• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The gospel according to Jim

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well, the word baptism means to dip under water, so baptism for the purpose of cleansing only applied to cups and dishes etc. being washed by being fully immersed in water, this did not apply to humans in that sense. The hand washing was done up to the elbow, not fully immersing the body.

According to Mark 7:3-4....For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands up to the elbow, clinging to the tradition of the men of former times, 4 and when they come from the market, they do not eat unless they wash themselves. There are many other traditions that they have received and cling to, such as baptisms of cups, pitchers, and copper vessels.

When the Pharisees complained to Jesus that his disciples did “not wash their hands when about to eat a meal,” Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Not because he favored eating with dirty hands, but because the washing was part of their oral tradition. It was a religious ritual. Hands had to be washed before and after the meal and sometimes during the meal, with special water, and in different ways with different foods. Knowing all the intricate nonsense the Pharisees in those days commanded concerning the washing of hands immediately gives understanding of why Jesus rebuked them. It shows a religious ritual was involved, that it was a part of the oral tradition of the Jews that Jesus said made void the Word of God, and it eliminates any erroneous thought that Jesus favored eating food with dirty hands. (Matthew 15:1-6)
I’m not talking about hand washing or dish washing. Judaica includes baptism for ritual purification.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Sounds like you could use a course in cultural anthropology of the Bible...
I don’t currently have access to the textbooks in question, from the courses I took in Hebrew Bible.

I have examined many sources on this topic, including Jewish sources, and found some interesting details.....please consider in summary this article from our WT Library...

"Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their insistence on ritual cleansing. They evidently practiced “various baptisms,” including those for “cups and pitchers and copper vessels.” Jesus said that the Pharisees overstepped God’s commandments to impose their own traditions. (Hebrews 9:10; Mark 7:1-9; Leviticus 11:32, 33; Luke 11:38-42)
No part of the Mosaic Law required complete bodily immersion.

The Jews performed cleansing rites upon themselves. The baptism John performed, though, was not a kind of ritual bathing familiar to the Jews. That John came to be known as the Baptizer indicates that the immersion he performed was different. Jewish religious leaders even sent a delegation to him to inquire: “Why . . . do you baptize?”—John 1:25.

The cleansing required by the Mosaic Law (mikveh) had to be repeated as often as a worshipper became unclean. This was not true of the baptism John performed nor of that later practiced by Christians. John’s baptism indicated repentance and a rejection of a former life course. Christian baptism symbolized the fact that a person had dedicated himself to God. The Christian did so once, not over and over again.

The ritual bathing performed in the homes of the Jewish priests and in the public baths close to the Temple Mount bore nothing more than a superficial resemblance to Christian baptism. The respective meanings of these immersions were completely different. The Anchor Bible Dictionary observes: “A scholarly consensus holds that John [the Baptizer] did not take over or adapt any particular baptism from his milieu,” that is, from Judaism. The same can be said of the baptism practiced in the Christian congregation."

So...is the origin of Christian baptism to be found in the ritual bathing practiced by the Jews? IMO....No!

The first person said to perform baptism in the Bible, was John.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006763

[edit]
Here’s a link to a Wikipedia article that touches on the practice: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_baptism

It is a little short on detail. Most sources refer to "mikveh" but this was not the forerunner of the baptism of John or Jesus, for the reasons noted above.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The Jews performed cleansing rites upon themselves. The baptism John performed, though, was not a kind of ritual bathing familiar to the Jews. That John came to be known as the Baptizer indicates that the immersion he performed was different. Jewish religious leaders even sent a delegation to him to inquire: “Why . . . do you baptize?”—John 1:25.

Originally you said (boldface mine):
There were no baptisms in Judaism before John began baptizing in the Jordan River ...

Later you said
... the word baptism means to dip under water ...

Are you agreeing that immersion in water, as a symbol of repentance, was already a familiar practice when John started doing it?

If you're saying that the baptism of John meant more than that to him, to Jesus, and to the people who came to John, I would agree that it meant more that to John and to Jesus. I'm not sure it meant more than that to most of the people who came to John. Maybe it did, because he was a prophet in popular thinking, so much that the chief priests and elders didn't dare deny it in public.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Originally you said (boldface mine):
"There were no baptisms in Judaism before John began baptizing in the Jordan River"

Later you said
"the word baptism means to dip under water"

Are you agreeing that immersion in water, as a symbol of repentance, was already a familiar practice when John started doing it?

No. The ritual washing was performed on themselves and there was nothing in the Mosaic Law that required full immersion. John's baptism was something completely different. Mikveh was performed in baths not in the river. It was for ritual cleansing and needed to be repeated often. Both John's and Christian baptism was needed only once.

If you're saying that the baptism of John meant more than that to him, to Jesus, and to the people who came to John, I would agree that it meant more that to John and to Jesus.

As you are no doubt aware, John was sent by God ahead of Jesus to prepare the people to accept him as Messiah.....to put them in a receptive frame of mind and in a repentant state of heart. Remember too who it was that Jesus was sent to....not to the Pharisees, but to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". These ones were "lost" because their spiritual shepherds had worn them out with their ridiculously rigid interpretation of the law, making it a very heavy load to carry.....many had given up trying. This is why Jesus could say that his "yoke was kindly and his load was light". This is what drew these lapsed Jews back to their God and to to true worship rather than try to live up to the distorted nightmare that the law had become.

John's baptism was not the same as Jesus' baptism either. Those who came to John to demonstrate their repentance, once they accepted Jesus as the Christ, had to be baptized again in Jesus' name. It was a public demonstration of beginning a new life of dedication to God, but through his Christ.

I'm not sure it meant more than that to most of the people who came to John. Maybe it did, because he was a prophet in popular thinking, so much that the chief priests and elders didn't dare deny it in public.

Yes, the Pharisees were careful not to say too much about John because they feared a backlash from the people who accepted him as a prophet.

Those who came to John were only repenting of sins, not accepting Jesus as yet. John was active for about 6 months before Jesus presented himself for baptism. John hesitated because he knew that Jesus was sinless....he said he was a man who was not fit to untie Jesus' sandals. But Jesus insisted that he be baptized, just this once for a completely different reason, setting a pattern for those who would later become his disciples.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Jews performed cleansing rites upon themselves. The baptism John performed, though, was not a kind of ritual bathing familiar to the Jews. That John came to be known as the Baptizer indicates that the immersion he performed was different. Jewish religious leaders even sent a delegation to him to inquire: “Why . . . do you baptize?”—John 1:25.
I believe that’s what I said. The Jews were familiar with the practice of ritual baptism. Yes, it was for different reasons than John’s.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
Maybe. I'm not sure. I did some research on it yesterday, and found out it might have been a common practice following circumcision. It might have been a common practice associated with conversion or confirmation. Just because the apostles did it doesn't mean that they thought it was a condition for salvation. Even if they did, that doesn't make it true. They were wrong about a lot of things, according to the stories. They misunderstood Jesus again and again, so much that He had to come back and explain it all to them again, after His resurrection. Even then, they still thought it was only for Jews, until Peter had his dream and his experience that convinced him otherwise. Even then, for a time, they still thought people had to be circumcised.
I think that Baptism was valid because Christ Himself submitted to it. But it is not anything magical that conveys salvation. It is a symbol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I believe that’s what I said. The Jews were familiar with the practice of ritual baptism. Yes, it was for different reasons than John’s.

I was making the point that Mikveh was NOT baptism. It was a ritual NOT commanded in scripture, and it had no meaning even close to the baptisms performed by John or the Apostles.

The baptism performed by John (and later for disciples of Christ) had nothing to do with the ritual washing performed by the Jews, often in a bath in their own homes, by themselves. There was no similarity.

There was no full immersion mandated in the Law.....the Pharisees did what they had always done, taken a 'light' command of God, heavily embellished it with a lot of ridiculous rules, and made it too heavy for the average person to carry. Some are enslaved to these rituals even today.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I was making the point that Mikveh was NOT baptism. It was a ritual NOT commanded in scripture, and it had no meaning even close to the baptisms performed by John or the Apostles.

The baptism performed by John (and later for disciples of Christ) had nothing to do with the ritual washing performed by the Jews, often in a bath in their own homes, by themselves. There was no similarity.

There was no full immersion mandated in the Law.....the Pharisees did what they had always done, taken a 'light' command of God, heavily embellished it with a lot of ridiculous rules, and made it too heavy for the average person to carry. Some are enslaved to these rituals even today.
I would recommend a course or two in biblical anthropology.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
LOL...what would change? What is a Biblical course in anthropology going to do....change Mikveh into baptism? :p
Yes. Not “baptism” capital “B,” but “baptism” lower-case “b.” You don’t get to appropriate “baptism” exclusively for Xy, just because somebody else doesn’t ascribe the same meaning to it as you do. Baptism, as a ritual practice, was known to ancient Judaism. Yes, the Hebrew term is mikveh. Yes, it may have been done in a bath, rather than a river. Yes, it carried different meaning. But it’s still a purity ritual — just as what John was doing.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Yes. Not “baptism” capital “B,” but “baptism” lower-case “b.” You don’t get to appropriate “baptism” exclusively for Xy, just because somebody else doesn’t ascribe the same meaning to it as you do. Baptism, as a ritual practice, was known to ancient Judaism. Yes, the Hebrew term is mikveh. Yes, it may have been done in a bath, rather than a river. Yes, it carried different meaning. But it’s still a purity ritual — just as what John was doing.

You want to equate the two when there is no similarity. A person cannot baptize themselves. The purification "washing" for a Jew was never mandated to be full immersion. It is what the Pharisees did was to take the law and add to it things that God never mandated.

In the law, "baptism" was for cups and vessels, not humans. "Mikveh" (full immersion ritual bathing) was an addition to the law.

"Not far from the western wall of the Temple Mount, in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, are two nicely restored excavation sites from the first century C.E., known as the Burnt House and the Herodian Quarter. After the discovery of the Burnt House, archaeologist Nahman Avigad wrote: “It was now quite clear that this building was burnt by the Romans in 70 A.D., during the destruction of Jerusalem. For the first time in the history of excavations in the city, vivid and clear archaeological evidence of the burning of the city had come to light.”

Some of these discoveries throw light upon some of the events in Jesus’ life. The buildings were located in the Upper City, where Jerusalem’s wealthy people lived, including the high priests. A large number of ritual baths were found in the houses. One scholar observes: “The large number of baths testify to the strict observance of the laws of ritual purity practiced by the residents of the Upper City during the Second Temple period. (These laws are recorded in the Mishnah, which devotes ten chapters to the details of the mikveh.)” This information helps us to appreciate Jesus’ comments on these rituals to the Pharisees and scribes.—Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-15."
Jerusalem in Bible Times—What Does Archaeology Reveal? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

The Mishnah devotes 10 chapters to the mikveh.....any wonder Jesus had problems with the Pharisees' interpretation of the Law. :rolleyes:
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
One point I want to make is that when John came baptizing, the idea of purification by total immersion in water, in preparation for participation in a holy event, was already well known. Before John, the event was gathering in the Temple or at a festival. With John, the event was entering into the kingdom of heaven.

Jewish Rites of Purification

By the time of Christ, ceremonial cleanliness by water had become institutionalized into a purity ritual involving full immersion in a mikveh (or miqveh), a “collection of water.”

Mikveh purification was required of all Jews before they could enter the Temple or participate in major festivals. Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims converged on Jerusalem for Passover and other major feasts. One hundred mikvehs, attesting to the need for water purification before entering into Temple rites, have been found by Hebrew University’s Benjamin Mazar around the wall adjacent to Herod’s Temple. Mikvehs, resembling large bathtubs or small garden ponds, have been found in Jericho and elsewhere in Israel.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Another point I want to make is that in the time of Jesus, total immersion in water might have been part of the process of conversion to Judaism. I’m not sure that’s relevant though. What I see as relevant now is purification by total immersion in water, as preparation for participation in a holy event. That idea was already well known and practiced when John came baptizing. The difference with John was that the event was the coming of the kingdom of heaven. With the apostles, the event was actually entering the kingdom of heaven, by loving. trusting and following Jesus. If that practice was only a custom and not a law, then it is not a requirement for being a true follower of Jesus. The baptism of Jesus is with spiritual fire and with spiritual water, the water of life, the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Another point I want to make is that in the time of Jesus, total immersion in water might have been part of the process of conversion to Judaism. I’m not sure that’s relevant though. What I see as relevant now is purification by total immersion in water, as preparation for participation in a holy event. That idea was already well known and practiced when John came baptizing. The difference with John was that the event was the coming of the kingdom of heaven. With the apostles, the event was actually entering the kingdom of heaven, by loving. trusting and following Jesus. If that practice was only a custom and not a law, then it is not a requirement for being a true follower of Jesus. The baptism of Jesus is with spiritual fire and with spiritual water, the water of life, the Holy Spirit.
Thanks. I don’t currently have access to the books I have on biblical anthropology where that information is found, so I have no way of citing sources.
 
Top