A Question on Hebrews 6:2

[Murph]

The baptisms...what is that referring to?

"Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment" Hebrews 6:2

[Deleted]

Ephesians 4:5 says that there is only one baptism. There is only one baptism that saves. This baptism occurs the instant you believe. This spiritual baptism is, or certainly should be, followed soon after by a water, "believer's baptism" done as a testimony of what happened when you believed - you died to the law, were buried to the law, and were raised in newness in life with the same power that God used to raise up His own Son from the grave. It's finished, never to be repeated, so we are to move on.

Some groups, one that comes to mind would be the church of Christ (which is a cult), that teaches that you have to get rebaptized every time you get saved - that is, there is no assurance whatsoever of salvation. For folk in this bunch, there is no real moving forward since they are never sure they have gone beyond the first step.

On the other hand, Hebrews is written to, well, Hebrews. That is, Jewish converts. For them there is the additional baptism of Moses, the baptism in the cloud, etc. that had to do with their former judaism. As Christians, they were to move away from the past and into the future - new service - to God. We could also add "dead works" to that.

Baptisms are things that are done "to" us, but now something new has occurred. We are now priests unto God (the priesthood of the believer), and we are to look away from self to others. It is hard to help others when we are too busy trying to get ourselves in line. Since we are now complete in Christ, we can stop worrying about whether we have done enough and let Christ live in and through us.

In this regard, I like this passage: "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Galatians 2:19-21).

[Murph]

Got that, but the baptisms being referred to as it related to OT Judiasm? ...

don't want to lead the answer.

But I thought it had something to do with John the Baptist's baptisms in the wilderness.

I baptist with water, John said...but One is coming...

Writer of Hebrews said what you had as Jew was good but temporary. What the Lord offers is better and permanent. That is why I thought of John's baptism for cleansing of sins. It was good but not permanent...

What we have because of Jesus is better...and permanent.

When I read Hebrews 6:2 and saw baptisms I thought about John's baptisms. But the word baptism is plural which I hadn't noticed before.

What is it referring to, John's baptism or what? The reference in my Bible is made to Acts...and to John's baptisms in the wilderness. But the preacher says it is to ritual washing by the Jews...

So I wound up leading you in a way anyway...

[Keith]

Hebrews 6:2

Of the doctrine of baptisms -

This is mentioned as the third element or principle of the Christian religion. The Jews made much of various kinds of “washings,” which were called “baptisms;” see the note on Mar_7:4. It is supposed also, that they were in the practice of baptizing proselytes to their religion; see the note on Mat_3:6. Since they made so much of various kinds of ablution, it was important that the true doctrine on the subject should be stated as one of the elements of the Christian religion, that they might be recalled from superstition, and that they might enjoy the benefits of what was designed to be an important aid to piety - the true doctrine of baptisms. It will be observed that the plural form is used here - “baptisms.” There are two baptisms whose necessity is taught by the Christian religion - baptism by water, and by the Holy Spirit; the first of which is an emblem of the second.

These are stated to be among the “elements” of Christianity, or the things which Christian converts would first learn. The necessity of both is taught. He that believeth and is “baptized” shall be saved; Mar_16:16. “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” Joh_3:5. On the baptism of the Holy Spirit, see the Mat_3:11 note; Act_1:5 note; compare Act_19:1-6. To understand the true doctrine respecting baptism was one of the first principles to be learned then as it is now, as baptism is the rite by which we are “initiated” into the Church. This was supposed to be so simple that young converts could understand it as one of the elements of the true religion, and the teaching on that subject now should be made so plain that the humblest disciple may comprehend it. If it was an element or first principle of religion; if it was presumed that anyone who entered the Church could understand it, can it be believed that it was then so perplexing and embarrassing as it is often made now? Can it be believed that a vast array of learning, and a knowledge of languages and a careful inquiry into the customs of ancient times, was needful in order that a candidate for baptism should understand it? The truth is, that it was probably regarded as among the most simple and plain matters of religion; and every convert was supposed to understand that the application of water to the body in this ordinance, in any mode, was designed to be merely emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit.


Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible[/url]

[Deleted]

The Jews did have a ritual cleansin known as the "mikfa", but it was reserved only for the priests as they went into the temple to do their daily duties. I would not equate it to baptism, though, because it was something that they did to themselves - not something done to them.

We still have and need the mikfa, so to speak, as it was a type of the Christian's daily cleansing through the Word of God, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" (Ephesians 5:25-26).

I don't think that John's baptism was in view, though, because it only applied to a few disciples in Ephesus - some believers that had actually known and followed John's gospel of repentance, but had not known it in light of Christ's finished work on the Cross.

[Deleted]

if it was presumed that anyone who entered the Church could understand it, can it be believed that it was then so perplexing and embarrassing as it is often made now? Can it be believed that a vast array of learning, and a knowledge of languages and a careful inquiry into the customs of ancient times, was needful in order that a candidate for baptism should understand it?

Ain't it the truth!

I have known of a couple of churches that would not even consider a person for believer's baptism until they mastered a course of studies and passed an exam given by the deacons. Nowhere in Scripture do I find anything like this taught.

Nope, I prefer the situation with the Ethiopian Eunuch . . . "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:36-37).

Yet, we have more and more preachers coming out of liberal theological semenaries that think that much learning is impressive and pour the Greek and the Hebrew down the throats of the people and completely bypass the milk of the Word for what they "assume" is the meat - which is generally only an explaining-away of the Word through modernism.

[Murph]

Thanks Virgil...

Sometimes I am just slow on the up take.

;D

[Deleted]

Oops, correction and somewhat retraction. This paragraph was found in a book that I'm preparing for posting, The Influence of the Jews Upon Civilization by Jacob Gartenhaus, copyright of 1928.

“Cleanliness is next to godliness” is not a Jewish proverb, although cleanliness and godliness always go hand in hand. Thousands of years ago, the Jews followed a code of laws which dealt with personal and communal hygiene and sanitation. Every Jewish community, from earliest times, had its mikveh, or water reservoir, for the cleansing and purifying of the body. At least once a week, before the Sabbath, the Jew had to wash himself clean by immersing in the mikveh. The more pious Jews immersed themselves every morning, often in icy water. Every woman had to purify herself in the mikveh.

This was a ritual washing, but it was not only limited to the priests as I stated above.