Twentieth Century Orthodox Jews
One final point of note is of interest: the growing practise among Orthodox Jews to reinstate the Mikva’ot and the archaeological search near synagogues in a score of countries. In a striking co-incidence, I read in an American airport the following newspaper article: “The mikveh, or ritual bath of purification, is among the oldest of Jewish institutions and one still strictly adhered to be religiously observant Jews. Orthodox Jewish women use the mikveh, as the bath pool itself is called, following the menstrual cycle, and before resuming sexual relations. Orthodox Jewish men commonly use the mikveh prior to the start of the Sabbath and the High Holy Days, although some ultraorthodox Hasidim use it every day before morning prayers. Torah scribes are required to use the mikveh before writing the word “God.”” “Rabbi Yehuda Lebovics oversees the only mikveh in California’s San Fernando Valley. It’s at the Orthodox Shaarey Zedek Congregation and is one of only a half-dozen mikva’ot in the Los Angeles area. “Most Jews probably know as little about mikva’ot as do Christians,” he said. “Unless they’re observant, that probably don’t even know what a mikveh is and never saw one.””
“Outside of Orthodox Judaism, the mikveh is little used by contemporary Jews. In Conservative Judaism it generally is confined to conversions, much like the Christian rite of initiation. However, rarely do Reform rabbis, members of Judaism’s most liberal and fastest-growing branch, require converts to use a mikveh. One requirement of mikva’ot is that the water supply be, at least in part, from a pure source, which traditional Jewish law defines as flowing. Hence John the Baptist’s use of the Jordan River. Modern, indoor mikva’ot, such as the one at Shaare Zedek, often collect rainwater as their pure source. At the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, which has the only Conservative-operated mikveh in the Southwest United States, ice collected in mountain areas is melted to provide a source of pure water, said administrator Lilian Zelcer. She also said that “a resurgence, of sorts” in regular mikveh usage has occurred among Conservative Jews, although the majority of Jews who belong to the faith’s middle-of-the-road branch “take it for granted and never use it.” “Ironically, she said, the resurgence is most evident among converts who experienced the mikveh as part of their conversion process.” “The Arizona Republic”, Saturday, January 31, 1987.
In recent times there has been a rush of archaeological discoveries of Medaeval mikva’ot in Europe: Italy, Spain, Germany, Bohemia, Lithuania, Poland and other places. The oldest have been in Cologne from 1170; Spires 1200, Friedberg 1260, Offburg 1351 and later at Andernach, Alsace, Worms, etc. The one at Worms has 19 steps down from the entrance hall and 11 steps into the mikveh itself. Similar deep mikva’ot have been now found in Cairo and Jerusalem.
Modern mikva’ot have been built in Israel for men and women in the one building, featuring men’s and women’s facilities, showers, dining rooms, powder room, and steam room, while in USA some have been built with hairdressing and beauty parlours! All of these are built within the strict guidelines required by traditional Judaism. There is even published a valid “Do it Yourself Mikveh”!
Much of the argument over the mode of baptism over the past centuries has been philological and theological. Much heat has been expended over the use of words relating to baptism, often expending much energy on how the words were used in classical Greek (cf Kitel, “Theological Dictionary Of the New Testament” Vols 1-9, 1964-74, baptiso, louo). This emphasis from the Middle Ages has continued down until present times, with little emphasis being placed on the practise within Judaism. The lack of conclusive philological evidence has allowed the baptismal debate to continue with churches adopting extremist positions, or more accommodating positions such as in the Uniting Church In Australia. There, the Basis of Union declares: “The Uniting Church acknowledges that Christ incorporates men into his body by Baptism. In this way he enables them to participate in his own baptism, which was accomplished once on behalf of all in his death and burial, and which was made available to all when, risen and ascended, he poured out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Baptism into Christ’s body initiates men into his life and mission in the world, so that they are united in one fellowship of love, service, suffering and joy, in one family of the Father of all in heaven and earth, and in the power of the one Spirit. The Uniting Church will baptise those who confess the Christian faith, and children who are presented for baptism and for whose instruction and nourishment in the faith the Church takes responsibility.” Constitution and Regulations The Uniting Church in Australia. The Basis of Union 7. Uniting Church Press 1986.
There is a way out of the debate between the traditions of the church which does not require compromise. That is the acceptance of immersion of believers as the Ecumenical Baptism and the development of a rite of acceptance for children by the church. The Lima document: “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” W.C.C. 1982, which came as a result of a fifty year long consultation program represents a significant theological convergence in an agreed statement which the church as a whole has responded to with enthusiasm. An Ecumenical Baptism, based upon the now proven method of immersion of believers within the Early Church, would be a great step towards Christian unity and a witness to the divided world.
That the immersion of believers was the norm for the Early Church cannot now be disputed on the basis of archaeological evidence. If we value baptism and value Christian unity, so that we will be eager to perform it in the way that cannot fail to be meaningful to the majority of Christian believers, we can adopt as valid for all churches the immersion of believers as the norm.
The Orthodox Churches baptise children by immersion as the only mode of baptism as a witness to their traditional roots going back to the New Testament Church. Since all Christians regard immersion (or such a degree of affusion as wets the entire person) as an acceptable method of baptism, some regard it as a preferable method, and many regard it as the sole method – it follows that immersion is the only method of baptism which can claim to be ecumenical. The archaeological evidence is compelling. New Testament Baptism was by immersion of believers.
