Mikvah's and baptism

[Plimoth Thom]

Mikvah\'s and baptism

I posted this in another thread awhile back, but didn't get any response. Has anyone studied the case for John the Baptist's "Bethany beyond the Jordan" being tel Al-Kharrar? The site has several pools archaeologists believe John used to baptize by immersion.

Here's a question I've often thought about: What role, if any, did Jewish mikvah's play in baptism within the early church? If there was any relation between baptism and ritual cleansing via the traditional mikvah than that would suggest immersion would be a common mode of baptism. In fact mikvah's have been found at sites which archaeologists believe may be associated with John the Baptist. Just some food for thought.

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by Plimoth Thom]

 

[Plimoth Thom]

Another thing, there were mikvah's next the stairs leading up to the temple mount. If I recall correctly there is a mikvah next to the stairs Peter stood on when he addressed the crowds on Pentacost. The mikvah would be a readily accesable and familiar way to baptize the converts on pentacost.

 

[Mayflower]

Dear Plimoth,

Probely they dit not only used the mikvah's, because in the Didache, there is also written that they used to sprinkle (as far as i know ?).

 

[Plimoth Thom]

Yes the Didache mentions pouring as the least preferred method of baptism only if its not possible to immerse.

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Notice that it says "living water" is preferred. "Living" water is moving water as in a stream or river. Mikvah's were built with aqueducts bringing "living" water to them so that water was constantly flowing in and out of the mikvah. So that it would not be full of "dead" or still water as in a cistern.

I'm not trying to argue against pouring or sprinkling. I just get uneasy when people try to argue against immersion as a valid method. It seems like the historical and archaeological evidence points to immersion as the preferred method of baptism.

 

[Mayflower]

I'm not trying to argue against pouring or sprinkling. I just get uneasy when people try to argue against immersion as a valid method. It seems like the historical and archaeological evidence points to immersion as the preferred method of baptism.

I know that you are arguiing against the mode.
What do you think about the next link of Nigel Lee :

http://www.fivesolas.com/sprinkle.htm

 

[Mayflower]

Originally posted by Mayflower

I'm not trying to argue against pouring or sprinkling. I just get uneasy when people try to argue against immersion as a valid method. It seems like the historical and archaeological evidence points to immersion as the preferred method of baptism.

I know that you are arguiing against the mode.
What do you think about the next link of Nigel Lee :

http://www.fivesolas.com/sprinkle.htm

Iam sorry iam mean : I know that you are "not" arguing against the mode.

 

[kceaster]

Thom...

I recently thought about this. The pools right outside the temple mount were used as a bath so that the people coming into the temple area would be clean before they entered. That doesn't mean that it was frequented by pilgrims in towels with rubber duckies. The baths or "collections" of water were no doubt for ceremonial use.

Now the question is is a mikvah an early baptismal font, or is it merely something that may be used for such an occasion? In other words,, when the early church thought of a baptismal font, did the Mikvah come to their minds? Who's to say? Some may have and some may have not.

Practically speaking, if the 11 were present at Peter's sermon, which could very well have taken place on the steps leading up to the temple mount next to these mikvah's, then they would each have about 273 people to baptize. If it was a broader number like 72, then each one would have about 42 people to baptize, but then, there weren't 72 mikvah's either.

I find it hard to believe that Peter would baptize 3000 people in the mikvah's outside the temple mount and there be no Jewish uprising. With all of the pilgrims in town for the feast of weeks, I can't imagine them just letting him use their ceremonial pools for an innovative Christian baptism. If he was preaching at about 9 in the morning, there would be many Jews there either going to or coming from the temple. How would they let him get away with baptizing 3000 people in the name of Jesus Christ whom most of them knew had just been executed, using the mikvahs which were set aside for Jewish ritual use?

Either they weren't at the temple mount and he used immersion somewhere else, or he baptized them in the way Moses sprinkled the blood on the people. I think the text expresses the latter because there does not seem to be any time displacement. I think it happened just as Luke writes and if sprinkling was used, it could be over just as soon as the words were spoken.

Either way, I think mikvahs could have been used as for baptism, but I think it is a stretch to say that they became the preferred baptismal font.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Plimoth Thom]

Originally posted by Mayflower

What do you think about the next link of Nigel Lee :

http://www.fivesolas.com/sprinkle.htm

An interesting article, though I only skimmed through it. The concept of comparing NT baptism to the OT ritualistic sprinkling of blood is a new one to me. I'll have to read the article more and think on this further.

 

[Mayflower]

Nigel Lee also writes someothing about the MIKVA'S in that articel.