Lesson
#4
The Old Testament: Now Naaman, captain of the army of the king
of Aram, was a great man with his master, and highly respected, because by him the
Lord had given victory to Aram. The man
was also a valiant warrior, but he was a leper. Now the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had taken captive a
little girl from the land of Israel; and she waited on Naaman’s wife. And she said to her mistress, “I wish that
my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! Then he would cure him of his leprosy.” Then the king of Aram said, “Go now, and I will send a letter to
the king of Israel.” And he departed
and took with him ten talents of silver and six thousand shekels of gold and
ten changes of clothes. And he brought
the letter to the king of Israel, saying, “And now as this letter comes to you,
behold, I have sent Naaman my servant to you, that you may cure him of his
leprosy.” And it came about when the
king of Israel read the letter, that he tore his clothes and said, “Am I God,
to kill and to make alive, that this man is sending word to me to cure a man of
his leprosy? But consider now, and see
how he is seeking a quarrel against me.”
And it happened when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel
had torn his clothes, that he sent word to the king, saying, “Why have you torn
your clothes? Now let him come to me,
and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.” So Naaman came with his horses and his chariots, and stood at the
doorway of the house of Elisha. And
Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times,
and your flesh shall be restored to you and you shall be clean.” But Naaman was furious and went away and
said, “Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on
the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and cure the
leper. Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers
of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage. Then his servants came near and spoke to him and said, “My
father, had the prophet told you to do some great thing, would you not have
done it? How much more then, when he
says to you, Wash, and be clean?” So he
went down and dipped [baptizo
- baptizo – immerse, dip] himself seven times in the Jordan, according to
the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a
little child, and he was clean. (2
Kings 5:1-14)
The Gospel: – Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight!” Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather belt about his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. The Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized [baptizo - baptizo – immerse, dip] by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’ for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove his sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he permitted Him. And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” (Mat 3:1-17)
The Talmud: If he accepts [conversion], he is circumcised forthwith. After he is healed, he undergoes immersion [in a tank specially arranged for ritual purposes] without delay, and two disciples of the Sages stand by him and instruct him in some of the minor and more important precepts. When he has immersed himself and ascended from the water he is an Israelite in every respect. (Everyman’s Talmud by A. Cohen p. 65).
At five years the age is reached
for the study of Scripture; at ten for the study of Mishnah; at thirteen for
the fulfillment of the Commandments [at this age he becomes Bar Mitzvah ‘a son
of the commandment’ and is received into membership of the community]; at
fifteen for the study of Talmud; at eighteen for marriage; at twenty for
seeking a livelihood; at thirty for entering into one’s full strength. Everyman’s Talmud, Cohen, p. 73.
Description of the Baptism Window
· Top Icon: Descending Dove representing the Holy Spirit
· Main Window: Jesus in red standing in the Jordan River, John baptizing Jesus by pouring, Jesus the only one in the water, John wears sandals, has hairy girdle, purple cape, cross staff with something that looks like a lunch pack. John is not sporting a halo. People [disciples and Pharisees] looking on. Allegedly in the desert, however, there is greenery and buildings. The buildings in the background is a curiosity.
· Bottom Icon: Sea shell traditionally representing baptism.
The subject of baptism has caused the creation of several historic Christian movements/denominations. Even today, there is the well known Baptist movement with several sub-denominations including the Southern Baptists which is the largest Christian group aside from the Roman Catholics. Their history, along with others, is a study in the modes and meanings of baptism. To some, this is all important. To others, it is simply a symbol. All of the gospels tell the story of Jesus’ own baptism. Two of the gospels directly tell the disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel and baptize the converts. Most churches have baptism as an important part of Christian life. In some cases, it is even referred to as a sacrament or an ordinance. Even though it has a very obvious place in Christianity, much of what is known about the hows and whys of baptism is still a cloudy issue in today’s church. What follows is an exploration of the various modes, histories and theologies associated with baptism.
Traditionally, there are three historic modes of baptism. (1) Immersion is a complete dunking of a person under water. (2) Pouring is often a good bit of water poured over the head of individual. (3) Sprinkling is typically where a handful of water is shaken over the head of an individual often continuing with the hand laid upon the person being baptized. Proponents of these various methods have good scriptural reasons as to why what they believe is the correct way. Many, who have strong beliefs about baptism, often believe that there is no basis for an alternative point of view. What follows is a bit of detail about each mode.
Immersion is practiced by the Baptists, Churches of Christ, Mormons and many independent non-denominational churches. In many cases, these churches have built-in facilities called baptismals for the practice of immersion. If you have never seen a baptismal or a baptism in this manner, it can be quite a surprise. My first witness of a Baptist immersion involved getting wet myself. I was playing music up on the dais and had wondered what was hidden behind the curtain. When they announced that there was to be a baptism, I noticed that there was some movement behind the curtain as a light was turned on. As the curtain opened, I saw one of the ministers and a young convert dressed in white robes. The minister said a prayer and then dunked a young male under water. The resulting splash got me too. I would have liked to have seen my expression from the congregation as I’m sure it was priceless.
The case for immersion is based mainly on the language of the gospels. baptizo [baptizo] literally means to immerse or dip. Its practice is often spiritualized into a cleansing of one from sin based on John’s statement about baptism being for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). In addition, there is the quote of Paul which describes being buried with him in baptism into his death and subsequent resurrection (Rom 6:3-5). In a kind of fuzzy vague way, a sinner receives baptism for the remission of sins by which a symbolic death occurs and one is reborn. With this said, there are several resulting theological debates and problems.
Some believe if it is for the remission of sins and since Jesus said to do it as a part of salvation (Mark 16:16), one can not be saved without it. The Churches of Christ are strong proponents of this position. To a lesser extent the Baptists and Mormons have strong requirements for it. In the case of most Baptists, one can be saved without baptism; however, one cannot be a member of the Baptist church without a proper immersion. Detractors have noted that if so, it takes one more step to join a Baptist church than it does to go to heaven.
The
Mormons have a strange hierarchy of the heavenlies where one of its lower
chambers is inhabited by the non-baptized, yet righteous, souls. When one receives a proper temple baptism,
they are entitled to the higher heavens.
If one died without a proper baptism, a living Mormon could be baptized
as a proxy for the dead thus allowing the deceased access to the higher heavens
(1 Cor 15:29). Detractors of this point
show that there is no historic precedent for proxy baptism and that this verse
better relates to a belief of death in resurrection. Consider, what good is a baptism for death and resurrection IF
there is no resurrection at all as some believed at Corinth?
Another problem is that of archaeology. Many detractors of immersion point out that there just wasn’t enough water at the temple mount to immerse some 3000 people on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-41). They also point out that if Christ were sending his disciples out to preach and to baptize, then to require a lot of water for immersion would have been too prohibitive in many of the arid areas evangelized in the first century.
Pouring is really of a variation of Sprinkling. Churches that practice this are mainly based on the older historic denominations such as the Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist. The core idea is that this mode best simulates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the individual. In the case of Jesus, at his baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. There is the example of an empty cup which is filled to overflowing. Thus it is so full inside to where it is drenched outside too. Thus, it could not be wetter or more filled with water. Those of this belief expect the baptism of the Holy Spirit to happen in a similar way. In this case, baptism is a symbol of that mystical baptism of the Holy Spirit.
There is also the quote from Isaiah which speaks of sprinkling many nations (Isa 52:15). In the book of Acts, the Ethiopian eunuch is reading this text and asks Phillip to interpret it (Acts 8:26-39). The resulting conversation led the Ethiopian to notice water and then asked what hindered him from being baptized. From this it is deduced that baptism is a fundamental part of the preaching of the gospel and that it relates to Isaiah’s ‘sprinkling of many nations’. Thus, the assumption is that Phillip and the Ethiopian walked out into some water and had a good pouring/sprinkling ceremony.
Another problem solved by this mode is that of the scarcity of water combined with the occasional need to baptize a large number of converts. This idea is that the baptizer would dip a hyssop into the water, similar to the high priests dipping hyssops into blood, and sprinkling it on the people (Psalm 51:7). There is also the belief that such makes Jesus’ strange reference to John and his baptism make more sense regarding the reed shaken in the wind (Mat 11:7).
Historically, this mode has the edge since it has been practiced supposedly since the first century. Detractors of this view point out that the literal language simply does not support it aside from the quote from Isaiah and the cryptic reference to John the Baptist. Based on reformational ideas of personal interpretation, the ann-baptists of Europe attempted to more correctly practice the ordinance of baptism. Interestingly, other reformers did not see the need to change the mode of baptism.
In an ironic way, Judaism has basically preserved the mode of baptism as practiced by John the Baptist and the early church. Whereas the church grew in to something based on what Jesus started, Judaism has preserved much of what created Jesus and his movement. In the various texts of Jewish lore, the subject of baptism is discussed and its hows and whys are clearly stated. Such has been the case since the first century and yet few of the historic church fathers or reformers ever dared to consider references to baptism in the Talmud and Mishnah.
Strangely, based on Judaism, all of the above methods of baptism are technically wrong. To be sure, Jewish baptism is by immersion and that of self-immersion. The baptizer, if present, is simply a witness and/or a catalyst rather than someone who baptizes by physically dunking another person. In the case of John the Baptist, his Hebrew name is translated to mean John, who based on what he says causes others to go under. If you analyze John’s words and their effects on the crowd, it had the effect of drawing people to the Jordan for baptism.
These coming to John were Jews including Pharisees who would have had a huge fit if John were doing something un-kosher. In fact, they seem to recognize the validity of what he was doing, even though they later questioned his authority to do so. Thus, these ritual immersions were for the cleansing of sin according to Jewish law. They could be done over and over as the need arose. In the case of menstruating females, such was required monthly – even to this very day. Since this was such a required formality, many houses had personal ritual immersion baths called mikvaot, i.e. baptismals. At the wedding of Cana, Jesus turned baptismal water into wine (John 2:6-8). Also, many facilities had collections of mikvaot to serve large numbers of those in need. The temple in Jerusalem had such a huge complex of mikvaot, it is estimated that all 3000 of Peter’s converts could have immersed themselves in a matter of minutes. These mikvaot are found all over Israel in archaeological digs.
Since baptism was self-administered, it was assumed that no infant could or would self-immerse themselves. Thus Jews have scoffed at the notion of infant baptism in some Christian denominations.
In relation to the Ethiopian Eunuch, the location of the Eunuch’s baptism was around the Gaza plain where the coastal waters are rather shallow. According to Judaism, certain water sources were referred to as living water which had the power to cleanse one from all sin (John 4:10). A source of living water could be a river, pool of at least 128 gallons or the ocean. Based on this idea, the Ethiopian would have had to walk out some distance into the ocean to be able to self-immerse himself. Phillip, as a witness, needed to go with him to make sure that every hair of his head went under.
One additional point about Jewish baptism involves the need of Jesus to get baptized at age 30 and its purpose being that of the remission of sins. On the surface, there is a great contradiction for the Christian in this thought. Why would Jesus need baptism for the remission of sins!? In fact, the actual story tends to bear out something more important. John seems to realize that Jesus does not need baptism and therefore asks Jesus to baptize him. When Jesus refused, he said he was doing it to fulfill all righteousness. You can search the whole Bible from Genesis to Maps and not find a reference to being baptized at 30. However, if you look in the Talmud, you’ll find it in the list of things required of a Jewish male at certain ages such as bar-mitzvah (quote above). At 30, the Talmud describes a person as ready to enter their full strength.
Naaman’s self-immersion is the first use of the word baptism in the scripture. According to the words of Elisha, Naaman was requested to wash in the Jordan seven times. After initially scoffing at this, Naaman decided to give it a try. It is important to note that Elisha used the word wash in the sense of Levitical washing and not the traditional word for baptize. When Naaman actually did the washing, his actions are translated in the Septuagint as baptism. This has led many to believe that ceremonial washings in the Law of Moses were actual self-immersions which the church inherited as believer’s baptism.
Based on the above, the purposes of baptism might be more murky and cloudy than ever. Another way of looking at it might be to reconstruct a fresh understanding of the modern baptism theology based on historical evidence.
To be sure, the historic evidence for baptism points to the mode as being immersion. If the act of immersion has some literal and demonstrable spiritual effect, then perhaps we should all be literally immersed as required of scripture. It should be noted that almost none of us have been baptized in strict accordance to the literal way that Jesus and the disciples experienced in Jewish ritual immersion. If, on the other hand, it is a symbol of a greater work, then its mode is of less importance and the meaning can be carried in other ways. For example, my children have all been sprinkled in the Methodist church around the month of June. Each of my children were given a baptism candle which we light every June as a family event. The goal is to yearly remind our children of their baptism and what it means. In my experience, this works very well and I highly recommend it. If they decide later that they would prefer to be immersed and/or self-immersed, I would highly encourage it.
Speaking of baptizing children, the gospels and Jewish historic documents would mostly seem to be against it. The one notable exception to this would be where Paul says that his words would save a Cornelius and his whole house (Acts 11:14). This is to assume that children would/could have been in the house and that baptism was a part of salvation. Other scriptures used to justify infant baptism include Jesus’ statement about ‘suffering the little children to come to me’. While baptism is not mentioned, children are requested to come to Jesus (Mat 19:14). Also, the traditional theology of Augustine maintains there is original sin and therefore the need to cleanse a child as early as possible from its sin by baptism.
Perhaps the stronger of the arguments would be baptism’s relationship to circumcision. When circumcision was first introduced to Abraham, he and his family had this done later in life when they understood the covenantal relationship. Later, Jewish law required circumcision of infants so they could grow up in the covenant as people of God. Thus, when an infant is baptized, it is statement of family that this child has already come under the domain of God and he is trained up as s/he should go, s/he will not depart (Prov 22:6).
In Judaism, baptism is a continual thing for continual cleansing of un-cleanness. In Christianity it is usually a one time event. The idea is that baptism is the original washing of sins whereby we die to self and are raised as a new creation, born again as a child of God. As with immersed Jews, baptized Christians still sin. For the Jew, it requires another washing. For the Christian, it would mean another baptism, IF it were not for the second ordinance of the church – the Lord’s Supper. This ordinance, for the Christian, is a remembrance of the shed blood and broken body of Christ which was done to redeem us from our sin (Mat 26:28). This ordinance, unlike baptism, is something believers are invited to do on a continual basis – as often as you partake, think of me (1 Cor 11:23-26).
According to Genesis, God said his spirit would not always strive with mankind (Gen 6:3). Right after this statement, the flood of Noah came and cleansed the earth. According to the story, Noah sent out several birds trying to determine if the water had abated. His last bird was a dove which brought back an olive branch on its first reconnaissance trip. On the second trip, the dove did not come back (Gen 8:7-12). Some think this was symbolic of God’s spirit leaving the earth in accordance to God’s previous statement. These same think such gives greater meaning when God’s sprit allegedly came back to humanity in the shape of a dove at Jesus’ baptism. In this idea, humanity was redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus. Humanity was also invited, not only to be baptized, but to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit whereby the believer is empowered to do equal and greater works than Jesus did (John 14:12).
May we all reflect and recall our own baptisms and ponder its potential greater meanings in our lives today.
In memory of Nancy Ann Smith Walker by E. S. Bill Walker
