And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

(Although I don’t think it’s necessary to prove Jesus is a Levite, you can get there through Mary, who was related to Elizabeth, who was married to a Levite priest.)

That may be your best answer to the purification question, but it isn’t a particularly persuasive one, especially since the very verse you quoted (Numbers 8:6-7) says “To PURIFY them, do this: Sprinkle the water of cleansing on them and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves.” I’m not sure why you would arbitrarily say the sprinkling wasn’t for purification purposes when the verse itself says it IS for purification.

While I agree with you that all of the law is a foreshadowing of Christ, if Jesus’ baptism by John was to ordain him as a priest as in Numbers 8, it does matter what tribe Jesus was from. No one could be a levitical priest but a Levite. But Jesus’ priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek, which predates the levitical priesthood. As such, it seems odd to claim that His baptism was intended to be the fulfillment of an unneeded purification (due to His sinless perfection) of a different priesthood, especially since, at best, the baptism fulfilled only a part of the ordination rite.

It’s an interesting theory, but it just doesn’t seem to fit on all fours.

1) I answered the purification issue in this line: “Although its function can be for cleansing, it also functions as an anointing or consecration–a sign that God has called that person to service (think about David’s consecration by Samuel, for example).” I also addressed the multifaceted meaning of baptism last week.

2) Jesus is the high priests of high priests, so the Levites were a shadow of Christ. I think you’re looking at the tribal membership question from the wrong direction; the Levites are in the tribe of Christ.

If that’s the case (which sounds reasonable to me), why would he need to be purified at all?

And what of the fact that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi?

To answer your point about why Jesus didn’t go through the other steps (shaving his body and sacrificing bulls) from Numbers 8, it’s because they were for cleansing from impurity and the remission of sins, neither of which Jesus needed.

Shaving was commanded as a remedy to defilement. See Leviticus 14:8 for example:

And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe himself in water, and he shall be clean. And after that he may come into the camp, but live outside his tent seven days.

Jesus, who was not defiled, didn’t need to take this step.

The offering of the bull as a sin offering is clearly unnecessary. (Might one say it would be blasphemy to suggest that he needed to do this?) Hebrews 9:11-12 makes the point that Jesus didn’t need the blood of bulls:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Two more quick points. First, the sprinkling with water was the first of the three steps; once it had been accomplished, righteousness was fulfilled because the other two weren’t required. Although its function can be for cleansing, it also functions as an anointing or consecration–a sign that God has called that person to service (think about David’s consecration by Samuel, for example).

Second, even the Pharisees didn’t question him on his lack of having been shaved or done the sacrifices. Jesus–uniquely–could fulfill the law perfectly without having to implement all of its remedies for sin. Jesus, John the Baptist and the Pharisees were all content that righteousness had been completely fulfilled.

I probably should be, too.

You’re back to inferring. Inference is a very thin way to build your case on labeling people who don’t concur with your inferences blasphemers.

Though your other passages might include infants, there is no evidence that they absolutely do. I know plenty of people who have families with no infants. You again are finding words in texts that aren’t there. Maybe I just need your special decoder pen. And if infant baptism is so crucial to one’s faith, don’t you think there’d be a verse (or two or three) somewhere that insists on this understanding? Aren’t you making a minor point of theology something major?

Though I disagree with you on baptism, I wouldn’t say you’re guilty of blasphemy.

But, regarding your odd Jesus v. John choice of words, I’d say you are very close to blasphemy. Scripture has one divine author, expressed through dozens of human authors. Attempts should be made to find agreement in the 66 books, much less in an individual one. Josh is right. The author of John’s gospel presumably knew what he was doing. On your reading (preferring Jesus over John) you are essentially inferring that the author purposely contradicts himself. Nice. Maybe it’s your reading that needs to be corrected, rather than John’s gospel.

Again, does the fact that I don’t find infants in John 3 really make me guilty of blasphemy?
C’mon Scottie. Drop the inferences. Evidence. Words. This is the way to persuade.

If baptism is required for salvation, the how was the thief on the cross saved? Better yet, how were all the people prior to John the Baptist saved? Jesus said “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3. “Born of water” refers to physical birth, which is contrasted with “born of the Spirit” which is spiritual birth described in John 1.

Incidentally, I’m not sure why you’d draw a distinction between the words of John and the words of Jesus in the gospel of John. Jesus IS the word. Everything John writes in the gospel of John is on equal standing with any of the “red letter” words. I’m not sure how anyone could read the book of John and think salvation requires anything other than belief on Jesus Christ.

Or better yet, I’m still waiting for a passage that references an age of reason.

Also, if John 3:18 is the answer, does that make John 3:5 a lie? If forced to choose between the words of John and the words of Jesus, I know which one I would choose every time.

I owe you both an apology. Here it is: I’m sorry (that was tough). Here’s why:

My most recent post has a typo of omission. I failed to insert a key word: infant. If you re-read my post you’ll see that it makes much better sense with the key word inserted. I meant to write: “You are finding infant baptism in John 3. It’s not there. Go look somewhere else (good luck).” Sure, there’s baptism, but not necessarily the infant variety.

I’m still waiting for passages confirming infant baptism. I’d hate to be a blasphemer. Please, I’m open to correction. I think blasphemy should be used, but pretty clear evidence needs to be presented.

Scottie, Does the fact that I don’t find infants in John 3 really make me a blasphemer? You’ve not clarified.