Introduction to New Testament Baptism
Traditionally many arguments of “Paedo-baptism” churches (those baptising children usually by sprinkling) against the practise of “Believers’ baptism” churches (those baptising only those professing personal belief usually by total immersion) have concerned the amount of water used in the first century church.
It was argued that in an extremely dry country like Israel, total immersion was impractical. Large numbers of baptisms at one time, such as on the day of Pentecost, were impossible.
It has been difficult for proponents of immersion baptism to argue strongly about this point because of the lack of concrete evidence concerning the practise of New Testament Baptism outside of the New Testament. Hence most of the debate has been philological, arguing about the meaning of the words “to baptise” “to dip” and so on.
The argument about the availability of sufficient water is still being used, as is found in the recent Victorian Council of Churches book “Initiation in Australian Churches”. In one chapter, Dr. David Williams, Vice-Principal of Ridley College in the University of Melbourne and Priest-in-charge of All Saints Anglican Church, Northcote, states:
“Then there are such practical considerations as the difficulty of arranging for immersion in the jailer’s house at Philippi and the large quantity of water needed for the immersion of 3,000 people at Pentecost (though, of course, they may not all have been baptised at once). Immersion has for long periods and in many parts of the Church been the usual custom and we can hardly doubt that it was regarded as the ideal, if not the norm, in the Church of New Testament times. But it is difficult to maintain that immersion was the invariable practice of the Early Church and, in any case, it would be foolish to suppose that the amount of water made any difference to the validity of the rite as simply the “outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” pp 16,17.
However the amount of water does matter to those who would hold that immersion baptism is the norm of the Early Church and the most viable mode for ecumenical acceptance. While the argument has hinged in philological and theological points in the past few centuries, recent archaeological discoveries of the past few decades, and scholastic investigation since, has gradually pieced together a picture of the origins of Christian baptism throwing fresh insight onto the philological and theological argument. Evidence will be given showing a minium of 270 litres of water was required although about 1000 litres was average.
The question of being defiled by outward contamination and by inward impurity was central to pre-Christian religions. Purification by immersion in water was recognised in Biblical times by different religions. Impurity could be contracted by touching a dead body, (Numbers 19:11), having sexual intercourse, (Leviticus 15:18), by nocturnal emission, (15:16), by birth of a baby, (12:2), or by a menstruation, (15:19). The man who led the scapegoat into the wilderness on the day of atonement was unclean, (16:26), as was the man who burnt the sacrificial bull on that day, (16:28). In all of these cases the unclean person had to undergo a total cleansing by water. The period of being unclean was usually until sunset, but a person who touched a dead body was to be unclean seven days, “and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and at evening he shall be clean.” (Numbers 19:19).
Many diseases, including sexually transmitted diseases and leprosy, caused uncleanness. The leper was required to signal his approach by crying “Unclean”. When Naaman the Syrian discovered he was a leper, his Israelite servant girl advised him to seek the help of Elisha the prophet who told him to “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean.”(2 Kings 5:10). Naaman obviously understood this to mean to immerse himself, because “he went down and dipped seven times in the Jordan.” (v14)
Ceremonial impurity also required immersion. For this rite a special type of pool known as a mikveh was required. Only in the last thirty years have first century mikva’ot (plural form of mikveh) been discovered. Prior to this, they were known only from ancient Jewish texts. They have since been discovered in important sites in Israel, but also in other Jewish communities in Europe by mediaeval synagogues. They consisted of three pools, one for storing rain water or running water, one for physical cleansing, and one for the immersion as a baptismal rite.
Moses had specified that “running water” be used in connection with the purification of a person contaminated by a dead body, (Numbers 19:17), and the Rabbis insisted that only running water or rain water was valid for use in a mikveh. Water carried from a cistern or stream was not valid. As it was not possible for enough rain water to be stored in the ritual pool from one rainy season to the next, this presented a problem. Pure rain water was the ideal, but Jewish regulation allowed an effusion of rain water into the tank as fulfilling the legal requirements. The storage containers above it allowed a system whereby the bath itself could fulfil the requirements of a mingling of rain water. The Rabbis reasoned that carried water coming in touch with rain water would be purified by the latter. So the ritual bath was connected to the rainwater pool by a pipe, and when water was carried to the ritual pool, a small quantity of rain water was allowed to run through the pipe into the ritual pool, thus purifying the latter.
The Greek term baptizo describes an act of washing or immersion in water. The origin of baptism has been traced variously to these Old Testament rites of purification, the lustration of Jewish sects, and even to analogous initiation or cleansing ceremonies in pagan religions.
Early Christians regarded baptism as a sacrament of initiation to be performed once only, as distinct from the more frequent formal lustration of other sects or religions. Somewhat before the Christian era the Jews employed baptism as a symbolic initiatory act for converts from paganism to the Jewish religion. Baptism, as John the Baptist practiced it, had its origin in Jewish purification rites that took final shape in the first century after Christ (c.f. “Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology”. E.M.Blaiklock and R.K. Harrison, Editors. The Zondervan Corp 1983).
Theologically, the meaning and practise of baptism has been heatedly debated in the past fifty years since Karl Barth delivered his broadside that shook the Christian world: “There is no Biblical basis for the rite of infant baptism, and the ritual is not an act of God’s grace but of a human response to it – which means that the individual must be mature enough to understand the meaning of such a decision.” “The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism” Karl Barth. p36.
Emil Brunner in his ” The Divine Human Encounter” likewise attacked the practise of infant baptism but was not prepared to abandon it completely. They in turn were opposed by some of the most able theologians who not only argued for infant baptism, but argued that our faith positively requires it. Oscar Cullmann replied to Barth in “Baptism in the New Testament” SCM 1950 as did W.F.Flemington “The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism”. 1948. The Church of Scotland produced an significant report “The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism” following an extensive Commission on Baptism. They were followed by Fr. Pierre Marchel, “The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism” 1953 and Joachim Jeremias’ “Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries” 1960 and “The Origins of Infant Baptism” 1963.
This debate was taken up most notably by R.E.O.White, “The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation” 1960; Kurt Aland, “Did the Early Church Baptise Infants?” 1963; G.R.Beasley-Murray “Baptism in the New Testament” 1972; “Baptism Today and Tomorrow”, 1966; and responded to by G. Bornkamm, “Baptism and New Life in Paul (Romans 6)”, “Early Christian Experience”, 1986.
The debate agrees on most of the following:
“Christian baptism is rooted in the redemptive action of Jesus. His submission to the baptism of John (Mk. 1:9) demonstrated and effected his solidarity with sinful men. The divine response of a heavenly voice of approval showed it to be the initiation of the movement of salvation, and gave promise of the revelation of the Kingdom in the completed action of the Messiah. The authorisation of baptism during the ministry of Jesus (Jn. 4:1 ff,) was provisional. The command to baptise falls of necessity in the resurrection era, when redemption has been achieved, universal authority accorded to the risen Lord, and the mission of the church to the world begun (Matt. 28:18ff.).“Baptism seems to have accompanied the – proclamation of the gospel from the beginning of the church’s mission (Acts 2). Luke’s understanding of Christian baptism appears in Acts 2:38. Baptism is conversion-baptism; administered “in the name of Jesus Christ”, in relation to Jesus Christ and with the use of his name, so that the baptised calls on the name of Christ (Acts 22:16) even as the name is called over him, signifying to whom he belongs (Jas. 2:7); it is “for the forgiveness of sins” and for the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
For Paul’s interpretation of baptism Gal.3:27 is significant. Baptism is “to Christ” (a shorthand expression for “in the name of Christ”); it relates the believer to Christ in such a way that he is “in Christ” (cf. v. 26). From this basic view flow the other features of baptism that appear in Paul. Baptism “to Christ” is baptism “to his death” (Rom. 6:3 ff.); it relates the believer to Christ’s redemptive action, so that Christ’s death on Golgotha was his death, and it entails an end (“death”) to the life of estrangement from God and the beginning of life in Christ. Baptism to Christ is baptism to the – church, for to be in Christ is to be a member of the body of Christ (Gal. 3:27 ff.;1 Cor. 12:13). Baptism to Christ is baptism in the Spirit of Christ (“We were all immersed in one Spirit…and were all saturated in (the outpouring of) one Spirit”, 1 Cor. 12:13), for the Spirit and Christ are inseparable (Rom. 8:9 f.;2 Cor. 3:17). Baptism to Christ is for life in the kingdom to be revealed in the day of Christ (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30).
In Acts and the epistles baptism appears as a divine-human event, even as the “turning” to God, with which it is invariably associated, is a divine-human event. Both elements are given due weight – the divine and the human. Since baptism signifies union with Christ (Gal. 3:27), all that Christ wrought for man in his redeeming acts and bestows by virtue of them is conjoined with baptism in the apostolic writings. This includes union with Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:1 ff.; Col. 2:11 f.), forgiveness of sins and cleansing from sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), bestowal of the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 12:13), membership in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27), renewal by the Spirit (Tit. 3:5), the promise of the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5). Rightly to estimate this teaching required the recognition that in the apostolic writings these benefits of Christ and his saving grace are given to faith. In particular this is true of union with Christ (Eph. 3:17), participation in his death and resurrection (Gal. 2:20; 5:24; Col. 2:12), forgiveness and cleansing (1 Jn. 1:9), the gift of the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 14), renewal by the Spirit (Jn. 1:13), life in the kingdom of God (Jn. 20:31). This coincidence of divine action for faith and in baptism comes to expression in the definition of baptism in 1 Pet. 3:21, where baptism appears as a trysting place for the Redeemer and the penitent, who addresses him on the basis of the gospel.
“The belief that the apostles commanded the baptism of infants as well as of responsible persons is attested as early as Origen (3rd cent. A.D.), and apart from some notable exceptions it became the unquestioned conviction of Christendom until the present century.”
“The rise of the critical study of the Bible caused a widespread change of opinion, so that by 1940 the majority of New Testament scholars (as distinct from systematic theologians) were agreed that in the apostolic age baptism was administered to believers only. In recent years this view has been contested, above all by J. Jeremias, O. Cullmann and in the Reports of the Church of Scotland on Baptism. It is maintained that the traditional arguments for the apostolic institution of infant baptism are vindicated alike by sound theology and by modern biblical research. For example, the conviction that household baptism (Acts 11:14; 16:33; 18:8) included infants is strengthened by the contention that the term oikos (house) had gained an almost technical significance among Jews and had especial reference to little children. The terminology of Jewish proselyte baptism is believed to be employed in 1 Cor. 7:14, with the presumption that Jewish customs related to the baptism of young children of proselytes were accepted by the primitive church. The saying of Jesus concerning little children and the kingdom of God (Mk. 10:14) has been given form-critical evaluation: the story is said to reflect the Sitz-im-Leben of a church seeking to answer the question, “Should be baptise our children?” and the answer is implied, “Yes, bring them to baptism as they were once brought to Jesus.” This conclusion is supported by the belief that the command, “Do not forbid them”, reflects an early liturgical use of the term in baptism.”
“These views have met with differing reactions. Some, like Kurt Aland, consider the rise of infant baptism to be not earlier than the close of the 2nd cent. A.D. (K. Aland, “Did the Early Church Baptise Infants?”, 1963). Others like G.R.Beasley-Murray (“Baptism in the New Testament” 1972) believe that infant baptism is excluded from the horizon of the apostolic writers, not alone by its apparent lack of mention in their writings, but by their equation of the gift of baptism with the gift of faith. In the NT it is not merely a “blessing” that is given to the baptised, but Christ and his full salvation, so that A. Schlatter could rightly affirm: “There is no gift or power which the apostolic documents do not ascribe to baptism” (Theologie des NT, II, 495). This is comprehensible only in a milieu where baptism and conversion are inseparable, as in the primitive church (cf. Acts 2:41; 16:33), so that the effect of the one may be predicated of the other. Where it is believed that the instinct of the church has been right in administering baptism to infants as well as to those of riper years, some would contend that there must be recognised a modification of baptismal doctrine and provision must be made at a later stage in life for an occasion for confession of faith.”
“The first explicit reference to infant baptism in Christian history is that made by Irenaeus, about A.D. 180, who speaks of “all who through Christ are born again to God, infants and children and boys and youths and old men” (Adv. Haer., 2, 22, 4 (2, 33, 2)), “born again to God” being a technical phrase meaning baptism, well attested in other parts of Irenaeus’s writings.” (“The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology”, Ed Colin Brown, Vol 1,p143-160).
This debate continues, mainly on historical, theological and philological grounds. What is new, is that the debate can now continue with added argument on archaeological grounds. It is in this sphere I direct my remarks.
In the last 30 years there have been tremendous archaeological discoveries which help us understand the origins of New Testament Baptism. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has given us many insights and possible fresh discoveries still lay ahead as further scrolls are translated. Then there may be other discoveries in other caves.
Only recently the press reported: “Dramatic evidence of the 1st century Jewish revolt against Rome, which led to the siege and mass suicide at Masada, has been unearthed by Israeli archaeologists in the desert east of Jerusalem. A detailed exploration of the area has located the headquarters of the rebel leader who led the revolt of 66 to 70 AD and fought alongside the Masada rebels for several years. Archaeologists discovered the headquarters, located in a complex of hitherto unexplored caves in the Wadi Phara, 10 kms north-east of Jerusalem. The complex, of some 20 caves, was the main base for rebels led by Shimon Bar-Giora, the chief commander of the Jewish revolt. The caves were hewn out of the rock by hand and were equipped with plaster water-storage cisterns. Inside one cave, believed to be Bar-Giora’s headquarters, the archaeological survey team found a hastily-written message recording that: “Joezer (the priest) has just been killed (or wounded). The (Roman) guards have entered (our hiding place).” The note was written in charcoal on the side of a plaster water-cistern. The newly-discovered sites are of particular importance for Jewish history because the Roman repression which followed the revolts of Bar-Giora and Bar-Kokhba mark the beginning of the Jewish diaspora.” Sydney Morning Herald 5.10.89.
Such archaeological discoveries have been the beginning of fresh evidence on the nature of New Testament baptism. A number of discoveries impact upon our understanding.
