could it very well be that intimation about baptism was that it was meant for the priest, to function in the office of the priest, by someone of authority to therefore administer. the priests were baptized in the OT prior to service in the tabernacle and the temple, moses baptized aaron and sons, 'that prophet' was to be like moses, elijah was promised to come at the beginning of the kingdom, israel was to be a kingdom of priests, priests were to be baptized and clean - be ye holy for I AM holy. hence: this isn't the temple, these are not priests - who are you (john the baptist) and who do you think you are baptizing these people, who are not priests, because we do not think you are any of these people who we would think have that authority? my thoughts, i know, i own them - but that is how i see it.
Alex, interesting thought, with something to think about. I think I am understanding you would agree with Du Vail in part, but not altogether? Seems you are both saying they did not think John the Baptist was any of these people who would have the authority to baptize.
yes, in part, the baptism was not new, just out of place, i suppose you could say. and without authority in their minds, and without that authority it was out of time.
3 comments:
could it very well be that intimation about baptism was that it was meant for the priest, to function in the office of the priest, by someone of authority to therefore administer.
the priests were baptized in the OT prior to service in the tabernacle and the temple, moses baptized aaron and sons, 'that prophet' was to be like moses, elijah was promised to come at the beginning of the kingdom, israel was to be a kingdom of priests, priests were to be baptized and clean - be ye holy for I AM holy.
hence: this isn't the temple, these are not priests - who are you (john the baptist) and who do you think you are baptizing these people, who are not priests, because we do not think you are any of these people who we would think have that authority?
my thoughts, i know, i own them - but that is how i see it.
Alex, interesting thought, with something to think about. I think I am understanding you would agree with Du Vail in part, but not altogether? Seems you are both saying they did not think John the Baptist was any of these people who would have the authority to baptize.
yes, in part, the baptism was not new, just out of place, i suppose you could say. and without authority in their minds, and without that authority it was out of time.
Post a Comment