Note: We do read that Jesus himself did not do any of the actual baptizing (John 4.2) but we do have at least some sort of endorsement by Jesus to be associated with this practice (and encouraging his disciples to promote the activity… practice for the Great Commission [Matthew 28.19]? Something else?)

John 3:23 = John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized

Note: John the Baptist preferred to be around a lot of water! Jesus? (in the Judean countryside?)

John 3:25 = Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness- look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.”

Note: The fact that a ‘discussion’ arose over purification gives us some indication of what baptism means — some connection to Jewish purification laws. Why this ‘discussion’ spills over to the ‘baptizing’ ministry of Jesus and his disciples is not made entirely clear (For that matter, who is this one Jew with issues?) How does one conjecture rightly? John the Baptist’s response should help us. John the Baptist states that he has completed his mission and will promote the one who, “…gives the Spirit without measure.” The baptism topic concludes in the beginning of the 4th chapter of John and then switches to Jesus’ telling a Samaritan woman about, “…living water…welling up to eternal life (4.14). Jesus then speaks about worship being a matter of “spirit and truth” (4.23). This Samaritan woman immediately speaks about the Messiah (the Christ — eschatological figure previously mentioned in 1.25!)

Conclusion of sorts: The Jewish leaders, John the Baptist, and a Samaritan woman all think ‘Messiah figure’ with this water/spirit/baptism context — “The Anointed” of the Lord is here! (Should I bring up those 6 huge water containers of John 2, used for purification rites, and how Jesus’ miracle in Cana is really a Messianic announcement for what Jesus was really going to do for Israel (provide change and plenty of it)???

More later,
Peace!

“c. 1st century Judaism.”

John 1:25 = They asked him (John the Baptist), “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

Note: These Jewish inquirer’s equated John’s baptism with an eschatological figure.

John 1:31 = I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.”

Note: John’s purpose in baptizing was to reveal the Christ to Israel.

John 1:33 = I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’

Note: John is receiving partial revelation from the Lord. He is told to look for a person who has the Spirit descending upon him, and this one will also baptize… but differently.

There’s more,
Peace!

You ask an excellent question. It will be very interesting to see Dr. Morey’s response.

Dr. Morey use to recommend Michaelson’s book on hermeneutics. I’m not sure if he still does. Morey’s outline was somewhat different in some aspects (expecially the test given to determine a persons spiritual gift).

What exactly is the New Covenant Theology hermeneutical approach to Scripture?

Great Question.

Jean Cauvin

I for one know what you are talking about re: immersion baptism. I’ve seen several photos of the ancient as well as modern mishnahs.

The hocus pocus that is part of baptismal regeneration in the RCC and LCMS is truly pagan and anti-biblical–absolutely! I’ve read both the RC catechism and Luther’s Larger Catechism on Baptism and they are nearly identical in their views of baptismal regeneration (Luther hails Augustine, the pagan philosopher as his proof its right). Your point is right: whether in OT or NT days, baptism was by immersion AND symbolic: it never did anything mystical (aka “spiritual”) for anyone.

Baptism is for believers only: those in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is described as: new, better, other. It always is in reference to being IN Christ Jesus where one’s sins are forgiven (the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin) because of HIS death on the cross.

Jesus is the Mediator of the better covenant. It is impossible to be an unbeliever in the New Covenant,for Jesus is mediating on behalf of those in the New Covenant which He enacted by His shed blood and their sins are taken away (I hope no one here thinks Jesus mediates on behalf of unbelievers!). Hebrews 8-10 is excellent on this whole issue. Galatians 5 destroys the notion of baptism as the “new” circumcision. The only “sign” or “seal” of being in the New Covenant is that the believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit of God (Eph. 1:13-14). Its not baptism that is the “sign”.

Those who were baptized (immersed) were always those who confessed Jesus Christ as Master and believed in their hearts God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10; Gal. 3:25-17; Acts 10:48-48;Acts 2:14;8:12; Matt. 28:19).

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Considering the paganism of Rome’s baptism, I am disturbed that some Presbyterian churches recognize its baptism as valid. Unbelievable!

you mentioned that Baptism is Jewish and that “all [you] see are typical Gentile ideas”. So does your hermeneutical method consist of flowing from the thought patterns of Judaism into early Chrisitian ideas? Do you dispute the traditional Reformed method of reading the Old Testament in light of the New? Also, with regards to usage of Jewish sources of information like the Mishnah, what is their role with regards to biblical interpretation? How do the use of such non-canonical, 2nd century AD Jewish sources tie in with the doctrine of the Analogia Fide and the sufficiency of Scripture?

THe one on the mystery is about 40 pages

the one on the primary audience of Peter, James, and John is around 20 pages.

I apologize. I will try to have it in the mail soon.

Jean Chauvin

If the friends that you ask are hard-core Reformed (PCA, OPC, Baptist Reformed), they will all agree with you. Justin Alford will also agree (Calvary Chapel). He knows Greek, but not very much theology. James White will agree with you because he is reformed Baptist. John Frame may or may not agree with you, he will probably say it is within orthodoxy,

Before you present the case to your friends, you should give me a chance to present my arguments on the subject completely. You read a very brief note.

I have completed my arguments on the intended audience of Peter, James, and John. It is off topic of baptism directly so I did not post my argument completely.

If it is heresy, it is not essential heresy because it does not direct itself to the central theme of the gospel. This is indeed an issue of hermenuetics and is indeed a secondary doctrine. Even you have said that Paul’s epistles are for the us via Explanation, while the General Epistles are for us via Application. You have said that the Gospels are a manifestation and that Acts is a proclamation. You used Baxter’s book for this.

I am agreeing with you that Paul’s epistles are only to be used for explanation for the Body of Christ. If you were to relay this to your friends they would probably pose that also as heresy. I am taking it a step further and posing a theory regarding the primary audience of Peter James, and John.

If you give me some time, I will begin to post my arguments completely. This will take a few days.

Jean Cauvin

Glory to the Lord who is sitting on His thrown.