Tags
A mikveh near the base of the Southern Steps of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Many people today have questions about baptism. Is it really necessary? And if so, by what method? With a great deal of confusion in our religious world concerning baptism, it is helpful to see how it was performed in the first century.
As indicated by the New Testament, baptism was first administered by immersion – this is what the term baptize means. This was not a radical invention; Jews had engaged in ritual immersion long before Christ’s birth. They used mikva’ot (singular mikveh), or ritual bathing pools. They were square in shape and equipped with a set of steps by which a person could access the water. Some mikva’ot were small. Others were much larger, more than capable of accommodating an adult.
The Greek word baptizo means to plunge, dip, or submerge. There would be little question about this fact if English translators had chosen to translate the term rather than transliterate it. This decision permitted the continuation of methods already in use that had developed over time, such as sprinkling and pouring.
In the first century, baptism was considered indispensable. This is reflected in the writings of some of the early church fathers. For example, Tertullian called Christians were “little fish” because they were “born in water” (De Baptismo, 17). In time, other methods began to be used. This may have begun in order to accommodate those who did not have adequate availability to the proper facilities. Today, sprinkling and pouring remain as popular methods. Some, recognizing the need for water but exercising greater flexibility, go even farther. I once knew a Presbyterian minister during my time in seminary who “baptized” a man by dipping his thumb into a cup of water and then placing it on the man’s forehead.
Another mikveh near the Southern Steps of the Temple Mount.
The question inevitably arises, “If baptism was by immersion only, how were 3000 people baptized on Pentecost?” To put it simply, mikva’ot were everywhere in Jerusalem. Archaeologists have discovered well over one hundred of them in Jerusalem, with nearly forty within a stone’s throw of the Temple Mount. We have to remember that these pools were for both inhabitants of Jerusalem and pilgrims. This is in addition to the mikva’ot that were part of every synagogue. Additionally, the mikva’ot at the Temple Mount were fed by nearby cisterns which, in turn, were fed by aqueducts so that the pools would have plenty of water.
Jewish believers took ritual purity very seriously. In pictures of mikva’ot, we might notice that there is often a stone dividing line going down the middle of the pool’s staircase. This was to ensure that the ceremonially unclean person did not ascend the same way in which he had entered the mikveh. The distinction between clear and unclean was crystal clear – a person descended down one side of the steps and ascended the other.
A large mikveh near the southern end of the Western Wall.
Some today may be tempted to think that people make too much of baptism. They disagree that baptism is necessary, citing passages stating that salvation does not consist of works (Eph. 2:9). Here they equate baptism with some kind of meritorious work. Scripture does not define it this way. Instead, it is merely the final act of faith in which one demonstrates his or her commitment to Christ. And its importance is emphasized by Luke, who was careful to record baptism as a part of almost every conversion experience in the book of Acts.
We might look at another example. If the man born blind had never washed his eyes at the pool of Siloam per Jesus’ instructions, would his eyesight have been restored? Personally, I don’t think so. What if he had washed in some other body of water? Jesus didn’t command him to do that. Jesus gave him specific instructions. If the man had not obeyed, then we have no reason to think that he would have been able to see again.
The offer of sight was a free gift, as long as a specified conditions was met: the man was to wash his eyes in the pool of Siloam. Does this mean the man earned his sight? Of course not. Similarly, salvation in the New Testament has its own conditions. Everyone–excepting the universalists–agrees that faith is a requirement; this is beyond dispute. For those who insist that baptism is necessary, this is merely part of the requirement of faith, as the Bible makes abundantly clear.
Perhaps “transliteration” did not take place with the word “baptize.” It is my understanding that the Church of England did not adopt sprinkling for immersion until 1622, 11 years after the KJV version was published. Here is what Miriam Webster’s Online dictionary says; “Middle English, from Anglo-French baptiser, from Late Latin baptizare, from Greek baptizein to dip, baptize, from baptein to dip, dye; akin to Old Norse kvefja to quench
First Known Use: 13th century” Conclusion: Both the translators and the readers of the KJV 1611 understood clearly that “baptize” was immersion. Also the history of baptism in England is covered very thoroughly at: tracesofthekingdom.org
LikeLike
I would like to correct myself. Upon further research I found this quote that suggests that the Church of England did not give up immersion until much later, 1643 – 44!
“The Westminster assembly convened July 1, 1643. Very naturally the question was brought before this august body of divines, ‘Shall we continue the practice of immersion or shall we adopt sparkling instead?’ When it came to a vote, twenty-four voted to continue the ancient and apostolic practice, and twenty-four voted in favor of sprinkling. Dr. Lightfoot was chairman, and it was his duty to give the deciding vote. He cast his vote in favor of sprinkling.” (EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPAEDIA, Vol. 3, p 236.)
The above quote is 3rd party and not verified but I believe it to be correct. “IF” it is correct then most certainly everyone in 1611 understood “baptize” to mean immersion. Of course the KJV we know and read is actually a 1729 revision, the original 1611 is more “middle English” than modern and is nearly impossible to read.
LikeLike
Hi Russ,
Thanks for the comment. I’m not sure what you mean that perhaps transliteration did not take place with the word “baptize.” The term baptize is indeed a transliteration (literally, “across letters”) of the Greek term baptizo. I searched online and found an Old English version (ca. AD 600-1066) that I believe transliterates the term. Since I don’t read Old English, this is a guess on my part. Middle English versions (c. AD 1066-1500) are clearer. Wycliffe’s New Testament–which was completed by the end of the 1300s–transliterates the term also. This was continued with the advent of Modern English versions (c. AD 1500 to Present). The King James Version, which was essentially a revision of the Bishop’s Bible (and is technically Early Modern English), simply followed suit. Pouring seems to have been introduced in the late fourth century, according to Eusebius. Sprinkling follows later (perhaps the 1300s in the Roman Catholic Church), but you are right that immersion seems to have been preferred in all cases until the last few centuries. But again, if English translators had chosen to translate baptizo rather than transliterate it, I’m not sure about the extent to which we would be talking about the issue today. Then again, mankind is incredibly resourceful in finding new interpretations of clear instructions!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Estes Church of Christ | Estes Echo
Outstanding article on the essential nature of baptism. How sad that many can’t see the connection between baptism and grace. Your analogy of the Pool of Siloam is excellent.
LikeLike
Pingback: Q&A. The Jewishness of the Early Church – Brave Ole World