Is baptism in the Old Testament?

It may be well, perhaps, to say a word as to the origin and history of Baptism. These are involved in a good deal of obscurity. The word is not once used in the O.T. But "religious meanings" were early attached to washings with water, both by heathens and Jews; they were among the ordinances of the Jewish law; and it is not necessary to go beyond that law to find the origin of the custom of washing or baptizing proselytes upon their admission into the Jewish system.

Baptism as we find it in Christianity is not an entirely new thing, but has its roots in the previous dispensation. There were Jewish baptisms more than one, which had an important place under the law; and the consideration of these will naturally prepare us for the better understanding of the New Testament form. It is well known that "there is an universal agreement among later Jewish writers that all the Israelites were brought into covenant with God by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, and that the same ceremonies were necessary in admitting proselytes" (Smith's Dictionary). But of this, Scripture says nothing, and we can build only on what is found in it. Apart from this altogether there were legal baptisms, although we must go to the New Testament for the word. This is applied in Mark 7:4, 8 and Luke 11:38 to mere ceremonial and traditional "washings," as to which we have only to note that they were clearly symbols of purification with a supposed sacramental efficacy. Similarly, it is when a dispute had arisen about purifying that John's disciples come and tell him that Jesus was baptizing. (John 3:26.)

It is only in Hebrews beside, and in two passages that we have reference to Jewish baptisms. As clearest we may take the latter first, which the Revised Version gives as follows: "According to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshiper perfect, being only (with meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation." (Heb. 9:10.) But this is not, as to the parenthesis thus introduced, an improvement on the common version. The word (epi) translated "with" has indeed very commonly the meaning of "with, in addition to," but it also means "dependent on," and this removes the parenthesis and brings what is contained in it into the main argument where it surely belongs. For why are they carnal ordinances, these gifts and sacrifices? Plainly, because they depend upon "meats and drinks and divers baptisms" — the real word. How could offerings consisting of such things set at rest the conscience?

JEWISH. In Heb. 6:2 (βαπτισμός) the Hebrew believers were exhorted to leave 'the doctrine of baptisms;' and in Heb. 9:10 we read of 'divers baptisms or washings,' but which is followed by the words "imposed until the time of reformation," which 'time' is referred to as 'Christ being come.' This shows that the baptisms referred to were some part of the Jewish ritual, in which there were many washings and bathings; but none of these washings signified fully the baptism of the N.T., which as an initiatory ordinance places the baptised in a new position: the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2) was a figure of this. It was the Jewish washings that the Hebrew believers were exhorted to leave, or not to be laying again as a foundation.

The reason was, they were external things, that stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings. An Israelite had to be very careful about what kind of food he ate. The law prescribed as to everything he ate or drank; all had to be clean, or else he was defiled. But these things were all external things — meats, drinks, and divers washings; or, as the word really is (we saw it in the sixth chapter), divers baptisms. There was a washing at the laver, the sprinkling of blood to sanctify the unclean, upon the brazen altar too, sometimes upon the horns of the altar of incense, and once a year upon the mercy-seat. These could not make the conscience perfect, or give real peace; they were carnal, or fleshly, ordinances; having to do with the outward man, with a relationship to God which was purely external. A man might thus be a good Israelite, might be ceremonially clean, and yet be an utter stranger to peace with God or a sense of His love, or access into His holy presence. We are told here these things were laid upon them as a yoke — a yoke, in fact, as Peter says, "which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear" — until the time of reformation: that is, the time when all would be put on a right foundation, a right basis. These things were of a purely temporary character, but full of meaning for us, as types.

The next couplet described Judaism as to its ceremonial character. There was "the teaching of baptisms and of laying on of hands." This "teaching of baptisms" does not refer at all to water baptism, either John's or still less to Christian baptism, and most certainly not to the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is a different word practically, with a different ending. It is the same word which is used later on in our epistle, translated there "divers washings." It was the sprinkling of blood, washing at the laver, and other ceremonial ordinances connected with outward approach to God. And in close connection with that was the laying on of hands. It is not Christian laying on of hands. You will miss the entire connection if you think it refers to things in Christianity. It is the laying on of hands, for instance, when the offerer brought the sacrifice to the door of the tabernacle, confessing his sin. The high priest did the same on the great day of atonement, putting his hands on the head of the bullock.

In the first place, it is not "baptism" but "baptisms," and the baptism of the Spirit would surely not be associater with the baptism of water in such a manner. Moreover Christian baptism is always baptisma, while this is baptismos, a difference of form which is no doubt connected with the application in each case. Baptismos is the word used for the Jewish purifications, as plainly in the case of the "divers baptisms" (not "washings") in the ninth chapter of this very epistle (ver. 10). These are really what is referred to — or mainly referred to here, though we must anticipate somewhat the doctrine of that chapter to make this plain.

The great failure in Judaism, as the apostle shows there, was its failure to really purify the conscience, so as to set the soul at rest in the presence of God. In the tabernacle of old, he says, "were offered both gifts and sacrifices, which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience." Why? Because they consisted only in "meats and drinks, and divers baptisms," or purifications, "carnal ordinances" — that is, ordinances which could not in their very nature affect the condition of the soul.

Next follows the second pair, the doctrine or teaching of baptisms and of the laying on of hands. In what sense are we to take the mention of baptisms? Any thought of its application to Christian baptism must, we believe, be ruled out of court, for that was only instituted by the Lord after His resurrection, so could not be included in "the word of the beginning of Christ." Any reference to John's baptism is equally ruled out of court, since that is only described by the Greek word baptisma, and never by baptismos, the form met with in our passage. We believe, then, that we are to understand here the practices with which all who had been Jews were familiar, referred to in Mark 7:4-8 and Heb. 9:10. And this is borne out by the noun baptismos being here in the plural; whereas when Christian baptism is mentioned the word is always in the singular, there being but one baptism of water for Christians (Eph. 4:5). By the teaching of baptisms, therefore, would be understood the importance of cleanliness from all defilement. Then the laying on of hands had also a significance, with which all Jews were acquainted, expressing, as it did, identification with a person, or with the sacrifice, on which hands were laid. With the teaching these expressed there was no doubt the Hebrews were familiar. And remembering the condition of things amongst the Christians at Jerusalem, when Paul had last visited that city, evidencing the continued practice by converts of the ordinances of the law, the reference here to washings and to the laying on of hands was anything but irrelevant.

All that you have in the first two verses of Hebrews 6 was common to Judaism and known quite well by the Jew. There must be "repentance from dead works," and a few certainly knew "faith towards God." Then as to "baptisms," here I apprehend the word means simply washings, of which we know there were many under the Jewish ritual; the priests had to wash their hands and their feet, the victims had to be washed ere they were offered, the defiled had to wash their clothes as well as their persons, etc. Then again as to the "laying on of hands," there was in Judaism the laying on of the priest's hands, and the laying on of the worshipper's hands on the head of the victim. "Resurrection of the dead," too, was perfectly well known among the Jews. Resurrection out from among the dead was what was not known to the Jew, but is the doctrine of Christianity. In Judaism there was a measure of light; but the veil was not rent, Christ had not died, and man had not been looked upon as utterly ruined; but now Christ has come, has gone into death, and has been raised out from among the dead, and the heart is linked with Him where He is in heavenly glory; and the next thing it awaits is the moment when He shall return and take out from among the dead His own people, His resurrection being the pattern and assurance of theirs.

All that you have in the first two verses of Hebrews 6 was common to Judaism and known quite well by the Jew. There must be "repentance from dead works," and a few certainly knew "faith towards God." Then as to "baptisms," here I apprehend the word means simply washings, of which we know there were many under the Jewish ritual; the priests had to wash their hands and their feet, the victims had to be washed ere they were offered, the defiled had to wash their clothes as well as their persons, etc. Then again as to the "laying on of hands," there was in Judaism the laying on of the priest's hands, and the laying on of the worshipper's hands on the head of the victim. "Resurrection of the dead," too, was perfectly well known among the Jews. Resurrection out from among the dead was what was not known to the Jew, but is the doctrine of Christianity. In Judaism there was a measure of light; but the veil was not rent, Christ had not died, and man had not been looked upon as utterly ruined; but now Christ has come, has gone into death, and has been raised out from among the dead, and the heart is linked with Him where He is in heavenly glory; and the next thing it awaits is the moment when He shall return and take out from among the dead His own people, His resurrection being the pattern and assurance of theirs.

The great failure in Judaism, as the apostle shows us there, was its failure really to purify the conscience, so as to set the soul at rest in the presence of God. In the tabernacle of old he says were offered "both gifts and sacrifices, which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience." Why? Because they consisted only in "meats and drinks and divers baptisms," or purifications, "carnal ordinances," that is, ordinances which could not in their very nature affect the condition of the soul, but the flesh only. He contrasts them then with that which does purify. "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer, purifying the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh" (here are the divers baptisms, namely of blood and of ashes, ordinances of flesh, purifying only the flesh), "how much rather shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"