John the "Baptist"?

[JamesR]

This is something that I have been questioning for quite a while. Is it necessarily accurate in the English Gospels to say that St. John the "Baptist" actually Baptised people and Baptised Jesus? I know that many Protestants like to use this to support "Believers Baptism", but the reality is that Baptism as we know it did not even exist until after Jesus' Crucifixion. St. John's "Baptism" was actually just a Jewish mikvah--which was merely just a cleaning to attain ritual purity before entering the temple. Likewise, people got several mikvahs, whereas we only have ONE Baptism in Christ. Likewise, the purpose of Baptism is not to attain ritual purity like the mikvah, but to participate in Jesus' death so that we too could be resurrected and walk in the newness of like (Rom 6:4-5)--not to attain ritual purity. In reality, the only similarity between Baptism and the mikvah is that they both involve immersion. We shouldn't translate the Mikvah into Baptism because it is misleading, and I have no doubt that the majority Protestant translators behind the popular NIV translation purposely translated it as "Baptism" to try to discredit infant Baptism.

Thoughts?

[sheenj]

This is something that I have been questioning for quite a while. Is it necessarily accurate in the English Gospels to say that St. John the "Baptist" actually Baptised people and Baptised Jesus? I know that many Protestants like to use this to support "Believers Baptism", but the reality is that Baptism as we know it did not even exist until after Jesus' Crucifixion. St. John's "Baptism" was actually just a Jewish mikvah--which was merely just a cleaning to attain ritual purity before entering the temple. Likewise, people got several mikvahs, whereas we only have ONE Baptism in Christ. Likewise, the purpose of Baptism is not to attain ritual purity like the mikvah, but to participate in Jesus' death so that we too could be resurrected and walk in the newness of like (Rom 6:4-5)--not to attain ritual purity. In reality, the only similarity between Baptism and the mikvah is that they both involve immersion. We shouldn't translate the Mikvah into Baptism because it is misleading, and I have no doubt that the majority Protestant translators behind the popular NIV translation purposely translated it as "Baptism" to try to discredit infant Baptism.

Thoughts?

Hmm, in the Syriac tradition, we almost always call him "Mar Yuhannon Mamdana" or St. John the Baptist. So for me, he undoubtedly baptized Jesus.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

John the Baptist is known by that name because he introduced Baptism as we know it.

The fact that it was a Jewish Mikvah before him is only more reason why they called him the Baptist.

[JamesR]

Saying that St. John Baptised people before Jesus was crucified wouldn't make any sense at all, since Baptism is participating in His Crucifixion. How could we have participated in that before He was crucified? Likewise, how could Jesus Himself be "Baptised" before He was crucified and resurrected? Jesus doesn't need Baptism because He was going to be crucified and resurrected.

[dzheremi]

In Coptic, too, he is called Iwannyc piref]wmc, which is "John the Baptist". (According to Crum, "refti" is "baptize", "pi-" is the article...not sure where "oms" comes from; I guess it's some kind of nominalizer.)

[Melodist]

Is it necessarily accurate in the English Gospels to say that St. John the "Baptist" actually Baptised people and Baptised Jesus?

His baptism wasn't the Spirit filled baptism into Christ that brings one into the Church, otherwise the disciple who knew John's baptism wouldn't have been rebaptized by apostles. John's batism was for the forgiveness of sins, and while Christian baptism is "for the remission of sins", it remits sins because of the uniting with in His death and resurrection, which John's baptism did not do.

I know that many Protestants like to use this to support "Believers Baptism",

How so? I don't see the connection, they would do better to use examples of Christian baptism from Acts.

As far as language goes, "baptize" means "to immerse". It's the word the gospels use to describe what John did. There is nothing wrong with calling him "the Baptist.

[xariskai]

If I may be permitted a little tongue and cheek ( ):

Since John's baptism for repentance was nowhere commanded in any scripture John knew (the Old Testament), and since Baptists are sola scripturists, John was no Baptist.

[OrthoNoob]

Saying that St. John Baptised people before Jesus was crucified wouldn't make any sense at all, since Baptism is participating in His Crucifixion. How could we have participated in that before He was crucified?

The same way the Apostles partook of the Bloodless Sacrifice prior to the Crucifixion?

[LBK]

Matthew 3:11:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

[xariskai]

Saying that St. John Baptised people before Jesus was crucified wouldn't make any sense at all, since Baptism is participating in His Crucifixion. How could we have participated in that before He was crucified?

Gk. baptizo simply means to immerse.

That John did baptize finds independent attestation in Josephus. http://www.josephus.org/JohnTBaptist.htm#Purification

Likewise, how could Jesus Himself be "Baptised" before He was crucified and resurrected? Jesus doesn't need Baptism because He was going to be crucified and resurrected.

During the blessing of the waters at Theophany our priest emphasizes that Christ's baptism by John was quite unlike John's baptism. With John's baptism of repentance the people were blessed, their sins being washed away- by the water. Christ's baptism was something entirely different. His baptism was not unto repentance, to wash away his sins, for he had none. Instead of being blessed by the waters, the waters were blessed by Jesus Christ.



He sanctified the waters, making them holy, preparing the way for our own holy baptism into His death:

"it is important to note that in Jesus’ baptism, the action of cleaning is reversed. Instead of being cleansed, Jesus Christ is one who cleanses. By His holiness, He purifies the waters that He enters.  The waters are now restored to their cleansing and life-giving power. The Blessing of the Waters is a remembrance of the miraculous event of the sanctifying of the waters of creation.  But this Orthodox service also extends its blessing in our time.  In Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Church blesses the waters of earth that they may be a blessing to the Church, our homes, and the world." http://orthodoxway.tripod.com/id27.html

[biro]

Baptist is just an old way to spell Baptizer. It has nothing to do with the Baptist Church, which was founded many hundreds of years after the saint's lifetime.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: John the "Baptist"?