Immersion, Submersion, and Other Ways of Baptizing

[gcdonner]

It seemed prudent to stay out of this conversation, being a "pro-immersionist" on a "Mennonite" site. Having said that, I'm not personally opposed to accepting as a brother or sister someone who recieved baptism in good conscience by another "mode", any more than I would deny the faith of someone simply on the basis that they have been taught to view literal practices taught in Scripture (such as literal footwashing, or gender-specific headcovering/uncovering in 1 Cor 11) as no longer being relevant in their originally delivered forms. I DO personally find the practice of immersion (which some here refer to as "submersion") to be most compelling as the originally intended NT practice, and I would freely encourage it if it is available, but considering these differences of opinions and received teachings among us, are such things worth engaging in for the sake of getting a clearer picture of what the Word calls us to, though? Sure, same as this discussion, and in that vein, I do have a couple questions.

1. I wonder if somebody here can actually speak authoritatively to the question of whether the Jewish mikvah was intended for full immersion (alternatively suggested here as "submersion" since immersion now encompasses partial submersion by some definitions...)? As I understand it from the Jewish individuals I have spoken with and resources I find online, mikvot tend be chest deep and there is an expectation of full immersion (in keeping with the principle of cleansing), making sure every hair is wet, etc... Is this a misunderstanding on my part? Or is the implication (or even expected practice) in that context generally "full immersion?"

2. As for "submersion baptism" not existing until fairly recently, I, too, would be very interested to hear a definition and/source for the idea of "not until fairly recently"... The fact that it has stood out in recent decades/centuries (due to its heavy emphasis by some and the insistence upon other "modes" by others) doesn't really answer the idea of it being a "fairly recent" development.

My personal study into Jewish history and practice seems to indicate that "full" immersion was the expected norm in the mikvot. Not having been a Jew or lived during the first century, I can't speak "authoritatively" in the sense of "been there-done that". However, the Torah and the Talmud both require it for most purification rites other than the washing of hands. The term for immersion as required is Tvilah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism is instructive. You may also find https://www.thetorah.com/article/on-the ... -immersion helpful. This latter reference declares that it has been required for over 2 millennia.

[joey_the_ox]

I once came across this joke about baptism (don't take it too seriously ):

Since Paul says in 1 Corinthians that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea," they were baptized without being immersed, while the Egyptians were immersed without being baptized.

[Outsider]

Also wondering if you would acknowledge an "immersion by pouring" baptism (lots of water all over the person) as being legitimate, or whether the act of dunking in the water or under the surface of the water is what makes it legitimate.

I think you need to do what your conscience tells you to do, and what is harmonious with your fellowship. Paul describes Israel as being baptized thus:

1 Corinthians:
10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under (A)the cloud, all passed through (B)the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same (C)spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same (D)spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies (E)were scattered in the wilderness.

Moreover, Moses baptized the people by sprinkling:

Exodus 24:8
And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.”

On the other hand, it appears that John (the baptist) was a dunker. When Jesus was baptized it appears he was dunked:

Matthew 3:16
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

So, personally, I feel best doing it the way Jesus did. Because we are supposed to emulate him as best we can.

[gcdonner]

Also wondering if you would acknowledge an "immersion by pouring" baptism (lots of water all over the person) as being legitimate, or whether the act of dunking in the water or under the surface of the water is what makes it legitimate.

I think you need to do what your conscience tells you to do, and what is harmonious with your fellowship. Paul describes Israel as being baptized thus:

1 Corinthians:
10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under (A)the cloud, all passed through (B)the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same (C)spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same (D)spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies (E)were scattered in the wilderness.

Moreover, Moses baptized the people by sprinkling:

Exodus 24:8
And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.”

On the other hand, it appears that John (the baptist) was a dunker. When Jesus was baptized it appears he was dunked:

Matthew 3:16
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

So, personally, I feel best doing it the way Jesus did. Because we are supposed to emulate him as best we can.

Moses wasn't baptizing, and he was performing a completely different kind of ritual, using blood, not water. As has been pointed out multiple times here the very word "baptize" is a transliteration, which if it was translated would have been immerse. The KJV and other English translators didn't do anyone any favors and remember they were infant "baptizers".

[Outsider]

Also wondering if you would acknowledge an "immersion by pouring" baptism (lots of water all over the person) as being legitimate, or whether the act of dunking in the water or under the surface of the water is what makes it legitimate.

I think you need to do what your conscience tells you to do, and what is harmonious with your fellowship. Paul describes Israel as being baptized thus:

1 Corinthians:
10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under (A)the cloud, all passed through (B)the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same (C)spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same (D)spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies (E)were scattered in the wilderness.

Moreover, Moses baptized the people by sprinkling:

Exodus 24:8
And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.”

On the other hand, it appears that John (the baptist) was a dunker. When Jesus was baptized it appears he was dunked:

Matthew 3:16
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

So, personally, I feel best doing it the way Jesus did. Because we are supposed to emulate him as best we can.

Moses wasn't baptizing, and he was performing a completely different kind of ritual, using blood, not water. As has been pointed out multiple times here the very word "baptize" is a transliteration, which if it was translated would have been immerse. The KJV and other English translators didn't do anyone any favors and remember they were infant "baptizers".

You may be right, there. That's what makes me feel comfortable in my conscience.

[Neto]

On the other hand, it appears that John (the baptist) was a dunker. When Jesus was baptized it appears he was dunked:

Matthew 3:16
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

So, personally, I feel best doing it the way Jesus did. Because we are supposed to emulate him as best we can.

When I was having Bible studies with a group of people I met through a co-worker (in a secular job), they insisted on using the KJV. They read the corollary text in Mark, who constantly uses the word "immediately". The lady who was my co-worker was adamant that this meant that a miracle had occurred, that Jesus ASCENDED up out of the water, that is, he did not walk up the bank. I use this story to say that the "came up out of the water" means that he walked up out of the water. I don't think that one can assume that this refers to the moment he emerged from under the water (assuming that John baptized by immersion).

But there is another difference between Matthew's wording and that of Mark. Mark's choice of preposition (apo) is generally translated as "came out of", whereas Matthew's choice of preposition (ek) is generally translated as "up from".

As has been pointed out multiple times here the very word "baptize" is a transliteration, which if it was translated would have been immerse.

To be completely accurate, that is, if the word is translated based on its etymological make up, the sum of the parts which make up the word. Translation principles direct us to consider primarily the way a word is used, not slavishly translating by the possibly archaic meaning.

Another word which some insist on translating etymologically is the Greek word ekklesia, which is (roughly) "out of + call", thus being translated by some as "called out ones". But we see the same word used elsewhere in Scripture where the common usage is revealed, such as the (illegal) assembly of rioters in the city of Ephesus. So we then know that the word should actually be translated as "gathering" or "assembly", being the Greek (NT) counterpart of the Hebrew (OT) word commonly translated as "congregation".

(I will repeat that I am NOT saying that this "proves" that John was not baptizing by immersion. I am only saying that one cannot use this etymological makeup to meaning process to determine the meaning of a word as it was commonly used.)

[joey_the_ox]

As has been pointed out multiple times here the very word "baptize" is a transliteration, which if it was translated would have been immerse.

To be completely accurate, that is, if the word is translated based on its etymological make up, the sum of the parts which make up the word. Translation principles direct us to consider primarily the way a word is used, not slavishly translating by the possibly archaic meaning.

This is a key point. Is it best to translate or otherwise assign meaning to a word solely based on a "lexical" approach where you reconstruct (as best you can) the meaning assigned to that word in other contexts (Jewish, pagan, etc.) at the time Scripture was written?

While I don't deny that this can sometimes be useful, I also think that it is important to consider the "in-house" view. In a specific context, a term can easily have a meaning that is different than the broader societal meaning. In this case, the "in-house" view would be the view of the Christian church and tradition. Looking at this tradition, we can discern that while immersion was generally practiced throughout the first few centuries, it was not generally believed that non-immersive baptisms were not valid. In other words, baptism is a Christian rite that is not in one-to-one equivalence with prior Jewish practices, and the meaning that Christian tradition has assigned to that rite does not include immersion as a strict necessity for validity.

If you take the view that immersion is strictly necessary (i.e. Jesus taught this, and taught his apostles this, etc.), then you have to explain why this was not taught by the early church. Did they somehow lose this essential of the faith?

[gcdonner]

On the other hand, it appears that John (the baptist) was a dunker. When Jesus was baptized it appears he was dunked:

Matthew 3:16
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

So, personally, I feel best doing it the way Jesus did. Because we are supposed to emulate him as best we can.

When I was having Bible studies with a group of people I met through a co-worker (in a secular job), they insisted on using the KJV. They read the corollary text in Mark, who constantly uses the word "immediately". The lady who was my co-worker was adamant that this meant that a miracle had occurred, that Jesus ASCENDED up out of the water, that is, he did not walk up the bank. I use this story to say that the "came up out of the water" means that he walked up out of the water. I don't think that one can assume that this refers to the moment he emerged from under the water (assuming that John baptized by immersion).

But there is another difference between Matthew's wording and that of Mark. Mark's choice of preposition (apo) is generally translated as "came out of", whereas Matthew's choice of preposition (ek) is generally translated as "up from".

As has been pointed out multiple times here the very word "baptize" is a transliteration, which if it was translated would have been immerse.

To be completely accurate, that is, if the word is translated based on its etymological make up, the sum of the parts which make up the word. Translation principles direct us to consider primarily the way a word is used, not slavishly translating by the possibly archaic meaning.

Another word which some insist on translating etymologically is the Greek word ekklesia, which is (roughly) "out of + call", thus being translated by some as "called out ones". But we see the same word used elsewhere in Scripture where the common usage is revealed, such as the (illegal) assembly of rioters in the city of Ephesus. So we then know that the word should actually be translated as "gathering" or "assembly", being the Greek (NT) counterpart of the Hebrew (OT) word commonly translated as "congregation".

(I will repeat that I am NOT saying that this "proves" that John was not baptizing by immersion. I am only saying that one cannot use this etymological makeup to meaning process to determine the meaning of a word as it was commonly used.)

The etymology must be audience relevant. What did they understand it to mean? We can't change the meaning 2000 years later to accommodate our modern understanding of things. The word "baptizo" means

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G911

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō; from G911; to dip, sink: — Baptist (3), baptize (9), baptized (51), baptizes (1), baptizing (10), ceremonially washed (1), undergo (1).

Then compare the various meanings of other words used in the NT to indicate washings:

G907
βαπτίζω
baptízō; fut. baptísō, from báptō (G911), to dip. Immerse, submerge for a religious purpose, to overwhelm, saturate, baptize (Joh_1:25).
(I) Washing or ablution was frequently by immersion, indicated by either baptízō or níptō (G3538), to wash. In Mar_7:3, the phrase "wash their hands" is the translation of níptō (G3538), to wash part of the body such as the hands. In Mar_7:4 the verb wash in "except they wash" is baptízomai, to immerse. This indicates that the washing of the hands was done by immersing them in collected water. See Luk_11:38 which refers to washing one's hands before the meal, with the use of baptízomai, to have the hands baptized. In the Sept.: 2Ki_5:13-14 we have loúō (G3068), to bathe and baptízomai. See also Lev_11:25, Lev_11:28, Lev_11:40, where plúnō (G4150), to wash clothes by dipping, and loúō (G3068), to bathe are used. In Num_19:18-19, báphō, to dip, and plúnō, to wash by dipping are used.
(II) To baptize or immerse in or wash with water in token of purification from sin and spiritual pollution (Mat_3:6, Mat_3:11; Mar_1:4-5, Mar_1:8-9; Luk_3:7, Luk_3:12, Luk_3:16, Luk_3:21; Luk_7:30; Joh_1:25, Joh_1:28; Joh_3:22-23, Joh_3:26; Joh_4:1-2; Joh_10:40; Act_2:38, Act_2:41; Act_8:12-13, Act_8:36, Act_8:38; Act_9:18; Act_10:47; Act_16:15, Act_16:33; Act_18:8; Act_22:16; 1Co_1:14, 1Co_1:16-17). In Mar_6:14, "John the baptizing one [ho baptízōn]" (a.t.). In Luke's writings with a dat. of the instrument or material employed, húdati, the dat. of húdōr (G5204), water, means with water (Luk_3:16; Act_1:5; Act_11:16). Elsewhere, however, the prep. en (G1722), in, is used, en húdati, in water (Mat_3:11; Mar_1:8; Joh_1:26, Joh_1:31, Joh_1:33 (cf. "in the Jordan" [a.t. {Mat_3:6}]). In Mar_1:9, eis (G1519), into, "into the Jordan" (a.t.).
(III) The adjuncts mark the object and effect of baptism: especially eis (G1519), into, unto, with the acc., to baptize or to be baptized into anything means into the belief, profession or observance of anything (Mat_3:11, "unto repentance"; Act_2:38, "unto remission of sins" [a.t.]; Act_19:3, "Unto John's baptism," meaning the repentance unto which John baptized or the baptism related to John's preaching; Rom_6:3, "unto death" [a.t.] means that those who are baptized do so in relation to Jesus Christ's bearing their sins through His sacrifice and atonement on the cross; 1Co_12:13, "unto one body" [a.t.] that we may become parts of the body of Christ and parts of each other). With eis followed by the acc. of person, it means to baptize or be baptized into a profession of faith or into anyone, in sincere obedience to him. Also in 1Co_10:2, "unto Moses"; Gal_3:27, "unto Christ" (a.t.); also "into the name of someone"(a.t.) means to be identified with what the name of that one stands for (Mat_28:19; Act_8:16; Act_19:5; 1Co_1:13, 1Co_1:15). The same sense is understood when the prep. epí (G1909), upon, or en (G1722), in, followed by the dat., onómati (G3686), upon the name of, is used (Act_2:38, epí; Act_10:48, en). With hupér (G5228), on behalf of or for (1Co_15:29, those being "baptized for [or on account of] the dead," i.e., on a belief of the resurrection of the dead).
(IV) Metaphorically and in direct allusion to the practice of water baptism (Mat_3:11; Luk_3:16), to baptize in or with the Holy Spirit and in or with fire, the baptism in the Holy Spirit being the spiritual counterpart of the water baptism. This Spirit baptism is referred to in 1Co_12:13 as an act performed by God in joining all true believers to the body of the Lord Jesus. To be baptized in fire (Mat_3:11 [TR]; Luk_3:16) stands in contrast to the baptism in the Spirit. Those who refuse to be joined into the body of Christ through the energy of the Holy Spirit will suffer the consequent punishment (Mat_3:12; Luk_3:17). In regard to the Spirit baptism, see also Mar_1:8; Joh_1:33; Act_1:5; Act_11:16, where the baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs as a specific phrase indicating what happened at Pentecost in joining the Jews who believed to the body of Christ (Acts 2). This is explained by Peter in Act_11:15-16 indicating that the Gentiles of Caesarea were also baptized in the Holy Spirit. A third group was the disciples of John in Act_19:6. This Spirit baptism was characterized by the phenomenon of speaking in languages never learned by those who were baptized in or with the Spirit (see Act_2:4 [language], Act_2:6, Act_2:8 [dialect], Act_2:11 [languages]; Act_10:46 [languages]; Act_19:6 [languages]). Thus the baptism in the Holy Spirit is Christ's attachment of those who genuinely believe as members of His body. In 1Co_12:13 the verb ebaptísthēmen refers to all believers of all times. It is something that God did in forming the spiritual body of Jesus Christ or the body of all believers, the Church. It fulfills the promise of Christ to send into the world in a special way the Holy Spirit or the Paráklētos (G3875), the Paraclete, Comforter, Intercessor, Consoler (Joh_16:7-14).
(V) Metaphorically, the verb baptízō, to baptize, and the noun báptisma, baptism, are used in connection with calamities as in Mat_20:22-23; Mar_10:38-39, meaning to be overwhelmed with sufferings as the life of Jesus Christ was characterized. A similar expression is in Isa_21:4 in the Sept., "lawlessness baptizes me" (a.t.) or "overwhelms me" (a.t.). In 1Co_15:29, "What shall those being baptized for the dead do?" (a.t.); "Why therefore are they baptized on their behalf?" (a.t.) means if the dead do not rise, why expose ourselves to so much danger and suffering in the hope of a resurrection? This is an argument which Paul presents in order to prove the reality of the resurrection (cf. 1Co_15:30-31 where the verbs kinduneúō [G2793], to undergo danger, and apothnḗskō [G599], to die, used instead of baptízomai, to be baptized).
(VI) In contrast to the verb baptízō, to dip, immerse, is the verb rhantízō (G4472), to sprinkle, which must not be taken as equivalent to baptízō. Rhantízō is used in Mar_7:4 in the WH instead of baptísōntai. Baptísōntai, however, of the TR and the UBS texts, is to be preferred in agreement with baptismoús (pl. [G909]) occurring in the same verse referring to the ceremonial washings of utensils. Baptismós, the ceremonial washing, should never be confused with báptisma which is a distinct practice related to the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptismós as mere cleansing of instruments was equated with rhantismós (G4473), sprinkling (found only in Heb_12:24; 1Pe_1:2), because this word was used to indicate the cleansing in symbolism done by the priest of the OT. Such ceremonial cleansing symbolized by sprinkling (Heb_9:19, Heb_9:21; Heb_10:22; Heb_12:24; 1Pe_1:2) had no permanent value nor did it actually cleanse the consciences of individual people. The verb rhantízō, to sprinkle, is found in Heb_9:13 where the contrast between the sprinkling is symbolic of the cleansing of the flesh. However, in Heb_9:14, the blood of Jesus Christ will katharieí (the same as katharísei), cleanse (from the verb katharízō [G2511], purify or cleanse) the conscience of man or his inner being. The high priest never baptized anyone in the way that Christian believers are baptized. He merely sprinkled the blood of animals. Therefore, the sprinkling has nothing to do with baptism but simply with ceremonial cleansing (Heb_9:21). Since, according to Heb_9:22, there can be no remission of sins without the "shedding of blood," Jesus Christ did indeed shed His blood (i.e., lay His life down as a sacrifice for sin). Thus it is not through some magical sprinkling of that blood upon our bodies or souls that we are saved, but when through faith we have our hearts "sprinkled" (the application of the benefits of Christ's death) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed (lelouménoi, the perf. pass. part. of loúō [G3068], to bathe) with clean water (Heb_10:22). The verb loúō, bathe, must be definitely differentiated from the verb níptō (G3538), to wash part of the body, usually feet, hands, or face, which can be used syn. with baptízō, as the verb of baptismós, ceremonial ablution (Luk_11:38), but never equivalent to the NT technical term of baptízō. The two great cleansing ceremonies of the OT, sprinkling and washing, typified the true work of salvation in Jesus Christ. The former perhaps signifying forgiveness (the cleansing of sin's guilt) and the latter probably betokening regeneration (the washing away of sin's defilement). Because believers have received the antitypical reality of these ceremonies in Christ, the writer can say that we have indeed had our consciences sprinkled and our bodies washed.
Deriv.: báptisma (G908), baptism, the result of baptizing; baptismós (G909), the ceremonial washing of articles; baptistḗs (G910), baptist, used of John to qualify him as one baptizing.
Syn.: buthízō (G1036), to sink, but not necessarily to drown; katapontízō (G2670), to plunge down, submerge; embáptō (G1686), to dip.
Ant.: pléō (G4126), to sail upon the water.

The word baptize literally means to immerse...

[gcdonner]

As has been pointed out multiple times here the very word "baptize" is a transliteration, which if it was translated would have been immerse.

To be completely accurate, that is, if the word is translated based on its etymological make up, the sum of the parts which make up the word. Translation principles direct us to consider primarily the way a word is used, not slavishly translating by the possibly archaic meaning.

This is a key point. Is it best to translate or otherwise assign meaning to a word solely based on a "lexical" approach where you reconstruct (as best you can) the meaning assigned to that word in other contexts (Jewish, pagan, etc.) at the time Scripture was written?

While I don't deny that this can sometimes be useful, I also think that it is important to consider the "in-house" view. In a specific context, a term can easily have a meaning that is different than the broader societal meaning. In this case, the "in-house" view would be the view of the Christian church and tradition. Looking at this tradition, we can discern that while immersion was generally practiced throughout the first few centuries, it was not generally believed that non-immersive baptisms were not valid. In other words, baptism is a Christian rite that is not in one-to-one equivalence with prior Jewish practices, and the meaning that Christian tradition has assigned to that rite does not include immersion as a strict necessity for validity.

If you take the view that immersion is strictly necessary (i.e. Jesus taught this, and taught his apostles this, etc.), then you have to explain why this was not taught by the early church. Did they somehow lose this essential of the faith?

The Didache gave exceptions to the norm as shown below. However, these were exceptions and not to be carried forward as replacements for the initial teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. We have NO record of them doing anything other than immersion. Please read the Didache portion and with my help see how it would read if the word baptizo was translated instead of transliterated.

Chapter 7. Concerning [immersion]Baptism. And concerning [immersion]baptism, [immerse]baptize this way: Having first said all these things, [immerse]baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, [immerse]baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the [immersion]baptism let the [immerser]baptizer fast, and the [immersed]baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the [immersed]baptized to fast one or two days before.

It makes perfect sense using the word immerse in place of the transliteration.

For those interested in a deeper study of the roots of Christian immersion from it's historical Jewish roots I recommend the article in the following post.

[gcdonner]

If you are serious about learning, then I suggest you read this article.

This article appeared in a past The Tree of Life Magazine


BY Ron Moseley, Ph. D.
The following article is provided by:
Arkansas Institute of Holy Land Studies
9700 Highway 107 Sherwood, Arkansas 72120
(1-800-617-6205)
or
501-835-1453
or, FAX: 1-501-835-1453
rmoseley@cei.net
or visit our site at: Arkansas Institute of Holy Land Studies
There is no question that the church is debtor to Judaism for its main structure including such items as Messiah, Scripture, canon, liturgy, altar, pulpit, church offices, songs, offerings, the Lord's Supper, as well as baptism itself. Dr. Merrill Tenney, the editor of the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible said, "Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish and pagan forms...." Since early Christianity was a part of the Judaism of Jesus' day, it is without question that baptism in today's church was originally Jewish. Further evidence comes from Scholars like William Lasor and David Daube who tell us of the early church's practice of baptism by self immersion after the custom of the Jews.
History of the Jewish Mikveh
The term mikveh in Hebrew literally means any gathering of waters, but is specifically used in Jewish law for the waters or bath for the ritual immersion. The building of the mikveh was so important in ancient times it was said to take precedence over the construction of a synagogue. Immersion was so important that it occurred before the high Priest conducted the service on the Day of Atonement, before the regular priests participated in the Temple service, before each person entered the Temple complex, before a scribe wrote the name of God, as well as several other occasions.
The Mishnah attributes to Ezra a decree that each male should immerse himself before praying or studying. There were several Jewish groups that observed ritual immersion every day to assure readiness for the coming of the Messiah. The Church Fathers mentioned one of these groups called Hemerobaptists which means "daily bathers" in Greek. Among those used to regular immersion were the Essenes and others that the Talmud calls tovelei shaharit or "dawn bathers."
On the third day of creation we see the source of the word mikveh for the first time in Genesis 1:10 when the Lord says, "...to the gathering (mikveh) of waters, He called seas." Because of this reference in Genesis the ocean is still a legitimate mikveh.
The Mikvaot Around The Temple
The New Testament tells us that many of the early church's daily activities were centered around the Temple. Historically, we know that there were many ritual immersion baths (mikvaot) on the Temple Mount including one in the Chamber of Lepers situated in the northwest corner of the Court of Women (Mid. 2:5). Josephus tells us that even during the years of war (66-73 A.D.) the laws of ritual immersion were strictly adhered to (Jos. Wars, 4:205). The Temple itself contained immersion baths in various places for the priests to use, even in the vaults beneath the court (Commentary to Tam. 26b; Tam. 1:1). The High Priest had special immersion pools in the Temple, two of which are mentioned in the Mishnah. We are told one of these was in the Water Gate in the south of the court and another was on the roof of the Parva Chamber (Mid. 1:4; Mid. 5:3). There was an additional place for immersion on the Mount of Olives which was connected with the burning of the red heifer (Par. 3:7). A special ramp led to the mikveh on the Mount of Olives from the Temple Mount, which was built as an arched way over another arched way to avoid uncleanness from the graves in the valley below. Recent archaeological excavations have found 48 different mikvaot near the Monumental Staircase leading into the Temple Complex.
Three Basic Areas
According to Jewish law there are three basic areas where immersion in the mikveh is required.
1. Immersion is required for both men and women when converting to Judaism. There were three prerequisites for a proselyte coming into Judaism: Circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). 2. Immersion is required after a woman has her monthly period (Lev. 15:28). 3. Immersion is required for pots and eating utensils manufactured by a non-Jew (Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion p-263).
Besides these, there are other times when it is customary to be immersed in the mikveh such as the occasion before Yom Kippur as a sign of purity and repentance and before the Sabbath in order to sensitize oneself to the holiness of the day.
The Six Descending Orders of Ritual Immersion
There are six descending orders of ritual baths in the Mishnah (Oral Laws of how to accomplish the written Law) and the highest order is that of a spring or flowing river. We see Jesus understanding and fulfilling this order in Matthew 3:16 as He comes to be baptized in the Jordan River "fulfilling all righteousness." This highest order was called Living Water and illustrated the forgiving of sins, therefore, we hear Jesus using this term concerning Himself (John 4:10-11).
The Water Restrictions
There were also six basic restrictions on the water used in the mikveh including such rules as:
(1) the mikveh can not contain other liquid besides water. (2) The water has to be either built into the ground or be an integral part of a building attached to the ground. (3) The mikveh can not be flowing except for a natural spring, river or ocean. (4) The water can not be manually drawn. (5) The water can not be channeled to the mikveh by anything unclean. (6) The mikveh must contain at least 40 sa'ah or approximately 200 gallons of water.
The term sa'ah is an ancient Biblical measurement equivalent to approximately five gallons. All six requirements come from the original Hebrew words found in Leviticus 11:36. Rabbi Yitzchok ben Sheshes said the amount of 40 sa'ah was derived from the idea that the largest normal human body has a volume of 20 sa'ah, therefore the amount of water needed to "nullify" this body is double this amount or 40 sa'ah.
Why Be Immersed?
To the ancient Jew, the mikveh was a process of spiritual purification and cleansing, especially in relation to the various types of Turmah or ritual defilement when the Temple was in use. Although God has not revealed all the meaning of the mikveh, it is obvious because of the amount of space given to it in Scripture, and the effort of Jesus to fulfill it, the command is of utmost importance. All commands of the Lord fall into three categories:
1. The moral or ethical laws that are necessary for man to live in harmony are known as Mishpatim and are literally translated judgments. 2. The rituals and festivals which reawaken us to important religious truths such as Sabbath, holidays, the Tefillin and the Mezuzah that remind us of God's presence are known as Edos and are literally translated witnesses. 3. The third group often has no explicit reason given for their existence except for Israel's identification as God's chosen people to the other nations (Deuteronomy 4:6). This group of laws are known as Chukim and are literally translated as decrees. Among the decrees of this group are the dietary laws as well as ritual immersion.
How Immersion Was Done
Jewish baptism has never been taken lightly, but in ancient times immersion was to be performed in the presence of witnesses (Yebam. 47b). The person being baptized made special preparations by cutting his nails, undressed completely and made a fresh profession of his faith before the designated "fathers of the baptism" (Kethub. 11a; Erub 15a). This is possibly where churches, sometime later, got the term Godfathers. The individual stood straight up with the feet spread and the hands held out in front. The candidate would totally immerse themselves by squatting in the water with a witness or baptizer doing the officiating. Note the New Testament points out the fact that Jesus came up straightway out of the water (Matthew 3:16).
The earliest drawing of Christian baptism was found on the wall of a Roman catacomb in the second century showing John standing on the bank of the Jordan helping Jesus back to shore after self immersion.
Ancient sages teach that the word mikveh has the same letters as Ko(v)Meh, the Hebrew word for "rising" or "standing tall," therefore we see the idea of being baptized "straightway."
Although it is the Jewish belief that repentance is necessary, purification from defilement is done primarily through water, while other effects of sins are covered by blood (Romans 4:7; note the "almost all things" in Hebrews 9:22). The concept of immersion in rabbinic literature is referred to as a new birth (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b; Mass. Ger. c.ii). Note six other important aspects of ancient Jewish immersion:
1.Immersion was accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides Hilkh. Milah iii.4; Hilkh. Iss, Biah Xiv .6). A convert would reaffirm his acceptance of the Torah by declaring, "I will do and I will hear" which was a phrase from the oath that was originally taken by the priests not to forsake the Torah (Deuteronomy 29:9- 14). This ritual demonstrates the willingness of the convert to forsake his Gentile background and assume his Jewish identity by taking on the status of one who keeps the commandments.
According to a number of Jewish sages, mayim, which is the Hebrew word for water, shares the same root as the word "mah", meaning "what." This teaching points out that when a person immerses in water, he is nullifying the fleshly ego and is asking, "what am I?" in the same manner that Moses and Aaron did in Exodus 16:7 when they said to the Lord, "we are what?"
2. The Jewish baptism candidates were often immersed three times. The idea of total immersion comes from the Scripture in Leviticus 15:16 when it says, "he shall wash all his flesh in the water." One reason it was customary to immerse three times was because the word mikveh occurs three times in the Torah.
3. According to Jewish law the immersion had to have a required witness. Dr. William LaSor in the Biblical Archaeology Review says apparently the Biblical phrase "in the name of" was an indication of the required witness. In several New Testament references such as I Corinthians 1:13, 15; Matthew 21:25; Acts 1:22; and Acts 19:3 we see early baptism mentioned in conjunction with the name of individuals such as John and Paul. Further information on this can be found in Jewish literature concerning proselyte baptism where it indicates his baptism required attestation by witnesses in whose name he was immersed.
4. The immersion candidate was not touched by the baptizer in Jesus' day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," Judaism stresses that the entire body must come in contact with the water of the mikveh. To insure the immersion was valid, no clothing or individuals could touch the candidate. Any such intervention that prevented the water from reaching a part of the body was known as Chatzitzah and rendered the immersion invalid. Although the mikveh was more spiritual than physical, often the bath had two sets of steps, one entering and another leaving so as not to defile what had been purified.
5. The baptismal water (Mikveh) in rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. As the convert came out of these waters his status was changed and he was referred to as "a little child just born" or "a child of one day" (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b). We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as "born anew," "new creation," and "born from above." According to Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum rabbinic literature uses the term "born again" to refer to at least six different occurrences. Note each of these life changing experiences: (a) When a Gentile converts to Judaism. (b) When an individual is crowned king. (c) At age 13 when a Jewish boy chooses to embrace God's covenant and be numbered with the believers. (d) When an individual gets married. (e) When an individual becomes a rabbi. (f) When an individual becomes the head of a rabbinical school.
6. Jewish law requires at least three witnesses made up of qualified leaders to be present for certain immersions (Yebam 47b). Ordinarily a member of the Sanhedrin performed the act of observing the proselytes immersion, but in case of necessity others could do it. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged.
Repentance Without Baptism
One of the most important teachings in Judaism is that of repentance. According to both Scripture and rabbinic literature, no matter how great the sin, if a person repents and forsakes the sin before God he can be forgiven. As we see in the case of John, Jesus, and all New Testament writers, repentance was always involved. The Jerusalem Talmud states, "nothing can stand before repentance" (Yebamos 47b). According to Dr. David Flusser, the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the New Testament teach that water can purify the body only if the soul has first been purified through repentance and righteousness.
Water and Blood Both Illustrate God's Cleansing In Judaism
Both water and blood are used constantly in the Torah and the New Testament as the two main agents to illustrate God's cleansing. The Jews believe that uncleanness is not physical, but rather a spiritual condition as related in Leviticus 11:44 where it states by wrong actions one can make the "soul unclean." Therefore, the purification through ritual immersion, as commanded in Scripture is basically involved with the soul, rather than the body. Note how both water and blood are cited in Scripture: (1) Blood is used in cleansing in relation to the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12). (2) Blood is used in cleansing in relation to the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). (3) Blood is used in cleansing in relation to the Feast Offerings (Leviticus 23). (4) Blood is used in cleansing in relation to the five Levitical Offerings (Leviticus 1-7). (5) Blood is used in cleansing in relation to the atonement for the soul (Leviticus 17:11-14).
(1) Water is used in cleansing in relation to the separation and the ashes of the Red Heifer (Numbers 19). (2) Water is used in cleansing in relation to the consecration to priestly ministry (Leviticus 8:6). (3) Water is used in cleansing in relation to the cleansing of the leper (Leviticus 14:1-8). (4) Water is used in cleansing in relation to the different washings of the Law (Hebrews 9:10). (5) Water is used in relation to the remission of sins (Acts 2:38); Titus 3:5; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3; I Peter 3:20-21; Ephesians 5:26; John 19:34; I John 5:6; Hebrews 9:19- 23).
Summary
A detailed study of the Jewish background of Christian baptism shows that it is vitally important, but God doesn't always tell us why. Obviously, the convert could repent and have a part in the life to come without it, but the emphasis seems to be pointing to the taking on of a new "believer" status illustrated as a "new birth" by immersion. In any covenant with the Lord the three items of God's Word, the blood, and a token are always present (Genesis 17:11). Jesus was always cautious to have three witnesses in everything He did (I John 5:7-8). In the Old Testament circumcision was considered the token of God's covenant, and in the New Testament we see the same wording concerning baptism as it is referred to as "circumcision made without hands" (Colossians 2:11-12). Whatever religious denomination, all believers should agree that immersion has its roots in the Jewish mikveh of Jesus' day, and it is of utmost importance for each of us to fulfill this righteous deed.