Did We Miss Something Regarding Baptism?

When Aaron was consecrated to the office of High Priest Moses washed him with water then poured the anointing oil upon his head. First the water and then the oil. First the baptism with water, then the baptism with the holy spirit, which is the oil. This is precisely how the Messiah was baptized by John. It was all in accordance with the Law of YEHOVAH God, in the Messiah’s consecration to the High Priesthood over YEHOVAH's people Israel. How did John baptize the people at the Jordan River? Did he immerse people or did he sprinkle the people?

Fundamentalist Christians often use circumstantial evidence as proof that you must be immersed during baptism. For example, John the Baptist baptized people “in” the Jordan River, which implies immersion. But it doesn’t state that he definitely immersed people. That entire argument rests on inference and supposition.

Another popular argument for “immersion only” is that the Greek word “baptizo,” which is used in the New Testament, means immersion. However, “baptizo” doesn’t always mean “immersion.” Sometimes it merely means “washing up” in the Bible -- depending on the context.

In fact, if immersion was so vital to the rite of baptism and ultimate salvation, it would stand to reason that Scripture would be one hundred percent precise on its necessity. Not to mention you would expect the early Church to practice only immersion. Neither is true.

Documents from the period of the early Church, such as letters and a liturgical manual called the Didache, reveal that baptism was carried out by pouring water on the candidate. Certain Christian mosaics from the first few centuries after the Messiah also depict baptism through pouring.

For further evidence of the legitimacy of pouring, one can look in the Old Testament where Ezekiel prophesies the rite of Baptism:

If we are to view the New Testament as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies, then the word “sprinkling” much more closely resembles pouring than immersion.

Baptism with water goes hand-in-hand with baptism with the holy spirit: “Unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

In the Old Testament, we find that the anointing with oil was representative of the coming of the holy spirit upon a person. For instance, the prophet Samuel used oil to anoint David as king of Israel. We are told the following:

When David was anointed with oil the Bible says that the holy spirit came upon him. Therefore, we find oil symbolizing the work of the holy spirit.

In the Bible, the holy spirit is often described as being “poured out” rather than “immersing” someone. Since water and the holy spirit are inseparable during baptism, it is appropriate to reason that “pouring out” of the rite is valid.

We read in Exodus 24:8, that Moses: "took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words."

This, in effect, made them citizens of YEHOVAH God's kingdom. This was a type of the blood of the Messiah, which justifies us and makes us citizens of the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God as well. Hebrews 12:24 tells us: "And to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling."

Note that the Messiah's blood must be sprinkled on our hearts in fulfillment of the type of justification that Moses gave to the people, in the sprinkling of blood upon the people when they ratified the law in Exodus 24. Peter tells us in 1 Peter 1:2 that the Israelites scattered throughout Asia Minor were: "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

We know of course, from 1st John that "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin."

So now lets look at the ceremonial washings of the Old Testament and the spiritual principles behind them. In Numbers 19, YEHOVAH God gives us an entire chapter dealing with the law of purification, the law of sanctification, or cleansing when a person became ceremonially unclean.

The example is given especially of one who touches a dead body becoming unclean for seven days. The prescription for coming in contact with our greatest enemy, which is death, is that he is to be sprinkled with water that had been mixed with ashes of a sacrificed heifer. In fact, water was also sprinkled upon his tent, and all the furniture and vessels in the tent. We read in Leviticus 14 how lepers were to be cleansed. Leprosy is the biblical symbol of sin, because of its reputation of being incurable. The lepers were to be sprinkled seven times with water, and then they were to be pronounced clean, for YEHOVAH would heal them. In Ezekiel 36:25 YEHOVAH foretells the day when Israel would turn and repent. YEHOVAH God says "I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you.”

The Story of Naaman:

We have a good example of this law of ceremonial cleansing in 2 Kings 5. This is the story of Naaman who was the captain of the host of the king of Syria. Now this man happened to be a leper. He was also a true believer in the God of Israel, probably through the witness of his wife's little servant girl, who just happened to be an Israelite. Anyway, she convinced Naaman to go to the prophet in Israel for healing. Verse 10 tells us:

Naaman was no doubt ignorant of the ceremonial laws of cleansing, because he expected Elisha to perform some magic or lay his hands upon the leprosy, and cast it out. But instead, Elisha went by "the Book" of the law and told him to wash seven times, as we read in Leviticus 14.

Now verse 14 says, "then went he down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan according to the saying of the man of God. And his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child and he was clean.”

Now the question is: Did Naaman dip himself in Jordan or did he wash himself in it as the law prescribed? He had faith and he obeyed and he was cleansed. But it might be profitable to study this in more detail so that we know exactly what did take place.

In verse 10 Elisha told Naaman to wash himself. That word translated "wash" is the Hebrew word "rachats" (Strong's #7364, to lave [the whole or a part of a thing] bathe, wash). This word is used many times in reference to washing one's feet or hands. We know that they used to wash their feet and hands by pouring water, running water, on them. It should be mentioned here that the word "running" when connected with "water" is the same word used for "living" as used in Genesis of "living creatures." So the water they used, running water, was actually "living" water. Water which is in motion becomes oxygenated and will support marine life. Water in a pool or container is stagnant because it is not in motion, and becomes dead, not able to support marine life.

YEHOVAH God‘s Word is "living water" and the Messiah is the "living" Word. This is demonstrated in 2 Kings 3:11 where we read that Elisha "poured water upon the hands of Elijah." In other words, Elisha was the one who had the duty of cleansing Elijah's hands ceremonially. And in the New Testament, when Simon the Pharisee criticized the Messiah for allowing the woman to wash his feet with her tears, the Messiah rebuked Simon by saying "You gave me no water upon my feet." Now the KJV reads "for my feet" but the original Greek reads "upon my feet." So it seems to be clear that Elisha told Naaman to wash the leprosy spots on his body with water from the Jordan.

The Jordan river was flowing and so it was running water; it was living water, according to the law. This washing would have been either by sprinkling or pouring. Naaman went then, and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times. The word "dipped" comes from the Hebrew word "tabal" which is a different word. Young's Concordance says that it means "to moisten" or "besprinkle."

This word is used in other places, such as Genesis 37:31, where Joseph's brothers killed a goat and dipped Joseph's coat in the blood. Now they certainly would not have drained all the blood off into a bucket and then immersed the coat in it. If they had brought a completely red-stained coat to Jacob, he would have suspected something. It is much more probable that they sprinkled the coat with blood, or poured blood upon it, or smeared it with blood, so that it would look like a wild animal had killed him.

This is also borne out by the Septuagint translation of the verse, where they use a Greek word meaning to soil, stain or smear with blood. Of course, the word "tabal" is too general to say positively so I really don't know if Naaman washed himself seven times in accordance with the law or not. However, this word "tabal" was translated into the Greek word "baptizo" which is the word from which we get our English word "baptism."

Baptism By the Law:

So we know that at the time of the Messiah, who was fluent in Greek, this incident was considered to be baptism. So what we are really talking about here is the kind of baptism prescribed in the law.

So we have the justification, where the people were sprinkled with the blood of the covenant, the laver where they washed their bodies, and then the oil of anointing which was administered by pouring or sprinkling. All three were by sprinkling in the Old Testament. Now we have seen from the story of Naaman that his washing in the Jordan, seven times according to the Law in Leviticus 14, which deals with the cleansing of leprosy, is called a "baptism" by the Greek Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. This translation was the standard by which the people spoke of Hebrew concepts in the Greek language. In other words, we can properly say that the Law prescribed that lepers be baptized seven times with water, and then they would be healed. And this baptism was administered by sprinkling or pouring. The reason was simply that they were to use living water rather than stagnant or dead water (as in a pool, bath or tank). It symbolized life, not death.

Let's look at some New Testament examples. In Luke 11:37-38, we read that a Pharisee, who had invited the Messiah to dine with him, wondered that he had not first washed before dinner. Now the word "washed" is from the Greek word "baptizo" (Strong's #907) which literally means "baptized." Now obviously the man did not expect the Messiah to go to the lake and immerse himself before every meal. No, it was simply a matter of ritual, that they washed their hands before eating. How? By having someone pour water over their hands, as was the custom back in those days.

In Mark 7, we read beginning with verse 1,

So we see, not only did tradition require that people baptize their hands with water, before eating, but also after they came home from the market place. Furthermore, Mark tells us they baptized cups, pots, brazen vessels and even their long couches, on which they used to recline when they visited. Now I don't find it feasible that they immersed all of their household furniture before every meal, any more than going out and immersing themselves in the lake, or other running water before every meal. There simply was not enough water in Palestine back then for people to do so even if it was convenient.

In fact, in the city of Jerusalem, there happened to be a real water shortage until Pontius Pilate built a pipeline to bring water in from Bethlehem. But the point is, that these ceremonial sprinkling and pourings were called "baptisms" in the New Testament as well as in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. Further verification can be found in Josephus (Antiquities III, 6, 2). Its last sentence in section 2, speaks of the laver where the priests could wash their hands and sprinkle their feet.

The Old and the New:

Turn to Hebrews 9. This is perhaps the most important passage in the New Testament dealing with the relationship between the Old Testament and the New. The author has been talking about the Old Testament types and how they are fulfilled in the New Testament. Beginning in verse 8 we read:

Now note that the author of Hebrews specifically calls these Old Testament washings "baptisms," such as the washing at the laver, and the sprinkling or pouring of water upon lepers seven times, and so on. These were symbolic of the sanctification of the flesh, or the body. Note verse 11:

Now notice that he confirms that blood was sprinkled on the people for purification. That was the method. He verifies this a few verses later in verse 19:

Note that this was done with blood and water. Note also that it says ALL the people! From the greatest to the least, all of them. Not just those who had professed their faith. Verse 20 goes on to say:

Yes, some things were purged with other things such as water and hyssop and so on. But the blood was the first and foremost purifier. It was the first and most important step in approaching YEHOVAH God.

The Law of Sprinkling:

So here in Hebrews 9 we read first of diverse baptisms, and then later on it is explained to us that these baptisms were administered by means of sprinkling. This was in accord with Numbers 19 where the Law prescribes that one who is unclean for any reason was to have the water of separation sprinkled upon him to purify him or sanctify him. This whole chapter deals with this great law of sprinkling, or this law of sanctification. They were to take a red heifer, burn it up and mix the ashes with the water, and that was called the water of separation. Those who come in contact with the dead were to have this living water of separation sprinkled upon them.

Because we are all defiled with sin, we have all come in contact with death, and must have this water of separation sprinkled upon us for our sanctification. No, not in the manner that they did back then, for the death of the Messiah made a change in the law, in this part of the law. You recall that when the Messiah died, and when the soldier pierced his side, blood and water poured out from that wound. He was that type. And he fulfilled that type. Josephus writes of this law of sprinkling in Antiquities book 4, chapter 4, section 6, and the Greek word that he uses is the word for baptizing. So it was common at that time to think of the Old Testament law of sprinkling as baptism.

Now the next obvious question that you will have is: How does this affect the New Testament mode of baptism? How were the Israelite people of the New Testament baptized? Well, let's look at the examples that are given to us. First of all, let's look at the Messiah's baptism. Turn to Matthew 3:13:

Now the question was asked years ago: Why did the Messiah have to be baptized? But a satisfactory answer was never given. Now, with the connection established between YEHOVAH's Law and baptism a better understanding can be reached. Remember that this incident took place before the death of the Messiah, and before the scene at Pentecost. It was still technically the time of the Old Testament, before these types had been fulfilled by the Messiah. The answer to this question, why did Yeshua have to be baptized, is found in a couple of places. One is Numbers 8:5-7:

The first thing that was required in YEHOVAH God's Law to be a priest in Israel was to be baptized with water. Here we find also that the mode is clearly sprinkling. When the priests entered their priestly capacity or their priestly duties, they were ceremoniously sprinkled with water, among other things. This was also true of the High Priest, as we shall see. Now the Messiah became our High Priest. So in order for him to be so by the prescription of the Law, he had to go to John and be baptized. How? Well, if he did so according to the Law, it had to have been by sprinkling. And afterwards, it says, he came up out of the water. Now this should read that he came "from" the water, not "out of" the water. The Greek word is "apo" which is translated "from" 372 times in the New Testament.

This baptism is also recorded in Mark 1:10 where he says that Yeshua went straightway from the water. He uses the word "ek" instead of "apo." Now "ek" is translated "from" 186 times in the New Testament. These two Greek prepositions might possibly also mean "out of" but it does not have to mean that. The only way we can tell exactly what it does mean is to look at the context, and the context, in this case, is obviously the Law of YEHOVAH God which prescribes the mode of sprinkling. This is further verified by the fact that immediately after the Messiah's baptism with water, YEHOVAH God baptized him with His spirit in the form of a dove, which descended upon his head; he was not immersed in oil, nor was he immersed by this dove.

Read Leviticus 8, which is the chapter where Aaron was consecrated to the office of High Priest. You will read in verse 6, "And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water." That was step one. Then in verse 12, it says, "And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron‘s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him." This was the ceremony of the consecration of the High Priest. First the water and then the oil. First the baptism with water, then the baptism with the holy spirit, which is the oil. This is precisely how the Messiah was baptized by John. It was all in accordance with the Law of YEHOVAH God, in the Messiah’s consecration to the High Priesthood over YEHOVAH's people Israel.

It should be noted that John the Baptist stated in Matthew 3:11, that after him would come one mightier than he, who would baptize with the holy spirit, and with fire. That this in fact happened is recorded in Acts 2:3:

As with the Messiah and the spirit in the form of a dove descending upon his head, so also with the disciples at Pentecost where the cloven tongues of fire sat on them. They were not immersed in fire, they were "anointed" with fire.

How Did John Baptize?

Now the next question, and perhaps we should have treated this one first, is how did John baptize the people at the Jordan River? Did he immerse people or did he sprinkle the people? We read in Matthew 3:6 of these people coming for baptism, that they were "baptized by him in the Jordan confessing their sins." The phrase "in the Jordan" actually comes from three Greek words, "eis ton Jordana," which simply means "in the Jordan" or "at the Jordan." It should have been rendered "at the Jordan."

The word "eis" in the Greek is a very general word. It has here been translated "in." It has been rendered by the word "in" 131 times in the New Testament, so it is a good translation of the word. It has also been rendered "into" 571 times. However, it has also been rendered "against," "among," "at," "for," "that," "on," "to," "toward," "onto," and "upon," many, many times. In this case it should have been rendered "at." Now let me tell you why, other than because the Law prescribed going to the water and then using it to sprinkle the people.

In 1 Kings 2:8, we are told that Shimei went down to meet David at the Jordan. AT the Jordan! The Greek Septuagint translation of this passage reads "eis ton Jordanes." This is word for word the same phrase used in the New Testament of John's baptism being "in the Jordan." Now are we going to insist that David met Shimei in the middle of the river? No! Rather they met in the vicinity of the Jordan River. They met "by" or "at" the river -- not IN it!

Another example is found in 2 Kings 2:6 where; we read: "and Elijah said unto him, Tarry, I pray thee, here; for the LORD hath sent me to the Jordan." The Septuagint reading of this is again "eis ton Jordanes" showing that the Greek phrase meant to the vicinity of the Jordan, rather than in the middle of the Jordan River.

And finally, in 2 Kings 2:5 we read about Elisha and the sons of the prophets who needed to build bigger quarters so they could live without being over crowded. So they went down to chop down some trees to expand their living quarters. Verse 4 says: "And when they came to the Jordan, they cut down wood." Again, the Septuagint translation of this phrase in Greek reads "when they came "eis ton Jordanes" they cut down wood." Are we to insist that Elisha cut down trees while standing in the middle of the Jordan River? That would be rather uncomfortable, even if there were some trees growing in the middle of the Jordan River. So, obviously not!!

So we see then that it is very possible to conclude that when people came to John for baptism, he baptized them "at the Jordan," rather than "in the Jordan." Of course, it is quite possible that for convenience, he might have stood at the edge of the river bank, or even got his feet wet. l don't know. But the point is that their baptism does not have to be by immersion in the river. And since it does not have to be by immersion in the river, they must have been baptized by the Lawful method as prescribed in the books of Leviticus and Numbers -- which was by sprinkling or by pouring with living water.

Water and Oil:

Turn back to Matthew 3 again. In verse 11 John tells the people "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:” That term "with water" is "en hudatos," which some might say should read "in water" because the word "en" also means "in" just like "eis" can also mean "in" as we saw earlier. So the question is, did John baptize "in" water, or "with" water? l can show you that this type of phrase is used to describe anointing with oil as well. We have many examples of the phrase "en elaion" which means "with oil." Anointed "en elaion." Now if we were to take that phrase and translate it "in oil," then we would have to conclude that the priests were not really anointed with oil but immersed in oil.

For example in Psalm 23:5 David says of YEHOVAH God: "You anoint my head with oil." The Septuagint translation in Greek reads: "You have anointed my head "en elaion." Does that mean that he stuck his whole head into a bucket of oil? Of course not! It says he was anointed with oil. You will find the same phraseology used of oil in the Greek Old Testament in 2 Samuel 1:21, Psalm 89:20, Psalm 92:10, and Ezekiel 16:9. This shows very conclusively that the Greek phrase "en elaion" does NOT teach immersion, so neither should "en hudatos", with water, teach immersion. Only if men were immersed in oil can we likewise conclude that men were also immersed in water.

Many Springs:

So when John says he baptized "en hudatos" we understand, as did the King James translators, that he meant baptize "with" water, not "in" water. Turn to John 3:23. This is quite important. We read:

The phrase "much water" is sometimes a stumbling block to people, they say, See, this means there was sufficient water there so he could immerse the people. Well, the Greek phrase is "polus hudatos," and it should have been rendered "many waters" or "many springs." In fact there are many places in Revelation where "polus hudatos" is literally translated "many waters."

The name Aenon is a Chaldee word signifying a place of springs. Dr. Robinson who visited the spot says of it:

So you see John was baptizing there because there were many springs bursting forth from the rocky crevices. They were certainly not deep enough to immerse people, but there was plenty of water to sprinkle them according to the Law of cleansing. These are not rivers, these are just little springs coming out of the rocks. John would never have gone there if he had to immerse people in water. There simply was not the water available.

As you know the oil was symbolic of YEHOVAH God's Word, that is why John said that although he baptized with water, One was coming who would baptize people with the holy spirit. And again the word "with" comes from the Greek word "en." Baptize WITH the holy spirit. The Scriptures tell as that YEHOVAH God would pour His spirit upon all flesh, just as He would pour water upon him who is thirsty. We never read that YEHOVAH would immerse us in water, or in oil, or in blood. It always speaks of sprinkling the blood on the people, sprinkling clean water upon you, and anointing your head with oil.

In Acts 2 we have recorded for us the day of Pentecost, in which three thousand people were baptized in one day in Jerusalem. So this is obviously a good example for us to follow. This followed the scene where the apostles were baptized by the spirit, by tongues of fire coming down and resting on their heads, just like an anointing of oil. Now stop and think. How could it have been possible for this many people to have been immersed in water, all in one day? Think about it! That would have kept them pretty busy to say the least.

But where could all these people have gone for this baptism if it had been by immersion? About the only place would have been the pool of Siloam by Jerusalem, which was the city's main water supply. Now do you think that the Pharisees and the Temple priests would have allowed the pollution of the city's water supply by these "defiled" Christians? Do you think they would have sat around and watched this "pollution" all day long while these three thousand people were being immersed there? Water was a very precious commodity in the old city of Jerusalem. l am sure that all three thousand and twelve of them would have spent the next year in jail.

But the problem is easily solved lf they were sprinkled with water rather than immersed.

Now I hope that I have been able to get the point across that baptism is the laver experience in the Law, it is not the brazen altar experience. The Messiah became our sacrifice. In other words, baptism is symbolic of the Law of YEHOVAH God which we are to follow because we are Israelite Christians -- not in order to become Christians!

Incidentally, I used to think that the term "buried with him" in baptism meant being immersed in water like when we bury people under the ground nowadays. I never thought that I was applying Western Culture to Bible symbolism. They didn't bury people back then like we do today. The Romans cremated people above ground and then scattered their ashes around. The Indians in America put the dead on a high platform, while the Hebrews put people on a table in a sepulcher above ground. So there are many different modes of burial, but we have no right to make our Western mode the basis of Bible symbolism. Rather, baptism symbolizes the Law applied to ourselves, when we agree with the Law that we are sinners and worthy of death.

Hope of Israel Ministries -- Paving the Way for the Return of YEHOVAH God and His Messiah!

Hope of Israel Ministries
P.O. Box 853
Azusa, CA 91702
www.hope-of-israel.org

Scan with your
Smartphone for
more information