disciples baptized more than John. It is also possible that, in the period between the Resurrection that He had baptized them. Seems like to confer NT authority to administer a new Sacrament it would make sense that they would receive it themselves.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Rich,
I split my thread; by default, your post came up as the originator of this new one on baptism. Can't help that, sorry.
I split my thread; by default, your post came up as the originator of this new one on baptism. Can't help that, sorry.
No problem. I was just trying to clarify in the previous thread because I thought it might be germane.
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
Since I posted this on the other thread I thought I might repeat it here, slightly changed:
Of course it doesn't say that John baptised his (these two) disciples but if all his (John's) disciples were baptised then Andrew, one of the twelve, was baptised. Naturally that doesn't prove that the other eleven were.
Of course it doesn't say that John baptised his (these two) disciples but if all his (John's) disciples were baptised then Andrew, one of the twelve, was baptised. Naturally that doesn't prove that the other eleven were.
I think, however, that even if they had been baptized by John they would still need to be baptized into the New Covenant. I think it's one of those issues that is silent about when they were baptized but I have to think that if Christ is going to commission them to institute a new sacrament that He would adminster the same on them.
Also, it was more than just the Apostles that Christ appeared to and who believed before Pentecost. They are already baptized apparently as well prior to Pentecost.
To conclude otherwise would be strange unless one wants to present some sort of theory that only those who believed in Christ after Pentecost would need to be baptized. How about women who were not circumcised who had no sacramental sign? The theory would cause two classes of early Christians and not one faith, one baptism, ....
[Edited on 5-22-2006 by SemperFideles]
Also, it was more than just the Apostles that Christ appeared to and who believed before Pentecost. They are already baptized apparently as well prior to Pentecost.
To conclude otherwise would be strange unless one wants to present some sort of theory that only those who believed in Christ after Pentecost would need to be baptized. How about women who were not circumcised who had no sacramental sign? The theory would cause two classes of early Christians and not one faith, one baptism, ....
[Edited on 5-22-2006 by SemperFideles]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I don't know whether I agree that it was a new sacrament; this is my hang up. The sacrament was the same, the sign just changed. These were all already covenant members whom had the sign placed on them.
As far as women go, they did have the sign on them through their federal heads, i.e. their fathers.
I hope you agree it's a new sacrament
:Puddleglum
Puritan Board Sophomore
We were reading Hodge (on chapter 28 of the WCF) in Sunday School recently . . . he actually used this as backing for infant baptism: "Christ, speaking to Jewish apostles, who had all their lives never heard of any other than the old Padobaptist Church, into which they had been themselves born and circumcised (and their infant circumcision was the only baptism they ever received), never once warns them that he had changed this relation" - as part of his explination for how children have always been considered part of the church.
Scott,
Seriously, though, I understand what you are saying but it's not as if a person has a right to just say "Well, I have the old sign that unites me to Christ. I don't need the new sign...." If so, then Peter and the Apostles were very confused at Pentecost and only Gentiles should have been baptized. The circumcision of the Jews would suffice.
I think for a couple of reasons that I can think of it was very necessary to be baptized:
1. It signified that the Christ had come. The old, bloody sign that pointed to Christ was superceded by the bloodless sign.
2. There would be a class distinction: "Oh, you're one of those who needed to be baptized...." My circumcision got me in...." Imagine how much more Galatia and elsewhere would have had problems.
3. Paul tells believers to look to their baptism and not their circumcision.
[Edited on 5-22-2006 by SemperFideles]
Seriously, though, I understand what you are saying but it's not as if a person has a right to just say "Well, I have the old sign that unites me to Christ. I don't need the new sign...." If so, then Peter and the Apostles were very confused at Pentecost and only Gentiles should have been baptized. The circumcision of the Jews would suffice.
I think for a couple of reasons that I can think of it was very necessary to be baptized:
1. It signified that the Christ had come. The old, bloody sign that pointed to Christ was superceded by the bloodless sign.
2. There would be a class distinction: "Oh, you're one of those who needed to be baptized...." My circumcision got me in...." Imagine how much more Galatia and elsewhere would have had problems.
3. Paul tells believers to look to their baptism and not their circumcision.
[Edited on 5-22-2006 by SemperFideles]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by SemperFideles
I hope you agree it's a new sacrament
The above agrees with what I said: it is not new, it is the sacrament of the NT. The procedure changed.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Rich,
I'll adress this in the am; thanks for the exchanges. Good night. Parise the Lord.
Sleep well. When you awake and begin responding I'll probably be going to bed.Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by SemperFideles
I hope you agree it's a new sacrament
The above agrees with what I said: it is not new, it is the sacrament of the NT. The procedure changed.
It is new according to the above. The phrase "ordained by Christ" means that the Sacrament had a temporal beginning when Christ ordained it.
Baptism and Circumcision are identical in what they signify but they are not identical Sacraments.
[Edited on 5-22-2006 by SemperFideles]
1) John 4:2 - καιÌτοιγε Ιησους αυτὸς ουκ εβαÌπτιζεν αλλ οι μαθηταὶ αυτου -
This verse can be rendered literally: "although really Jesus himself not he was baptizing but (except?) the disciples of him."
The Pharisees (erroneously) started hearing exceptional reports about Jesus, namely that he was "making and baptizing more disciples than John." This fits with the declaration of John the Baptist (3:30) "He must increase; I must decrease." This is the second report we have of Jesus baptizing (see 3:22, 26). The people had been coming to John because he was baptizing, so if they were going to Jesus he must be baptizing all of them too, right? However, the Pharisees' intel was inaccurate in at least one respect, as the evangelist takes pains to tell us. Jesus was not, in fact, engaged in ongoing baptizing (because that was not his mission). That was John's work.
The interpretive question (I think) may be related to the importance of "autos", "himself." Why is it there? Perhaps if we get rid of the verse markers, and read the whole sentence. If the "autos" is left out, the sense is: "...the Pharisees heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, although really Jesus was not baptizing..." This is could be both an historically and theologically misleading statement.
3:22 states that Jesus was "with his disciples in the land of Judea, where he was tarrying with them and baptizing." Without assuming too much, or importing our knowledge from what is stated later, the obvious connection is that it is these disciples whom Jesus baptizes. In the absence of "himself" in 4:2, this would be a very awkward reversal of the previous statement. Theologically, John, the last evangelist, does not want to divorce Jesus from baptism, even John's baptism. Put the "autos" back in and we have "...than John, although really Jesus personally was not baptizing..." Now there is no chance of a disconnect between Jesus and baptism--as if such was still merely Old Covenant activity.
On to the last phrase. Does "but his disciples" mean "but his disciples did all that baptizing purported of him. Frankly, that's a lot of innuendo, from material that isn't present (some translations simply add the word "were"). Could it mean that possibly? Yes. "Disciples" is in the nominative case, but the phrase isn't "simplified" just by noting that. We already have one paranthetic nominative in "Jesus" (yet this phrase includes one verb also), and this last phrase is a tag, attached to an aside!
Be that as it may, maybe it means exactly what it says, without any infered copula. The Greek conjuction "alla" is a contrasting conjunction. It is often translatd "but" but it also is translated (and conveys the sense of) "instead, rather, no, nevertheless, except," among other nuances. Therefore, a perfectly natural rendering of verse is: "--although really Jesus personally (himself) was not baptizing except for his disciples--" This is nothing more than the bare minimum implied by 3:22. All the other "reports", by John's disciples (3:26) or heard by the Pharisees (4:1) may be no more than conjectures based on little more than the initial report that Jesus had been observed baptizing a cadre of followers, and as people flocked to him (and left John the Baptist) that report was exaggerated to proportions equaling the new crowds around Jesus.
I'm suggesting that a straighforward reading of the text indicates that, contrary to all the wild reports about the new ministry of Jesus on the scene, Jesus was not baptizing, in fact had baptized none of the throngs going to see him, except for his (12) disciples.
Think about it. This is the ONLY place that ever suggests that Jesus disciples may possibly have engaged in a ministry of baptism that overlapped with John the Baptist. Not a word is even hinted at in the synoptics that Jesus' disciples baptized before Pentecost. Why would they? To establish "continuity"? What theological or didactic purpose would it serve? When did Jesus have time (or interest) in stopping what he was doing in teaching and inaugurating his kingdom, by mimicking the ministry of his forerunner. Jesus' ministry was not John's.
On the other hand, maybe by the time John's Gospel is written, the question: "When were the apostles themsleves baptized?" had come up. And so, once again, John may be filling in one more piece of the puzzle for us.
2) Baptism with water is symbolical of God's own baptism, Spirit-baptism, the work of the Spirit (beginning with regeneration, and including sanctification and giftedness). Here's something else Jesus does for his disciples (and only for them) in the upper room. John 20:23 "...he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." Catch the proleptic significance of this act. He is symbolically breathing out upon them, humanly, as he shall soon do divinely, by putting his Breath or Spirit in them, and promising to cause them to breathe out his Word (note the following verse, 24). That physical breathing upon them is a physical baptism of sorts. And those upon whom the disciples breathe out the Word of God (whether by mouth, or in the pages of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16) will receive that same Holy Spirit in regenerating, transforming power.
3) Whether or not you agree that the disciples were ever physically baptized, by water or vapor, or by any other means, there is no denying that they were baptized by the Spirit on Pentecost. And that divine act of God validated their subsequent ministry for all time. They who plainly had the reality can dispense with the sign without our prejudice.
[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
This verse can be rendered literally: "although really Jesus himself not he was baptizing but (except?) the disciples of him."
The Pharisees (erroneously) started hearing exceptional reports about Jesus, namely that he was "making and baptizing more disciples than John." This fits with the declaration of John the Baptist (3:30) "He must increase; I must decrease." This is the second report we have of Jesus baptizing (see 3:22, 26). The people had been coming to John because he was baptizing, so if they were going to Jesus he must be baptizing all of them too, right? However, the Pharisees' intel was inaccurate in at least one respect, as the evangelist takes pains to tell us. Jesus was not, in fact, engaged in ongoing baptizing (because that was not his mission). That was John's work.
The interpretive question (I think) may be related to the importance of "autos", "himself." Why is it there? Perhaps if we get rid of the verse markers, and read the whole sentence. If the "autos" is left out, the sense is: "...the Pharisees heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, although really Jesus was not baptizing..." This is could be both an historically and theologically misleading statement.
3:22 states that Jesus was "with his disciples in the land of Judea, where he was tarrying with them and baptizing." Without assuming too much, or importing our knowledge from what is stated later, the obvious connection is that it is these disciples whom Jesus baptizes. In the absence of "himself" in 4:2, this would be a very awkward reversal of the previous statement. Theologically, John, the last evangelist, does not want to divorce Jesus from baptism, even John's baptism. Put the "autos" back in and we have "...than John, although really Jesus personally was not baptizing..." Now there is no chance of a disconnect between Jesus and baptism--as if such was still merely Old Covenant activity.
On to the last phrase. Does "but his disciples" mean "but his disciples did all that baptizing purported of him. Frankly, that's a lot of innuendo, from material that isn't present (some translations simply add the word "were"). Could it mean that possibly? Yes. "Disciples" is in the nominative case, but the phrase isn't "simplified" just by noting that. We already have one paranthetic nominative in "Jesus" (yet this phrase includes one verb also), and this last phrase is a tag, attached to an aside!
Be that as it may, maybe it means exactly what it says, without any infered copula. The Greek conjuction "alla" is a contrasting conjunction. It is often translatd "but" but it also is translated (and conveys the sense of) "instead, rather, no, nevertheless, except," among other nuances. Therefore, a perfectly natural rendering of verse is: "--although really Jesus personally (himself) was not baptizing except for his disciples--" This is nothing more than the bare minimum implied by 3:22. All the other "reports", by John's disciples (3:26) or heard by the Pharisees (4:1) may be no more than conjectures based on little more than the initial report that Jesus had been observed baptizing a cadre of followers, and as people flocked to him (and left John the Baptist) that report was exaggerated to proportions equaling the new crowds around Jesus.
I'm suggesting that a straighforward reading of the text indicates that, contrary to all the wild reports about the new ministry of Jesus on the scene, Jesus was not baptizing, in fact had baptized none of the throngs going to see him, except for his (12) disciples.
Think about it. This is the ONLY place that ever suggests that Jesus disciples may possibly have engaged in a ministry of baptism that overlapped with John the Baptist. Not a word is even hinted at in the synoptics that Jesus' disciples baptized before Pentecost. Why would they? To establish "continuity"? What theological or didactic purpose would it serve? When did Jesus have time (or interest) in stopping what he was doing in teaching and inaugurating his kingdom, by mimicking the ministry of his forerunner. Jesus' ministry was not John's.
On the other hand, maybe by the time John's Gospel is written, the question: "When were the apostles themsleves baptized?" had come up. And so, once again, John may be filling in one more piece of the puzzle for us.
2) Baptism with water is symbolical of God's own baptism, Spirit-baptism, the work of the Spirit (beginning with regeneration, and including sanctification and giftedness). Here's something else Jesus does for his disciples (and only for them) in the upper room. John 20:23 "...he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." Catch the proleptic significance of this act. He is symbolically breathing out upon them, humanly, as he shall soon do divinely, by putting his Breath or Spirit in them, and promising to cause them to breathe out his Word (note the following verse, 24). That physical breathing upon them is a physical baptism of sorts. And those upon whom the disciples breathe out the Word of God (whether by mouth, or in the pages of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16) will receive that same Holy Spirit in regenerating, transforming power.
3) Whether or not you agree that the disciples were ever physically baptized, by water or vapor, or by any other means, there is no denying that they were baptized by the Spirit on Pentecost. And that divine act of God validated their subsequent ministry for all time. They who plainly had the reality can dispense with the sign without our prejudice.
[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
Interesting points Bruce. I would only add that Acts does report a couple of cases where water baptism preceded the laying on of hands and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Neo-Pentecostals look at this as evidence of a "second baptism". A more Biblical understanding is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit in large measure upon people groups (Jews, Samaritans, God fearers, Gentiles) shows that all are one and that the Holy Spirit has been given without distinction.
I'm not dogmatic about the Apostles having been water baptized but I do think there is a principle of solidarity that has to be considered. I also think that leaders should not be distinguished from the sheep. If it's good enough for the pre-Pentecost disciples to be baptized without water and dispense with the sign without prejudice then why not the same for anyone who has been baptized with the Holy Spirit?
I'm not dogmatic about the Apostles having been water baptized but I do think there is a principle of solidarity that has to be considered. I also think that leaders should not be distinguished from the sheep. If it's good enough for the pre-Pentecost disciples to be baptized without water and dispense with the sign without prejudice then why not the same for anyone who has been baptized with the Holy Spirit?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
