What was the water baptism that John performed?

[guanophore]

So, why does Jesus need to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness?

Thanks for your wonderful parsing of this issue JDAX. A well researched and detailed response.

We got on this topic from a previous thread called Tradition is Dead, in which tabcom asserted that baptism was one of the rituals that was fulfilled by Jesus (and subsequently set aside).

**How could Paul be referring to the OT laws when Jesus says the laws were not done away with? (Matt 5:18) **

**Did he dip them in water? I should say not. Water baptism was a jewish ritual that Paul declared was done away with. Besides that, there is something else going on . . .

What does Paul say in verse 17?

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel** ** This is idiomatic language. It does not mean dipping the church in water. It is talking about husbands love your wife as Christ loved His Church.**Please . . . read verse 1.
The author is saying leave the basics behind; grow-up in your faith.

He has been advocating that the NT nowhere teaches that believers should be baptized in water. He first made a study of the intertestamanetal period, and demonstrated that there was more than one meaning for the word baptism.

**I have been examining this point in detail at a new thread I’ve started,
‘The Meaning of Baptism’.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=167415**

With respects to you scriptural citations, I intend to address them in detail, after I feel that the above thread has been completely digested.

I don’t think he will be able to accept your reasoning that John’s baptism was relevant to the Christian Church.

 

[JDAX]

tabcom,

Thanks for your response. Notice again, however, that the Scripture which you cite does not say anything to prove that Jesus was proselyte-baptized.

Here is the Scripture that you cite:

The ritual of circumsion was performed on Jesus (Luke 2:21).
Joseph and Mary performed the custom of offering two turtle doves (Luke 2:24).
Jesus, as a full grown man, completed the tradition of water baptism (Matt. 3:13).

But the third Scripture says only that Jesus was baptized by John. It does not say that he received this as a proselyte baptism. We agree that John baptized Jesus (who wouldn’t agree?); what we’re disagreeing over right now is whether he was baptized in a proselyte baptism, and also whether he did it to be recognized as a Jew. The Scripture that you cite says nothing about this (and, in fact, I’ve suggested alternative interpretations of Matthew 3, as well as additional reasons to think that this was not a proselyte baptism and was not done to Jesus so that he be “recognized” as Jew).

I’m similarly confused about your citation regarding John’s baptism. I ask for some tradition saying that John performed mere proselyte baptism, but you cite this:

Ger hatstsedeq (proselyte of righteousness).

“All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism (Tebhilah), and a Sacrifice . . . .- the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5).” The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah – Alfred Edersheim 1883

Now again, we agree that there was such a thing as proselyte baptism, and that the Pharisees required three things for proselytes. So, I can agree with this citation. The citation, however, doesn’t say anything directly about what John was doing, or whether his baptism was serving any part of this proselyte process. That’s the question at hand; and I’ve given what I think are good reasons to think that his baptism was not part of that process. (The citation you give here only tells us about what was required for proselytes by the Pharisees, which is a different question.)

Thanks again!

 

[JDAX]

“fellowChristian,”

Thanks for your thoughts, particularly the correction that Matthew’s genealogy was on Joseph’s side whereas Luke’s was on Mary’s.

I don’t want to say too much much, but I would briefly like to address the thought that perhaps Jesus was a Gentile because Ruth was. You say that you read this in a Catholic book somewhere; I’d be interested in seeing what this book said. In my opinion, what it likely was saying was that Jesus perhaps had some genetic relation to Gentiles as well as Jews, perhaps to highlight his role as Savior of all mankind; I find myself doubting that it out-and-out said that Jesus was a Gentile. I say this because, as I’ve noted, there is very strong evidence suggesting that Jesus was recognized as a Jew from birth and treated as one (He was presented at the temple, circumcised, went to Passover (according to the custom of going before one’s bar mitzvah), He even sat in the temple among the teachers and gave them amazing answers (gentiles would presumably not be allowed to do this), the Samaritan woman recognized Him as a Jew upon seeing Him, etc.). Further, we know that Mary herself was Jewish, and, as tabcom’s sources tell us, the son of a Jewess was regarded as a Jew. That Mary was Jewish is obvious from various facts, namely that she wanted to have her child circumcised (Luke 2:21), that she and Joseph followed the Law of Moses (Luke 2:22-24) and made sure to do everything it required (Luke 2:39), that she and Joseph went to Passover in Jerusalem every year (Luke 2:41), that they followed the customs about bringing children to the Passover feast at the age of 12 (before bar mitzvah) (Luke 2:42), that she is a relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) and Zechariah her husband, both of whom are descendants of Aaron and follow the Law (Luke 1:5-6) (incidentally, the fact that they, being pious Jews, associate so freely and openly with Mary also indicates that she was not an “unclean” gentile; Mary even stayed with them for three months (Luke 1:56)), that she calls herself a servant of the Lord of Israel (Luke 1:38, 48) and even associated herself with Israel (Luke 1:54). Also, we know that Joseph married Mary, and that Joseph was righteous according to the Law (Matthew 1:19), and yet apparently the Law regarded it as a sin for Jews to marry Gentiles (unless they converted and became Jews) (see Deuteronomy 7:3, also 1 Kings 11 where it is said that Solomon did not obey the Law because he “clung in love” to Gentile women; also Ezra 10 where the Israelies repent for marrying foreign women). Also, tradition tells us that Mary was the child of Anne and Joachim, both Jews. (See material about Anne and Joachim here: themass.org/novena/life.htm)

Beyond all of this, there’s the fact that, even if Ruth was a Gentile, Ruth was not the mother of Jesus, and all that would have been required for Jesus to be regarded as a Jew was if his mother was Jewish; his previous descendants don’t matter. So this means that all that is required is that Jesus’ descendants in between Himself and Ruth became Jewish. And Scripture seems to indicate this all over the place. First of all, it appears that Ruth herself converted and became a Jew. In Ruth 1:15, Naomi tells her to go back to her homeland’s gods, but then in Ruth 1:16, Ruth says, “Your people * will be my people, and your God my God.” Ruth 2:12 tells us that she had taken refuge under the wings of the God of Israel. Finally, the elders of Naomi’s people (and others at the gate) seem to bless the marriage unanimously and think that God will do the same (Ruth 4:11-12), which I think would have been somewhat unlikely given the Laws against marrying Gentiles. Also, King David appears to have been a Jew, and yet he was also a descendant of Ruth; Ruth’s previous “gentileness” did not make David a gentile. Indeed, Ruth was an ancestor of David’s father, not of David’s mother, and it is David’s mother’s Jewishness that would make David a Jew, so Ruth’s status simply does not matter even for David. Since David was a Jew and David was an ancestor of Christ (so to speak), Ruth’s gentile status (even if she didn’t convert, which it seems she did) would not have affected Christ.

There is some material about Ruth’s conversion and also why David was a Jew here:

beingjewish.com/identity/kingdavidjew.html
jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm*

 

[Philthy]

Yes.Yes.Yes, God did comply with the custom of water baptism (Luke 3:16 - John 1:26 - Mark 1:9 - Matt 3:55).

Why would Jesus do that? Would the Pharisees have recognized Him at all if He didn’t conform to their rituals?

In order for Jesus to be recognized as the Son of David, He had to be accepted by the Pharisees as a Jew. That could only be accomplished by performing their rituals.

This is bogus IMHO. Christ definitely broke many of the rituals of the Sadducees and Pharisees which drew consternation from them which He used to reveal His divine authority and reveal their hypocrisy. 3 examples are his disciples “not fasting”, his “curing” on the Sabbath, and his not washing his hands.
You would do better to argue that he was baptized to “fulfill all rightousness” in the sense that the elders, who had the authority to do so, bound him to. And just as he told others, “do as they say” because they have Moses’ seat, he also did. Your other argument is simply not true.

 

[fellowChristian]

“fellowChristian,”

Thanks for your thoughts, particularly the correction that Matthew’s genealogy was on Joseph’s side whereas Luke’s was on Mary’s.

There is some material about Ruth’s conversion and also why David was a Jew here:

beingjewish.com/identity/kingdavidjew.html
jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

Yes I agree with everything you say . I am pleased you have added the rest of the “missing” story for me.

The book (I am at work and don’t have it with me) is a Catholic book. Like a children’s Catechism book. It outlines the whole entire bible. It even begins with the story of the war with the fallen angels. St. Michael and all that. Then goes into the story of Creation. Found the author and the book it is still in print ( called home for the info) here it is.The first time it was printed was 1881!

lcaminoreal.safeshopper.com/162/555.htm?1

 

[tabcom]

JDAX . . . .

With respect to your posts #s 33-36:

"The case is thus heavily stacked against tabcom’s claim that John’s baptism is a mere proselyte baptism like that of the Pharisees, which Jesus undertook in order to “gain recognition,”.

Please allow me to clarify this point.

John’s water baptism, although having the characteristics of proselyte baptism, was something completely different. John’s water baptism had a specific purpose. Once that purpose was fulfilled, it was completed.

John’s baptism is apparently required because it was sent by God now . . . . to prepare Israel for the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven . . . ., so it might be that Jesus accepted it just in order to begin that very Kingdom’s inauguration; John’s baptism prepared the way for Christ, so once Christ received it, Christ began His own ministry, and John’s faded away . . . . this means that Christ’s baptism “fulfilled all righteousness” in that it began the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven that John’s baptism, sent by God to prepare the way for that Kingdom, pointed to and prepared for.

Well stated, thank you.

But there’s also another possible, perhaps compatible and supplementary, interpretation. Luke 3 suggests that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized by John and began his ministry . . . We also know from Hebrews that Jesus was our High Priest. Now, it just so happens that the Law of God, which set the standards for righteousness, apparently required that priests be thirty years old before they began their ministry . . . , and also that they be washed with water when that ministry began . . . … Is it a coincidence that Jesus receives a washing with water from John at the age of 30 when He Himself begins His ministry, and that He says that this is necessary to fulfill all righteousness (i.e., as determined by the Law)? I myself doubt that it is, so this may be what Christ’s statement means.

Again, well stated. Thank you for submitting it.

I believe that you have eloquently answered the question in the OP:
2. What was the water baptism that he performed?

 

[guanophore]

JDAX . . . .

With respect to your posts #s 33-36:
Please allow me to clarify this point.

John’s water baptism, although having the characteristics of proselyte baptism, was something completely different. John’s water baptism had a specific purpose. Once that purpose was fulfilled, it was completed.

Well stated, thank you.

Again, well stated. Thank you for submitting it.

I believe that you have eloquently answered the question in the OP:
2. What was the water baptism that he performed?

Very well, shall we move on? I am very interested to know what type of baptism Jesus was doing (not He, but His apostles).

 

[JDAX]

Folks,

Before we do move on, I think another cautionary note might be in order with regard to the ideas about proselyte baptism being presented here. We should note that some of tabcom’s main evidence (particularly the Edersheim work) is from the late 1800’s. Some more recent work on the history of baptism indicates that proselyte baptism was perhaps not a regular practice of the Jews at the time of Jesus, and did not really come into practice until 70 AD (well after the time of Jesus’ death and also after Pentecost and the going forth of the Christian Church).

D. S. Dockery, for example, in his 1992 article on baptism, writes, “there is no clear evidence prior to A.D. 70 that proselytes underwent baptism as a requirement of conversion . . . There is no clear reference to Jewish proselyte baptism in the OT, Philo, or Josephus.” Dockery also argues that John’s baptism was not a proselyte baptism or even modelled after a proselyte baptism, noting various differences: proselyte baptism was self-administered whereas John’s was not; proselyte baptism was apparently for Gentiles only (contrary to some of what we’ve been saying here) but John’s was for Jews, for repentance; etc., etc. He does note, however, that “the background of John’s baptism remains fiercely debated.”

See an article about this here: probe.org/content/view/206/47/

 

[JDAX]

Incidentally, my last post is of some important relevance here for at least one other reason: tabcom has been claiming elsewhere that water baptism was a ritual ordinance of the Jews prior to Paul’s writing of Colossians 2 that was, according to his reading of Colossians 2, “done away with.” The Dockery quote suggests that this wasn’t the case; if Dockery is right, it wasn’t required for conversion by the Jews until AD 70 (and, as tabcom himself has said, the Pharisees’ use of it was never commanded by the Law anyway). And, regarding Paul’s letter to the Colossians, “the general consensus is that these epistles were written during Paul’s imprisonment at Rome (cf. Ac 28:16,30-31). If such is truly the case, then Paul wrote Colossians around 61-63 A.D. from Rome” (source: ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/colo/colo_00.htm). So, if Dockery’s history of baptism is right, it’s nearly impossible that Paul had in mind a required (i.e., required to be a full Jewish convert) water baptism of the Jews that was supposed to be “done away with” when he wrote Colossians 2; there was apparently no such thing.

(Perhaps one could try to suggest that John’s baptism was required for all Jews, and that Paul was therefore saying that it was done away with in Colossians 2, but then there are various problems with this reading, too: first, one would have to provide evidence that (1) John’s baptism was required for all Jews, (2) that the Colossians themselves, at AD 60-61, still thought that they were required to undergo John’s baptism even though John was long dead, (3) that the Colossians knew of it as an ordinance in handwriting (Colossians 2:14) against them, etc. And furthermore, a serious difficulty: many members of the Colossians congregation to whom Paul was writing were gentiles, who, again according to Dockery and also the New Testament witness, were never required to go to John’s baptism in the first place (it was for Jews, i.e., to Israel and to the Lord’s people). It seems that Paul explicitly mentions the gentiles to whom he is speaking in Colossians 1:27 and indeed, in the verse immediately prior to Colossians 2:14, he seems to be speaking directly to the gentiles, for he speaks of “the uncircumcision of your flesh” (Colossians 2:13). Likewise, he seems to be speaking of formerly pagan gentiles when he mentions their former idolatry (Colossians 3:5, 7), and he takes care to mention both Jews and Greeks (Colossians 3:11) and to speak of both gentile and Jewish Christians (in Colossians 4). But these gentiles were apparently not required to receive John’s baptism (it wasn’t for them) and so it can’t be that Paul was talking about John’s baptism either when he said that the handwriting with its ordinances against them had been done away; John’s baptism was apparently in no sense an ordinance against them.) So, it’s highly unlikely that Paul was talking (to the gentiles and Jews at Colosse) about any required water baptism when he said that the handwriting with its ordinances was nailed to the cross. But I’ll likely say more about the exegesis of Colossians 2:14 at a later time.

 

[tabcom]

Incidentally, my last post is of some important relevance here for at least one other reason: tabcom has been claiming elsewhere that water baptism was a ritual ordinance of the Jews prior to Paul’s writing of Colossians 2 that was, according to his reading of Colossians 2, “done away with.” The Dockery quote suggests that this wasn’t the case; if Dockery is right, it wasn’t required for conversion by the Jews until AD 70

This is a most interesting question. Did proselyite water baptism even exit before 70 AD?

In the spirit of “the background of John’s baptism remains fiercely debated.” , I was googling for scientific information on this question, I found Gedaliah Alon’s “The Levitical Uncleanness of Gentiles”.

"Alon’s article systematically attempts to refute Buchler’s claim that Gentile impurity emerged in the first century. Alon defended the antiquity of the notion by associating the impurity of Gentiles with the impurity of the idols they worshiped. Alon was confident that Gentile impurity ws “one of the earliest halakhot” (p. 168). " Quotation taken from:

Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism

 

[JDAX]

Thanks for the link to that article. I’d be interested to hear its conclusions, since I note that it says only that Alon “attempts” to refute Buchler (although I’m not clear what Buchler’s thesis is anyway), but doesn’t say that Alon succeeds. (Alon’s article is also a bit old, too, unfortunately, so I’m not sure what to say about it; I’m no scholar on this issue.)

Incidentally, the text of the article that you’ve linked to happens to mention a book by G. R. Beasley-Murray called “Baptism in the New Testament” which you might be interested in looking into. I say this because Beasley-Murray begins with the Old Testament washing, proselyte baptism, etc., then moves to the New Testament/1st century and attempts to figure out exactly what baptism is during New Testament times, as I think you’re trying to do. However, he concludes from the evidence that water baptism is a vital part of Christianity.

I should also add that I’m not staking a claim on Dockery’s work either way; if it turns out that Dockery’s wrong about proselyte baptism, then there are (I believe) various other reasons for thinking that your exegesis of Colossians 2 is mistaken (if I may speak plainly without meaning to cause offense). I will hopefully try to provide them soon. God bless!

 

[tabcom]

One final note on John’s water baptism and the possible connection to the ritual of prosylete baptism . . . . Although it maybe argued that the jewish ritual of water baptism had its roots around the destruction of the temple (70 AD) or much earlier (during the exile in Babylon), there also could be an explaination for the model of water baptism that John was using from the mystery religions of Babylon. The historical record of these types of water baptism’s existing before John’s baptism of repentence is more evident.

 

[tabcom]

I’m going to conclude my involvement in this thread by inviting everyone that
contributed to it – and the lurkers – to continue with me as I explore the question:

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire? (Part III)

 

[guanophore]

One final note on John’s water baptism and the possible connection to the ritual of prosylete baptism . . . . Although it maybe argued that the jewish ritual of water baptism had its roots around the destruction of the temple (70 AD) or much earlier (during the exile in Babylon), there also could be an explaination for the model of water baptism that John was using from the mystery religions of Babylon. The historical record of these types of water baptism’s existing before John’s baptism of repentence is more evident.

There are may elements that God took from pagan practices, sanctified them, and changed their meaning in His covenant. Circumcision was one of these. I don’t have a problem at all recognizing that water batptism had other origins and meanings. However, it must be recognized that the Baptism of John came from God, and it’s purpose was to bring the chosen people closer to God. It was valid because of it’s commandment by God, the same as circumcision.

 

[Brywan]

Everytime I try to read a thread like this I am confounded by the amount of convoluted thinking it takes to interpret what should be a very simple text of scripture…

I was an evangelical Protestant for 44 years before converting to Catholicism–and yes I had my Greek dictionaries and lexicons and all the other tools one needed to be able to interpret the Bible “correctly.” (By the way, what hope is there for the ordinary Joe in the pew who isn’t interested in this kind of study? Guess it’s a good thing I was there to teach him what the Greek REALLY meant…)

I finally decided that I wanted to hold all of my Christian beliefs in COMMUNION with the rest of the believers who had lived throughout history. Very simple really.

To come up with an interpretation of “baptism” that eliminates the ritual cleansing by water is a late-coming invention of fancy-schmancy Bible “study” and has nothing to do with how the majority of Christians have interpreted this word for the past 2000 years.

I want to stand with my fellow believers through the ages…

Thank God that in Catholicism we have a magesterium…