In a recent post on a Mormon related board I made the following comment…
“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”
Someone rightly pointed out this was not the teaching of the LDS Church for which I quickly agreed, but simply looked at the issue in the light of OT theology. In response I wrote…
“It is true that modern revelation has revealed more of the nature of baptism and it’s efficaciousness, but the fact remains that the earliest uses were not for an remission of sin (in like manner the baptisms of John as mentioned by Matthew were also not for the remission of sin, but for the purpose of repentance causing the hearer a change of behavior. Later, Jesus ostensibly would baptize with fire and spirit thereby completing the necessary fullness of baptism for remission) but a particular sin such as uncleanliness. As outlined in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 1: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (583). New York: Doubleday.) the phenomenology of baptism is described as…
Quote
Rites of immersion were not uncommon in the world in which early Christianity developed. One type of symbolism with which they were frequently connected was that of purification: from sin, from destruction, from the profane sphere before entering an holy area, from something under a taboo, etc. See, e.g., Lev 16:4, 24 (the high priest before and after the rites of atonement); Leviticus 15 (on menstruating women); 1 QS 3:5–9 (cleansing from sins); Sib. Or. 4.165 (a baptism of repentance); Joseph. Ant. 18.117 (on John’s baptism); Joseph. Life. 11 (on Bannus’ ablutions for purity’s sake); Apul., Met. 11.23 (purification at the initiation into the Isis mysteries); b. Yebam. 47 ab (on proselyte baptism).
Such cleansings can take place when one stands on the verge of a new state in life or is entering into a new community or upon a new phase of life, etc. Thus they can function as rites of initiation or as rites of passage. Depending on the way in which one regards the situation being left behind and the one being entered, such rites can be connected with ideas of a new birth, of a new life, or of salvation as contrasted to nothingness, chaos, death, or destruction.
The latter highlighted sections shows that Jesus might have been following this path because John’s baptism was unique because a) not self administered such as that practiced in the Mikvah b). no specific connection to Jesus nor c). to the promise of the Holy Ghost. What is most significant about John’s baptism is that it was designed to prepare the way for the “coming one” similar to the ritual purifications by self-immersion of the Essenes. Therefore, such a baptism while novel was probably not unique to any observer such as Pharisees. As is previously mentioned by others baptism followed in many ways the eschaton of the Essenes.”
Any comments…
I am deeply saddened when I hear some speak of the laver in the temple court as a baptismal font. It wasn’t. I appreciate their faith, but I am saddened at their lack of knowledge regarding the Old Testament temple and the insistence re-imagining the Old Testament temple as a Mormon temple. It wasn’t.
When this subject comes up, I try to teach that the Old Testament temple was an Aaronic Priesthood temple, while ours today is a Melchizedek Priesthood temple.
Comment by ji — December 21, 2011 @ 8:27 pm |