The Baptism of John
A clear trajectory connects the
removal of the impure spirits from humanity at the End of Days in the Qumran
sect and the activity of Jesus as purifier of the world, releasing the cosmos from
the grip of demons. Between these two phases stands the purification activity
of John the Baptism in preparation for the Kingdom of God. Despite the fact
that we have limited information about this figure and the doctrine he
espoused, it is well established that his model of purify appealed to many in
Judean society. Both Josephus and the Gospels attest to his public standing in
narratives about his execution by Herod Antipas. (Josephus, Ant. 18.116-19;
Matt. 14:1-12//Mark 6:14-29) John’s practice or purification exhibits, again,
the blurred boundaries between sin and impurity and ritual impurity familiar
from other contemporary sources and groups. Although John’s language, unlike
the sectarian approaches, John granted everyone immediate purification in preparation
for the Kingdom of God. This act supplied the foundation for Jesus’s ultimate
act of purifying the world.
There are different and even
contradictory descriptions of John’s message regarding purity. In the Gospels,
John preaches a “baptism of repentance,” though each of the Gospels formulates
this message in a different way. (Matt. 3:11-12; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-20. Aee
also Acts 13:24, 19:4) According to Mark and Luke, John declared “baptism of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” whereas in Matthew he only called for repentance.
Mark and Matthew mention that the people whom John baptized in the Jordan River
confessed their sins. By contrast, Luke makes no mention of confession but says
that John preached for the amelioration of the baptized way of life. All three
Gospels, on the other hand, motion the contrast between John, who baptized
people with water, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit—or even, according to
Matthew and Luke, of the threatening fire of coming judgment. The eschatological
purpose of John’s onetime baptism is therefore unmistakable. Repentance and
forgiveness of sin prepare Israel for the approaching divine judgment. (The
references in Matthew and Luke to Isaiah 40:3 do not only allude to the act of
going out to the desert—“A voice rings out . . . in the desert”—but also to the
future judgment: “Grass withers, flowers fade, when the breath of the Lord
blows on them” [v. 7]. Cf. Matt. 3:11-12; Luke 3:16-17)
According to this account, the baptism
of John prepared the people for God’s future revelation. Yet it is unclear what
mechanism this baptism provided. What is the relationship between the act of repentance,
divine remission of sin, and ritualized purification through baptism? Peter
suggests baptism is comparable to the falling of the Holy Spirit. Thus in Acts
11:15-18 the audience praised God who granted even tiles “the repentance that
leads to life” through the Holy Spirit. Both baptism and the Holy Spirit give
life to those who were previously considered dead due to their sins. (Acts
11:18; compare Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31)
The Gospels view baptism within the
framework of the eschatological transformation of humanity. Baptism for the
sake of repentance facilitates this change of human nature, and it could be
accomplished only by God’s emissary, such as John himself. (Matt. 21:25-26;
Luke 8:4-7. John garnered the authority to perform baptism as a result of his
role as God’s prophet. John’s status as a priest might have contributed to his
self-perception as worthy of providing expiation for the people, although he
appears to have seen himself as a substitute for the Temple) Josephus, on the
other hand, took John’s message in the opposite direction. He ignored the
messianic nature of the baptism and, at the same time, focused John’s message
on the distinction between physical immersion and repentance: “For Herod had
put him (John) to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to
lead righteous lives, to practice justice toward their fellows and piety towards
God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view that was a necessary
preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to
gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body
implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior.” (Jospehus,
Ant. 18.116-17) In the eyes of Josephus, only righteous acts can purify the
soul, whereas the immersion that follows is limited only to bodily
purification. Admittedly, Josephus’s words conceal more than they reveal, for
if this is so, then why did John’s message attract so many, and why did
Josephus feel the need to specifically disagree with the same interpretation of
baptism for the sake of remission of sins that surfaces in the Gospel tradition?
Scholars take three basic approaches to
explain John’s message within the context of fire-century Judaism. (John’s
baptism has been compared to the immersion for the sake of conversion to
Judaism. As opposed to the regular, private immersion for purification purposes,
the conversion immersion is overseen by a third party, who watches the
conversion candidate [b. Yeb. 47b]. But since there is no indication of
immersion for conversion in Second Temple sources and it is first discussed by
the rabbis of the early second century CE, it is doubtful whether it is
relevant for the interpretation of John’s actions) According to David Flusser,
John’s baptism reflects the notions of purity that we find in the Community
Rule, according to which sin defiles the body and the sinner is incapable or
purification. Repentance is, therefore, a necessary precondition for the achievement
of ritual purity through baptism (as in Mark and Matthew’s versions). This interpretation
is largely based on Josephus, according
to whom the immersion itself did not achieve atonement. However, despite the
fact that both John and Qumran literature tied repentance to purification, it
is doubtful that John was as invested in physical purity as were the Qumran
sectarians, who practiced immersion regularly and maintained bodily in purity
on a daily basis.
John’s baptism, therefore, does not
appear to have been integrated within a regular observance of bodily purity but
rather offered one time purification for the sake of repentance. Thus, other scholars
suggested that this ritual was inspired by the prophetic descriptions of
purification: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; I
will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes” (Ezek. 36:25).
The prophet uses metaphors of purification to describe the expiation that will
pave way for redemption, and John provides an actual realization of these expressions
of atonement. But the shift from divine acts of purification to a physical
practice of purification, such as that offered by John, requires a fundamental transformation
in the perception of impurity. He is not merely performing Ezekiel’s prophecy.
Hence, I suggest a third explanation for
John’s practice. The prevalent tendency in Second Temple source to obscure the distinction
between ritual and moral impurity provides the background for John’s baptism
for the sake of atonement. As we saw in the previous chapter, even those
outside the sect shared the notion of the reflection of sin impurity. The
popular practice of physical distancing from gentiles reflected the notion that
they physically embodied sin and were, therefore, a source of defilement. To a
certain degree, this type of impurity could cling to any sinner. Furthermore, many
Jews would have identified the defiling power of sin within themselves as being
under the dominion of demonic forces in a concrete manner, with these forces
causing them both to sin and to suffer. One could not shake off these forces of
impurity that nested in the human body without external intervention. In this
sense, many Jews might have shared the eschatological hope quoted previously
from the Community Rule: “Then God will refines, with His truth, all man’s
deeds, and will purify for Himself the structure of man, ripping out all spirit
of injustice from the innermost part of his flesh, and cleansing him with the
spirit of holiness form every wicked deed.”
Here, then, lies the essential
difference between the perception of impurity prevalent in the world of John
the Baptist and the earlier language of Ezekiel. Refined sin impurity was transformed
from an abstract concept into an actualized entity, which many Jews imagined in
the form of demonic powers that held control over them. The embodied image of
reified impurity. Purification was no longer understood to be a metaphor for a
person’s change of behavior and internal consciousness but rather a ritualized model
for banishing those spirits that resided within his bodily members (“ripping
out all spirit of injustice from the innermost part of his flesh”). Although
God himself, or someone operating under his authority, executed the change that
came with the Holy Spirit, a physical purification technique was necessary for
the banishment of the spirits of impurity, the elimination of the power of sin,
and the transformation of one’s nature, within a unified image of flesh and
spirit. (Some Christian sources portray baptism as an exorcism of the evil
spirits who cleave to idolaters) (Yair Furstenberg, Purity and Identity in
Ancient Judaism: From the Temple to the Mishnah [Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana
University Press, 2023], 53-55)
