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.