Human Sacrifice in The Torah

So the New2Torah (Zachary Bauer) YouTube channel did a video about Human Sacrifice in The Torah in the context of The Messiah being an Atonement Sacrifice.

Then another video was made in response to it.  That second video I'm not able to embed directly it seems, so here is a Link.  Human Sacrifice and Messiah Answering New2Torah.

Bauer was definitely stupid to bring up the conspiracy theory that Isaiah 53 is removed from Jewish Bibles.  The latter video is also wrong however, no you can't get around that the Suffering Servant is an individual suffering for the sins of the people.  The Melchizedek Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls Interpreted it that way before the time of Christ.  The Talmud cites it as Messianic at least once in Sanhedrin 98b, the Leper Scholar.  The idea of it referring to the Nation doesn't show up till after 1000 AD.

Other criticisms the second video makes of the first are also valid, but not all.

For outside The Torah Zach should have referred to when David had seven sons of Saul hung on trees to appease the Gibeonites.  That is clear Hebrew Bible precedent for people being executed not for their own Sins but for the Sins of a blood Kinsman.  And five of them were maternal grandchildren interestingly.

The people in the latter video love to emphasize Repentance.  The Problem is I don't believe Yahuah is going to Save only those who Repent.  They love to point to Ezekiel 18, I point to Ezekiel 16 where even Sodom is promised to be restored.

The common claim that the Passover sacrifice isn't an Atonement Sacrifice I find to be rather semantic. The Passover is unique and doesn't fit into the other five general Sacrifice categories easily at all.  But it sure as heck resembles Atonement more then it does offering something to Yahuah just out of devotion.  God is carrying out a Judgment on Egypt for not letting Israel go, and putting The Blood on the Doorpost protects your Household from that Judgment.  The Levitical Atonement Sacrifices also involved Covering things with The Blood.  The Passover Lamb covers a Household not an individual, Jesus was offered for the Household of Adam.

The people in the second video say that Atonement Sacrifices have to be female, I don't know where they got that.  The Yom Kippur Sacrifice is a male Goat in Leviticus 16.  Leviticus 4:3 requires a male Bullock to Atone for the Sin of a Priest, and Leviticus 4:14 and Numbers 15:24 require it to be a male Bullock and/or male kid of the Goats if it's offered on behalf of the Community.  And Leviticus 4:22-23 says if a Nasi sins the Atonement offering has to be a male of the Goats.  And of course The Passover had to be a male.

The Trespass offering in Leviticus 5 is what requires a Female.  However Jesus defined the Sins of Humanity as unknowing sins on The Cross.  But at any rate, I believe Jesus was ultimately both male and female.  Jesus also fulfilled the Red Heifer offering by being killed on the Mount of Olives, "without the Camp".

The second Video also got persnickety about saying you don't Anoint a Sacrificial Offering.  You know Torah Only people love to say the only person who's Anointed in the Torah is the Priest, there is no Anointing of Kings.  Jesus is both the Offering and the one Making the Offering.  The Torah does say to anoint the Wafers of Unleavened Bread.  Now they made it sound like your forbidden to Anoint the animal, but the Torah doesn't say that either.

Both Isaac and Joseph play the role of a sacrificial offering in narratives even though they weren't literally.

Now here is a subject many are uncomfortable with.  Technically Yahuah demands Human Sacrifice in The Torah of all maternal firstborns.

Exodus 22:29-30.

"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.  Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me."

However this situation is clarified in Numbers 18:15-17.

"Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto Yahuah, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.  And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs.  But the firstling of a bullock, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto Yahuah."

This is not about the Firstborns losing their Priestly status to the Levites, Numbers 3:12 dealt with that.  This is specifically about a demand for every First Born to be Sacrificed to Yahuah.

It's interesting that Humans are distinguished from unclean animals, even though when viewed as animals we lack both requirements for being Levitically clean.  Humans aren't animals however.  With animals these physical characteristics of cleanness are merely symbolic representations of moral purity.  The only thing keeping most Humans from being an acceptable Sacrifice is being Sinful.  Only someone without Sin can truly Atone for the Sins of another.

Moses' blessing on Joseph is the foundation of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine.  Deuteronomy 33:17 says.

"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

The Hebrew words for firstling and Bullock here are the same as in Numbers 18:17.  It was firmly established in the minds of all Israelites that every Firstling Bullock was to be Sacrificed, no exceptions.  So this passage has been taken even by non Christians as saying someone of Joseph will be sacrificed and then risen again (the "Unicorn" representing him Resurrected), hence the Messiah Ben Joseph tradition.

The context is about Maternal Firstborns.  Galilee in NT times wasn't just Naphtali anymore. I think Nazareth was possibly actually Jezreel, a site that can potentially be linked to Manasseh.  And when reading about Hezekiah's Passover it becomes clear plenty of Manasseh was still left behind after the Captivity.

Manasseh was the firstborn of Asenath and Joseph was the firstborn of Rachel.  It's interesting that Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 both emphasize that Jesus was the Firstborn of Mary even though the Virgin Birth already made that obvious.

And hey, I made that case without even addressing the awkward issue of Jephthah's Daughter.

I don't think the person Paul calls Kepha/Kephas is Simon Peter.

I know that in John 1:42 Simon is called Kephas and we're told that means Petros.  But the Protestant understanding of Petras and Petros is that Jesus is the Eben/Petra and all of us believers are Petron carved out of him.

Paul's Epistles use the name Peter only in Galatians, but he also uses Kephas once there.

In Galatians 2 he refers to Peter in verses 7 and 8, then to James, Cephas and John in verse 9, then to Peter again in verses 11 and 14.  Reading through the whole chapter it seems odd to me that he would this one time use a different name.

Now comparing to the Gospels, you might feel compelled to say Galatians 2:9 is like the verses that refer to Peter, James and John.  But Paul names them in a different order, in those verses Peter was always first.  And Paul is not contradicting Peter's primacy, the prior two verses just defined Peter as being in charge of bringing The Gospel to the Circumcision.  Also the James in this verse isn't the Son of Zebedee since it's about Acts 15 and he was Martyred in chapter 12.

It seems more likely that after already talking about Peter this verse is then listing other Pillars of the Church in Jerusalem.

The rest of Paul's references to Kephas are in 1 Corinthians.  1:12 and 3:22 refer to Paul himself, Apollos and Kepha being people who have fans in Corinth who are having fandom rivalries with each other, and Paul reminds them we're all supposed to be focused on Christ.

Chapter 15 is the most defining identifying characteristic of this Kepha however.   In verses 4 and 5 he says.

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

He didn't say "then the rest of the twelve".  Even without comparing this to other sources on the Resurrection, it clearly seems to be saying Kepha is not one of the Twelve.

Paul's list of Eye Witnesses to the Resurrection is not complete, but that who he does list is chronological is part of his point, he defines himself as the least of the apostles in part because he was the last eye witness to the Resurrection.

In The Gospel accounts, Peter does not see the risen Jesus till about the same time most of the Twelve do.  Peter enters the Empty Tomb, but that's not seeing the risen Jesus.  The defining characteristic of Kepha in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is being the first Eye Witness to the Resurrection.

Matthew 28 and Luke 24 tell us the Women who found the Tomb Empty saw the risen Jesus before the 12.  And Mark 16:9 and John 20 further clarify that the individual first eye witness of The Resurrection was Mary Magdalene.

Now I know this observation might seem like music to the ears of the DaVinci Code style conspiracy theorists, who'll say Paul is an older source so this is evidence that the Church later gave to Peter a title that belonged to Mary Magdalene.  But as I already pointed out, Paul does give primacy to Peter and discourages those who place too much importance on Kepha or himself or any other Apostle.

Since Magdalene probably comes from Migdol which means Tower, perhaps it refers to a stone tower?

Update March 27th 2024: I've now argued in favor of now viewing Mary as The Beloved Disciple.  

Also I've noticed that in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 15:4-5 the Greek Textus Receptus says Cepha with no S on the end, that makes it arguably Grammatically Feminine.

I'm going to do something I used to be less willing to do and argue there has been textual corruption.  And then originally Cephas was only used in 1 John and all Paul's references are to Cepha.  Thus Cephas is Peter but Cepha is Mary.

The Books of Chronicles versus Samuel and Kings

When it comes to skeptics looking for alleged Bible Contradictions, The Book (they were one book originally) of Chronicles providing an alternate account of the History of the Kingdom Period is perhaps second only to the parallel Gospel record.

I do feel there are no irreconcilable differences in terms of what the two accounts say happened. I've already talked about The Widow's Son and Jehosheba.  And the Genealogy of Rehoboam's Queen in a Song of Songs post.  As far as whether David used Silver or Gold to buy the land of the threshing floor, the accounts are specific in what they say, the Gold bought the land itself and the Silver everything on the land.

What my mind has been contemplating is a pretty clear thematic difference in point of view.  The Gospels have different things they emphasize, but never leading to the conclusion they are trying to send a totally different message.  With Chronicles it does sometimes seem that way.

We can view these as different points of view where one is less correct then the other, without completely rejecting either as part of God's Word.  It may be God wants us to know and learn from this other POV. 2 Timothy 2:15 talks about rightly dividing the word of truth.  We often talk about needing two witnesses to build doctrine, but don't fully think about the implications of when there isn't a confirming witness.

The first obvious example of this is the origin of the Samaritans.

2 Kings 17 tells us Assyria after deporting seemingly all of the Northern Kingdom settled some people from Northern Mesopotamia in their old land.  The newcomers worshiped their old idols which caused problems, then Assyria gives them a Priest of Jeroboam's Priesthood who teaches them to worship Jeroboam's Idols.  Later in 2 Kings 23:15 Josiah destroys the altar at Bethel which ends Idolatry in the region.  But the point still remains that the Samaritans descend from foreigners.

2 Chronicles does not contain it's own version of the 2 Kings 17 narratives, it does refer to Josiah destroying idols but doesn't single out Bethel.  However in chapter 30 we learn that some remnants of the northern kingdom's population were still there during the reign of Hezekiah who invited them to his Passover celebration.  Some mocked the invitation, but others accepted, with people of Manasseh and Ephraim being mentioned in both groups.  Now the text of 2 Chronicles isn't explicitly saying this is where the Samaritans come from, but the implication could to be they come from those who rejected it.

Now these accounts can both be perfectly true, in fact both being true fits best what the Assyrian inscriptions say, they didn't deport everyone just a lot, this policy was about mixing their population.

But the point is Kings and Chronicles choose different things to emphasize.  And on this thematic disagreement, the New Testament takes a side. 

When Jesus sent the 70 Disciples on their first training missionary mission, He tells them to go only to the Children of Israel and not Gentiles or Samaritans, showing he didn't count them as Israelites.  Later at the true Great Commission the Samaritans are included as are the gentiles.  (Ezra and Nehemiah also seem to confirm the Kings viewpoint.)  And this isn't the only place where that happens.  Matthew's genealogy uses the final form of the name of Salmon that Ruth uses, not Salma from 1 Chronicles 2.

One might argue Matthew not including King Manasseh among the generations skipped is an influence of Chronicles, since only Chronicles records his repentance, based on Kings alone you'd think he's the worst most irredeemable villain of the Kingdom Period.  And 1 Chronicles 2 may be the only basis for putting a Recab in David's genealogy (Matthew is not saying Rahab the Harlot married Salmon, her name is Raab in New Testament texts).  But that's about it for possible New Testament dependence on Chronicles, one genealogy which for at least one name is also going against Chronicles.

The only point where a New Testament author can be made to look like they're directly quoting  Chronicles, is really them and Chronicles quoting the same Davidic Psalm.  Of course that is true of apparent New Testament quotations of Samuel as well.  And the only NT quotes of Kings is of Elijah speaking.  Jesus quoted The Torah and Prophets (Acts 2 calls David a Prophet), but it can maybe be argued that the New Testament doesn't want us to take the histories in the Kingdom period books at entirely face value.

The Chronicles account is also responsible for much of the confusion about Tarshish.  The only verses making it sound like Tarshish was the destination of naval adventures from the Red Sea port are in 2 Chronicles in 9:21 and 20:36-37.  Their equivalent passages in 1 Kings 10:11&22 and 2 Kings 22:48 make clear that Ophir in Yemen was the destination, but the ships are called ships of Tarshish because they were modeled after Tarshish ships, possibly with cooperation from Tarshish.

This may not be entirely wrong, looking at things like how Native Americans became Indians, maybe at some point Israelites started calling this place Tarshish even though it really wasn't because that's what they called the ships they used to get there.  But Jonah makes clear that Tarshish is really accessed via the the Mediterranean port at Joppa. 

But this confusion has been useful for people who don't find the mainstream views of Tarshish romantic enough, wanting to make it Briton, or Atlantis, or India, or Japan, and I'd even contemplated making them the Olmecs in the past.  But I've abandoned those speculations now.

What's even more interesting is Solomon.  Chronicles has no equivalent to 1 Kings 11.  Which is the first of a few facts suggesting it has a generally more apologetic attitude towards Solomon.  And returning to the subject of the New Testament taking sides, I did a post on how the New Testament is rather dismissive of Solomon.

By leaving out the murder of Urias and including the repentance of Manasseh, Chronicles is arguably being more apologetic to all the Davidic Kings.  But the moral point is David and Manasseh repented, Solomon never repented of his 1 Kings 11 sins.

1 Kings 4 tells us Solomon went to Sacrifice at the "Great High Place" at Gibeon, elsewhere Kings consistently refers to High Places as inherently bad. Many commentators on this say it shows God's mercy that he answers Solomon's prayer here in-spite of this, and I can't say I exactly disagree with that.

But when 2 Chronicles 1 records the same event, it also identifies Gibeon and calls it a High Place, but adds that this was where the Tabernacle of Moses was.  Other passages in the books of Chronicles further back up the Tabernacle being here for awhile.  But Samuel and Kings never place the Tabernacle at Gibeon, they don't contradict it being here at this time, and do earlier place it at Nob (in an event Jesus refers to) which is often speculated to be either close by or another name for the same place.  But the tone in Kings seems to be that Solomon was in error coming here, while Chronicles wants to justify it.  And Kings tells us Abiathar the priest who survived the Nob massacre lived at Anathoth, and that Abiathar later was working with Joab and Adonijah in their attempted coup, another story Chronicles leaves out.

In fact Samuel-Kings also links a Great Stone at Gibeon to Absalom and Amasa's rebellion.

Even if the physical Tabernacle built by Moses was there, it was violating the Torah itself by being on a High Place.  And also the Ark wasn't here, it was brought by David to first Zion and then Jerusalem.  Psalm 132 tells us David's Tabernacle was at Ephratha.

And then there is how only 2 Chronicles 3:1 applies the name of Moriah to where Ornan's threshing floor was and where Solomon's Temple was built.  Again this Moriah could be not the same hill as Genesis 22:2 and still not be wrong, Solomon may have given the name of Moriah to the hill to evoke that event.

Samuel-Kings has David buy the threshing floor and place an Altar there, but lots of Altars to Yahuah were built at places not meant to house a Tabernacle or Temple, many that Abraham set up, the Altar at Ebal as well as one the Trans-Jordan tribes build in Joshua.  They don't say one way or the other if David ever meant The Temple to be built there.  I think Stephen in Acts 7 is implying The Tabernacle of David is where the Mishkan was meant to permanently dwell.  But 1 Chronicles seems to imply David meant the Temple to be here by placing his instructions for it right after the account of buying the threshing floor.  Again, even if Chronicles isn't lying, it could have recorded here a speech David actually gave at Ephratha.

I no longer believe The Church of the Holy Sepulcher marks the site of either the Crucifixion or Solomon's Temple, nor do I think those two were the same place at all.  I've gone back to the Mount of Olives Crucifixion view which I'll be making another post on.  And I think that's the Moriah where Isaac was offered too.  And I'm also back to Solomon's Temple being where Justinian built the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos.  Which overlaps with my theorizing that The Second Temple maybe wasn't built at the same spot.

Anathoth and Gibeon I think were probably where mainstream Archeologists currently think they were (as of March 2018).  But I'm much more skeptical of theories about Nob.  (Wikipedia says the Ark was at Nob which is wrong and I don't even see how they got that from the Commentary they're sourcing for it.)  Isaiah 10:32 leads me to conclude Nob was closer to Jerusalem then any of the places listed in the prior verses.  Jerusalem didn't in Jesus time cover everything it covers now.  I have a hunch I can't at all prove that maybe The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was where the Tabernacle at Nob was. I'm not gonna make a thing out of it, but it's a hunch.

Or better yet, maybe the "Old City" was the limit of Jerusalem all through the Pre-Captivity period.  And the area of the modern Temple Mount, the fours quarters, the Western Hill and where Justinian built that Nea Ekklesia didn't become Jerusalem till the return from Captivity where again I think they built a lot of stuff on the wrong places.  Maybe the Second Temple was build over Nob, and the Rock under the Dome of the Rock was the great Stone of Gibeon?

So in summery, they may both be Scripture, but if you encounter an issue presume Samuel-Kings to be more trustworthy till a solution is found.

Oh and I can add that only 2 Chronicles 1:4 named Jerusalem as the place to which David brought the Ark from KirjathJearim.  Now again that may not be wrong, it could be using Jerusalem in a wider sense, or just skipping a step in how the Ark got to where it was at this moment.  1 Kings 3:15 does tells us the Ark was in Jerusalem when Solomon prepared to start building The Temple.

2 Samuel 15:24-25 says Zadok and the Priests brought The Ark out of "the City" and David told them to take it back to the City, but it doesn't specify which city.  Latter in verse 29 it says they took it to Jerusalem, but doesn't use the word "back".  So they may not have done exactly what David said.  The context of verse 3 makes it sound like The Ark could have been temporarily on the Mount of Olives when this happened.

2 Samuel 15 still predates David buying the Threshing Floor, so it's NOT the same place as that. This resting place for The Ark might happen to correspond to where Bob Cornuke thinks The Temple was, in the oldest part of Jebus.

But then out of consistency with my own logic I realized only 2 Chronicles 3:1 identifies the Threshing Floor of Ornan as where The Temple was built.  And thus my main argument against the Cornuke theory, (and also an argument for the Nea Ekklesia theory) is weakened by weakening the authority of Chronicles.  But hey Cornuke himself thinks he's being consistent with Chronicles.

Still I'm only willing to even start to maybe second guess Chronicles if something in another book appears to maybe possibly contradict it.  And nothing seems to conflict with the Threshing floor being where The Temple was built.

Update March 22nd 2018: This shall be the most controversial suggestion I've made here.  You can agree with everything I argued above without needing to agree with this.

But I've been contemplating other uses of the same Hebrew word translated Threshingfloor, Goren Strong Number 1637.

1Kings 22:10 and 2 Chronicles 18:9 seem to say Samaria's Goren was by the entry gate.  For Jerusalem the Entry Gate was traditionally the East Gate.  The imagery in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 is of the Angel of Yahuah approaching Jerusalem but stopping here.  In the past I'd tried to argue that could be west of Jerusalem, but usually Yahuah and His Angel approach and enter the Camp/Jerusalem by the East Gate.  And that is part of why The Mount of Olvies is so important.

When you contemplate the purposes of a Theshingfloor, it correlates with some of what The Torah says should be done "without the camp", which becomes the Mount of Olives when viewing The Camp as Jerusalem, it's been confirmed that's where the Red Heifer was killed during the second Temple period.  And that ties directly into arguing that Jesus was Crucified on the Mount of Olives or at it's foot.  Also Micah 4:12 and Jeremiah 51:33 possibly eschatologically link this concept to what's said elsewhere of the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna which I also argued is by the Mount of Olives.

The Mount of Olives is where Solomon placed his Idols of Chemosh and Moloch in 1 Kings 11, an event Chronicles ignores.  Could it be that Chronicles wanted to confuse that location with the location of Solomon's Temple to Yahuah?  And thus becomes an argument for applying the name of Moriah to the Mount of Olives?

 But maybe 1 Chronicles 3:1 isn't even necessarily identifying the exact spot of The Temple's location.  Maybe work relevant to The Temple's construction was simply done there.  Maybe that's where a lot of material and smaller pieces of the building were made before being brought into the City to the proper site and put together.

Baptism and the Mikveh

One of the trends of the Hebrew Roots movement is to suggest a connection between New Testament Baptism and the Jewish Mikveh custom.  Thing is, even though I'm someone who wants to explain the New Testament via the Hebrew Bible and culture as much as possible, I've been skeptical of this one.

For one, the Mikveh as it's traditionally thought of now is not very supported by the Hebrew Bible, it's mostly a Greco-Roman/Second Temple era development.  There is certainly no verse that uses the word Mikveh in a way that it would make sense to translate it Baptism or Baptize.  There are two Hebrew words sometimes translated wash, washed or bathe in verses cited as being Mikveh relevant.  Of those rachats is the one that I think would be used if the Hebrew Bible described something like Baptism, since it's meaning implies immersion, the other one to consider is kabac but that word is usually about washing cloths.

Secondly, the Mikveh as it had become by New Testament times was done in in-door or at least man made pools of water.  Baptism as presented in the New Testament is done in running water, in rivers.  Now one could say it fits the New Testament theme of rejecting institutionalized religion to move the Mikveh to an outdoor natural water source.  But that would need other evidence.

The Torah/TNAK basis for the Mikveh are all pretty much verses about ritual cleansing.  Which kind of does come up in the New Testament as a separate issue from Baptism, like when Jesus (seemingly) didn't wash his hands in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7.  

Of course another famous New Testament custom connected to this Hebrew word is Foot Washing, Torah references to Foot Washing also use rachats.

It seems the Mishna says the ritual cleansing related to the Red Heifer in Numbers 19 required running water and can't be done in a Mikveh.  But The Torah itself gives no such indication that it has stricter rules.

But even in Rabbinic and Modern Jewish sources, there are no references to Mikvehs being about Repentance as John's Baptism was.

There are two cited uses of the Mikveh that sound to Christians like they make it an attractive analogy for Baptism.  But neither of them have a basis in The Torah or any other part of the Hebrew Bible.

One is it being done as part of a gentile proselyte converting to Judaism.  That seems like what the Baptisms in Acts were all about.  But The Hebrew Bible doesn't call for it, rather the only ritual associated with an outsider becoming an Israelite is Circumcision.  Which of course brings us to the theory about Baptism the Hebrew Roots people hate, that it's meant to replace Circumcision.  Now I'm not convinced of that theory either, but I do believe Christians don't have to be Circumcised.

The other is a claim that it's done by a Bride some time between Espousal and the Wedding.  I could do a whole post on why I'm annoyed at Christians building doctrine on Extra-Biblical Jewish Wedding Customs.  But in this case, not only is this not Biblical but Wikipedia is unaware of it being one of the uses of the Mikveh at all, so this might be something some Christians just imagined.

Michael Rood likes to make it sound like the Israelites were "Mikvehed" in Exodus 19, during the preparation for the giving of The Law.  But actually only their cloths are refereed to as being washed there.

What I have noticed on my own while looking into this issue is that a ritual washing was part of consecrating Aaron and his sons as Priests in Exodus 29:4 and 40:12, and also Leviticus 8:6.  And that makes me think of the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.  And all the other aspects of this consecration ceremony revolved around the Sacrifice which isn't needed anymore.

And this seems to be the only rachats ritual to involve the person in question being "washed" by someone else rather then washing themselves.  Leviticus clarifies Moses did it originally but going forward it's probably implied new Priests are initiated by people already Priests.  So Jesus is Baptized partly because He's our High Priest, and then we are Baptized because of the Priesthood of All Believers.

Baptists are often hostile to these kinds of Hebrew Roots style explanations for New Testament ideas, but in this case it actually does help their position.  The more mainstream view that Baptism simply replaces Circumcision is a core part of the argument for Pedobaptism.  But if it's instead about initiation into the Priesthood of all Believers then that naturally supports Believers Baptism (even Aaron's Sons had already been adults for awhile in Exodus 29, Aaron was older then Moses making him over 80 at the Exodus so it's highly unlikely his kids weren't at least 30).  The Priesthood of all Believers is also foundational to Congregational Polity another core doctrine of the Baptist movement, so connecting it to Baptism is like Poetry it Rhymes.

Speaking of being 30, in Numbers 4 the age of 30 seems to be presented as when Levites began their service in the Tabernacle, 1 Chronicles 23:3 reaffirms that.  And low and behold Jesus came to John to be Baptized when he was about 30 years old.  Perhaps this is why Luke considered John's Kohen Heritage important to emphasize, for both his mother and father.

Whether or not there is some connection between the Mikveh and Baptism.  People like Michael Rood using the word Mikveh as a "translation" of Baptism when they refer to the New Testament doctrine I find very misleading, and doing that when quoting the New Testament is just plain wrong.