05-10-2009, 03:46 AM
The bible mentioned it was used for cleaning before the time of Yeshua.
How about nowadays?
How about nowadays?
How does immersion in water means to us?
|
05-10-2009, 03:46 AM
The bible mentioned it was used for cleaning before the time of Yeshua.
How about nowadays?
05-10-2009, 04:25 AM
Shlama Khati Havah,
Great question, and one that is greatly neglected in Nazarene circles. I received my baptism from the COE---I needed at least some of it in Aramaic! I believe in a real-water adult baptism, whether that is fixed or flowing immersion is a matter I think for a Beit Din to decide. When we look at the NT, we seem to see an inconsistent vision. On the one hand Yochanan Hamatbil says he baptises with water for repentance but Y'shua comes to baptize with the Ruach haKodesh and with fire. That has led some folks to think that Y'shua's baptism doesn't involve water at all; meaning that the Ruach and Fire are some kind of spiritual abstraction that the 'old' water baptisms just pointed to. However, I believe this is not the case. You see, Rav Shaul says there is "one faith, one immersion" and therefore taking him at his word I think that means the baptism with the water/repentance and the Ruach/fire happens AT THE SAME TIME. But I have doubts whether this translates to the necessity of INFANT baptism, because it seems to my reading that there must be a voluntary and intellectual submission for the individual to assent to. Ironically, when I have gotten pushback on this from Christians, they point out to me that circumcision is done to 8 day old infants who don't have that assent either! My answer back to them is to point out that the faith for the circumcision lays with the parents of the child and that there examples of adults (Abraham, the Shechemites) undergoing that as a faith decision. Beyond these considerations, it is clear from the NT that water immersion baptism, certainly with adult believers, continued well past the resurrection: 1Pe 3:21 - Show Context and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward Elohim. It saves you by the resurrection of Y'shua the Messiah, So the water starts for repentance but the faith part in Messiah I believe brings in the Ruach and fire. In my opinion there should be a Netzari immersion rite, but without Trinitarian formulation. The water part would not change because the water immersion goes back to Moses at the very least and the kohenim immersed for purification. Mikveh has always been a part of conventional and Messianic Jewry and it always will be.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
05-10-2009, 11:55 AM
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama Khati Havah, Assuming that the Didache is a 1st century Netzari "manual" for goyim, what do you think about its chapter on baptism? Didache Wrote:7:1 Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then "baptize" in running water, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."???7:2 If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. ???7:3 If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."???7:4 Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand. Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:When we look at the NT, we seem to see an inconsistent vision. On the one hand Yochanan Hamatbil says he baptises with water for repentance but Y'shua comes to baptize with the Ruach haKodesh and with fire. That has led some folks to think that Y'shua's baptism doesn't involve water at all; meaning that the Ruach and Fire are some kind of spiritual abstraction that the 'old' water baptisms just pointed to. However, I believe this is not the case. I don't want to start a full-scale debate on infant baptism on this forum, however I can't help but notice that at times modern Netzari theology seems to be heavily based on Protestant theology. For example RCC criticism by the Netzarim is comparable to how the Protestants criticize the RCC. Not that some of this criticism isn't justified, but I think that the Netzarim need to divorce themselves from the Catholic-Protestant feud, as the Netzarim pre-date both these Christian sects. The Netzarim need to take a fresh look at their historical traditions in order to avoid becoming "Protestants in Hebraic dress". Infant baptism is a very ancient Christian practice, but the question is whether it's truly Apostolic and whether its supported by Scripture - this is what the Netzarim need to find out, by looking at historical sources outside the Catholic-Protestant feud. The best argument I've read to date for infant baptism is this one. Coming from a mostly Protestant theological background, that article made me question the Protestant view of infant baptism. Especially these points: Fr. John Hainsworth Wrote:...But children don???t understand the faith! I am now undecided on the issue of infant baptism, akhan Andrew what is your opinion on this Eastern Orthodox explanation? Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Beyond these considerations, it is clear from the NT that water immersion baptism, certainly with adult believers, continued well past the resurrection: I agree whole-heatedly here, also the fact that baptism is a sacrament in ever Traditional church certainly serves to validate that it is an authentic Netzari rite. Though I've also noticed that there are examples in the NT where the Apostles baptized families/households: Acts 16:14-15 And a certain woman, a seller of purple cloth, who feared God [was there]. Her name was Lydia, from the city [of] Thyatira. Our Lord opened the heart of this [woman] and she heard what Paul said. And she was baptized, she and her household... Acts 16:30-33 And he brought them outside and said to them, "My lords, what is necessary for me to do, so that I may have life?" And they said to him, "Believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and you will have life, you and your house." And they spoke to him the word of the LORD and to all his household. And immediately in the night, he took [and] washed them of their wounds and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in our Lord, he and all his household. And many Corinthians heard and believed in God and were baptized. 1 Corinthians 1:16 Now I also baptized the household of Stephanas. But besides [them], I do not know if I baptized anyone else. Do you think it's possible that these "households" included children, even babies? I just find it interesting that the Jews do Mikveh for reasons besides repentance and so do the Traditional churches. I still can't see an example in the NT of baptism symbolizes anything else but repentance for sin and willing acceptance of the Faith. But perhaps there's some authentic extra-Biblical Netzari tradition of baptism symbolizing "initiation into the household of Messiah" which seems to be the reasoning behind these Traditional churches' practice infant baptism.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
05-10-2009, 07:35 PM
Shlama Khati Christina,
This is why I said, we need a Beit Din for this particular issue. Understand that I don't think the idea of infant baptism is necessarily "bad". The issue ranks pretty low on my list of things to deal with. However, I question though whether it is SUFFICIENT. I think there is also an ancient Christian understanding that somehow the child needs to make an intellectual choice for faith voluntarily, which is why they have "confirmation" ceremonies. Granted, these ceremonies may be inspired in part from bar/bat mitzvahs but the idea and function appears to be common ground between the two faiths. At the very least then, it seems like some kind of "sequel" involving conscious thought is needed, if for no other reason than to thank YHWH for being saved. Also the Scripture passages nowhere say infants or babies are part of the "household" and the very young are not mentioned with Yochanan Hamatbil either. No babies are directly mentioned being dipped into the Jordan On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a minimum age for faith entry either. It is I suppose possible that different immersions existed for slightly different purposes, with one being for the infants of a believer and the other being for an adult new convert, but I really don't know for sure. But what I keep getting back to is the reason Yochanan himself gave for the original Netzari baptism--for REPENTANCE. In Hebrew, the word for repentance is TESHUVAH, which means "to turn back". The Greek (matania I think) has a similar idea but from a more mental-abstract paradigm. Either way, that implies again a conscious and knowing decision on the part of the person being immersed. In terms of the other view, I suppose it is possible that the immersion of an infant reperesent a symbolic "down payment" of faith from the parent in the hopes the child goes the right way, but I think later that same child will need "confirmation"--so I guess I agree with the RCC on this point. Whether that comes in its current Catholic form or with a second immersion I have no opinion on, nor do I wish a full debate on infant baptism here. I should also point out that while Netzari and Protestants have joint issues with the RCC, the same can be said of Netzari and Catholics having joint problems with say Orthodox-Rabbinic Judaism. We Netzari do not flinch in our analysis not just of other traditions but even from within our own ranks, and I think that while anything can be done to excess, generally speaking it is healthy. The trick is of course to have the right tone in the discussion. At a minimum though, I think we should all agree that every DIRECT reference we have for immersion involves ADULTS, including Y'shua himself. That fact alone I think should beg the question: If they baptized adults throughout the apostolic age, why stop doing that? I mean, is it just because once the faith got going they were supposed to only do this for infants? If the infant equivalent made the adult immersion unnecessary, where is that Scripture cite? You see, the Protestant ideal of SOLA SCRIPTURA (Scripture alone) was meant as an effective debate against the RCC, but it doesn't necessarily follow that in their critque they didn't put their own traditions into THEIR mix. That's not really meant as a "knock" against them per se. The same thing happens in all faiths. The Karaites, for example, say they want to cut out all oral law but they really mean all RABBINIC oral law, and they have their own spin on their own traditions too that are not fully scriptural. So, if we allow this for our own assembly, we kind of have to allow it for others, or "equal weights and measures" does not apply. Y'shua said that we would be judged by the measure we measure with, so we should be careful here. Generally speaking, if I feel I cannot absolutely establish something I want to defer that for Netzari Rosh Beit Din to deliberate on. I know the difference between having a working opinion and having a core position. This one still needs work, but I would prefer adult immersion even while allowing the infant variety. Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
05-10-2009, 10:40 PM
Shlama akhi Andrew,
Yes your explanation has helped as always, toddah <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|