Immersion, Submersion, and Other Ways of Baptizing

[Heirbyadoption]

...

George, you have no idea how much good it does my growing MN-cyncism to see that at least a few things/people have not changed since the days of MD.

[Josh]

The best scholars tell me that the likely mode of John's baptism (and thus Jesus' disciples) was of someone standing in water, perhaps waist deep or a bit higher, and then John the Baptist pouring water overtop of the person until they were entirely wet. This was an acceptable form of miqveh; indeed, more institutional forms of miqveh required certain elements such as:



The water was expected to both (a) be at least partially rainwater (which could come from a stream or river, given the riparian topology of Israel) and (b) to flow over the ground first. (The modern baptismal fount you might find in a Church of Christ would deviate from this.) Miqva'ot in the temple, which would have seemed like brass or gold bathtubs to us, would be emptied and refilled with a bit of rainwater that had at some point been on the ground in order to meet this strict requirements.

I highly doubt that the 5,000 who were baptised went through a thorough ritual of miqveh; likewise the strict requirements then were not some Church of Christ-eque standard of "full immersion", but rather other things (which we can see in the didache) such as the water being from a fresh stream, involving rainwater, and so forth. It would seem to me that part of the 5,000 coming to follow Christ and be born again and baptised is a departure from these very legalistic standards.

Furthermore, if one wants to make legalistic miqvah-like requirements, then one should be focusing on the things already spelled out very clearly in Jewish tradition by the 1st century, of which full underwater immersion was not the most key requirement.

[Josh]

A convert to Judaism undergoes a ritual similar to Christian baptism, and certainly would have done so in the 1st century, although unlike Christian baptism, this ritual is repeated many times after conversion.

In order to convert, the conversion candidate must have a circumcision (if male) and immerse in the mikveh before a kosher beth din, comprising three Jewish males who are shomer Shabbat. There is also a requirement to accept the commandments (although not necessarily a commitment to keep the mitzvot), although without this step there are many authorities who will accept the conversion as valid. In the past it is likely that conversions happened like this, and were decentralized, and universally accepted once performed.

What constitutes "fully immersed"?

There is supposed to be no barrier between the person immersing and the water. The person should be wearing no clothes, jewelry, makeup, nail polish, fake nails, or grooming products on the hair or skin. For more observant Jewish women, an attendant will assure these requirements are met. Showering or bathing and carefully checking the whole body is, therefore, part of the religious requirements before entering the water of a mikveh for a woman.

Indeed, we know that early Christians also baptised fully naked, and tended to do so during the night to protect women's modesty. If one wants to decide that full immersion is important, one should look at, historically, what full immersion meant, which includes being stark naked, and also includes the detail that is very important for every hair to be wet. Thus things like hair must be unbraided and combed first.

[gcdonner]

...

George, you have no idea how much good it does my growing MN-cyncism to see that at least a few things/people have not changed since the days of MD.

I don't live in MN anymore, now I live in TN...

[gcdonner]

The best scholars tell me that the likely mode of John's baptism (and thus Jesus' disciples) was of someone standing in water, perhaps waist deep or a bit higher, and then John the Baptist pouring water overtop of the person until they were entirely wet. This was an acceptable form of miqveh; indeed, more institutional forms of miqveh required certain elements such as:



The water was expected to both (a) be at least partially rainwater (which could come from a stream or river, given the riparian topology of Israel) and (b) to flow over the ground first. (The modern baptismal fount you might find in a Church of Christ would deviate from this.) Miqva'ot in the temple, which would have seemed like brass or gold bathtubs to us, would be emptied and refilled with a bit of rainwater that had at some point been on the ground in order to meet this strict requirements.

I highly doubt that the 5,000 who were baptised went through a thorough ritual of miqveh; likewise the strict requirements then were not some Church of Christ-eque standard of "full immersion", but rather other things (which we can see in the didache) such as the water being from a fresh stream, involving rainwater, and so forth. It would seem to me that part of the 5,000 coming to follow Christ and be born again and baptised is a departure from these very legalistic standards.

Furthermore, if one wants to make legalistic miqvah-like requirements, then one should be focusing on the things already spelled out very clearly in Jewish tradition by the 1st century, of which full underwater immersion was not the most key requirement.

Again, it would be helpful in responding to my posts if you actually read them. I gave a full explanation how 3000 (not 5K) on the day of Pentecost could easily have been immersed. Think 120 witnesses in the upper room only needed to witness 25 individuals each to accomplish the task. The above graph isn't helpful either since it is a modern rendition of a particular sect of Jews, and not a historical record, which is what we try to follow.
Carry on anyway.

[Josh]

Again, it would be helpful in responding to my posts if you actually read them. I gave a full explanation how 3000 (not 5K) on the day of Pentecost could easily have been immersed. Think 120 witnesses in the upper room only needed to witness 25 individuals each to accomplish the task. The above graph isn't helpful either since it is a modern rendition of a particular sect of Jews, and not a historical record, which is what we try to follow.
Carry on anyway.

Yet the 1st century ritual of being immersed (as I stated earlier) also includes such facets as being stark naked, which was just as important back then as being fully immersed.

An obvious question is why you think full immersion now doesn't mean what it did in the 1st century. They were very very focused on certain aspects of it. I think the NT teaches a move away from a focus on such details of such rituals. We can see in the Didache remnants of those kind of ideas.

[Heirbyadoption]

Yet the 1st century ritual of being immersed (as I stated earlier) also includes such facets as being stark naked, which was just as important back then as being fully immersed.

An obvious question is why you think full immersion now doesn't mean what it did in the 1st century. They were very very focused on certain aspects of it. I think the NT teaches a move away from a focus on such details of such rituals. We can see in the Didache remnants of those kind of ideas.

I seem to recall you may have answered this in another thread betimes, sorry, but if you would be gracious enough to refresh me, the Holdemans baptize by pouring, correct? Would they ever immerse someone who requested said "mode"?

[Josh]

Yet the 1st century ritual of being immersed (as I stated earlier) also includes such facets as being stark naked, which was just as important back then as being fully immersed.

An obvious question is why you think full immersion now doesn't mean what it did in the 1st century. They were very very focused on certain aspects of it. I think the NT teaches a move away from a focus on such details of such rituals. We can see in the Didache remnants of those kind of ideas.

I seem to recall you may have answered this in another thread betimes, sorry, but if you would be gracious enough to refresh me, the Holdemans baptize by pouring, correct? Would they ever immerse someone who requested said "mode"?

Yes, pouring, and the words spoken during the ritual are identical to the ones other Mennonite churches use.

I am not aware of anyone requesting a different mode and doing so would be surprising. It would be analogous to someone attempting to join a Brethren church who asked to be affused.

[gcdonner]

Again, it would be helpful in responding to my posts if you actually read them. I gave a full explanation how 3000 (not 5K) on the day of Pentecost could easily have been immersed. Think 120 witnesses in the upper room only needed to witness 25 individuals each to accomplish the task. The above graph isn't helpful either since it is a modern rendition of a particular sect of Jews, and not a historical record, which is what we try to follow.
Carry on anyway.

Yet the 1st century ritual of being immersed (as I stated earlier) also includes such facets as being stark naked, which was just as important back then as being fully immersed.

An obvious question is why you think full immersion now doesn't mean what it did in the 1st century. They were very very focused on certain aspects of it. I think the NT teaches a move away from a focus on such details of such rituals. We can see in the Didache remnants of those kind of ideas.

I don't believe that naked immersion was the practice in the first century. The first references to "naked" immersion don't come until the 4th century.

A comparison of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that the catechumens entered the font in a state of absolute nakedness. See particularly St Cyril, Hieros. Myst. Catech. ii ad init; St Ambrose, Serm. xx (Opp. t.v. p. 153, Paris 1642)and Enarrat. in Ps lxi 32 (BB t.i.p. 966); St Chrysostom, ad Illum. Cat. i (Migne, tom. ii. p 268). Possibly a cincture of some kind (quo pudori consuleretur) may have been worn, as indicated in some medieval works of art.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... ised-naked

The Didache does not mention naked immersion, nor do any of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. From what I have researched, it was a later addition as a means of illustrating a point. Consider the tome by Cyril:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)

Therefore, I shall necessarily lay before you the sequel of yesterday's Lecture, that ye may learn of what those things, which were done by you in the inner chamber(2), were symbolical. 2. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds(3). Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree(4). For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, ye may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxeth corrupt in the lusts of deceit(5). May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on(6)? O wondrous thing! ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed(7); for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed. 3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil(8), from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree(9), and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... ised-naked

Let's deal in facts. The facts do not point to naked immersion in the first, or second or third centuries. There were lots of things added in the 4th century, as the church became more political and liberalized.

[Josh]

1st century Judaism conducted ritual purification stark naked. That’s what I said.

There is no reason to believe John’s baptism or early baptisms in Acts would have deviated from how ritual purification was already done, which every observant Jew would have done many times prior to meeting John or Jesus.