I have been reading Joan E. Taylor’s The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. In “Chapter Two: Immersion and Purity” she juxtaposes John’s baptism with ritual cleansing at Qumran (e.g., 1QS). She quotes Josephus’ comments about John Antiquities 18.116-117:
(116) Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; (117) for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.[1]
There are similarities between John’s baptism and ritual cleansing in 1QS, namely that both understand baptism to be something that follows the cleansing of the soul, and cleansing of the soul happens through righteous actions: in the case of 1QS obedience to the Law as interpreted by the Teacher; in the case of John as exemplified through virtue, righteousness toward others, and piety toward God. For both John and 1QS the body could be contaminated through unrighteousness, but the soul cannot be cleansed through baptism. So one must first cleanse one’s soul through righteous action, then, and only then, the washing ritual would make one pure in body.[2]
This brought to mind 1 Peter 3:21 where the author states explicitly of baptism that saves that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus”. If most ritual cleansings were for the express purpose of making the body ritually clean so that the body could “catch up” with the soul (if you will), then is 1 Peter aiming to imply a direct contrast? If so, what does this mean for Christian baptism?
[1] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
[2] For an analogous ritual remember various placed in the Gospels where Jesus and the Pharisees argue over rituals like washing one’s hands before a meal.
January 30, 2013 at 11:28 am
I haven’t seen Taylor’s work nor have I gone into 1QS. From my research, however, …
W. M. Ramsay (Luke the physician, and other studies in the history of religion. New York: Hodder and Staughton, 1908) relates that G. Mackinlay (The Magi: How the recognized Christ’s star, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907) speculated that Jesus’ baptism was before Tabernacles in 25 CE, whence His ministry began, but Ramsay can only place the baptism sometime before Passover of 26 CE. J. K. Fotheringham (The evidence of astronomy and technical chronology for the date of the Crucifixion. Journal of Theological Studies, 35, 1934) rather pointly disagreed with Ramsay’s, and therefore as well G. Mackinlay’s, reckoning. Fotheringham claims Ramsay retroactively based his counting figuring in the co-regency years of Titus (in whose reign Fotheringham claims Ramsay stated Luke wrote) and his father Vespasian. F. F. Bruce (John the forerunner. Faith and Thought, 94(3), 1965) relates that extra-Torahic ablution practices and frequencies had developed among smaller Jewish fringe groups. He also states that “a further analogy to John’s baptism may be sought in the practice of Jewish proselyte baptism.” Bruce and R. L. Webb (Jesus’ baptism: Its historicity, and implications. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 10(2), 2000) call John’s baptism, performed by him onto others, his innovation (cf. the sparse information on Bannus, first c. CE). It expanded well past mere ritual immersion of the physical body to go from an unclean to a clean state. It also included expressions of repentance (Luke 3.3), illustrations of forgiveness (connected with repentance in Is. 55.7), and cleansings from moral issues. John’s baptism (Luke 3.16) was also for conversion/initiation into a ‘readiness state’ (C. J. Bleeker, Initiation: Contributions to the theme of the study-conference of the international association for the history of religions held at Strasburg, September 17th to 22nd, 1964. Leiden: Brill, 1965); and Ant. 18.117) for the individual’s and community’s judgment and restoration by the coming Messiah, see Webb and Bruce. In form, all other Second Temple era descriptions of ritual cleansings were those of the self-administered sort.
January 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Taylor emphasizes John’s baptism as coinciding somewhat with 1QS in that it seems like first someone had to show signs of repentance, then the baptism was allowed. The Gospels present John as telling his audience to bear fruits of repentance before submitting to his baptism. So I agree that it illustrates forgiveness, but it seems, to use some Christian language, to be “an outward symbol of an inward reality”. The context is slightly different though, with the worldview adopted by John affirming a state of spirit and a ritual state of the body that are connected, but not necessarily the same.
January 30, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Yet more evidence that the Baptizer was possibly influenced, if not, a part of the Essenes (or the Quamran community)? If John the B. was chronologically baptizing in this manner before the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (per the Gospels) what does that imply regarding the Christian understandings of baptism? Is water immersion to be understood as cultural? Interesting questions to ponder.
January 30, 2013 at 5:26 pm
Interestingly, Taylor presents quite a case for disassociating John’s baptism directly with the community at Qumran. I haven’t come to a conclusion on this matter quite yet. There are important similarities, and important dissimilarities, and it is hard to tell if there is a connection between Qumran and John or if both Qumran and John share similar morphings from their common roots in Second Temple Judaism.
John’s baptism does seem like a bridge to Jesus’ baptism though. Jesus’ is different (at least as portrayed by the Gospels and practiced by the early Christians) is that it is baptism unto a person. John’s baptism is under his authority, but Jesus’ is under his authority and associated with his identity.
As far as baptism being cultural–in some sense, yes, very much so. We don’t share the worldview of ritual purity from which baptism emerges. Yet I am hesitant to suggest it is irrelevant for moderns, since it has evolved to become part of Christian proclamation, and it has survived the culture from which it originates, even creating religious culture in our world to some extent. The uniqueness of Christian baptism as identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus makes me shy away from any suggestion that it may be a symbol from a bygone era, like a mikvot or something.
January 31, 2013 at 8:24 am
Interesting points.
A couple of thoughts: Jesus juxtaposes His baptism against and over John’s, (water vs. fire)- and its interesting that some consider Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit as that Baptism. I wonder if Christ’s pre-resurrection baptism with John was not used by the Gospels to theologically juxtapose the Holy Spirit which purifies over water which purifies? (It begs the question why Phillip immersed the Ethiopian, and why at Pentecost they were immersed afterwards). From an historical perspective, I wonder if Jesus’ baptism under John would not have been seen as: a) an act for repentance, OR ritual cleansing of some kind in the body; b) Jesus identifying Himself with John’s ministry as under his authority (was Jesus considered a disciple of John’s, etc); and c) why did Jesus not baptize His own disciples?
January 31, 2013 at 8:37 am
So, if I could tie together three statements from the blog and the replies…
“So one must first cleanse one’s soul through righteous action, then, and only then, the washing ritual would make one pure in body.”
“This brought to mind 1 Peter 3:21 where the author states explicitly of baptism that saves that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus”. If most ritual cleansings were for the express purpose of making the body ritually clean so that the body could “catch up” with the soul (if you will), then is 1 Peter aiming to imply a direct contrast? If so, what does this mean for Christian baptism?”
“John’s baptism (Luke 3.16) was also for conversion/initiation into a ‘readiness state’ (C. J. Bleeker, Initiation: Contributions to the theme of the study-conference of the international association for the history of religions held at Strasburg, September 17th to 22nd, 1964. Leiden: Brill, 1965); and Ant. 18.117) for the individual’s and community’s judgment and restoration by the coming Messiah, ….”
… I would quote something I’ve read but unfortunately cannot attribute: “From observance comes obedience, from obedience comes observance.” Think about teaching your children manners. You teach them at an early age to say please, thank you, yes ma’am, no ma’am, yes sir, no sir (at least in the South we do!) At first, they learn that’s just what is expected of them; then later they realize from the ingraining of it that it’s respect they’re giving. The flip side is that if you are respectful, you will say please, thank you, etc.
January 31, 2013 at 9:24 am
Brian, really interesting post.
Let me take up the question from your conclusion: “This brought to mind 1 Peter 3:21 where the author states explicitly of baptism that saves that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus”. If most ritual cleansings were for the express purpose of making the body ritually clean so that the body could “catch up” with the soul (if you will), then is 1 Peter aiming to imply a direct contrast? If so, what does this mean for Christian baptism?”
Yes, this does sound to me like a direct contrast. 1 Peter, at minimum, is saying that baptism is not like any other washing–but it’s that second phrase, “an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus” that really drives this. A washing starts outside, and can purify the body. So one could say that baptism can purify the soul, but 1 Peter puts a very particular spin on this–an appeal FOR a good conscience THROUGH the resurrection of Jesus–and the prepositions are everything, because they generate distance. Baptism does not presume a good conscience, but rather is its basis, and this good conscience cannot come on the basis of anything about me, but on account of the risen Jesus. So, 1 Peter says that baptism is precisely the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness, and this saves you. How oddly reformational, as well as sacramental.
January 31, 2013 at 10:51 am
I wonder what Paul’s addition to all of this would be seeing that he was raised as a Pharisee where there was no real distinction between the soul/body. He literally believed in the resurrection of the body, not unto a new body or a heavenly body, but the body. Seeing that baptism is seemingly juxtaposed by 1 Peter where water cleanses the body but baptism cleans the conscience, might there be another way to reinterpret what 1 Peter is saying? 1 Peter 3 continues :
” 18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him. ”
Could another interpretation hold that flesh put Jesus to death, but the Spirit made Him alive…the flood killed many but the ark saved only a remnant, and this water is prefigured as baptism…but its not the water that saves you, (not the ritual cleansing understanding of baptism, which is really in the flesh) but figuration (fleshing out) of desiring to be initiated into Christ’s resurrection–which truly saves.
February 1, 2013 at 8:15 am
Tyler
I have been fascinated by the connection between Jesus and John, and the complex distancing-while-associating agenda of early Christians. You are correct that the first point of differentiation is John’s baptism is limited to water, for repentance, precluded by a renewed fidelity to Israel’s God and the Covenant while Jesus’ baptism is associated with Spirit/Fire and it is framed within the New Covenant language of the eschatological S/spirit (especially in Acts). Jesus doesn’t seem to do any baptizing himself (did he baptize his disciples, some of them?), but his disciples baptize under his authority. It is altogether possible that John’s baptism served as the efficient baptism for some of John’s earliest disciples (though Acts 19:1ff. makes me wonder if there is a tradition that the disciples of Jesus were rebaptized unto Jesus, since Paul is portrayed as advocating this).
To your questions:
(1) Jesus’ baptism as an act of repentance: Yes, at the time, no in Christological retrospect. What did Jesus think? We can’t know. Did Jesus see himself as part of a sinful nation (even if not a participant)? Likely. Jesus’ baptism was in solidarity, if nothing else, and even the early Christians couldn’t avoid this while at the same time seeking to present Jesus himself as one who did not share in the activity of sin, merely the corporate effect of sin (later, Paul would speak of Jesus becoming “sin for us” in 2 Cor 5:21, and sharing the “likeness of sinful flesh” in Romans 8:3, indicating to me that Paul was aware of the necessity to clarify Jesus’ relationship to corporate humanity in juxtaposition with his own personal actions toward God).
(2) Jesus as John’s disciple is a paradigm worth exploring, though the data may be insufficient. In other words, our sources are the Gospels, and the Gospels say nothing about this, though Jesus’ willful submission to baptism leaves the door open for the possibility that he may have seen himself as willingly following John’s teachings. Of course, later John is presented as somewhat concerned with Jesus’ identity as the Christ, asking if this is so, likely because Jesus wasn’t becoming the type of person John envisioned.
(3) It is possible that Jesus did baptize, then left those whom he baptized to baptize, but again, we don’t have information. Paul does something similar when he comes to Corinth, baptizes a few, then leaves the baptized to baptize. Maybe he is modeling his actions on what he knew of Jesus?
February 1, 2013 at 8:20 am
Adam
It is quite interesting how Christian baptism continued to share with other ritual cleansing the role as following something (for the Pharisees, whoever wrote 1QS, and John it seems like active repentance, displayed by renewed fidelity to the Covenant, precedes washing with washing functioning not to do something internal, but rather to make the body ritually in unison with the inner person), yet Christian baptism is seen as doing something internal that could not be done without the baptism. Baptism as associated with Jesus’ death is such a unique concept in a Jewish matrix, even baptism unto a person, which is why I imagine some have felt obligated to connect Christian baptism to pagan rituals rather than Jewish rituals (e.g. Schweitzer).
February 1, 2013 at 8:34 am
As to the reading of 1 Peter 3:18 suggested by Tyler, I think θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι aims to convey that Jesus was “on the one hand being put to death in flesh/body, but [on the other hand] he was being made to life in S/spirit”. In v. 19 the author seems to present this idea that while Jesus’ body was being killed his S/spirit was being renewed (or, as Christians says “regenerated”), and in this state of being (ἐν ᾧ, “in which”) he was sent into prison to preach to spirits there. It is an odd statement indeed, but one that does seem to affirm Jesus existing in spirit in some sense while he was dying in body.
February 1, 2013 at 9:28 am
Interesting discussion, enjoying it.
I’m curious whether we are to interpret 1 Peter 3 literally, or figuratively. Did Jesus’ Spirit form literally descend into Hades and preach to spirits imprisoned there? That raises a lot of questions:
1. Can the “Spirit” of God be separated from the body of Jesus, who was the all the fullness of the Godhead, the exact representation of the Father, etc? I’m certain there is a precedence here where Jesus gave up His Spirit upon the cross, but is that not another way of saying, ‘he died’?
2. Can a “Spirit” preach?
3. Was Christ in need of being “regenerated”? One would assume that Jesus, being One with the Father, was lacking nothing, and had everything. The reformed understanding of regenerated seems different than how it is being used here, as if Christ’s Spirit was in need of pruning and purifying. But if the understanding is “sustained/renewed” in that the Spirit is how He dwelled or was enabled/lived, then it seems different. Thoughts?
Or was the author trying to show that baptism (literal immersion in water in the Christian process) is simply prefigured by the water involved in the flood, where a remnant was saved and a majority was destroyed?–that is to say, that Christ’s death and resurrection serves to testify to that generation in a similar way that the “generation of Jonah” was testified to in Matt. 12 and 16? In other words, through obedience to baptism in Jesus (through the resurrection) the baptism serves to initiate one under the authority of Jesus, and saves, where the obedience of being in the ark during the flood saved Noah and his generations? The water seems to be symbolic of death in both instances. The resurrection (being made alive by the Spirit) seems to be symbolic of the ark. Just some ideas.
February 1, 2013 at 9:35 am
Sorry, last comment
This brought to mind the idea that baptism was often used synomously with death. For instance, where Jesus speaks of the “baptism he must undergo” in Luke, and in Romans 6 where Paul says:
“3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”
Its similar to 2 Corinthians where he says that all were crucified and died upon the cross with Jesus. Again, the death seems to be unifying, but the special significance is placed upon those who are resurrected with Christ, which the baptism seems to indicate. In the above post (sorry again for posting an additional comment)
February 1, 2013 at 10:05 am
I think the baptism of Jesus was analogous to His becoming human. He had to become “one of us” for our sakes. You gotta reach your audience where they are.
February 1, 2013 at 10:49 am
Tyler
It is a complicated text. Honestly, I am not sure whether the text is saying that in the S/spirit Jesus went into Hades at the time of death to preach to the spirits or if it is saying that at the time of Noah, when Noah was preaching, that this is when the S/spirit of Christ was talking to those who would perish. I know option 1 has a long tradition, especially among Orthodox Christians, but I don’t know what to make of it exegetically.
As regards the Spirit of God’s connection to the body of Christ, it would seem that early Christian anthropology presented humans as soul/spirit and body (reading the Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse). There may be a sense in which a soul/spirit exists without a body, though this isn’t “fully” human, which is why the soul/spirit needs a resurrected body. If this is what was believed, then it may be that early Christians understood Jesus’ soul/spirit to be united to the S/spirit of God in a way unique to humans, or (contra later creedal statements) the soul/spirit of Jesus was in some way the S/pirit of God (again, this view would be reversed by later thinkers and councils if it was affirmed early). In that sense, anything the S/spirit of God did in the past is the action of Jesus.
Logos Christology in writers like Justin Martyr allow for this idea, with the angel of YHWH being the Logos prior to the incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth. How faithful is this idea to that of the earliest Christians? I don’t know.
When I speak of “regeneration”, I don’t mean purifying, per se, but rather a renewal of the inner person allowing it to be united with a renewed outer person. This may be useless language when speaking of Jesus though.
February 1, 2013 at 10:53 am
Rick
Are you saying you think Jesus went through the ritual motions of baptism in order to appear like other humans?
February 1, 2013 at 11:29 am
K-i-i-i-nda… God could have easily just imposed the Kingdom upon us from on High, but instead He ‘descended’ into human form and as a human He ‘descended’ into John’s baptism to come from the same place we come from in order to lift us up (think about the physical action of lifting: the lifter is grounded, the liftee is raised) into the Kingdom.
February 1, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Rick,
That certainly seems to make sense from Mark’s perspective, but I wonder if the same can be said of the Incarnation of Luke and Matthew and John? I think so. It seems that Jesus being “born” as a human but being One with the Father certainly fulfills what you are stating above.
I always found Mark’s (and adoptionism) baptism very interesting, and now the possibility of John the Baptizer’s cultural role during early Christianity is fascinating to me.
Thanks all for the input/ discussion, esp. Brian!
February 2, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Brian-
“Baptism as associated with Jesus’ death is such a unique concept in a Jewish matrix, even baptism unto a person, which is why I imagine some have felt obligated to connect Christian baptism to pagan rituals rather than Jewish rituals (e.g. Schweitzer).”
Yes, it really is. Interesting point on the notion of it at once presupposing an internal movement and also doing something internal that another baptism cannot do. But the association with Jesus’ death puts a point on that–if baptism saves by way of Jesus’ resurrection, then the precondition isn’t merely repentance, but death. And rather strangely, Paul treats this precondition as provided precisely by baptism–”baptized into his death.” So what is finally unique about Christian baptism is its double action, occurring in the imputation of Jesus’ death and resurrection. One could search for a long time for a suitable pagan origin for that. And, I wonder, why bother looking for such an origin, since the unique factor is precisely the same as the unique factor in all Christian proclamation: “God has made him both Messiah and Lord, this Jesus whom you crucified.” But, I suppose, when your exegetical method presupposes the key thing to be either an ethic (19th century liberalism) or a general eschatological expectation (Schweitzer), rather than the man himself, this is easy to miss.