12. John’s Baptism, Immersion?

Many today are under the impression that the baptism into Messiah’s death in Romans 6 and Colossians 2 is water baptism by immersion. Since John’s baptism is generally considered the prototype of “Christian” water baptism there is a tendency to look backwards, as well as apply ideas of immersion in the mikveh, and arrive at the conclusion that John’s baptism must have been immersion. Some think it too was a visible sign of burial and resurrection. But if so why would R. John hinder Yeshua from this sign? Matthew 3:14. By all means he should have encouraged Him since his baptism revealed Messiah to Israel. Contrary to these ideas Balz and Schneider, in their explanation of traditional Christian baptism, write in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament on p 193, “The baptism of Jesus is to be understood...neither as a symbol of his death and resurrection nor as a prototype of Christian baptism.” We have seen much in earlier chapters to indicate that John baptized for ritual purity, as in Ezekiel. He tried to hinder Messiah because the Holy One had no need of purification.

Beyond the Jordan

In studying R. John and his baptism it is quite illuminating to review the references as to where he performed his rite because this affects how we view his work. For most people probably a vision of the Jordan river first comes to mind. However certain verses broaden that view substantially. Consider John 10:40 for example;

“And He (the Lord Yeshua) went away again beyond the Jordan, to the place where John was baptizing at first, and there He stayed.”

It is difficult to believe Yeshua withdrew from persecution in Jerusalem only to take up residence on the far bank of the Jordan river. In other words, “beyond the Jordan” in this context speaks of quite some distance from the channel of the river. We are told that it was here, some distance beyond the Jordan, that R. John was first baptizing. In fact the district “beyond the Jordan” was called “Perea,” a name based on the Greek word for “beyond” as in “beyond the Jordan.” This region was populated by Jews and ruled by Herod Antipas. Since Herod arrested R. John it would seem to indicate his activity centered “beyond the Jordan” since the Roman governor on the other side did not arrest him. Incidentally, tradition says Herod imprisoned and executed R. John in Macherus which was located in southern Perea. Furthermore, we must take into consideration that R. John began his work, not at the largest single water supply in the entire region, the Jordan river, but beyond it. We may therefore conclude that his baptism was not at all tied to the river, nor to a requirement of “much water” as some believe John 3:23 proves.

Not only was this where R. John first baptized, it was also the location in which the Lord Yeshua was found with R. John, John 3:25-26. This statement must affect our interpretation of other passages. We read the words of R. John’s disciples;

“And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold He is baptizing and all are coming to Him.”

In this passage, which is situated at Aenon near Salim and not the Jordan river, R. John’s disciples take it for granted that Yeshua was not with R. John “at” the Jordan, but some distance “beyond the Jordan.”

Then R. John’s personal testimony in John 1 strongly implies that we look there, beyond the Jordan, as the place where the Lord Yeshua was baptized, received the Holy Spirit, heard the Father’s voice from Heaven and likely returned for a time after His temptations from Satan. It is then understandable in John 10 that after Messiah’s rejection in Jerusalem that He would retire to this site that had been a place of monumental significance, a turning point in His incarnate life. In any case, the two verses of John 10:40 and 3:26 fix the location of John’s testimony of Yeshua and his baptizing activity beyond the Jordan, at a place where it was possible to dwell, just as we read in John 1:28;

“These things took place in Bethabara [Bethany] beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.”

Again, this must indicate some distance from the river since otherwise he could have described it as Bethany “on the Jordan” or “beside the Jordan.” Likewise, as we have seen, the other two verses which mention “beyond the Jordan” tell us it was there that he first baptized and testified of Yeshua, exactly what we see in this passage in John 1. Contrary to this, some interpreters incorrectly subordinate the clause “where John was baptizing” to the word “Jordan” as if to say that John actually baptized at the Jordan even though “these things occurred in Bethany.” Let it also be noted that the gospel of John speaks much of R. John, but never locates him at the Jordan river!

Furthermore, John 3:22 and John 4:3-4 describe the Messiah and His disciples baptizing in the land of Judah, not at the Jordan river, and that they made more disciples than R. John. In earlier chapters we saw they were continuing to administer “John’s end-time Baptism” to the Jewish people. Geographically, since the Lord and disciples had to pass through a Samaritan village on the way to Galilee from their work of baptizing in Judah we are assured they were not at the Jordan river, since then they likely would have traveled on the Jordan valley road to Galilee which bypasses Samaria. So here we find plain statements that the Jordan river was not crucial to “John’s Baptism,” whether for R. John, or for Messiah Yeshua.

In the same way Luke’s gospel never makes a direct statement to say R. John was actually at the Jordan river. We read in Luke 3:4;

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

Thus two of the four gospels use the Jordan river as the primary landmark with which to locate R. John as he performed his service, but do not directly say he baptized at the Jordan river. Not only so, but both Matthew and Mark also tell us that R. John’s activity included the wilderness region around the Jordan; “... John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea...” Matthew 3:1, and we read in Mark 1:5; “Then came John baptizing in the wilderness....” Moreover, both Matthew and Luke have the Lord Yeshua asking the crowds what they “went out into the wilderness to see” concerning R. John.  He did not ask about the Jordan river, Matthew 11:7, Luke 7:24. Thus we see four testimonies of R. John’s service:

1. Beyond the Jordan

2. In the region around the Jordan

3. In the wilderness of Judea

4. That he baptized in the wilderness.

With these verses in view we may cautiously approach those in Matthew and Mark which locate R. John at the Jordan river. We may first observe that Matthew 3:5-6 and Mark 1:5 were intended to describe the tremendous impact of R. John on the Jewish population of Jerusalem, Judea and the area around the Jordan. However, we cannot imagine every last Jew in all those regions going out to R. John, in spite of the wording in both Matthew and Mark. Their point is not to give a detailed census of Jewish participation, but a brief, general overview of R. John’s profound influence. They also use the largest single landmark in the wilderness as a focal point to locate R. John, namely the Jordan river. But in light of what we have seen in the gospels of John and Luke we should consider the comments in Matthew and Mark as general statements, not specific details. In any case, if R. John sprinkled spring water in his purification ritual, then he could have made use of the Jordan river above the sea of Galilee since it is comprised of spring water. Then, depending on R. John’s view of the Jordan’s quality of the water below the sea of Galilee, he could also have made use of it there, most certainly making use of any spring water flowing into the Jordan, and there are a number of springs in the area. In any case, R. John was by no means limited to the water in the channel of the Jordan.

Beyond that, the original Greek does not limit the scope of R. John’s activity to the water in the channel or to immersion. For some interpreters, certain Greek prepositions are thought to confirm the location at the river with the mode of immersion. But the flexibility of the words in question is too great to prove these interpretations. For example, in the King James Version the preposition en, which can mean “in,” is translated by:

“among, by, with, at, on, for, about, upon, unto, into, because of, and to.”

 New American Standard translates en as:

“in, on, at, by, with, about, along, amid, among, because of, before, besides, by means of, by way of, during, had, in a circumstance, in case, over, through, throughout, together with, under, under these circumstances, when, while, and within.”

Another preposition, epi, also demonstrates such flexibility. In Matthew 3:13 Yeshua arrived from Galilee, epi, on the Jordan to meet R. John and we know they both were near the Jordan, not in the middle of the channel standing on the water.

Mark 1:5 says the people were baptized, “in the Jordan river” where en is thought to strengthen the idea of immersing in the Jordan. But remember in the previous verse John came, “baptizing ‘en’ in the wilderness” and en does not mean that he immersed the people in the sand of the wilderness. Far from proving immersion, we can only conclude that he performed his task in the region of the wilderness. En is too flexible, and the region called the Jordan river is broader that just water in the channel. One might easily believe he baptized in the region of the river, purifying by sprinkling spring water which drained into the Jordan, and as mentioned, even today there are a good number of springs in this region.

The Greek Septuagint confirms this possibility with the story of Elijah where God commanded him to “hide en the brook Cherith” in 1 Kings 17:3. Certainly he did not find refuge “in” the water of the brook, but rather within the range of its banks on dry ground. Verse 5 says Elijah “sat en the brook Cherith,” obviously not immersed sitting in the brook’s waters, but rather was dwelling in the dry area of its banks. So we have considerable leeway in determining just what R. John was doing en the Jordan.

Eis the Jordan

In Mark 1:9 Yeshua was baptized “eis the Jordan by John.” If this verse were isolated from the full context of baptism in the New Covenant it might appear to contradict what has been presented thus far. The Greek preposition eis is used here, and it can mean “into.” However, eis is too flexible a word to prove the modality of immersion in Mark 1:9.

In Mark’s gospel there certainly are verses that include eis in a situation of immersion. Mark 9:42 and 11:23 speak of a person or mountain that are cast, eis, into the sea. Yet in the story of the demonized man afflicted with a legion of spirits in chapter 5 we see a slightly different use of this preposition, and that in close proximity to a situation of immersion. In verse 13 the demons entered, eis, into the swine, they rushed down, eis, into the sea, and were drowned, en, in the sea. Then in verse 14 the herdsmen reported the event, eis, in the city and, eis, in the country. In this story the swine were drowned in the sea, and the herdsman reported the story in the city and in the country. One use of eis adds to the description of immersion in water, the other two describe entrance into a particular local or region, and not immersion. In fact throughout Mark eis is often used to say Yeshua or disciples had entered a particular region.

In Mark 1 eis is found in a dozen verses. The first use in verse 4, translated for the forgiveness of sins. In verse 12, just three verses after Yeshua was baptized eis the Jordan, we read the Spirit impelled Yeshua, “eis, into the wilderness.” Obviously this does not tell of being thrust into the sand of the wilderness. Rather the Messiah was driven into those barren regions. In verse 14 Yeshua went into the region of Galilee; verse 21, into Capernaum and into the synagogue; verse 28, news went into all the region of Galilee; verse 29, into the house; verse 35, into a deserted place; verse 38, into nearby towns; verse 39, into the synagogues and into all Galilee; verse 44, for a testimony; verse 45, into a city. In Mark 7:31 the Fourth Revised Edition of the Greek New Testament reads that Yeshua went “out of the region of Tyre through Sidon, eis, into the sea of Galilee.” Here they were not immersed in the sea. Taken all together, rather than believing Yeshua was immersed in the Jordan river in Mark 1:9 we may just as easily believe that Yeshua was purified after He came into the region of the Jordan river. In fact the parallel in Matthew 3:13 says Yeshua arrived, from Galilee, epi, at the Jordan and was baptized by R. John. In Luke 3:3 R. John came, eis, into all the region of the Jordan.

Furthermore, though word order is not always critical in Greek, there are manuscript variations in word order of Mark 1:9. The fourth revised edition of The Greek New Testament (Aland) takes the reading “ebaptisthe eis ton Iordanen hupo Ioannou.” On the other hand, the Hodges and Farstad The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text reads, “ebaptisthe hupo Ioannou eis ton Iordanen.” This variation certainly suggests some question or confusion on the part of early scribes as to the meaning of the verse, apparently related to the meaning baptism itself.

In Mark 14:20 the Lord warned His disciples, saying, “one who dips with (Him), eis, into the dish” would betray Him. Here we see the difference between bapto (dip) and baptizo (baptize, transform, immerse). Yeshua here spoke of a limited, defined act; of a small morsel of food being dipped in salty water at the Passover table. But if one did not know the Jewish context it might appear Yeshua and the betrayer were both dipping themselves in a bowl. So it is with Mark 1:9, context is critical.

Moreover, the Lord told Peter to go, eis, to the sea, cast a hook and catch a fish, Matthew 17:27. Certainly he was not supposed to dive into the sea. Possibly he was to go on the sea in a boat, but that would be much labor for only one fish. In any event, eis does not tell of immersion, even though we are involved with a body of water much greater in size than the Jordan river.

The man born blind was also told to go, wash, eis, in the pool of Siloam, John 9:7 and when the healed man returned he testified that the Lord had told him, go eis, to Siloam and wash, v. 11. In this story we find a body of water large enough for immersion, yet another Greek word tells us he did not immerse. The word wash, nipto, is used five times in this passage and eight in the passage where the Lord washed His disciples’ feet, John 13, washing only a part of the body. That is the meaning of this word, a washing of some part of the body, face, hands or feet. So, when the blind man was told to go eis, to the pool of Siloam, to wash eis, in the pool, he did not go down into the water, he simply washed his clay covered eyes at the edge.

The Septuagint tells us in 1 Kings 2:8 that when Shimei went to meet David to curse him, he met him “eis the Jordan.” Surely they were not underwater. Shimei cursed David after meeting him near the Jordan. In 2 Kings 6:4 the Septuagint also tells us that Israelite lumbermen “came eis the Jordan and cut down wood.” They obviously performed their work in the woods along the banks of the Jordan, not the middle of the channel. Thus, it is not possible to prove Yeshua was immersed in the Jordan river because of eis in Mark 1:9. The Greek could easily be saying He was baptized in the vicinity of the Jordan, and for Jews baptize could just as easily involve sprinkling or pouring.

Some manuscripts of Mark 1:10 say the Lord went, ek, up out of the water. The Greek ek can easily mean “out of” and is sometimes thought to be more evidence that R. John immersed. Why would anyone get out of water unless in the water, and why in water unless it was for immersion? In response, many manuscripts of Mark 1:10 do not have ek, rather apo is used, as also uniformly found in Matthew 3:16. Apo more readily indicates “from beside” than “out of.” Second, the Lord could easily have come up from the lower levels of the Jordan, the lowest river in the world, from near the water’s edge, without being immersed, to satisfy the usage of ek. It is also that flexible. Due to manuscript variations and the flexibility of the prepositions used, it is not possible to prove the Lord was in the Jordan river, or immersed.

The Ethiopian eunuch and Philip traveled in the chariot and came, epi, upon certain water, Acts 8:26-40. This could indicate they were near water, or that the chariot actually drove “over” a small trickling spring of water and stopped just as they passed it. Both stepped down eis, “to” or “into” the water and Philip actively baptized the Ethiopian. Then both came up ek, “away from” or “out of” the water and went their ways. Both Philip and the eunuch went “to” or “into,” as well as “away from” or “out of” the water, yet the Ethiopian alone was passively baptized by Philip. Again it is impossible to prove immersion with eis and ek because both men are described with these words, but Philip was not immersed and only the eunuch was baptized. We could just as easily conclude he was purified with Ezekiel’s sprinkling.

John’s contrast, “I baptize with water, but He will baptize with the Holy Spirit” was recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke in similar, but not identical form. Matthew 3:11 reads, “en water”... But He will baptize you “en the Holy Spirit.” Mark 1:8 has manuscript variations on this passage, some include the en before both water and Spirit, some do not. Beasley-Murray said of this contrast, “the en as well as the simple dative signify in each case the instrument or means employed in the baptism. The Spirit is an agency comparable with water and fire. Thus Messiah baptizes for cleansing and renewal in a more glorious way than R. John.” Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5 and 11:16 are different however. Luke does not include en in the water portion of the contrast but is found in the Spirit clause, of which F.F. Bruce says about the clause in The Acts of the Apostles (p 102) that en is instrumental, in other words, Messiah baptizes “with” His Spirit.

The Greek prepositions en, eis and ek are not decisive in determining the mode of R. John’s baptism. They do not require immersion. They cannot prove other modes.

BAPTIZE BY WITNESS?

Today some exegetes suggest that during the ritual there was need for a witness, as during certain Jewish purifications. R. John is thought only to have called the people to repentance and immersion but did not personally immerse anyone, he only witnessed the worshiper. We saw in Part One that this interpretation is difficult to believe. Nevertheless, the suggestion that baptize meant “witness to an immersion” tells us some think the word was used in a specific Jewish way to say more than only immerse. The Jewish context of New Covenant baptism has forced certain scholars to believe it acquired a uniquely Jewish meaning.

It is conceded by many that John’s baptism is the prototype for what has been interpreted to be Christian baptism. If so, and if baptize meant witness to immersion, then Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 1:16 is confusing, because if he were some sort of “official witness” how could he say he did not know if he had witnessed anyone else’s immersion. He might say, “I do not remember” but it seems doubtful he would say, “I do not know if I officially witnessed other immersions.” On the other hand, if he were casting water on a group of people to purifiy them, e.g. a household, he might not know all he had baptized.

The Pharisees heard that Yeshua made more disciples than John, also believing He baptized these disciples. But the apostle John added a verse to clarify this assumption. Yeshua Himself did not baptize, rather His disciples were baptizing, John 4:1-2. It would seem that if Yeshua were with His disciples, He would have been near enough to witness immersions. Yet John says categorically that Yeshua did not baptize, but His disciples did, the implication being the disciples were active participants in the rite. Since in this verse R. John and Yeshua were being compared by the Pharisees and they thought Yeshua was baptizing, we must conclude that they believed R. John was also baptizing Israel with water, just as they thought Yeshua was.

NAAMAN

The Septuagint translation of 2 Kings 5:14 also uses baptize and is sometimes thought to prove immersion in the New Covenant. When it was used in the Septuagint it may very well have been used to speak of immersion. Baptize in this passage translates the Hebrew yitbol which is a form of tabal and does mean immerse. Nevertheless, the Septuagint was finally completed about two hundred years before Messiah. It is also interesting to remember that the book of Hebrews quotes the Old Testament exclusively from the Septuagint, and even though the Septuagint Pentateuch never used baptizo, baptisma, or baptismos the author of Hebrews said the Torah commanded diaphorois baptismois, different kinds of baptisms. So even if, long before in the Septuagint, Naaman was immersed by the usage of baptize, by New Covenant days these words had acquired other meanings for Jews.

Furthermore, Naaman was told to go to the Jordan and wash himself. The prophet did not immerse Naaman, neither did he witness him. But in the New Covenant the passive voice of baptizo is regularly used, indicating the people were baptized by someone else. So there is a difference in usage which could easily indicate a modified meaning by the time of the New Covenant. It should also be mentioned that Naaman was to wash himself for a purpose. The washing was not strictly to get totally wet, rather the prophet had said, “Wash and be clean,” 2 Chronicles 5:13. If this were an immersion there was a purpose beyond becoming totally wet, Naaman would be restored to total purity. The Septuagint translators might have used baptize here with the idea of a purifying influence. So we are not forced into an exclusive understanding of immerse.

As another example of Jewish influence on the Greek language, consider the word daimonion, (demon) which, for Jews in New Covenant writings, represents a spirit which is an enemy of God. “They sacrifice to demons and not to God,” 1 Corinthians 10:20-21. But for Greeks it had a different meaning. In Acts 17:18 the Athenians thought Paul was a herald for foreign deities (demons) since he was announcing Yeshua and the resurrection. And in Acts 17:22 Paul used a form of this word to say that the Greeks of Athens were very religious. So also in Acts 25:19, a Roman ruler used a form of this word to describe the faith of Israel. Throughout the New Covenant this word has a special Jewish meaning which, though similar, is different from the typical Greek.

In a similar way another word, lestes, when returned to its late second Temple Jewish context makes a familiar story more poignant. “The word lestes, usually translated ‘bandit’ or ‘brigand’, denotes in Josephus not a highwayman seeking personal gain, but a terrorist, a guerrilla, or (from the man’s own viewpoint) a freedom-fighter, a man working toward a political goal.... The annexation of Judea as a province in A.D. 6 intensified Jewish nationalist feeling, which hardened into a military resistance movement using terrorist and guerilla tactics.... And the Gospels also record in passing the earliest known outbreak of political violence: c. 30 the ‘robber’ (lestes) Barabbas and other ‘rebels’ committed murder in an insurrection in Jerusalem and two of them were crucified.” Josephus, The Jewish War, Penguin Classics, (translation by G.A. Williamson, revised by Mary Smallwood) Penguin Books, London, revised edition reprinted in 1988, Appendix A, p 461-2. With this understanding a different light is thrown on the New Covenant story;

“Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as against a terrorist (lestes)?” Matthew 26:55.

“Now Bar Abbas was a terrorist (lestes),” John 18:40, “and had been thrown in prison for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder,” Luke 23:19.

“At that time two terrorists (lestai) were crucified with Him, one on the right and one on the left,” Matthew 27:38.

“And the terrorists (lestai) who had been crucified with Him also reproached Him,” Matthew 27:44.

(rendered from the Greek)

Later;

“And one of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him saying, ‘Are You not the Messiah?! Save Yourself and us!’”

“But the other answered, and rebuking him said, ‘Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong. And he was saying, ‘Yeshua, remember me when You come into Your Kingdom,” Luke 23:39-42.

(rendered from the Greek)

The charge against Yeshua of being “King of the Jews” signified revolution against Rome, and the goal of the proto-Zealot guerrillas was throwing off the Roman yoke and establishing a Jewish Kingdom to serve God alone. Here, Yeshua is condemned as a lestes, Bar Abbas the lestes is released, and later, another dying lestes changed his mind about Israel’s King and how God’s Kingdom would come. So much vital meaning is lost when this word receives its usual translation of “robber.” Other vital meaning is lost when baptize is not understood in a unique way for the Jewish people. Neither the earlier Septuagint nor current usage among Greeks is able to prove the meaning ob baptism for Jews at the time of the New Covenant.

 The form of John’s baptism is clearly implied when we consider Luke’s viewpoint in Luke/Acts. Did John actively do something to baptize the people or did he only witness the event? Luke 3:16 reads;

“I indeed baptize you with water...He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 1:5 says;

“For John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.”

Acts 2:17-18,33 reads;

“In the last days, says God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh...in those days I will pour out of My Spirit...Messiah poured out that which you now see and hear.”

Acts 10:45 says;

“Also upon the gentiles the Gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out.”

 Finally Acts 11:16 says;

“John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

John was not merely a witness, but just as Messiah poured out His Spirit, so he poured out water to baptize all in Israel who would repent.

 Consider also that when Peter sought to baptize the gentiles he did not use just any water. In Acts 10:47 we see a definite article before water, (see the American Standard Version and Expositor’s Greek Testament).

“Surely no one can forbid the water for these not to be baptized.”

According to Jewish purification practices just any water was not fit for purification. As an observant Jew, Peter would have had to find a suitable spring or pool as a source for valid water with which to properly baptize the gentiles of Cornelius’ house. This also suggests the Messianic baptism was by pouring or sprinkling since Peter asked about forbidding “the water” used to perform this baptism. He did not say, “surely no one can forbid these to be baptized,” as if to say, “surely no one can forbid these to be immersed.” Rather he spoke to his Jewish companions about a special kind of water to properly baptize them.

Next