Jewish Rites of Purification
As discussed in Part 1 of the Christian Baptism Series, there are many Old Testament verses concerning purification rituals for various purposes. However, the Jews, through the Pharisees, innovated and expanded these laws extraordinarily thus creating two distinct categories for specific cleansings; Netilat Yadayim and tevilah. Pharisaical law determines which purification right is to be performed for which cleansing.
Netilat Yadayim is the washing of the hands with a cup and is to be performed at meals, before worship, before priestly blessing, after sleeping, after visiting the bathroom, after cutting hair, after cutting nails, after participating in a funeral procession, being at a funeral, coming in contact with a corpse, after touching body parts that are typically covered (arm pits, private parts, etc), touching inside of nose or ear, after touching scalp, or prior to scribal work.
Tevilah is the full body immersion in a mikveh. A mikveh is a collection of water as found in a natural spring, river or drawn bath. This purification is also performed for a variety of reasons.
– Those who came in contact with a corpse
– Those with skin conditions
– Those emitting bodily fluids
– Women experience their monthly flow
– Men experiencing seminal discharge
– The one who led the scapegoat on Yom Kippur
– Those suffering from any issue resulting from blood discharging from the body
– Conversion to Judaism (2nd century)
When the list is studied, a blending of Biblical cleansing mixed with manufactured cleansing rituals are revealed. The “tevilah” appears to have a Biblical root in the Old Testament purification rituals that were listed in Part 1 of this study, while the “netilat yadayim” appears to be an innovation or hybrid (man’s law and God’s law) at best. There are two particular New Testament passages that reference these innovations; John 2:6 and Mark 7. In John 2:6, there is only a mention of 6 ceremonial washing jars (netilat yadayim) at the wedding in Cana. Mark 7 tells us not only what these jars are for, but gives a clear scope of the meaning behind them. In the passage, the Pharisees become agitated that Jesus and the disciples didn’t ceremonially wash their hands (netilat yadayim) before eating. This appears to be a small debate to our 21st century minds, however, when one understands what is actually at stake, the fight that Jesus and his disciples are initiating by not washing their hands is cataclysmic. To fully understand what is going on, two things must be explained;
(1) How Pharisaical laws came to be
(2) What not washing their hands really meant.
How Pharisaical Law came to be
The common perception of Pharisaical law tends to visualize itself as well intentioned law guarding. Their extra, innovative laws are thought of as caution tape (Pharisaical Law) around an open manhole (God’s Law). The seemingly well intentioned Pharisees are just helping by devising extra precaution to keep from danger. While it may appear that way on the surface, there is much more going on than meets the eye. The Pharisees actually believe(d) in 2 Torahs; the written and the verbal. They also believe(d) that Rabbi’s had absolute authority to interpret scripture and this absolute authority was governable by the majority. Therefore, the “second” verbal Torah was the Pharisaical rabbi’s living interpretation of scripture. It was verbal because they wanted to keep it to themselves in order to exclude the gentiles. The written Torah was for everyone, while the verbal Torah was exclusive. This conveniently resulted in the Pharisees having absolute power to determine law without having to explain themselves to anyone, let alone God. They used an irrational interpretation of Deuteronomy 30:12 and Exodus 30:12 to support their position.
Deuteronomy 30:12 says ” It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?”
Exodus 30:12 says “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them.”
By taking these two verse completely out of context and combining them together they establish that since the Torah is no longer in Heaven, but on earth, interpretation is now solely their responsibility according to the consensus of the Pharisaical council. With this understanding, the Rabbinical Pharisees are the only ones who can now interpret God’s law; even excluding God (since the Torah is no longer in Heaven). Therefore they take these interpretations, create traditions of the elders or (takanote) and bestow upon them the authority of God’s commands (written Torah). This is how God’s commands such as “keep the Sabbath holy” can devolve into equating spitting on the ground with gardening. This understanding goes a long way in explaining Jesus’ incessant anger at the Pharisees. It is also important to note that the verbal Torah was eventually written down and is now the Talmud (Jerusalem and Babylonian). This position is evident in reading the Talmud. There is an account of Rabbi Eliezer in the Babylonian Talmud found in Baba Mezi’a 59 a & b. Here is the selected account…
We learnt elsewhere: If he cut it into separate tiles, placing sand between each tile: R. Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages declared it unclean; and this was the oven of ‘Aknai. Why [the oven of] ‘Aknai? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel’s name: [It means] that they encompassed it with arguments as a snake, and proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,’ they retorted. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!’ Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water,’ they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,’ whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?’ Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!’ But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.’ What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline. R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed [with joy], he replied, saying, ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.’ It was said: On that day all objects which R. Eliezer had declared clean were brought and burnt in fire. Then they took a vote and excommunicated him. Said they, ‘Who shall go and inform him?’ ‘I will go,’ answered R. Akiba, ‘lest an unsuitable person go and inform him, and thus destroy the whole world.’ What did R. Akiba do? He donned black garments and wrapped himself in black, and sat at a distance of four cubits from him. ‘Akiba,’ said R. Eliezer to him, ‘what has particularly happened to-day?’ ‘Master,’ he replied, ‘it appears to me that thy companions hold aloof from thee.’ Thereupon he too rent his garments, put off his shoes, removed [his seat] and sat on the earth, whilst tears streamed from his eyes. The world was then smitten: a third of the olive crop, a third of the wheat, and a third of the barley crop. Some say, the dough in women’s hands swelled up.
This account begins with an argument between Rabbi Eleazer and the other Rabbis concerning whether the oven tile arrangements were clean or unclean. Rabbi Eleazer says the arrangement is clean while all other Rabbi’s issue dissent. Rabbi Eleazar continues to argue his point against the other Rabbis to no avail. Once he sees that his words and reason cannot sway the other Rabbis, he calls on God for supernatural proof that he is correct. There are a series of supernatural events including a tree uprooting, a river reversing flow and a library collapsing. The other Rabbis scoffed and refused to accept these events as proof that Eleazar was right in his assessment of the oven tiles. As a final sign to prove his assertion, he says ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!’ The other Rabbi’s were unimpressed saying that it doesn’t matter what a voice from heaven says because the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai and thus is no longer in heaven. They believed that God himself didn’t have the power to overthrow the Pharisaical Consensus. Thus Rabbi Eleazer was excommunicated. This is the perfect picture of how Deuteronomy 30:12 and Exodus 30:12 was twisted and ripped from context to grant the Pharisaical counsil absolute executive power.
What not washing their hands really meant
Now it should be much clearer why the refusal of Jesus and His disciples to wash their hands would spark outrage. The argument is not about whether it is good to wash hands before dinner (it is); the argument was about whether God commanded it or not. The Pharisees believe that He did because they believe that Deuteronomy 30:12 and Exodus 30:12 gives them interpretive authority that supersedes even God. Jesus, rightly so, says that it is not one of God’s commands, but instead, a “tradition of the elders.” His mere saying this completely strips their self-appointed authority away and exposes it for what it is; twisting of God’s word in the form of man’s law. By refusing to wash their hands, Jesus and the disciples are rebuking these Rabbis and exposing their false teachings and deception. This was no minor dispute as it calls the very office of Pharisaical Rabbi into question. This completely attacks and strips their perceived self appointed authority.
What does this have to do with Baptism?
I bring this up primarily to discount any arguments for Jewish rites of purification stemming from Pharisaical law as a case for understanding Christian baptism. I am a staunch advocate for looking at history to get a full, clear picture; however, in this case, any Jewish purification rite that stems from Pharisaical law must be discounted as it was birthed from a tradition of the elders. However, purification laws that stem from Old Testament passages can and should be studied as a prefigurement of Christian baptism; especially when New Testament apostles reference them.
Summary from Part 1 & 2
When looking at Old Testament law, it is apparent that purification laws served many purposes. Old Testament purification laws were efficacious for all that participated. This is known because scripture tells us that Priests who followed the “tent of meeting” purification laws lived and those who didn’t died. There are also the allegorical verses that shed light on the Flood and the parting of the red sea. These are both equated with baptism. In addition, there is also the prophecy in Ezekiel that points toward efficacious baptism. So while baptism practiced salvivicly for all people isn’t part of the Old Testament, there is imagery present that is pushing toward John and his baptism of repentance; this imagery would lead to the Pharisees sending messengers to inquire who he is and what he is doing. The groundwork has been laid in the OT rites of purification, allegories and specific prophesies concerning both baptism and the one who would prepare the way for the Messiah. This was apparent enough to the Pharisees to cause them to believe that John and his baptismal work could be the fulfillment. Notice in Matthew 3 that they are not curious as to what John is doing; only who he is and why he is doing it. Keep the Pharisaical beliefs studied above in the Eleazer account close at hand as it will shed light on John the Baptists response to the Pharisaical messengers discussed in Matthew 3. Stay tuned for Part 3 – John and his baptism of Repentance.
Click here for “Christian Baptism Series – Part 3 – John & his Baptism of Repentance”