WHY DID JESUS BAPTIZE ONLY HIS DISCIPLES?
After discussing the question of the week, we explore Peter's doctrines of false prophets, last days, metaphors and falling away from the faith.
Comments (13)
thanks for the audio!
On a slightly different note, have you noticed that "demon" only occurs in the corrupt Bibles? The 1611 AKJB always uses the term "devil."
Im sorry . . I keep saying demons . . and you are absolutely right. I'm still re-learning my terms through the AKJV. I often make mistakes like this. The concept of "demon" is actually very specific and straight out of paganism. Demons could be summoned and direct to worldly uses etc. Angels and demons . . Dualism etc
After the flood many lived far beyond 120 years: Noah’s son Shem lives 600 years; his son, 438 years; then Shelah, 433 years; then Peleg, 239; and then Terah, the father of Abraham, 148 years. And then the age of the patriarchs: Abraham, 175 years; Isaac, 180 years; Jacob, 147 years. The Bible interprets itself, so when we are to understand days and weeks in greater time periods, the scripture tells us. Otherwise, we are wise to take them literally; Jesus was tempted 40 literal days and nights, and he lay in the grave three literal days, and Lazarus was in the grave four literal days...that sort of thing.
Yes . . however . . the "120 years" was spoken by God. So it does have significance. My explanation for the instances of surpassing that limit is that the effects of the world's changed climate (rain, new topography, meat diet, etc) took a few generations to have their full effect on mankind physiology. I guess my point is . . the term "a thousand years" seems to have some significance. It does not mean forever ( there are other terms that mean that) but is a set period of time. And set periods of time have significance in the Bible. I am not trying to be a 'date setter' . . but believers anxiously awaited the and targeted the date of Jesus' birth because of Daniel's prophecy so . . I leave open the possibility that we will know when the time is approaching if we are alive when it does.
Also . . time is at least relevant to God in the sense that he appoints time for his creation. For example, he limited our time on earth to 120 years after the flood. And the demons know of the "appointed time". I agree that Peter's explanation helps us understand that God is eternal. However, the Bible interprets itself so I believe there is a possible link to prophecy as it relates to 1000 years. Why didn't Peter say 10,000 years? Or "a thousand thousand years". Recall that Daniel's prophecy had 70 weeks which has been interpreted to mean 490 years . . and was fulfilled to the day. The Biblical chronology (ages of the generations that led to Jesus Christ) point to a world that was roughly 4000 years (give or take 50 years or so) old when Christ was born. Many have seen a potential parallel between the seven days of creation and the potential 7 "days" . . 1000 years at a time . . of the earth. With Christ's millennial reign being the final "day" for this earth . . a sabbath. I am not necessarily convinced of these arguments .. . but I do think that periods of time in the Bible are there for a reason.
If Jesus baptized his disciples, he may have baptized them at different times. Many baptized persons, like Judas Iscariot (if he was baptized) have fallen from the faith. We can't know the answer dogmatically; the purpose of the discussion was to explore why he baptized no one except perhaps his disciples, but maybe not even them.
Thank You Reg. That is what I thought . . . Jesus wants for all of us to come to . . and most importantly REMAIN . . in the faith. I'm not sure Jesus had complete knowledge in his human form of who would betray him. I don't now the answer to this. Jesus certainly knew things before others (Lazarus death, his own crucifixion, Peter's mode of death?, destruction of Jerusalem, the background of the woman at the well, etc). If he didn't know immediately about Judas' future role as a betrayer .,. I'm sure after spending time with Judas, he came to know. So, Jesus may have baptized Judas, a believer, and he fell from faith. Something that only became apparent afterwards. I can also see the physical baptism of Judas as a VERY poignant example of 'love thine enemy' (much like washing feet shows that the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are servants.) It makes Judas' eventual betrayal that much more despicable. However, the problem of Judas' baptism points out a more important point you make. Baptism does NOT bestow salvation. It is merely an outward worldly expression of your belief at THAT moment in time.
If Jesus baptized his disciples . . was Judas baptized? Wouldn't it stand out if he wasn't? The reason I ask is . . wouldn't this be a vain act, i.e. for show? Given that Jesus know who Judas was and what he would do. I don't think Jesus would baptize a non-believer. If there is a question of whether Jesus baptized anyone or not, I would favor "not" simply because baptism is a ritual/act. Yes, it is a "type" for the baptism of the Holy Spirit .. but the physical act is still a sort of ritual that Jesus came to fulfill/ eliminate. Now, Jesus DID follow ritualistic Hebrew acts, eg Passover, so that he would be the only person ever who fulfilled the law. But baptism into a new covenant seems different. I'm not wedded to this belief. But I cant see Jesus baptizing Judas. Maybe there is a way to explain it.
judas went " to his own place " ,
You might be right. It could be taken either way. That is the purpose of these discussions.
I think you are wrong it says though Jesus baptized not, but his disciples : clearly saying it was His disciples that baptized. sorry. I disagree..-
ok