Tag: Priesthood

Posted on

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Luke 3

15Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and they were eager to know whether John might be the Messiah. 16John answered their questions by saying, “I baptize with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire.” 18John used many such warnings as he announced the Good News to the people.

19John also publicly criticized Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, for marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for many other wrongs he had done. 20So Herod put John in prison, adding this sin to his many others.

21One day when the crowds were being baptized, Jesus himself was baptized. As he was praying, the heavens opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. And a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you.” (Luke 3:15-22, NLT)

Acts 1

1Dear Theophilus:

In my first book I told you about everything Jesus began to do and teach 2until the day he ascended to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions from the Holy Spirit. 3During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time and proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. On these occasions he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.

4In one of these meetings as he was eating a meal with them, he told them, “Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you what he promised. Remember, I have told you about this before. 5John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Some Christians will whole-heartedly say “YES”, while many Catholics might also agree.

I’ve engaged with others over this question many times before but was recently re-introduced to this debate from an unexpected source.

You may recall that around the beginning of June (2026) there was some controversy surrounding the government and the Mormon church. I’ve shared some details about that in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?” but the summary is that the Department of Defense, in an effort to simplify the job of military chaplains, decided to reduce the number of codes that identify the different religious affiliations that troop members might align with from over 200 down to about 30.

These codes included a number of different “Christian” affiliations, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian”. However, when identifying the Mormon church, the code was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint”.

This had a number of Mormons objecting that the government did not identify the Mormon church as a subset of  Christianity.

In the ensuing online debate, I ended up engaging with a Mormon who was attempting to explain the legitimacy of the Mormon church to those who were suggesting that Mormons aren’t Christians.

One of the points this person made was that the Mormon church had re-established the priesthood, which Mormonism claims had been lost by the church for nearly 1800 years, and that this “restored” priesthood now allowed for legitimate baptisms. This is important, according to Mormons, because since baptism is necessary for salvation (in their view), the church needs a legitimate priesthood in order to administer baptisms and thus “save” people.

There’s a lot of Mormon theology that could be debated here but for this post, I want to look strictly at the assertion this Mormon made that baptism is necessary for salvation.

As luck would have it, that next day, two of the chapters in my daily Bible reading were the two chapters listed above, both of which talk about baptism.

An exhaustive discussion of whether baptism is necessary for salvation would likely take more room to unpack than just this blog post but these two passages do give us some insight into the issue.

First of all, if water baptism is necessary for salvation, one has to wonder why Jesus was baptized. Did Jesus need to be saved?

Clearly, Jesus didn’t need to be saved so there must be a different reason for His baptism. This alone tells us that baptism is not always associated with salvation. I wrote about this issue in my blog post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”

A second observation from these passages is the fact that there are clearly different kinds of baptism mentioned.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Note that John the Baptist himself said that he baptized with water but someone would come after Him (Jesus) who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. John makes a point to say that this person who would come after him (Jesus) was greater than he was. This implies also that the baptism of Jesus was greater, better and more important than the baptism of John.

Jesus confirms this in the Acts passage when he reminds his disciples what they had been taught before, that John would baptize with water but He (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus then told them that this baptism with the Holy Spirit would take place “in just a few days”.

It’s clear from Scripture that Jesus was referencing the events of Pentecost in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit descended upon these early believers and came to indwell them. It’s at this moment that the church was born.

So for the person who believes that water baptism is essential for salvation, the question they must ask is: why does Jesus emphasize His baptism of the Spirit over the water baptism that John the Baptist performed?

One thing is absolutely clear from these two passages: Jesus’ baptism is different from the baptism of John the Baptist. While John the Baptist baptized people with water, Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit.

If we’re going to have any chance of resolving the question of whether baptism is necessary for salvation, we have to come to an understanding of what it means when Jesus said he would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

The problem that too many people experience when they’re faced with this issue is one of familiarity.

What I mean by that is that most people, when they hear the word “baptize”, immediately conjure up an image in their mind based on their own understanding of the word, which is primarily shaped by their own experience with baptism.

For most people, their only association with the word is that they’ve seen many people who have been baptized with water, either by sprinkling in the Catholic church and various Protestant traditions or by immersion in many evangelical traditions.

If your only exposure to the word “baptize” is seeing someone who has been baptized with water, then you naturally will assume that whenever you see the word, it must refer to being sprinkled or immersed with water.

But as these two texts above demonstrate, baptism is not always associated with water. Therefore, the idea that one must be sprinkled or immersed in water as a part of the salvation process is already in doubt. And since both John the Baptist and Jesus affirm that the baptism Jesus would bring was NOT water baptism, then there is virtually no reason to believe that being baptized with water is anything more than symbolism.

A more careful study of the word “baptize” reveals that this is exactly the case.

The more broad meaning of the word “baptize” is “to identify with.”

Hence, people who were baptized by John the Baptist were identifying with him. As a way to demonstrate publicly that they agreed with John’s preaching, they took the step to be baptized by him, thus identifying themselves with his core message of repentance. One might think of it as an initiation.

Jesus’ baptism is not one that is associated with water but the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Spirit means that the person now identifies with the Holy Spirit and thus is now a member of God’s family.

The apostles were all first identified with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. They were “baptized” by the Spirit and “initiated” into the body of Christ, the family of God.

The question for us is when is the believer first associated with the Holy Spirit? Is it at the moment of being baptized with water, as Mormons and some Protestants claim? If that is the case, then we can affirm that water baptism is indeed necessary for salvation.

But Scripture tells us otherwise. Most notably, Paul, in Ephesians 1:13, says that the Holy Spirit is given to the Christian as a seal at the moment of belief, NOT at the moment of being immersed in water. I wrote about this aspect of the Holy Spirit in my blog post, “The Holy Spirit as a Seal.”

So then, if water baptism is not essential for savlation, what is the purpose? Why do it?

Like a lot of things in Scripture, water baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality.

In Scripture, water is often a symbol of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37-39, Jesus addresses the crowds and tells them that if anyone is thirsty, they should come to Him and drink and streams of living water would flow from within them. The text follows by explaining that Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit.

So the act of being baptized with water is simply an act whereby the believer is attesting to the fact that they now identify with Jesus and are a part of His family. The qualifying characteristic of being a part of the family of Jesus is that you must have the Holy Spirit. The believer, in being baptized with water, is making a declaration of faith – that they now have placed their trust in Christ and as a result, they have received the promised Holy Spirit and have been placed into the family of God.

So let’s circle back to our original question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” The answer is that it depends on what you’re referring to when you talk about baptism.

If you are asking whether a person needs to be baptized with water in order to be saved, the answer from Scripture is clearly NO.

But if you understand baptism to be an identification and union with the Holy Spirit, then the answer is YES, you absolutely must be SPIRITUALLY baptized in order to be saved, for one cannot be saved unless they become a member of the family of God and the prerequisite to becoming a member of the family of God IS receiving the Holy Spirit, which, according to Scripture, occurs the moment a person puts their faith in Jesus.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What has been your experience with baptism? What comes to your mind when you hear the word “baptize”?

What do you think is the purpose of baptism? If you have been baptized, how did you interpret that experience in terms of its meaning?

Would you agree that Jesus’ baptism is greater than and more important than John’s baptism? 

If Jesus’ baptism is more important that John’s baptism, then they must be different in some way. What do you think are the differences between these two kinds of baptism?

If the purpose of water baptism is to save people, then why do you think Jesus was baptized by John? Clearly Jesus didn’t need to be saved.

 

Photo by Paul Ndayambaje: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-man-in-a-blue-dress-is-in-the-water-28181227/

Posted on

Who is this Melchizedek Character?

Genesis 14

17As Abram returned from his victory over Kedorlaomer and his allies, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18Then Melchizedek, the king of Salem and a priest of God Most High, brought him bread and wine. 19Melchizedek blessed Abram with this blessing:

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,

Creator of heaven and earth.

20And blessed be God Most High,

who has helped you conquer your enemies.”Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the goods he had recovered. (Genesis 14:17-20, NLT)

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hebrews 7

1This Melchizedek was king of the city of Salem and also a priest of God Most High. When Abraham was returning home after winning a great battle against many kings, Melchizedek met him and blessed him. 2Then Abraham took a tenth of all he had won in the battle and gave it to Melchizedek. His name means “king of justice.” He is also “king of peace” because Salem means “peace.” 3There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God.

4Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized how great Melchizedek was by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle. 5Now the priests, who are descendants of Levi, are commanded in the law of Moses to collect a tithe from all the people, even though they are their own relatives. 6But Melchizedek, who was not even related to Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God. 7And without question, the person who has the power to bless is always greater than the person who is blessed.

8In the case of Jewish priests, tithes are paid to men who will die. But Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on. 9In addition, we might even say that Levi’s descendants, the ones who collect the tithe, paid a tithe to Melchizedek through their ancestor Abraham. 10For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s loins when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.

11And finally, if the priesthood of Levi could have achieved God’s purposes—and it was that priesthood on which the law was based—why did God need to send a different priest from the line of Melchizedek, instead of from the line of Levi and Aaron?

12And when the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed to permit it. 13For the one we are talking about belongs to a different tribe, whose members do not serve at the altar. 14What I mean is, our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never mentioned Judah in connection with the priesthood.

15The change in God’s law is even more evident from the fact that a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has now come. 16He became a priest, not by meeting the old requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. 17And the psalmist pointed this out when he said of Christ,

“You are a priest forever

in the line of Melchizedek.”

18Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. 19For the law made nothing perfect, and now a better hope has taken its place. And that is how we draw near to God.

20God took an oath that Christ would always be a priest, but he never did this for any other priest. 21Only to Jesus did he say,

“The Lord has taken an oath

and will not break his vow:

‘You are a priest forever.’”22Because of God’s oath, it is Jesus who guarantees the effectiveness of this better covenant. (Hebrews 7:1-22, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

One of the great themes of the book of Genesis and really the whole Bible, is the Abrahamic covenant, which is introduced in Genesis 12 and is repeated again in Genesis 15. In this covenant, God promises to bless Abraham, so that he, through his descendants, would be a blessing to the nations. This promise sets the backdrop for God’s biblical redemptive plan, which unfolds throughout the Scriptures.

In the chapters that provide the filling for this Abrahamic Covenant sandwich (Genesis 13 and 14), Moses tells the story of how Abram and Lot decide to separate, mainly because they both had grown their personal wealth so much, there was no suitable land that could accommodate both of them with all of their flocks and herds.

Now that Lot is no longer under Abram’s protection, he finds himself the innocent victim of what amounts to a local political rebellion. The end result is that Lot, along with others, is taken captive by a local ruler who did not take kindly to the uprising of his subjects.

Abram gets wind of the situation and launches a rescue operation, which is highly successful. Not only does he get Lot back, but he retrieves ALL of those who have been captured, along with all of their possessions which had been looted.

On his way back from victory, Abram encounters a local king named Melchizedek. To the unschooled reader, Melchizedek seems like just another insignificant local political leader with a name that’s hard to pronounce. There really isn’t much reason to think this guy is that important to the overall biblical narrative, until of course, you get to the book of Hebrews.

Everything we know about Melchizedek comes from just 3 verses in Genesis 14. Here is what we know:

    • Melchizedek was the king of Salem, which means “king of peace.”
    • Melchizedek was also “king of righteousness” since the name “Melchizedek” means “my king is righteousness.”
    • Melchizedek was a priest of the most High God – he apparently followed the one true God.
    • Melchizedek blessed Abram
    • Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth of all the goods he recovered. He paid a tithe to Melchizedek.

Here’s a guy who gets a mere 3 verses of attention in Genesis but then later, is a major source of discussion for 3 chapters in the book of Hebrews. What is really going on here?

If you know anything about the book of Hebrews, the theme is the idea of “Better”. The author advances a series of arguments to show how Jesus is better.

Better than what?

Better than everything!

Jesus is better than angels. Jesus is better than Moses. Jesus is a better priest because He belongs to a better priesthood. Jesus offers a better sacrifice because Jesus’ sacrifice is built on better blood.

Everything about Jesus is better. Including the fact that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant.

Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians who were beginning to forsake their new faith in Christ in favor of reverting back to their Jewish religious practices. The author pens his letter to demonstrate why that is not advisable. I’ve written about that in my blog post “Better Than…” as well as another post “A Better Sacrifice”.

In this section of Hebrews, the writer uses Melchizedek as an illustration to make the argument that Jesus is the author of a better covenant.

How exactly does he make his case?

The author first demonstrates that Melchizedek was greater than Abram. He does this by pointing out that Melchizedek blessed Abram and also received a tithe from Abram. He argues that the person who blesses is always greater than the person being blessed and the person who receives a tithe generally has a higher status than the person paying the tithe. Hence, Melchizedek is greater than Abram.

If Melchizedek is greater than Abram, then he’s also greater than Levi, who came from Abram. The writer points out that even though Levi, who is the basis for the Old Testament priesthood, was not yet born, his seed was within Abram when Abram paid the tithe to Melchizedek.

We know also that Melchizedek was a priest of the most high God just as Levi was. But since the Levitical priesthood had not even been implemented yet, Melchizedek’s priesthood must be of a different order. This order is different in one very obvious respect – this priesthood allowed kings to function as priests. This was not allowed in the Levitical priesthood which kept the roles of priests, who were the mediators, separate from the roles of kings, who were the rulers. (See my post, “Whatever Became of Sin?” to see an example of what happens when a king tries to perform priestly functions in the Levitical priesthood system.)

The author then gives another reason for the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood over Levi’s – Melchizedek’s priesthood is eternal while Levi’s was temporary.

The author reasons that alhough Melchizedek was a real person, his genealogy is not mentioned anywhere. We don’t know where he came from and there is no mention of him after these few verses in Genesis 14. It’s as if he never died.

The writer uses this as an analogy of sorts. Melchizedek appears on the scene out of nowhere and since we have no record of his death, it’s as if he lives on forever. Melchizedek, therefore, is a priest forever.

The argument then is that Jesus’ priesthood is more like Melchizedek’s priesthood than it is like Levi’s.  How?

Jesus descends from Judah, not from Levi. Therefore, Jesus is not even eligible to be a priest within the Levitical system.

Also, Jesus is a priest AND a king, just as Melchizedek was.

Finally, Jesus’ priesthood is eternal, just like Melchizedek’s appeared to be. Unlike Levitical priests, who died and had to be replaced by new priests, Jesus lives on forever and therefore is NEVER replaced.

We’ve already established that Melchizedek is greater (better) than Levi and since Jesus’ priesthood resembles Melchizedek’s not Levi’s, it logically follows that Jesus’ priesthood is better than Levi’s.

And because Jesus’ priesthood is better, the covenant which He introduces must also be better. So why would you then go back to the Old Covenant which was clearly inferior?

So there you have it. Melchizedek, who is just a blip on the screen in the Old Testament, becomes a central figure of the New Testament.

In theological terms, we say that Melchizedek is a “type” of Christ, which simply means that his existence and what we know of him figuratively resembles what we know to be true of Jesus. Hence, even though it may seem, on the surface, like Melchizedek is just a hired extra in the background of a major Hollywood movie scene, he turns out to be much more important than that. His mention is made to prefigure the coming of Jesus.

Now you know.

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

What has been your understanding of Melchizedek before reading this blog? Who did you think he was and what importance did you think he had to the overall message of Scripture?

What do you think are some of the reasons the audience of the book of Hebrews may have been forsaking their faith? What are some things that can tend to draw you away from the faith and back into your former lifestyle?

Of the characteristics of Melchizedek that resemble Jesus, which one stands out to you the most and why?

Jesus is the author of a better covenant. The old covenant was based on the Law. How would you explain to another person that the new covenant is better than the old covenant? What are some of the ways that it is better?

 

AI image of Abram paying a tithe to Melchizedek created by Grok