Validating sprinkling from Romans 6

[anotherpilgrim]

I can't say I've thought this through completely, so I'm posting this out of curiosity and don't intend to start another mode war/debate; more as a invitation for correction in my thinking if my reasoning is faulty here.

I was trying to explain to a friend why I don't think the Romans 6 passage has the mode of baptism in view at all, when the following hit me. In chapter 5, Paul has just established that Christ's life and righteousness is being attributed to our account. In Chapter 6 he's attempting to establish that his crucifixion and death are also attributed to our account, and that baptism is a mark of our union with Christ whereby his, his death becomes our death, his crucifixion becomes ours, etc.

But if baptism is a mark of that union whereby all these things that Christ accomplished are attributed to us, wouldn't sprinkling be a better mode to portray it, because throughout the old testament the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrificed animal on the worshiper was what signified the attribution of the death of that animal to the worshipers death to sin....?

Thoughts..?

 

[Pergamum]

The last body I buried was covered over totally.

 

[anotherpilgrim]

 

[Wretch67]

There are some protestants that call baptism "the watery grave". From an old testament standpoint, Moses sprinkled blood on those who heard the covenant to seal it by blood. Although the New Covenant was sealed by our Lords blood, our death, burial and resurrection is best typified by immersion in water.

 

[anotherpilgrim]

There are some protestants that call baptism "the watery grave". From an old testament standpoint, Moses sprinkled blood on those who heard the covenant to seal it by blood. Although the New Covenant was sealed by our Lords blood, our death, burial and resurrection is best typified by immersion in water.

Perhaps OUR death and burial can be typified by immersion in water, but Paul's argument in the Romans 6 passage seems to be that our death and burial are ATTRIBUTED to us by Christ's death and burial.

My point is, attribution in the scriptures of death for atonement in the OT has normally been by sprinkling of blood. And if then Paul is trying to tie baptism as a mark of the attribution of Christ's crucifixion, death, and burial to us, then following the established pattern of rites that attribute death for atonement, sprinkling would better portray it.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 AM ----------

Now, I may be wrong on the attributions of death by sprinkling of blood in the OT part; looking a little more into that. If anyone has specific verses regarding that, would appreciate it.

 

[Marrow Man]

First of all, Jesus was not buried in the modern connotation of the term; he was entombed in cave. Secondly, there are other references to baptism in the NT that are not addressing mode (but rather then benefits of union with Christ) that have nothing to do with physical burial. For example, Galatians 3:27 -- "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." There are also other references to (spiritual) baptism in the NT which cannot be captured by the burial/immerse imagery if one were looking for a hint to mode (e.g., Acts 1:5;cf. Acts 2:17).

 

[Peairtach]

We're baptised into everything that Christ is, and did for us.

"the watery grave".

Those that weren't on Noah's ark, and Pharaoh and his soldiers were the ones in Scripture who experienced a watery grave.

 

[Wretch67]

Okay, I said the "watery grave" was a term used in some circles, not biblical proof. As a matter of fact, I don't think there are any specific scripture, or instruction as to method. This would include sprinkling, immersion, half immersion, self immersion, etc. I suppose tradition(yikes!) has more to do with it. Christ did not say that we have to pass the cup of His blood clockwise, or that we should eat the bread with our right hand. The sacraments are symbolic, not literal.

 

[Mathetes]

Okay, I said the "watery grave" was a term used in some circles, not biblical proof. As a matter of fact, I don't think there are any specific scripture, or instruction as to method. This would include sprinkling, immersion, half immersion, self immersion, etc. I suppose tradition(yikes!) has more to do with it. Christ did not say that we have to pass the cup of His blood clockwise, or that we should eat the bread with our right hand. The sacraments are symbolic, not literal.

I'm not so sure. Suspending Romans 6 for the moment, Matthew 3:16 tells us that immediately after Jesus was baptized, He "came up out of the water" which to me certainly suggests immersion rather than sprinkling. Unless you want to entertain the notion that John was using a garden hose or something. And I can imagine some pastors having some fun with that, but I digress.

Anyways, it's true that such a passage isn't normative or a command, but if we really have no other explicit instructions regarding the mode of baptism otherwise then I say why not be baptized the way Jesus was baptized? Anyways, just food for thought.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

"Came up out of the water" means nothing, other than that he may have gone into the river and knelt or bowed his head. Note that he "came out of the water" after he was baptized, not when he was baptized. The scripture does not demand that he was dipped, just as we don't demand that a sprinkling NOT take place in a body of water.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I like my Baptist friends, and I want them to use their best arguments for their own positions.

That said, Mt.3:16 and "come up out of the water," is definitely not among the best. The reason may be found at Act.8:39, another baptism. There, both baptized and baptizer "came up out of the water." Is this latter verse to be interpreted as that Philip baptized the Ethiopian by body-hugging him and pulling him down under the surface with him, thus allowing that they both "came up" out of there together in the same manner?

If not, then this language anywhere it is used is largely irrelevant as to mode-description.




I used to be more than a modal indifferentist. I once opposed immersion-baptism with almost as much fervor as some Baptists insist upon it. I frankly thought the witness of Scripture respecting ceremonial washings in OT times clearly taught by analogy how to properly perform a NT ceremonial washing, or baptism. Thus, I reasoned, to baptize by unauthorized mode came too close to a strange-fire offering.

I still don't think that immersion is preferable to other modes; in fact I think it is least preferable of any mode, but no longer for a strictly theological or exegetical reasons; mainly because of its practical obstacles, and the interests of decorum in public worship.

I do now, however, agree that "whelming" (which is an idea quite similar to immersion) has its place in the "imagery" of baptism. Because I do not insist on a minimum amount of water, I think that any mode, and any amount of water, is necessarily capable of conveying ALL the ideas surrounding baptism by means of the symbol. That's what I believe it was intended by God to do, and therefore it must be capable of fulfilling its assignment.

Nevertheless, I also still believe (based on OT-ceremonial ideals) that it is possible for a chosen means of executing a true ritual to "overpower" in its role as a carrier-signal for theological freight. I think the question of mode is, in the last analysis, an important "wisdom" question, and the Word should be our guide in supplying that answer.

In other words, I still end up firmly on the opposite side of the fence from my typical Baptist challenger, with his strong insistence on a definite mode.

 

[Phil D.]

I can't really say more than I have in the past on this subject here, but I'll simply reiterate a few historical facts for (re)consideration.

1. Prior to the 17th century no known Christian writer of any stripe expressed any doubt that passages like Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12 were figurative references to the normal apostolic practice of baptism by immersion, and almost all direct commentators on that passage specifically affirmed such.

2. Most historical writers through the 18th century, including many of the most respected Reformed and Presbyterian scholars, affirmed that these passages made reference to immersion, and that this view was in accord with a straightforward, non-presumptive reading of the most descriptive biblical accounts ("they came up from the water") etc.

3. The first ecclesiastical assembly to put pouring/sprinkling on par with immersion was in the 14th century.

4. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) was the first Christian writer to suggest that any mode other than immersion was sometimes used in the NT, although he too solidly affirmed that immersion had been both the normal and intentional practice.

5. The first explicit denials of the historical understanding of Rom. 6:4 came from several second and later generation Puritan writers (Owen and Henry are good examples), and then only after they had been sorely pressed by certain baptisitic parties who were insisting that immersion was the only valid mode - and thus all other baptisms were null and void.

Of course consensus is no guarantee of correctness, and no one is obligated to agree with the historical view concerning apostolic immersion. But I believe one should at least be aware of who is necessarily indicted when the understanding that the prima facia historical and biblical evidence points to immersion is discounted or ridiculed.

I also think it is interesting to consider that the Westminster divine who (unsuccessfully) led an effort to have immersion declared an "unlawful" mode of baptism in the Standards - although he largely succeeded with respect to the assembly's earliest document (DPWG) - based on his then understanding of the biblical data (Lightfoot), later concluded himself that immersion had indeed been the normal apostolic practice.

I also think some here would be surprised to realize just how many modern Reformed theologians have quite forcefully agreed with the historical consensus on this issue. Herman Bavinck is a good example:

In the first period of the life of the church, the rite of baptism consisted in immersing candidates for baptism in water and after a moment lifting them out again. The Greek word baptizein already points in that direction, for it literally means “to dip” or “dip into”...Furthermore, the cases that Scripture reports clearly show that in the apostolic era baptism occurred by way of immersion (Matt. 3:6; John 3:23; Acts 8:38)...Finally, sacramental phraseology [in the New Testament] is completely based on this mode of administering baptism (Rom. 6:[3], 4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12). [Reformed Dogmatics, Baker, 2008; 4:516]​

 

[anotherpilgrim]

Ok, to simplify my original post and remove the baptism aspect from it for a minute, would it still be accurate to say that by OT ceremonial rites, attribution of death and shed blood for sin was primarily by sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice on the worshipper...?

 

[Pergamum]

I like my Baptist friends, and I want them to use their best arguments for their own positions.

That said, Mt.3:16 and "come up out of the water," is definitely not among the best. The reason may be found at Act.8:39, another baptism. There, both baptized and baptizer "came up out of the water." Is this latter verse to be interpreted as that Philip baptized the Ethiopian by body-hugging him and pulling him down under the surface with him, thus allowing that they both "came up" out of there together in the same manner?

If not, then this language anywhere it is used is largely irrelevant as to mode-description.




I used to be more than a modal indifferentist. I once opposed immersion-baptism with almost as much fervor as some Baptists insist upon it. I frankly thought the witness of Scripture respecting ceremonial washings in OT times clearly taught by analogy how to properly perform a NT ceremonial washing, or baptism. Thus, I reasoned, to baptize by unauthorized mode came too close to a strange-fire offering.

I still don't think that immersion is preferable to other modes; in fact I think it is least preferable of any mode, but no longer for a strictly theological or exegetical reasons; mainly because of its practical obstacles, and the interests of decorum in public worship.

I do now, however, agree that "whelming" (which is an idea quite similar to immersion) has its place in the "imagery" of baptism. Because I do not insist on a minimum amount of water, I think that any mode, and any amount of water, is necessarily capable of conveying ALL the ideas surrounding baptism by means of the symbol. That's what I believe it was intended by God to do, and therefore it must be capable of fulfilling its assignment.

Nevertheless, I also still believe (based on OT-ceremonial ideals) that it is possible for a chosen means of executing a true ritual to "overpower" in its role as a carrier-signal for theological freight. I think the question of mode is, in the last analysis, an important "wisdom" question, and the Word should be our guide in supplying that answer.

In other words, I still end up firmly on the opposite side of the fence from my typical Baptist challenger, with his strong insistence on a definite mode.

Amen,

I do now, however, agree that "whelming" (which is an idea quite similar to immersion) has its place in the "imagery" of baptism.

---------- Post added at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 AM ----------

Ok, to simplify my original post and remove the baptism aspect from it for a minute, would it still be accurate to say that by OT ceremonial rites, attribution of death and shed blood for sin was primarily by sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice on the worshipper...?

The main picture of water baptism is not, however, the sprinkling of blood, but of burial, and I don't even recall rantizo ever even being used of water in the NT at all, but only of blood. Maybe somebody could do a word study for rantizo in the NT.

(Col 2:12) having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

(Rom 6:4) We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

For other reasons, people have stated that mode (immersion/pouring/sprinkling) is a secondary matter, and I can respect that. But, it does seem that the main picture given to us of what water baptism should be is a state of totally being covered by the element (above/below/around) such that even if Jesus was buried in a cave and even if Noah and the ark was merely surrounded by water below and above (rain and clouds) that the main picture remains the same and is best met by immersion.

 

[Tim]

The main picture of water baptism is not, however, the sprinkling of blood, but of burial[...]

I acknowledge the many connections between baptism and burial, but would it not be more proper to hold that the picture of baptism (i.e., the use of water) is washing. I mean, we don't bury people in water, but we do wash ourselves with water....

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[anotherpilgrim]

I acknowledge the many connections between baptism and burial

Just a comment on that; I think there are many rites and rituals in the Bible that have a significance by the DEFINITION of the rite having that significance and not by any resemblance of the significance to the physical rite itself. So, I've always considered baptism to have a connection to burial by the definition given to what baptism is to represent and not by virtue of the physical act of baptism itself.

For an analogy, I've thought the same about the well-known phrase in the Psalms 'purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean'. By the usual analogy of burial in water (physical) representing the burial of the person or the burial with Christ (spiritual), in this phrase, there is the cleansing from sin (spiritual), but... no direct physical cleansing with hyssop...

Admitted, the Psalmist has in mind the sprinkling of the water or blood of purification for spiritual cleanings, but in no way is that connected to any physical cleansing. So, the connection of hyssop and the cleansing comes by definition of it's prescribed use and the significance by definition given to that use; not because there was any physical cleansing that could be related to a spiritual cleansing.

I think maybe the same is true of the connection between burial and baptism.

However, relating to my original post and in the same vein of physical rites being given an significance by definition, is it or is it not accurate to say that sprinkling of blood of the sacrifice was the predominant physical rite that was by definition given the significance of attributing the death of that animal for sin to the worshiper? (Reading the responses so far, I get the feeling I may be wording this in a very confusing way )

 

[Pergamum]

The main picture of water baptism is not, however, the sprinkling of blood, but of burial[...]

I acknowledge the many connections between baptism and burial, but would it not be more proper to hold that the picture of baptism (i.e., the use of water) is washing. I mean, we don't bury people in water, but we do wash ourselves with water....

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Hmmmm.....thanks. Pondering now....

 

[Phil D.]

Anish,

For what they're worth, here are two excerpts from a comprehensive study I did some years ago on the topic of Levitical cleansing rituals. You may be able to glean from them the information you are are looking for, and draw your own conclusions.

________________

While the Old Testament clearly prescribed the pouring or sprinkling of various liquids as part of many cleansing rituals, they were but two of several modes regularly employed. Here is a basic outline of the situations in which various modal actions were specifically enjoined:

Sprinkling (nazah—sprinkle; or, zarak—throw; cast): Sprinkling the ashes of a red heifer mixed with water was crucial in the purificatory process for those who had come into contact with a dead body or grave (Numbers 19:13, 18–21; cf. Hebrews 9:13). On one historical occasion the priests were also sprinkled with this mixture (Numbers 8:7), as they were once with blood and oil (Exodus 29:21). (Certain inanimate items plundered in war appear to have been treated with this special solution as well [Numbers 31:21–23]. )

The sacrificial blood of bulls and/or goats was also sometimes sprinkled on people, such as when the Mosaic covenant was inaugurated, and when the Levitical priests were consecrated (Exodus 24:8, 29:21; Leviticus 8:30; cf. Hebrews 9:13, 19; 10:22). Sprinkling the blood of a sacrificial bird mixed with water was used in the cleansing of lepers, as well as to purify buildings which diseased persons had entered, or that had been infected with various unsanitary conditions such as mildew (Leviticus 14:7, 51).
In simply quantitative terms sprinkling was most often used as a means of applying the blood of sacrificial animals (and occasionally oil) to various sacred objects and furnishings in the tabernacle and temple, such as the altar and Mercy Seat (Exodus 12:5–7, 21–22, 14:16, 27, 24:6, 29:16, 20; Leviticus 1:5, 11, 3:2, 8, 13, 4:6, 17, 5:9, 7:2, 14, 8:11, 19, 24, 30, 9:12, 18, 16:14, 15, 18, 19, 17:6; Numbers 18:17, 19:4; cf. Hebrews 9:19, 21, 11:28).

Pouring (yatsaq): Oil was actually the only fluid that was poured on a person’s torso in the course of a Levitical ritual, with such being done in the cleansing of lepers and the consecration of priests (Exodus 29:7; 40:13, 15; Leviticus 8:12, 30; 14:18, 29; 21:10). (Pouring oil was also done in anointing kings to their position, although this procedure wasn’t part of the Levitical law per se[Numbers 35:25; 1 Samuel 10:1; 2 Kings 9:3, 6; 1 Chronicles 11:13, 29:22; cf. Psalm 23:5; 45:7; 133:2; Ecclesiastes 9:8; Matthew 26:7; Mark 6:13; Luke 7:46; Hebrews 1:9; James 5:14].) In addition, washing the priests’ hands and feet with water almost certainly involved some manner of pouring (Exodus 30:17–21; 40:30–31; cf. 2 Kings 3:11)). Notably, however, no Old Testament ritual expressly involved pouring water, or a water-mixture on a person’s head or torso.

In a non-corporal context, blood was at times poured over an altar, or onto the ground after certain sacrifices had been made (Leviticus 1:15; 4:7, 18; 5:9).

Bathing (rahas - understood by many historians and virtually all Hebraists as comprehending an immersion): As we will later see, every major form of cleansing that entailed pouring or sprinkling a purificatory substance on a contaminated person—as well as some that didn’t—also required the subject to bathe themselves in water. Even rituals that may have primarily focused on the sprinkling of a sacrificial element still included a requirement for the participants to undertake such a bathing, usually as the concluding act of the larger, overall process.

Miscellaneous Procedures: A few Levitical ceremonies also involved daubing, or smearing [natan—give; put; place] blood or oil on a person’s right ear lobe, thumb, and big toe (Exodus 29:20; Leviticus 8:23, 24; 14:14, 17, 25, 28). Additionally, as part of many Levitical purifications people were also required to wash (kabas—wash; launder) their clothes (Leviticus 11:25, 28, 32, 40; 13:6, 34, 45, 54, 58; 14:8, 9, 47; 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17, 21, 22, 27; 16:26, 28; 17:15; Numbers 8:7, 21; 19:7, 8, 10, 19, 21; 31:24).

____________________

In terms of purifying inanimate objects, sprinkling various substances was certainly a very common practice (e.g. Leviticus 16:14; Numbers 8:7, 19:13). We must of course balance this fact by also recalling the sweeping command in Leviticus 11:32 that, “any [unclean] article that is used for any purpose...must be put into water [bo b-mayim <> LXX; bapto eis hydor]...” (cf. Numbers 31:23).

The various modes prescribed for personal cleansings might be quantified as follows:

Sprinkling (nazah/zaraq) various substances was used in three main circumstances: [1] In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 29:21), [2] to cleanse those with leprosy (Leviticus 14:7), and [3] in purifying persons who had touched a corpse or grave (Numbers 19:13).

Pouring (yatsaq) oil was involved in two of these same situations, namely: [1] In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 40:15), and [2] in cleansing those with leprosy (Leviticus 14:18). In addition, pouring water was almost certainly part of the regular washing of the priests’ hands and feet (Exodus 30:21; cf. 2 Kings 3:11).

Bathing (rahas) with water was prescribed in at least seven different circumstances, including all of those previously mentioned: (1) In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 29:4), (2) as part of the priests’ ongoing purifications—such as before putting on their vestments, after making certain sacrifices, and often before eating—(Leviticus 16:4, 28, 22:4–7), (3) in cleansing those who had touched a corpse or grave (Numbers 19:19), (4) in cleansing lepers (Leviticus 14:8), (5) in cleansing those with various bodily discharges (Leviticus 15:16), (6) in cleansing those who had touched a contaminated person or object (Leviticus 15:7, 26–27), and (7) in purifying those who had eaten carrion or other unclean meat (Leviticus 17:15–16).

By such an accounting it can be said that bathing was the most prominent mode by which Levitical cleansings were administered. Moreover, it was apparently the only mode involved in the remediation of every major category of religious impurity.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There is little or no reason to interpret "bathing" as a full-body immersion. Besides this not being a priestly ritual, but a personal one, no guides whatever are given. The plain meaning of the words is that the individual is required to wash his body completely. Can the term for washing "comprehend" (take in as a possible mode) immersion? Certainly. But such a trite observation has never been an issue.

The two major strikes against required bathing being a mandatory full-body immersion, biblically speaking, are
1) there is no furniture or facilities supplied at the cultic center for this purpose. Only in the days of Solomon (after 480 years) was an outsized laver constructed that could possibly have been put the the use of such bathing. But, it seems more than a bit improbable that the laver was put to that use. Besides, a bath (or at least several) like that pollutes the water, and polluted water would have to be replaced periodically. The rolling mini-lavers (closer to the Tabernacle scale of the single laver) would probably have been the ordinary use wash-stands, and their fill taken from the massive bronze "sea".

2) no OT ritual service can be contemplated that would require the existence of items or facilities that could not be procured in the wastes during the Israelite wandering, when the statutes were originally given. If immersion-baths are virtually unimaginable for a host of tent-dwelling nomads, then clearly immersions were not contemplated in the Mosaic legislation.

If full-body, ritual immersions grew up as popular methods for fulfilling various law-requirements in later days, it is obvious that such elaborations have zero force in law or in religious precedent, absent a further divine appropriation with accompanying prophetic validation.

 

[Phil D.]

There is little or no reason to interpret "bathing" as a full-body immersion.

Rev. Buchanan, allow me to respectfully suggest the opposite, for several reasons (some which I have mentioned before on another thread, but I'll repeat here).

On a philological level, the word translated "bathe" in these passages (ESV) is rahas, which seems to point to a pervasive procedure in line with immersion.

[Rahas] Wash, bathe, i.e., remove dirt and impurities using water and possibly other cleansing agents, either immersed in a body of water, or with lesser amounts of water, used both as normal personal hygiene and as ceremonial ritual...Be abundant, formally, washed, i.e., have an abundant amount of a quantity, as a figurative extension of washing oneself in a large mass of liquid. (The Dictionary of Biblical Languages; OT )​

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament also notes that the idea of a large quantity of fluid is present in similar words used in other Semitic languages:

[Rahas] ...This root refers to ritual washings and is cognate philologically to Akkadian rahbasu, to overflow, to flood. It is cognate to Egyptian and Ugaritic rhs with the same meaning.​

So while in itself rahas may not definitively indicate a specific mode of washing, it would seem to accord best with methods involving a considerable amount of water. This view is confirmed by the only OT account that gives further details as to how rahas was comprehended in OT times:

And Elisha sent a messenger to him [Naaman], saying, “Go and wash [rahas] in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean"...So he went down and dipped [Hebrew tabal <> LXX ebaptisat (baptizo)] himself seven times in the Jordan [b-Yarden <> en to Iordane], 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 5:10, 14)​

I would also point out that many capable and respected Hebrew scholars, both Jewish and Christian, have concluded that OT Levitical rahas was indeed carried out by immersion (Calmet, Lightfoot, Edersheim, Danby, Maimonides, Neusner, etc.).

no OT ritual service can be contemplated that would require the existence of items or facilities that could not be procured in the wastes during the Israelite wandering, when the statutes were originally given. If immersion-baths are virtually unimaginable for a host of tent-dwelling nomads, then clearly immersions were not contemplated in the Mosaic legislation.

I think this kind of observation actually militates against your position. That is, simply realizing the sheer number of people that came out of captivity helps put a proportional perspective on things. According to the census records in Numbers, over 600,000 adult males took part in the exodus from Egypt. When this number is extrapolated to include women and children, the total number of people involved would have almost certainly been several million. It then seems the amount of water necessary to carry out occasional religious immersions would have been a relatively modest part of what would’ve been needed to sustain the general hygiene and sustenance of a large nation of herdsmen. Whatever the Israelites were commanded to perform for worship during their years of wandering, even if it was to involve substantial amounts of water in the middle of a desert, I think the matter is best summarized in the Scripture’s own assessment of their long journey (thinking also of the miraculous provision of food in the same vein):

For the LORD your God has blessed you in all the work of your hands. He knows your going through this great wilderness. These forty years the LORD your God has been with you. You have lacked nothing. (Deuteronomy 2:7)​

Only in the days of Solomon (after 480 years) was an outsized laver constructed that could possibly have been put the the use of such bathing. But, it seems more than a bit improbable that the laver was put to that use. Besides, a bath (or at least several) like that pollutes the water, and polluted water would have to be replaced periodically.

We have many, but certainly not every detail as to the infrastructure of Solomon's temple and the surrounding area. It is traditionally thought that Solomon likely constructed several large water reservoirs near Bethlehem (still called "Solomon's Pools") and the several mile long aqueduct from there that terminated near the Temple Mount, and that he was responsible for finishing the vast cisterns that still exist under it.

In terms of the Second Temple, there are a number of historical and archaeological indications that it included a sophisticated water system which, among other things, facilitated the religious washings that were performed in the numerous immersion pools (mikveh - which had integrated means for frequent changing of the water) that have been uncovered in and around the Temple Mount.

If full-body, ritual immersions grew up as popular methods for fulfilling various law-requirements in later days, it is obvious that such elaborations have zero force in law or in religious precedent, absent a further divine appropriation with accompanying prophetic validation.

I would concur that insofar as immersions may have been part of the ceremonial law it has no direct force with respect to NT ordinances. However, knowing that religious rahas were almost certainly performed by immersion in the Second Temple period should have some bearing on how we read the NT's references to Jewish religious bathings (e.g. the baptismos in Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38; Hebrews 6:2, 9:10) and associated concepts and word usage when it comes to understanding NT water baptism.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What can I say. There's a passion to find baths in the "trackless waste." That's amazing to me.

The Bible says nothing about such things. Not a peep. It does say God gave them all (the hundreds of thousands) water from the rock, and that it (the rock, and the water) "followed them," i,e, all their needs were met.

I've been in deserts for weeks on end. I know what it's like to luxuriate in a shower or bath afterward. The children of Israel were hardened in body and mind (and softened in heart) by their forty-year ordeal in the wilderness. The idea that they built themselves hundreds, thousands, or millions of baths, dug in or toted around the desert, is pure nonsense. It's wish-fulfillment. The days of convenient baths lay ahead, when resting in the Land.

Everyone can (and should!) perform personal hygiene in the desert. You take rags, and a bowl of water, and you wash up. You take a "sitz bath" when you may. It beggars the imagination to propose that absent ritual specifics, the people assumed some requirement to ensure that they were at some moment wholly submerged, tip to toe. The silence of Moses is deafening.


The philological origin of any of the words used is irrelevant to the point of distraction. The real point is that the semantic range of the term is SO ELASTIC that it covers the field. I can bathe in seven different ways, some dealing with my whole body, and still never get completely submerged at one time or another. To insist on it is a purely ARBITRARY consideration, an imposition forced on both the text and the nomadic realities by a theological a priori.

I love the story of Naaman. It tells us how one man was given specifics (!) on what his special case demanded. He (a Gentile and a leper) was told to wash not once, but seven times. He was sent to a specific body of water (one which would allow a dipping); which he used to its full advantage. Elisha's directions are the sorts of specifics and minutiae that are NOT present in the Law of Moses. It is an exegetically unsound, unwarranted derivation to extrapolate from that (rather late) unique description to cover ALL the ritual baths of the OT cultus, thereby mandating a mode.

The point stands. The Land and the Wilderness are two places, and two states: one of relative plenty, one of relative privation. The people's needs are fully met in the desert, but how do we arrive at reckoning a full-body bath among those needs? That they "lacked nothing?" That begs the question regarding the conduct of said bathing.


Nor will I argue with any scholar who wishes to affirm that OT cultic bathing was (on occasion, or even commonly at some time or other) carried out in the rock-cut mikveh's one can still see relics of today. This admission is miles away from finding cisterns in the wilderness. Since such baths are not required by the language of the Law, and since it is contrary to the nomadic situation of the people, deep-baths are unnecessary, and therefore not mandatory to the OT religion. There is, therefore, little or no reason to interpret the instructions for bathing as expecting a full-body immersion.



My essential point re. Solomon's Temple continues in force, regardless of how much water has been brought into the picture. Temple operations required a certain amount of water. The official business was equipped with appropriate furniture. If the wealth of Solomon gave the priests (and others) their first indoor swimming pools in addition to the bronze Sea, that idea doesn't impact the sufficiency of the minimalist tradition that was part and parcel of the wilderness introduction of the cultus. I am not inclined to make Solomonic or Herodian extravagances (or anything in between) the norm. Give everyone in Jerusalem and every city and village a private bath, and the shepherd in his tent in the Arabah could still make himself clean according to the law with a canteen and a rag.

And that fact, so far as I can see it, has more bearing on how NT baptisms should be read, than reliance on archaeology, inaccessible for much of the past 2000 years. This is a redemptive-historical read, that prioritizes revelation in the hermeneutical process. I'm not suggesting that archaeology can't assist us; but it is certainly the handmaid to exegetical, biblical, and dogmatic theology.

 

[Phil D.]

Rev. Buchanan,

I apologize if my previous post needlessly irritated you. We are evidently going to have to agree to disagree on the nature and force of the various evidences on this topic.

God bless!