Today many believe baptism in the New Covenant is based on the Jewish rite of immersion in a pool called a mikveh.
While it is certainly possible to agree that immersion in the mikveh is a baptism, actually it is only one of a number of different Jewish baptisms in the New Covenant.
In this section we will see that for Jews of late second Temple days baptize described a new state of ritual purity. In other words, βαπτιζω, βαπτισμος and βαπτισμα (from which we derive baptize and baptism) spoke of transformation.
Jews were purified or elevated to a different ritual status by being baptized, and this means pouring or sprinkling a purifying element (substance) would also be proper modes for Jews to be baptized.
Beasley-Murray, a Baptist, admits this in his book on baptism:
"The group of (Greek) words connected with baptizein reflect contemporary terminology of lustrations of all kinds practiced among the Jews.”1
Following the victory of Alexander the Great over Persia, more than three centuries before R. John’s day, the Greek language spread throughout the Middle East. In following centuries it was an important language for Israel,2 along with Hebrew and Aramaic.
There are a number of Jewish writings from late Second Temple days that were composed in Greek. Josephus and Philo wrote extensive works in Greek.
Greek loan words are also found in rabbinical writings. For example, in the Mishnah, Berachot Bet, Vav, Rabban Gamliel explains why, in contradiction to accepted mourning practices, he washed himself on the first evening after his wife passed away, using the Greek word "asthenees" (ασθενης - אסטניס) to describe himself as weak. This is the same word used where Messiah said "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."
In relation to the New Covenant, two of Messiah’s twelve Apostles had Greek names, Andrew and Philip, one of them the brother of Simon Peter, Matthew 10:2-3. Paul's epistles, some of the earliest documents of the New Covenant, were composed in Greek. According to experts, the epistle to the Hebrews is written in the most highly polished Greek found in New Covenant Scriptures.
Thus it is not surprising that we find authoritative Greek versions of the Good News.
At the same time certain Greek words acquired a special Jewish or Messianic Jewish meaning.3
For example, centuries earlier in the Septuagint Jews took the Greek word christos - χριστος to mean something far more than merely a person who had been anointed with oil.
It was used to describe Jewish officials who were consecrated to their office, especially the king and high priest, and corresponds to the Hebrew mashiach - משיח. In a prophetic sense χριστος meant the promised Davidic King. Nevertheless, in the wider Hellenistic world the word was not understood.
"...Greeks and Romans understood little or nothing about the import of the word anointed; to them it did not convey any sacred conception. Hence they substituted Chrestus, or 'excellent', for Christus or 'anointed', and Chrestians instead of 'Christians.'"
New Advent Catholic Ecyclopedia (online)
Yet from this Greek word χριστος, used in its Jewish understanding, another word was created in late second Temple days. The newly coined word apparently described a new class of gentiles who were neither Jewish proselytes nor pagans, they were Christians, "followers of the Messiah,” a term which soon after was applied to all believers in Yeshua. Other Greek words were used in a similar special way for the Jewish nation.
The Jewish idea of baptism was not of a momentary act, but of a lasting purifying effect.
Not only was the meaning of the word slightly modified, later the spelling was. It is well known that the Greek noun baptisma - βαπτισμα has been found up to now only in New Covenant Scriptures and subsequent Christian writings.4
This certainly suggests a special meaning for baptism for the Jewish followers of R. John and Messiah Yeshua. Their disciples created a special word to contain a fresh concept, just as the word "Christian” had been created.
Surely they had much more in mind than finding a different way to say "immersion.” They were signaling to readers something new. Not a specific act, but a radical new condition.
"The Meaning of Baptizo" is an extensive review of the usage of the verb baptizo among the Greeks. It shows that even for them the word frequently meant a radical change of condition or nature, not simply an act of immersion. For example, a man drunk from wine was a man who was baptized. A maid-servant stupefied with drugs was a woman baptized. The meaning of baptize was by no means restricted to immersion in water.
At this point a brief survey of the origin and purpose of the mikveh and related purifications will help us understand the Jewish development of the word.
A Spring And A Pit
To better understand the mikveh, we should know the source for it.
New Covenant Scriptures tell us that Pharisaical interpretation of the Torah was the most meticulous, Acts 26:5, Philippians 3:4-6. Josephus, himself a Pharisee, agrees, "The Pharisees are held to be the most authoritative exponents of the Law and count as the leading sect.”6
With the significant Pharisaical influence in Jewish life in late second Temple days we would therefore expect the existence of second Temple mikveh pools to be based on the Torah.
In fact, Jewish tradition says the Torah indeed provides the basis for purification in a mikveh in Leviticus 11:36 where we read;
"But a spring and a pit, a gathering (mikveh) of water, shall be pure.”
אַךְ מַעְיָן וּבוֹר מִקְוֵה־מַיִם יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר
According to tradition this little sentence established the mikveh for Israel.7 The context implies its ability to purify from defilement.
Whereas many purifications with water are commanded in the Torah, only this verse tells us which water sources do not become defiled by the washings. Note that the mikveh is not the only source of such water, a spring is also a source.
Rahatz, Tabal and Tevilah
It should also be mentioned that when the Torah speaks of being purified with water the term rahatz is used to describe a washing, but without reference to a particular mode such as immersion. A different Hebrew word found in the Mishnah, tevilah, (immersion) is a later interpretation of the Torah’s requirement to wash. For a review of rahatz, tabal and tevilah, go here.
Today all will admit that various purifications with water were practiced by different Jewish groups of late second Temple days.
For example, in the Manual of Discipline from the Dead Sea scrolls, a candidate who would not fully repent "cannot be cleared by mere ceremonies of atonement, nor cleansed by any waters of ablution, nor sanctified by immersion in lakes or rivers, nor purified by any bath.”8
The Didache, a late first century, early second century document by a certain circle of Jewish followers of Yeshua, lists the order of preference of water to be used in that group’s interpretation of water baptism, starting with "living water” going to "other water” and if not in "cold” water then in "warm,” and if this is not available then water was to be "poured on the head.”
The most detailed record of Jewish ritual practices involving water is the later Mishnah and reflects Rabbinical tradition.
According to tractate Mikva’ot (Mikveh pools) there were six ascending grades of water for purification.9 The first four dealt with pools of water which had formed by various natural means, including rain and a flowing spring, even if the pits were man-made.
Spring Water
The last two described the superiority of water from springs. The next to the last grade, mai’im mukin, were smitten waters from a warm or saline spring and could purify even while creeping along without forming a pool.
The highest grade was drinkable water from cool, clean springs and was called mai’im hai’im or living waters. According to Rabbinical tradition this grade was sprinkled in certain rituals of Torah10 and, like the preceding grade, was judged to purify no matter what the quantity.
We remember that Yeshua offered all who thirsted access to Mai'im Hai'im, John 7:37-39. Though Yeshua spoke of a much more wonderful spiritual reality, he certainly based his offer on familiar concepts among the Jewish people. So Messiah indirectly testifies that Living Waters are good to drink.
While it is true that Mishnaic law required immersion in the mikveh pool of about a hundred and twenty gallons (conforming generally to the size of second Temple mikveh pools found at modern archeological sites), it also said living waters flowing from springs could purify from certain defilements no matter what the quantity, even if they were creeping along.
Further in the tractate of the Mishnah we read that if a wave broke away from the sea and fell on a man or on utensils they would become clean.11 Here the water falls on and cleanses with exactly the same result as immersion in a mikveh. The crucial issue was the end result of purity, not necessarily the mode of accomplishing it.
Forty-eight mikveh pools of second Temple days have been excavated just outside the Temple area. This certainly implies the disciples of Messiah, as well as Yeshua Himself, would have immersed to purify to worship at the Temple. It also signifies that they would not have rejected every custom of purification. With this in mind, the nearby spring of Gihon which still feeds the pool of Siloam (Shiloah) would also have provided a source of Jewish purification for the first disciples and in fact is still used today in Jewish rituals.
Various modes were apparently practiced, which may be deduced by comparing Paul’s description of Spirit baptism in Titus 3:5-6 and Peter’s description of Messiah baptizing with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:33 (and 1:5) with a later tractate of the Talmud, Berakhot 22a.
Paul used imagery to say the Holy Spirit is poured out richly in the special washing of regeneration in which disciples achieve a wonderfully new quality of life.
Peter said Messiah poured out the Spirit, making real Joel’s prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days, and in direct fulfillment of Messiah’s command for them to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
The Talmud as well speaks of ritual purification by pouring, a purification washing which improves the ritual status before God of a man defiled by sexual emission, called a ba’al qeri.
The focus of the Talmudic debate is whether nine qav (a little more than four gallons) of water which is cast (dashed) over the defiled man will purify, or whether immersion in forty seah (about a hundred and twenty gallons) of the mikveh is required. We read,
"Our Rabbis taught: A ba’al qeri over whom nine qav of water is cast is clean. Nahmu of Gimzu whispered it to R. Akiva and R. Akiva whispered it to Ben 'Azzai and Ben 'Azzai went out and taught it to his disciples.”
"R. Joshua ben Levi said,...What is the point of immersing in forty seah? Nine qav are enough. What is the point of immersing? Casting water suffices.”
R. Zera told R. Hiyya bar Abba concerning the casting of nine qav of water over him;
"It is as with 'forty seah’: as 'forty seah’ is by immersion and not by casting, so 'nine qav’ is by casting and not by immersion.”
This Rabbinic tradition originated just after the days of the Apostles. R. Akiva died in 135 C.E. in the second Jewish revolt and Nahmu of Gimzu had been his teacher. For them dashing was equal to immersion in the mikveh to purify from certain defilements. Either mode was sufficient.
This idea may well have come from earlier traditions reflected in the Hebrew Scriptures which were in vogue in second Temple days, from which Paul derived his imagery in Titus, and Peter obviously on the day of Shavu’ot (Pentecost).
God told Ezekiel that when Israel "was sitting (dwelling) on their land” (yoshvim al admatam) they defiled it like a niddah, a woman in menstruation who defiles whatever she sits on, 36:17, cf. Leviticus 15:20-23.
Later Jewish writers tell us,
"With exquisite compassion the prophet tempers his harsh judgement. Israel had defiled the land, but it was a defilement comparable to that of a woman in the days of her impurity. Her husband waits anxiously for the contamination to pass, yearning for the time when he may come close to her once more” (Rashi).
The husband is the Lord and Israel’s impurity, like that of a niddah, is temporary and can be purified, while on the other hand, if Israel’s impurity had been likened to a corpse they would remain permanently defiled. Even High Priests could enter a niddah’s home, but no priest could enter a house containing a dead body.
The later Midrash on this passage emphasizes that Israel’s defilement is compared to a niddah rather than a corpse (which means there would be no reference to Numbers 19 here in Ezekiel 36, contrary to what many commentators believe).
Today orthodox Jewish women who complete a menstrual cycle purify by immersion in the mikveh. But in Ezekiel purifying water would be sprinkled and Israel, like a niddah, would be purified. The Hebrew word zaraq is usually translated sprinkle as it must signify in Exodus 24:8.
This passage in Ezekiel is probably the basis for the ruling of the Rabbis to dash water over a ba’al qeri since it is a similar level of defilement as a niddah and zaraq also means to throw.
The Jewish Soncino commentary remarks,
"Since Israel’s evil ways were compared to the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity (verse 17), the forgiveness of his sins is characterized as a purification by cleansing water.”
Others also refer this sprinkling back to the menstrual uncleanness of v. 17 even though immersion is usual today.12
Six centuries before the New Covenant was ratified, and more than seven and a half before the Mishnah was written, it appears Ezekiel used imagery to say sprinkling the correct grade of water would purify a niddah.
R. Akiva directly linked the mikveh and the sprinkling of Ezekiel. Tractate Yoma 8:9 (85b) of the Mishnah records his play on Hebrew words,
"Happy are you Israel. Before whom do you purify yourselves? Who purifies you? Your Father in Heaven! It is written, 'I will sprinkle pure water on you and you shall be clean.’ And it is written, 'The LORD is Israel’s mikveh (or hope).’ Just as the mikveh purifies the unclean, so the LORD purifies Israel.”
Here R. Akiva links two completely different images in his word-play, immersion in the mikveh and the sprinkling of Ezekiel.
Divine purification is the issue addressed and this sage in the mainstream of later Rabbinical thought had no qualms about merging these ideas because both purify.
Akiva was named in Berakhot 22a as having sanctioned the dashing of water in place of immersion, not to mention that two of his great disciples, R. Meir and R. Jose, took it for granted that one day Israel would be purified by the sprinkling of Ezekiel just prior to the Kingdom, Kiddushin 72b.
About a thousand years after Akiva another Jewish scholar, Rambam, who was R. Moses ben Maimon, or Maimonides, wrote in Yad, Mikva’ot 11:12 that purification by immersion in the mikveh must be preceded by repentance and a turning from sin. Only then would there be a true purification before God. At the end of his discourse he quoted Ezekiel 36:25.13
For Jews purification was the issue and either immersion or sprinkling could provide it. Rituals like these were described in the Greek New Covenant with the help of baptizo. In the following examples we will find it associated with a variety of Jewish ceremonies.
A comment in John 3:25-26 alerts us to the connection between baptism and purification. In this scene multitudes of Jews were baptized and a discussion about ritual purification arose between Jewish observers and R. John’s disciples.
Here ritual purification is directly related to baptizing, not to mention that it is R. John’s end-time baptism to Israel.
We should also remember that at the wedding in Cana, just earlier in John’s gospel, the six stone water pots had been set according to the "purification of the Jews” - τòν καθαρισμòν τω̃ν ’Ιουδαίων, John 2:6.
This tells us there was a special understanding of purifying for Jews different from the usual Greek meaning, otherwise the phrase "of the Jews” would not have been necessary. The same word for purification, katharismos, is used, as in the discussion between Jews and R. John’s disciples about John’s baptism, the only other place it is found in John’s gospel, John 3:25-26.
ἐγένετο οὐ̃ν ζήτησις ἐκ τω̃ν μαθητω̃ν ’Ιωάννου μετὰ ’Ιουδαίου περὶ καθαρισμου̃
καὶ ἠ̃λθον πρòς τòν ’Ιωάννην καὶ εἰ̃παν αὐτω̨̃ ῥαββί ὃς ἠ̃ν μετὰ σου̃ πέραν του̃ ’Ιορδάνου ὡ̨̃ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας ἴδε οὑ̃τος βαπτίζει καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρòς αὐτόν
The special "purification of the Jews” in John 2:6 and a Jewish discussion about "purification” and baptism a chapter later reveal an indisputable connection for Jews between baptizing and purifying.
According to Hebrews 9:10 baptisms were part of Israel’s culture long before R. John. The Torah contained rituals for the purification of the flesh, including different washings. These, literally, are "different kinds of baptisms” (διαφόροις βαπτισμοι̃ς) using the Greek noun baptismos.
Many English versions translate baptismos (βαπτισμω̃ν διδαχη̃ς) as teachings of baptism in Hebrews 6:2,14 but almost none translate baptismos in Hebrews 9:10 as baptism, the only other place this word is found in Hebrews. This serves to confuse the understanding of the word.
In any case, we have to admit it makes no sense to say there are different ways to immerse. You are either under water or you are not. There simply are no commands for different ways to immerse in the Torah.
The different baptisms then are different "purifications” from all kinds of defilements, accomplished in various ways, Hebrews 9:11-22. Theological dictionaries agree, cf.
"In Heb. 9:10 (baptismos) refers to the purification of persons. Presumably this reflects the Jewish usage of the term.”15
Indeed, another Greek word in Hebrews 9:12, katharizo, shows similar Jewish development.
εἰ γὰρ τò αἱ̃μα τράγων καὶ ταύρων καὶ σποδòς δαμάλεως ῥαντίζουσα τοὺς κεκοινωμένους ἁγιάζει πρòς τὴν τη̃ς σαρκòς καθαρότητα...
Here sprinkled blood cleanses the flesh and does not in any way describe a physical scrubbing with water. For ritual conscious Jews these words meant far more than the usual meaning for Greeks.
A Baptist commentary remarks on Luke 11:38,
"The Pharisee’s surprise arises from the presupposition that Jesus will perform the traditional ablutions prior to eating. The purpose of washing the hands was to remove any defilement that the person might have incurred by coming into contact with something or somebody who was unclean.”16
The verse in Luke says the Pharisee was amazed the Lord had not first baptized.
ὁ δὲ Φαρισαι̃ος ἰδὼν ἐθαύμασεν ὅτι οὐ πρω̃τον ἐβαπτίσθη πρò του̃ ἀρίστου
The primary concern therefore was not the act of immersion but the state of purification.
Pharisees not only would purify their hands, they would not eat from cups, pitchers or pots unless they also had been purified.
These rituals had lost any connection with hygienic cleansing and the goal was far beyond accomplishing the act of immersion. Commentators inform us of baptismos,
"in Mk. 7:4 it represents Jewish ritual cleansing (by immersion) of vessels.” (Brown), and, "baptismoi in (Mark) 7:4 are Levitical purifications.” (Kittel).17
καὶ ἀπ' ἀγορα̃ς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατει̃ν βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστω̃ν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινω̃ν
The Jewish people, and especially the Pharisees, were striving at all costs to be ritually pure. Mark 7:1-8 again shows the intimate association between baptism and ritual purification, not merely the mechanics of immersion.
One of the enigmas of Scripture, 1 Corinthians 15:29, a baptism related to the resurrection of the dead, would appear to fall into place quite naturally with a Jewish overview of baptism in the New Covenant.
Rather than speculate about the influence of pagan or heretical beliefs as the origin of this puzzling verse, it may make better sense to see Paul’s argument in a Jewish light directed to Jewish skeptics. Go here.
Israel was extensively involved with many baptisms long before R. John appeared to Israel. All rites, including R. John’s, were Jewish, underscoring the need for a Jewish approach to understanding of Greek word baptizo and its cognates.
We briefly investigated the passage in Hebrews 9:6-15 which includes the term diaphorois baptismois, "different kinds of baptisms,” of Torah.
We must not fail to realize that 1 Peter 3:21 is a contrast between all previous Jewish baptisms which remove defilements of the flesh and a New Covenant baptism which produces salvation. Presumably Peter meant those baptisms derived directly from the Torah, as well as other later innovations. Summing up, Hebrews and 1 Peter tell us the Jewish Torah ordered general baptisms to put away defilements of the flesh.
The question raised by Pharisaical priests and Levites to Rabbi John tells us they expected someone to baptize the entire nation of Israel.
"Why then are you baptizing if you are not Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
R. John performed a purification whose form was fully acceptable to the Pharisaical priests and Levites. The Hebrew Scriptures predicted the coming of a Messiah, Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses. Moreover, R. John, in defense, identified himself as the "Voice” of Isaiah, also from the Hebrew Scripture. Whatever we conclude about R. John’s baptism, here we see Pharisaical expectation of a Messianic baptism, doubtless based on the Hebrew Scripture.
The Pharisees practiced additional ceremonies which they believed contributed further to the purity of Israel. Though not explicitly commanded in Torah, the Pharisees believed they had been continually passed down by word of mouth since the days of Moses.
"The Pharisees and all Jewish people, unless they wash their hands, they do not eat, holding to the traditions of the elders. And coming from the market, except they baptize themselves they do not eat. And they hold many other things which they received, baptisms of cups, vessels, brass utensils, and couches,” Mark 7:3-4.
A similar experience in the house of a Pharisee is recorded in Luke 11:37-39 which occurred, chronologically, after the incident in Mark.
"But the Pharisee seeing, was amazed that He did not baptize before the breakfast.”
Both passages show that various Jewish traditions of purification were also understood to be baptisms.
We briefly discussed the extra-Scriptural purification of the deceased by a washing with water. The Jewish people practiced it to prepare the deceased for the resurrection, that they would be free from defilements upon arising from the grave. Paul apparently makes a passing reference to the practice in his arguments for the general resurrection of all humanity. Acts refers to Jewish disciples practicing this traditional purification years after Messiah’s resurrection.
The Jewish context of R. John’s baptism is beyond question. The apostle Paul proclaimed to the Jewish audience of a synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, and to the non-Jews also present, that R. John proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all Israel before the coming of Messiah.
Moreover, R. John himself is recorded in John 1:31 saying he came baptizing with water that Israel might recognize the Messiah.
Like the other Jewish baptisms, R. John’s was also performed for the sake of purification. The text of John 3:25 is not a quotation, but is part of the narration of the writer, the apostle John; "Then arose a discussion about purification.” The apostle directly relates purification to the baptism performed both by R. John and by Messiah Yeshua and His disciples.
Messiah declared to Jewish leaders in the Jewish capital, Jerusalem, that R. John came in the "way of righteousness.” For Jews, righteousness was intimately tied to observance of both Torah and legitimate Jewish traditions. John’s baptism, being from heaven, as Messiah intimated in vs 25, is thus tied to the Jewish concept of righteousness in relation to both the individual’s heart and Jewish ritual practices.
These examples are sufficient to make the point. A baptized Jew was understood to be a Jew who'd had his ritual status before God changed in a substantial way. He may have immersed, he may have had someone dash water on him, he may have been sprinkled with water or some other substance commanded in the Torah, or practiced by tradition.
The first instance of being baptized with the Spirit powerfully confirms a meaning beyond immerse for the word baptize. Messiah commanded His disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father, Acts 1:5, in which they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
ὑμει̃ς δὲ ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε ἁγίω̨ οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας
In verse 8 He added,
"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.”
ἀλλὰ λήμψεσθε δύναμιν ἐπελθόντος του̃ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐφ' ὑμα̃ς
Moreover, the Scriptural evidence for the mode of this baptism is clear. Three times we read the Spirit was poured out, Acts 2:17-18, 33, and would come upon them, Acts 1:8, 2:3, 17-18, in which they would also be filled, 2:4.
1:8 ἐπελθόντος του̃ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐφ' ὑμα̃ς
2:3 αὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐφ' ἕνα ἕκαστον αὐτω̃ν
2:4 καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου
2:17 ἐκχεω̃ ἀπò του̃ πνεύματός μου ἐπὶ πα̃σαν σάρκα
2:18 καί γε ἐπὶ τοὺς δούλους μου καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς δούλας μου ἐν ται̃ς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐκχεω̃ ἀπò του̃ πνεύματός μου
2:33 τήν τε ἐπαγγελίαν του̃ πνεύματος του̃ ἁγίου λαβὼν παρὰ του̃ πατρòς ἐξέχεεν του̃το ὃ ὑμει̃ς καὶ βλέπετε καὶ ἀκούετε
Messiah did not form a pool into which a person would dip.
There was also a more wonderful effect than simply being surrounded with the Spirit. Messiah baptized His disciples and permanently changed their nature. They became bold witnesses for Him.
The Lord was not concerned with a momentary complete surrounding, but that their lives were permanently transformed - baptized with the Spirit.
The Roman centurion Cornelius and his house were baptized with the Spirit and the context takes us far beyond the act of dipping in a pool. When they came to faith in Messiah,
"The Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the discourse,...(for) the Gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out.” Acts 10:44-45.
ἔτι λαλου̃ντος του̃ Πέτρου τὰ ῥήματα ταυ̃τα ἐπέπεσεν τò πνευ̃μα τò ἅγιον ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας τòν λόγον
καὶ ἐξέστησαν οἱ ἐκ περιτομη̃ς πιστοὶ ὅσοι συνη̃λθαν τω̨̃ Πέτρω̨ ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἡ δωρεὰ του̃ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐκκέχυται
They were radically changed when the Spirit came upon them. The divine power caused them to praise and magnify God, speaking in different languages as the Spirit gave them to utter.
It was this transformation which jarred Peter’s memory as to what Messiah had said: "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit,” Acts 11:16.
Peter could not see anyone being "immersed” in the invisible Spirit, he only knew they were overwhelmingly influenced by His tremendous power! He did not know or care if every square inch of surface area was covered by the Spirit. The important thing for him was radical transformation.
On two occasions Messiah is depicted describing coming suffering and affliction in terms of being baptized with a baptism, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50.
"Can you drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said to Him, "We can." Yeshua said to them, "You will indeed drink the cup I drink and with the baptism I am baptized you will be baptized.” Mark 10:38-39.
ὁ δὲ ’Ιησου̃ς εἰ̃πεν αὐτοι̃ς οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτει̃σθε δύνασθε πιει̃ν τò ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω ἢ τò βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθη̃ναι
οἱ δὲ εἰ̃παν αὐτω̨̃ δυνάμεθα ὁ δὲ ’Ιησου̃ς εἰ̃πεν αὐτοι̃ς τò ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω πίεσθε καὶ τò βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε
Here two challenges signify one situation, drinking from a cup and baptism. Both picture suffering.
By saying "drink the cup” the Lord did not challenge them with a modal act. Drinking a cup of water would be no challenge.
In other words, there was no concern with the "act” of drinking. The challenge was the terrible influence of the hypothetical substance to be drunk. As water refreshes, as wine intoxicates, as poison destroys, so the Lord challenged His disciples with a hypothetical cup of terrible influence.
This severe experience is reinforced when He asked if they could share the same baptism He would undergo. The powerful element of this baptism, like the powerful substance in the cup, would have an awful influence on the disciple, wholly affecting them.
The similarity between the two events was terrible influence. Since the Lord was not concerned with the modal act of drinking, so He was not concerned with a modal act when He used the words baptize and baptism.
And just as the "act” of drinking a cup varies from sipping to gulping or quaffing so the modal act of baptism is varied and not defined here.
The Lord also said,
"I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I am pressed till it is accomplished,” Luke 12:50.
βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθη̃ναι καὶ πω̃ς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθη̨̃
While it is difficult to know precisely what the Lord meant here, obviously He was concerned about a major influence, something that would wholly affect Him.
Thus in Mark and Luke baptize and baptism were used in ways which did not tell of a physical immersion in water, nor a ritual purification, rather solely of tremendous influence by a powerful element, and this is reported from the mouth of Messiah Himself.
Baptizing in New Covenant Scriptures describes a drastic effect. We cannot limit it to the mechanical action of immersion, or to any other one time act. For Jews it signified an event of lasting change.
It would thus seem highly appropriate for modern Hebrew to incorporate this Greek word (like many other Greek words in modern Hebrew) in root form bet-pay-tet-zayin to replace the usual misleading translation hitbil. Jewish purification also involved a great deal more than immersion in the mikveh.
That being the case, neither baptizo, nor the mikveh, can be a basis to conclude R. John immersed. He may easily have performed the end-time Jewish purification of sprinkling-dashing with clean water.
--------------
1Baptism, p 27.
2Michael Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1984. This comprehensive catalogue and review of the entire spectrum of Jewish writings during the days of the Second Temple reveals Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic as literary languages of the Jews.; Ralph Marcus, 'The Hellenistic Age,’ Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People, p 107; Hellenistic-Roman influence; "First of all there is the impressive fact that the Hebrew and Aramaic languages of the early Talmudic period contained well over two thousand words of Greek and Latin origin. These foreign words were by no means confined to the speech of officials and learned Jews, but formed part of the everyday speech of the people...Any number of instances of the invasion of Greek and Latin into Jewish life could be cited, some of them amusing. For example, when the Rabbis decreed after the war of Quietus in 117 C.E. that no man should teach his son Greek, the very word they used to refer to this war was not the common Hebrew word milhamah but the Greek word polemos.” p 108; "Almost all the synagogues, of which forty dating from the Roman period have been excavated in Palestine, were built in the form of the Hellenistic-Roman basilica....all provincial adaptations of Hellenistic style. A crucial synagogue inscription of dedication, found in Jerusalem itself and dating from the first century of the common era is written neither in Hebrew nor in Aramaic but in Greek.” p 125, "Now there can be no question of the essential Jewishness of the Septuagint both in purpose and content. It was designed to meet the educational and liturgical needs of the Diaspora Jews, of whom the vast majority were ignorant of Hebrew. But the Septuagint also exhibits marked Hellenistic influences. There occur in it, for example, Greek mythological terms like "Titan”; Hebrew names are often Hellenized; Greek metrical forms are used in poetic passages, as in the Book of Proverbs; on occasion attempts are made to smooth out awkward Hebraisms; the translation of some passages, as in parts of Isaiah, reveal an astonishing acquaintance with technical Greek terminology. Thus there is no doubting the presence of Hellenistic elements in the Greek Bible, though it may be said of them, paradoxical as it sounds, that they are merely forms of Jewishness in a Hellenistic environment.”; Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, 5702-1942, p 15, "Whoever turns to Loew’s Index of Greek words in Krauss’ "Lehnwoerter im Talmud...is undoubtedly struck by the overwhelming number of Greek words in Talmudic literature.”p 39, "...Greek penetrated into all classes of Jewish society in Palestine.”
3Daniel Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal terms in Rabbinic Literature, Bar Ilan University Press, Jerusalem, 1984, p 15, "There are well over three thousand Greek and Latin loan words in Rabbinic literature...” but they were not confined to the original Greek and Latin meanings. Sperber further comments on p 26, "...meanings given are based on their appearance in Rabbinic context, and are not necessarily equivalent to their generally attested meaning in Greek and Latin sources.” This strongly suggests that early Jewish followers of Rabbi Yeshua, their Messiah, could also use foreign words like baptize and baptism for exclusive Jewish purposes and not only in their original meanings.
4Moulton and Mulligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich, reprinted 1980, p 102, "That the noun is "peculiar to NT and eccl. writ.” (Grimm) is of course natural: the new use to which the verb was put as a term. tech. demanded a corresponding noun.”; Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, The Paternoster Press, Exeter, Devon, U.K., pp 149-150, "Baptisma appears for the first time in the N.T. No instance of its occurrence in pagan and Jewish literature has yet been found.” (Some might suppose it was invented by disciples of R. John) "...more plausibly, it is a Christian innovation...” (i.e. Jewish disciples of Messiah).; G. Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by G. Bromiley, vol. 1, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 4th printing 1969, p 554, baptisma found only in New Testament writings, baptistes found only in New Testament writings and Josephus.; Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp 72-73.
5Yigael Yadin, Masada, Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand, Steimatzky LTD. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, 1984, chpt. 12, The Ritual Bath (mikve), pp 164-167. William Sanford La Sor, Discovering What Jewish Miqva’ot Can Tell Us About Christian Baptism, Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 1987, pp 54-56.
6Josephus, The Jewish War, Penguin Classics, Suffolk, Great Britain, 1981, p 137.
7Aryeh Kaplan, The Waters of Eden, The Mystery of the Mikveh, NCSY/Orthodox Union, N.Y., 1976, pp 49-59 for a modern halachic description of the origins and development of the mikveh from Leviticus 11:36.
8Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p 14.
9Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth, Order Taharoth, vol. 6, Judaica Press, Gateshead, 1977, pp 539-543.
10cf. Leviticus 14:6, 50-53; Numbers 19:17-18.
11Blackman, Mishnayoth, p 560, (Mikva’ot 5:6).
12A. Cohen, Soncino Books of the Bible, The Soncino Press, Ltd. New York, 2nd ed, 1983, Ezekiel, p 243.; cf. Abarbanel, Commentary on the Later Prophets, Ezekiel, Mizrahi, Jerusalem, tav shin tet yud, page tav quf ayin alef.; Also, L.C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, Word Bible Commentary, vol. 29, Word Books, Dallas, 1990.
13See 'Rambam and Purification’ in appendix for text.
14cf., King James Version, New King James Bible, King James II Version, American Standard Version, New International Version, Jerusalem Bible, Young’s Literal Translation, Greek-English New Testament by Alfred Marshall, and the Good News Bible. On the other hand, Young’s Literal Translation is the only one of which the author is aware which does translate baptismos in Hebrews 9:10 as baptism.
15Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p 149.
16Malcom Tolbert, William Hull, Luke-John, The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 9, Broadman Press, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London, British ed. 1971, p 102. Joel Green writes "Handwashing before a meal in this case was not an issue of physical but ritual cleanliness." The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Gospel of Luke. The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Cambridge, UK. 1991. p 470.
17Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p 149.; Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Bromiley, G., Abridged in one volume, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, reprinted 1988, p 94.; William Lane writes [footnote 6] "baptisontai... denotes the more thorough form of ritual washing necessitated by the defiling contacts of the market-place..." p 243 (v4) "To restore Levitical purity after defilement it was necessary to cleanse by water, and Mark refers to the most common act of cultic cleansing, the washing of hands, which was formally required only before the consumption of bread. The washing was accomplished by pouring on the hands, and this fact excludes all suggestions of immersing the hands from Mark's reference in verse 3." p 246, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Gospel According to Mark. The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1974, reprint Oct. 1984. Furthermore, why do we read of six "stone” waterpots for the purification of the Jews at the wedding in Cana? Because "stone” vessels were judged to have a higher resistance to ritual defilement than metal or ceramic vessels. In the Mishnah tractate Kelim in Order Tohorot details many traditions about purity and defilement of vessels, based on the Torah, cf. Leviticus 6:21 (28), 11:33, 15:12, 6:28. Rabbinic tradition applied these principles to the entire nation.
18Compare the Greek with Matthew 22:23, Mark 12:18 and Luke 20:27. Also compare Paul’s rhetorical question as to what kind of body the resurrected receive in 1 Corinthians 15:35 with Sadducean ridicule in Matthew 22:23-33 over the seven brothers who married the same woman in levirate marriage. Messiah also warned of the teaching of the Sadducees, Matthew 16:6-12. Furthermore, some time after 1 Corinthians was written Paul confronted Sadducees in Jerusalem with this very issue of resurrection, Acts 23:6-9.
20cf. Psalms 2 & 89, Isaiah 9:6-7, 11:1-5, 61:1.
21cf. Malachi 4:4-6.
22cf. Deuteronomy 18:18-19.