O.T. Circumcision a foreshadow of N.T. Water Baptism

[Wansvic]

John was baptising Jews for repentence, and he scolded the Pharisees because if they were to claim to repent, they should produce fruit in keeping with repentence. John couldn't have baptised for the New Testament church, as his life ended before Jesus rose again.

Matthew 3:7 - 12
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

My initial comment was that John the Baptist introduced the New Testament water baptism for the remission of sin. We know there is significance to the obedient submission by mankind to water baptism because after Jesus was resurrected those water baptized by John had to be re-baptized in Jesus' name. (Acts 19:2-5)

 

[Wansvic]

really? how was John's baptism done in Jesus' name?

there was NO New Testament church during John or Jesus' time

and there was no choir on the shores of the Jordan singing either

SMH

As I initially stated John the Baptist INTRODUCED the New Testament water baptism. After Jesus' death, burial and resurrection those previously water baptized by John had to submit to water baptism in Jesus' name. (Acts 19:2-5)

 

[Wansvic]

“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Throughout scripture both water and Holy Ghost baptisms continue to take place after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

As I initially stated John the Baptist INTRODUCED the New Testament water baptism. After Jesus' death, burial and resurrection those previously water baptized by John had to submit to water baptism in Jesus' name. (Acts 19:2-5)

what you have stated from the beginning of your op, is that water baptism is comparable to OT circumcision

physical circumcision represents circumcision of the heart

as Paul, in Galatians, says he wishes the Judaizers would go all the way and not just cut off their foreskin, how can you continue to state that circumcision is water baptistism, when Paul says no new Gentile converts need to circumcise themselves to be saved?

Paul says basically circumcision can be done away with and you want to say it ties in with water baptism in the new

not sure why you continue to believe something like this but possibly due to the fact you seem to be using a Bible dictionary for a study guide

not going to continue to address this. but you should consult some other material other than a dictionary

 

[Wansvic]

what you have stated from the beginning of your op, is that water baptism is comparable to OT circumcision

physical circumcision represents circumcision of the heart

as Paul, in Galatians, says he wishes the Judaizers would go all the way and not just cut off their foreskin, how can you continue to state that circumcision is water baptistism, when Paul says no new Gentile converts need to circumcise themselves to be saved?

Paul says basically circumcision can be done away with and you want to say it ties in with water baptism in the new

not sure why you continue to believe something like this but possibly due to the fact you seem to be using a Bible dictionary for a study guide

not going to continue to address this. but you should consult some other material other than a dictionary

The biblical record makes it clear that water baptism is comparable to circumcision:
"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col 2:11-12

The translators of the bible showed the comparison of circumcision and water baptism by inserting a colon after the circumcision info. A colon is used to precede a list of items, a quotation, or an expansion or explanation.

 

[Wansvic]

what you have stated from the beginning of your op, is that water baptism is comparable to OT circumcision

My first source of information is the bible record itself.
Paul stated that OT circumcision was no longer required after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. Afterward, as clearly witnessed numerous times in the NT, water baptism is a requirement for the NT church.

 

[garee]

Water baptism is not a part of the Old Testament law.

Sure it is. the foundation is not found in the new testament

Its the ceremonial law used when introducing a person who has a desire to become a member of the priesthood of believers..... get a person wet as a sign they have a desire to join .

It certainly does not have its foundation in the new testament . There is only one new ordnance as a ceremonial law on this side of the reformation. The breaking of bread along with the hair covering ,uncovering demonstration .

Is not a sign gift to be sought after by sign seekers . When Aaron's two sons decided to add as their own oral tradition they went up in smoke. The priestly clothing not even a stench of smoke. The baptism today is not a sign gift either its simply a continuation under the new order that came at the time of reformation the showing of a desire to be a member of the kingdom of priests who brings out the gospel..

Exodus 29:4 And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

well yeah

in the OT...but we are to have circumcised hearts...always what God was actually after

the OT foreshadows the new and we run into all kinds of trouble when people try to do a mashup of the 2

water baptism represents our death to our old life and coming out of the water represents new life

it is symbolic and not to be confused with a part of salvation as is being done in this thread

So I agree circumcision was symbollic, but baptism is also symbollic. Just as physical circumcision was a symbol of having a circumcised heart in the OT, so water baptism is a symbol of having a baptised heart (being born again, or immersed in Christ, or a heart circumcision) in the New Testament. So while I hold they are both symbolic, I do also see the similarity between both.

My initial comment was that John the Baptist introduced the New Testament water baptism for the remission of sin. We know there is significance to the obedient submission by mankind to water baptism because after Jesus was resurrected those water baptized by John had to be re-baptized in Jesus' name. (Acts 19:2-5)

Wasn't John's baptism a baptism of repentence? The fact that those baptised by John had to be re-baptised by Paul surely demonstrates that baptism is just a symbol, and what counts is what happens in the heart? Just as in the Old Testament, lots of nations, even Israel, practiced physical circumcision, but what counted was a circumcised heart.

Throughout scripture both water and Holy Ghost baptisms continue to take place after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.

I agree. Though the water baptism is really just the natural step of obedience that believers take, once they believe.

The biblical record makes it clear that water baptism is comparable to circumcision:
"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col 2:11-12

The translators of the bible showed the comparison of circumcision and water baptism by inserting a colon after the circumcision info.

I agree there is merit in a comparison of the two. But I still don't understand how you get that either are more than symbolism of what needs to occur in the heart.

what you have stated from the beginning of your op, is that water baptism is comparable to OT circumcision

How do you think the symbols are different?

physical circumcision represents circumcision of the heart

It does.

as Paul, in Galatians, says he wishes the Judaizers would go all the way and not just cut off their foreskin, how can you continue to state that circumcision is water baptistism, when Paul says no new Gentile converts need to circumcise themselves to be saved?

Paul says basically circumcision can be done away with and you want to say it ties in with water baptism in the new

not sure why you continue to believe something like this but possibly due to the fact you seem to be using a Bible dictionary for a study guide

I think you are misunderstanding. I think Wansvic is saying that circumcision is not required anymore (this was for Old Testament believers), but water baptism is required for New Testament believers. Which I believe is partly true, in that, if baptism is a commandment, why would a believer not be baptised? (Same as in the Old Testament, that if circumcision was the commandment, why would an OT believer not be circumcised?) However, scripture is also very clear in that works cannot save us, and so water baptism can't affect our salvation, irrespective of whether true belief would compel one to be baptised. What counts is having faith in the One who died for us, and who can truly save us.

 

[tourist]

My initial comment was that John the Baptist introduced the New Testament water baptism for the remission of sin. We know there is significance to the obedient submission by mankind to water baptism because after Jesus was resurrected those water baptized by John had to be re-baptized in Jesus' name. (Acts 19:2-5)

If OT circumcision was a foreshadow of NT water baptism then NT water baptism is a foreshadow of being baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit. Once that is understood it stands to reason that OT circumcision and NT water baptism hold no enduring spiritual value. Jesus himself baptized no one with water and Paul baptized only a few, perhaps because those that he baptized were only prepared for and understood the significance of water baptism but could not, as yet, grasped the all-important concept of being baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit. By this reasoning, water baptism would be considered spiritual milk while the baptism of fire and water to be the true spiritual meat.

 

[garee]

As I initially stated John the Baptist INTRODUCED the New Testament water baptism. After Jesus' death, burial and resurrection those previously water baptized by John had to submit to water baptism in Jesus' name. (Acts 19:2-5)

I think it was a continuation of a old testament ceremonial law that was used to demonstrate when a person was ready to become a priest as a kingdom thereof.. The promise of the new manner after the order of Melchizedek had come to fulfillment .John the last Levite to be used to represent our eternal High priest had come to a end . The time of reformation took away the idea of kings in Israel that God had given them over to do that which they should not of (rejected Him not seem a Kings of kings . The time of that wrath had come to show Israel the uselessness of Kings or Emperors, seen, when it comes to spiritual matters.. no profit

Psalm 110:3-5 King James Version (KJV)Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

John and the faithless Jews questioning over the law that had not been changed after the new manner. John a Levite baptizing men from the tribe of Judah "unheard of, and now they are doing the work of introducing other men from all the nations as the new order of priesthood to all men of all nations .

What does John say when the question arose ? Did he say like other faithless Jews.... crucify him? or water baptism is for the remission of sin or perhaps it confirms a person has the Holy Spirit .

Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.John 3;25-27

 

[garee]

If OT circumcision was a foreshadow of NT water baptism then NT water baptism is a foreshadow of being baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit. Once that is understood it stands to reason that OT circumcision and NT water baptism hold no enduring spiritual value. Jesus himself baptized no one with water and Paul baptized only a few, perhaps because those that he baptized were only prepared for and understood the significance of water baptism but could not, as yet, grasped the all-important concept of being baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit. By this reasoning, water baptism would be considered spiritual milk while the baptism of fire and water to be the true spiritual meat.

Both water baptism and circummsion are ceremonial laws having different purposes. Neither hold any value in making one perfect like all shadows that have a spiritual meaning hid as a parable. Circummsion pointed ahead to suffering beforehand to our bloody husband Christ. This is shown in the context of the parable below .There it relates Christ as bloody husband

Exodus 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Like all ceremonial laws used to preached the gospel I respect to our bloody husband before hand and the glory that did follow at the time of reformation.

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 1 Peter 1:11

Exodus is the first reference of circumcision and is attributed to the example of Moses above Exodus 4:25 .Moses is not considered our bloody husband the reference must point to Christ . It would seem that the Holy Spirit used that parable to set up the spiritual meaning of Christ being cut of from the father while performing the work of. By His bloody sacrifice our husband Jesus satisfied the just demands of the written law

ohn 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man

Water baptism is a required when a new priest desires to be a member of the priesthood of believers as a kingdom of priest, after the new order of Melchezedek (the subject matter of John3:25.)

The baptism of the fire is the purifying work of the Holy Spirit of God in salvation .No outward sign .Just beleive.



.

 

[Wansvic]

Sure it is. the foundation is not found in the new testament

Its the ceremonial law used when introducing a person who has a desire to become a member of the priesthood of believers..... get a person wet as a sign they have a desire to join .

It certainly does not have its foundation in the new testament . There is only one new ordnance as a ceremonial law on this side of the reformation. The breaking of bread along with the hair covering ,uncovering demonstration .

Is not a sign gift to be sought after by sign seekers . When Aaron's two sons decided to add as their own oral tradition they went up in smoke. The priestly clothing not even a stench of smoke. The baptism today is not a sign gift either its simply a continuation under the new order that came at the time of reformation the showing of a desire to be a member of the kingdom of priests who brings out the gospel..

Exodus 29:4 And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.

John introduced water baptism of repentance for the remission of sin for the NT church.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Both water baptism and circummsion are ceremonial laws having different purposes.

Are the purposes really different? Removal from the male body the shame, reproach and uncleanness that separates us from God, and beginning life anew (as circ performed on the eighth day). Immersing the believer in Christ (his death in submerging, and resurrection as emerging), and putting to death the natural man of sin, and putting on the new man through Christ. To me they are very similar.

Neither hold any value in making one perfect like all shadows that have a spiritual meaning hid as a parable.

While both circumcision and baptism have hygiene benefits physically, their purpose is to demonstrate faith, by obedience to God.

Circummsion pointed ahead to suffering beforehand to our bloody husband Christ. This is shown in the context of the parable below .There it relates Christ as bloody husband

Exodus 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Like all ceremonial laws used to preached the gospel I respect to our bloody husband before hand and the glory that did follow at the time of reformation.

I don't know if this is reading too far into the text. I would guess that Moses' heart was, or had become uncircumcised, through his disobedience to circumcise his son. Probably he feared his father-in-law more than God. But God uses Zipporah to circumcise her son, and bring Moses' heart back to a place of belief and obedience.

The baptism of the fire is the purifying work of the Holy Spirit of God in salvation .No outward sign .Just beleive.

Agree.

John introduced water baptism of repentance for the remission of sin for the NT church.

Does the bible actually say John's baptism was for the remission of sin?

 

[Wansvic]

If OT circumcision was a foreshadow of NT water baptism then NT water baptism is a foreshadow of being baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit. Once that is understood it stands to reason that OT circumcision and NT water baptism hold no enduring spiritual value. Jesus himself baptized no one with water and Paul baptized only a few, perhaps because those that he baptized were only prepared for and understood the significance of water baptism but could not, as yet, grasped the all-important concept of being baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit. By this reasoning, water baptism would be considered spiritual milk while the baptism of fire and water to be the true spiritual meat.

NT Christians were to submit to water baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sin, and separately ask for and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Holy Ghost baptism)

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

NT Christians were to submit to water baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sin, and separately ask for and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Holy Ghost baptism)

I don't think there is a single passage where anyone asks for the Holy Spirit (but please correct me if I'm wrong). He simply comes to all those who truly believe on Christ.

 

[mailmandan]

John introduced water baptism of repentance for the remission of sin for the NT church.

So was this baptism of repentance for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins in (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) or was it for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance?

Also, in Matthew 3:11, we read - "..I baptize you with water for repentance.." So was this baptism with water for "in order to obtain" repentance or is it for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance?

In Acts 3:19, we read - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

 

[Wansvic]

Does the bible actually say John's baptism was for the remission of sin?

Yes.
Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Acts 19:4-5
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

In addition, Peter stated water baptism was for the remission of sin:
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Wansvic]

I don't think there is a single passage where anyone asks for the Holy Spirit (but please correct me if I'm wrong). He simply comes to all those who truly believe on Christ.

Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

 

[mailmandan]

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration (water baptism) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost baptism), whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:4-7

The washing of regeneration is not accomplished by water baptism. The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* (Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5), of the "washing of regeneration." Washing refers to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*