Baptismal mode in pre-Christian Era Judaism and Early Christian Era

[Grillsy]

I am trying to find sources pointing to why we sprinkling/pour when baptizing. I am looking for sources from the early church but also evidence from pre-Christian era Judaism. Can anyone help?

 

[au5t1n]

Here's a good resource: Baptism Skip to sections 6-11.

 

[Kevin]

I am trying to find sources pointing to why we sprinkling/pour when baptizing. I am looking for sources from the early church but also evidence from pre-Christian era Judaism. Can anyone help?

Have you tried reading the OT?

 

[Hamalas]

This might be helpful: Sprinkling is Scriptural

 

[Grillsy]

I am trying to find sources pointing to why we sprinkling/pour when baptizing. I am looking for sources from the early church but also evidence from pre-Christian era Judaism. Can anyone help?

Have you tried reading the OT?

Yep, I have.

This question really arises out of a discussion with a professor who says that there was no sprinkling in the OT except the ashes of the red heifer. He sees NT immersion baptism as being an entirely new construct of the the NT era.
Also he maintains that all Jewish purifications dealing with water at that time were by immersion. So you see my reason for asking these things.

 

[au5t1n]

If I'm not mistaken, quite a few things that were to be ceremonially cleansed with water (mentioned in Leviticus, for example) were too big to be immersed. Didn't they sprinkle houses, couches, etc. under certain circumstances?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This question really arises out of a discussion with a professor who says that there was no sprinkling in the OT except the ashes of the red heifer. He sees NT immersion baptism as being an entirely new construct of the the NT era.
Also he maintains that all Jewish purifications dealing with water at that time were by immersion. So you see my reason for asking these things.

Point 1: The professor is serverely limiting his definition of "sprinkling," presumably to watery sprinklings, which is in absolutely no sense justifiable in this discussion of ceremonial cleansings. Sprinklings are replete in the OT ceremonial rites, e.g.
Lev.3:13, "...and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle its blood all around on the altar."

Lev.16:14, "...with his finger he will sprinkle the blood seven times in front of the lid."

Lev.2:1, "...sprinkle olive oil and incense on the flour,"

Num.8:7, "...for their cleansing: sprinkle purifying (E)water on them,"

And, of course, the significant Num.19 passage--concerning the special water (mixed with ashes) for the cleansing of the ceremonialy unclean--cannot for some arbitrary reason simply be shunted aside as though it were not in fact central to the discussion.

The highly significant Ex.24 passage on the formal covenant-making for the nation, referenced in Heb.9 (where such is referred to as baptismal cleansing), is demonstrable proof that these sprinklings are generally, collectively understood under the same ceremonial-tincture aspects.

We can go on with reference to Ezek.36:25 and Is.52:15 (cf. proximally to Is.53 and cf.Acts 8:30-36). But moving on.


Point 2: Baptism is not new, see Heb.9:10; Mk.7:4; 1Cor.10:2; 1Pet.3:20-21. I'm sure his explanation will be that the latter are simply NT writers imposing their foreign categories on OT subjects, and are not intrinsic to the OT. But this is just to separate the NT writers from their own understanding of their solidarity with the OT, a thought I believe would have been quite strange to them. Are they self-consciously reinterpreting the OT, or is this the way the OT was and is supposed to be understood, that is Christocentrically? The latter sounds most proper to a covenant-theologian.

I think the professor's argument begins with the belief that baptism is new to the NT, and is so in almost every imaginable way. Which is consistent with his discontinuous theology, but wrong in my opinion. He cannot let the OT inform him on the subject, because that would lead him away from his preestablished categories.

This leads into point 3, but to preface that, notice how although "immersion baptism" is an "entirely new construct of the NT era," he nevertheless somewhat schizophrenically insists that Jewish purifications (of Jesus' day?) were all immersions. Granting the point for argument's sake only, how do unauthorized traditional practices, falsely raised to the same level as Mosaic regulations, give rise organically to prescribed Christian practice? It could scarcely be any more jarring if Christian practice were "taken over" from some pagan-worship traditions.


Point 3: Were all the Jewish purifications of "that time" (is this Jesus' day, or Judges and Kings, or Moses?) in fact "immersions"? This is hardly an acceptable contention, although I am familiar with the claims based on archaeology and various extrabiblical texts. I think they are manifestly overblown and forced; not to mention the question of whether any traditional and Pharisaic or Essene practice (certainly none which would have been universal among the Jews in any case) can be said to have been normed for Jewish life in Jesus' day or any other.

If we go back to the wilderness wanderings (where water is scarce), it is frankly incredible--utterly and past all controversy--that anyone could contend that the ablutions commanded were immersions, or even immersible. It is simply preposterous to assert otherwise, and for anyone to do so (not saying anyone in particular is so doing) only shows how desperate one has to be to FIND immersion in the desert, or anywhere else in the OT.

Any containers for waters used in ceremonial cleansings had to be both prescribed, and utterly dedicated, AND they had to be carried about with the nation by the Levites. The laver (hardly a man-sized bath) was the LARGEST such container. So, I contend, ANY such "baptisms" as Hebrews mentions if done in accord with OT regulations, MUST have been able to be performed with Israel on the march in the deserts of Arabia.

So, then in the days of Judges or Kings, or as late as the time of Christ, all such cleansings, if done in accord with the Law of Moses, cannot have had any legitimate additions of mandatory whole-body immersion, etc. Where there were such "elaborations," they can best be described as increases to the minimum requirements (assuming they were simply different ways of doing exactly what was required); and at worst they were additions to the Law, and expressely forbidden.

 

[Grillsy]

I think the professor's argument begins with the belief that baptism is new to the NT, and is so in almost every imaginable way. Which is consistent with his discontinuous theology, but wrong in my opinion. He cannot let the OT inform him on the subject, because that would lead him away from his preestablished categories.

I believe you have the hit the nail on the head. I should also mentioned he is affiliated with the Restoration movement (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ/Campbellite), so this should come as no surprise.

He also keeps appealing to certain archeological finds but never really specifies, only going so far as to say that Jews always immersed themselves before entering the synagogue or temple.

You mentioned archaeology and it being overblown can you please elaborate?

 

[Peairtach]

Wouldn't the Jewish ablutions of unclean persons involve them standing or sitting in the ceremonial bath and pouring or splashing or sprinkling the water over themselves.

Does one normally bathe by immersion, which involves getting water in the eyes, nose, ears - and maybe mouth, if you don't hold your breath?

People don't usually bathe by immersion unless they enjoy holding their breath under water and getting water in their cephalic orifices.

Here's some early pictures, from here:-

Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Baptism_-_Marcellinus_and_Peter.jpg

 

[Peairtach]

Here's another, this time of Jesus' baptism. No sign of immersion.

Didn't work. Check the website, or do a google for pictures of early (Christian) baptisms.

With the example of e.g. Paul's baptism, where it says that he rose and was baptised,

sitting or standing in a bath/water wasn't always deemed necessary.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think the professor's argument begins with the belief that baptism is new to the NT, and is so in almost every imaginable way. Which is consistent with his discontinuous theology, but wrong in my opinion. He cannot let the OT inform him on the subject, because that would lead him away from his preestablished categories.

I believe you have the hit the nail on the head. I should also mentioned he is affiliated with the Restoration movement (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ/Campbellite), so this should come as no surprise.

He also keeps appealing to certain archeological finds but never really specifies, only going so far as to say that Jews always immersed themselves before entering the synagogue or temple.

You mentioned archaeology and it being overblown can you please elaborate?

Some building foundations (an entire structure dating from 2000 yrs ago would needs be preserved in the manner of Pompei or the like) have been found that contain basins which could allow for a full body submerse. And there are texts that indicate that some converts to Judaism (or to specific sects) were wholly immersed in a ritual bath.

But other than in some wealthy homes, where would such facility be widely available? Certainly the Jews were inimical to public baths, seeing them as more Greek than Jewish, and frowning on anything remotely close to nudity.

Jesus condemns the Pharisaic traditions/additions to the Law, so it hardly sems possible that he could have commended as Christian practice a carry-over from rabbinic tradition.

 

[Grillsy]

Is there a particular reason that the Reformers like Luther and Calvin believed Baptism was originally by immersion? Does it just have to do with Greek definitions?

 

[Peairtach]

I am trying to find sources pointing to why we sprinkling/pour when baptizing. I am looking for sources from the early church but also evidence from pre-Christian era Judaism. Can anyone help?

Have you tried reading the OT?

Yep, I have.

This question really arises out of a discussion with a professor who says that there was no sprinkling in the OT except the ashes of the red heifer. He sees NT immersion baptism as being an entirely new construct of the the NT era.
Also he maintains that all Jewish purifications dealing with water at that time were by immersion. So you see my reason for asking these things.

Well he's contradicting himself then. How can immmersion be an entirely new construct if all OT cleansing of unclean persons was by immersion?

The language referring to John's baptism in the Gospels, that it was a "baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins" is distinguishing John's baptism by words rather than mode from Jewish baptism of unclean persons and Jewish proselyte baptism.

I think early immersion by Christians probably developed from a superstition by some scrupulous types (Jews or Christians) that if the whole body wasn't touched by water the baptism maybe wasn't properly done. People take things to extremes, especially if some believed that water baptism was necessary to salvation.

That and a misinterpretation of Romans 6:4.

It goes against the symbolism of Noah and the Flood, Moses and the Red Sea, the Spirit being poured out from above, language of hearts being sprinkled and language of washing.

We are never said to be immersed in Christ's blood or in the Spirit. The only people to be immersed in water the OT were the unbelievers in the Flood, and Pharaoh and his soldiers.

We don't read of an immersion at Pentecost, and as far as I'm aware, even baptists of various shades don't use the language of immersion in connection with Christ's blood or the Holy Spirit (?)

-----Added 12/5/2009 at 02:30:04 EST-----

Is there a particular reason that the Reformers like Luther and Calvin believed Baptism was originally by immersion? Does it just have to do with Greek definitions?

Did they believe this? Or did they believe that the baptisee sat or stood in the water, while it was applied by the baptiser by pouring or sprinkling.

Remember sitting or standing in the water and having it poured, sprinkled or splashed over one is principially different from immersion and would not be accepted by modern baptists, while it would be accepted by modern paedobaptists.

The term katabaptists or catabaptists, coined by Zwingli, sounds even more unpleasant than that of anabaptists, coined by Luther.

It's good we're on better relations with our baptist brethren now.

 

[Grillsy]

You may be on to something. But I have seen quotes where they refer to "immersion" as being the mode. Perhaps to them that referred to the baptisee standing in water then having it poured over their head.

 

[timmopussycat]

I think the professor's argument begins with the belief that baptism is new to the NT, and is so in almost every imaginable way. Which is consistent with his discontinuous theology, but wrong in my opinion. He cannot let the OT inform him on the subject, because that would lead him away from his preestablished categories.

I believe you have the hit the nail on the head. I should also mentioned he is affiliated with the Restoration movement (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ/Campbellite), so this should come as no surprise.

He also keeps appealing to certain archeological finds but never really specifies, only going so far as to say that Jews always immersed themselves before entering the synagogue or temple.

You mentioned archaeology and it being overblown can you please elaborate?

Some building foundations (an entire structure dating from 2000 yrs ago would needs be preserved in the manner of Pompei or the like) have been found that contain basins which could allow for a full body submerse. And there are texts that indicate that some converts to Judaism (or to specific sects) were wholly immersed in a ritual bath.

At least one such structure has been found, namely the Jewish synogogue at Gamla (cf ESV study bible pp. 1956, 57). The ritual bath in that synogogue is known to have contained "just enough water for the complete immersion of people and items needing purification, such as jars and utensils used in worship."

 

[Peairtach]

Info on OT and Judaistic ceremonial washings which may or may not be relevant:-

Mikveh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conversion to Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niddah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Of course we have to keep in mind possible Judaistic additions to, and subtractions from, what is taught in Scripture.

Look how thoroughly and superstitiously (?) with some of these washings, the Jews make sure that every part of the body is cleansed.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Read the Didache. Mode was a very secondary issue.

 

[Tim]

[...]The only people to be immersed in water the OT were the unbelievers in the Flood, and Pharaoh and his soldiers.

Well said. Immersion meant perishing.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Grissly,
Re. Luther & Calvin's comments on the word: Remember that they were not at all impressed or moved by claims related to the "root" meaning of baptizo.

If I was pressed, (and I really don't think that this is any sort of question that may legitimately be reduced to a dictionary-choice-of-meaning) I would say that the root meaning of "baptizo" has the primary sense of "whelm". If you truly get the gist of that English word, the notion of "immersion" is frankly a secondary characteristic. The words are not perfectly synonymous.

There is at least one other Greek word I know of that is a more precise parallel to "immerse" than is "baptizo" (baptizo is most closely related to "bapto", simply meaning "to dip" or "to dye").

That said, there is plenty that the idea of "whelming" can teach us about baptism, especially as the NT writers Peter and Paul discuss OT baptisms. Each of them refers to a signal act of God's Judgment as a "baptism," Noah's Flood and the Red Sea Crossing.

Everyone involved in those events was "baptized," that is, they ALL went through a "judgmental" occasion. Those who were "whelmed" in the waters all DIED. Those who were "sprinkled" with the waters-of-judgment, who were barely "touched" by them, who were "washed" by them (even, could we say, carressed by them?) were SPARED.

Jesus' called the coming Calvary a "baptism" he must undergo. He was "whelmed" that we might need only be "touched". He is the "ark" that saves us, according to Peter.