[2] "In the future" (לעתיד לבוא) is a technical term for "in the Messianic future," cf. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (containing Vols 1 and 2), (Jerusalem: Horev) 1129.

[3] Seder Nashim, Kiddushin, Hebrew-English Ed., Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi H. Freedman, (New York: Traditional Press). The Bab. Tal. takes R. Josi's view as halachah, i.e. Ez. 36:25 can purify offspring of forbidden marriages. The Jerusalem Talmud (קידושין ג,יב-ד,א סד ע"ד — סה ע"ב) rejects R. Josi's view but it too sees Ezekiel prophecy as Israel's eschatological purification.

[4] Ignatius, possibly contending against non-Jewish Judaizers, nevertheless wrote at the beginning of the second century: "It is outrageous to utter the name of Jesus Christ and live in Judaism. For Christianity believed not in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which people of every tongue believed and were gathered unto God." Epistle to the Magnesians 10:7-8; The Epistle of Barnabas 9:18-19 states bluntly: "But moreover the circumcision, in which they have confidence, is abolished; for he said that a circumcision not of the flesh should be practised." Justin Martyr said in, Dialogue with Trypho, "As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race....understand, therefore, that the seed of Jacob now referred to is something else, and not, as may be supposed, spoken of your people." Dan Juster writes of the chaotic first century, "Soon gentile followers of Yeshua outnumbered Jewish followers. However, the leadership of living disciples kept the movement in accord with the basic decision of Acts 15. Unfortunately this understanding was soon lost. The period from 60-90 C.E. has been designated by one scholar as the tunnel period of biblical history (S.G.F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church). When the dust of war and tragedy settled, the situation had drastically changed." Jewishness & Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977) 10-11.

[5] Stein thinks it probable that "Christian baptism" is based on John's baptism, though he does not know its origin. He writes that it is doubtful that "Christian baptism" is based on Jewish proselyte baptism "since there is no evidence of this practice before A.D. 70 and proselyte baptism was self-administered."  Robert H. Stein, 'Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament,' Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 2/1 (Spring 1998) 6; Everett Ferguson says scholars speculate on antecedents of Yohanan's rite "in Jewish purificatory washings, in a 'baptist movement' within Judaism, in proselyte baptism, or in the washings at Qumran." Ferguson, Baptism in the Ancient Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009) 83-4. See also Colin Brown for novel speculation on Yohanan's activity, 'What Was John the Baptist Doing?' Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 37-50. Brown suggests "the key to understanding John's baptism lies in seeing the Jordan as the boundary and point of entry into the land promised by Yahweh to Israel...In emulation of the original entry depicted in the Book of Joshua, John's baptism called on Israelites to exit the land, and return across the Jordan under the leadership of John in order to repossess the land as a consecrated people. The crossing of the Jordan holds the key to what John was doing." But because Yohanan "worked no miracle" (John 10:41) it is extremely difficult to see how he excited Israel as herald of the Kingdom by a "re-enactment" of sacred history, especially since the Jordan never parted.

[6] Geoffrey Wainwright observes: "Confronted with the fragmentary and allusive material in the NT concerning baptism (in the Gospels and in the Pauline letters as well as in other writings), the historian and exegete has to make decisions concerning its relation to understandings and practices attested only in (say) Justin, Tertullian and Hippolytus. Do these latter illumine directly what was believed, said and done concerning baptism in NT times? Or do the patristic texts rather represent additions or alterations to the apostolic rites and doctrines?" Geoffrey Wainwright, 'Baptism, Baptismal Rites,' Dictionary of the Later New Testament & its Development, ed. Ralph Martin and Peter Davids, (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997) 113.

[7] The term bilateral Ekklesia refers to the Body of Messiah as comprised of two partnered wings, Yeshua-believing Jews and Yeshua-believers from all nations, which is concisely described in chapter 4, 'Bilateral Ecclesiology, in Solidarity with Israel,' of Mark Kinzer's Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, division of Baker Publishing, 2005) 151-179:

"BILATERAL ECCLESIOLOGY IN SOLIDARITY WITH ISRAEL

Our conclusions from chapters 2 and 3, taken together, have profound implications for our understanding of the transnational ekklesia established to embody and proclaim the faith of Yeshua.

We have concluded that, according to New Testament teaching, the ekklesia does not replace Israel. The Jewish people as a whole retains its position as a community chosen and loved by God. While, in Pauline language, Israel has experienced a “partial hardening” that temporarily prevents her from corporately embracing Yeshua-faith, she nevertheless remains a holy people, set apart for God and God’s purposes.

We have also concluded that, according to New Testament teaching, the ekklesia contains at its core a portion of Israel. Paul calls this portion “the remnant” and describes it as a representative and priestly component of Israel that sanctifies Israel as a whole. In order to fulfill its vocation, this portion of Israel must truly live as Israel—that is, it must be exemplary in observing those traditional Jewish practices that identify the Jewish people as a distinct community chosen and loved by God.

Three implications follow naturally from these conclusions. The first concerns the basic structure of the ekklesia. Jewish practice is inherently corporate in nature. Circumcision is a social rite, performed by a trained official within the community. Sabbath observance requires social support and communal expression. The dietary laws require kosher meat processing and a network of related families following similar food customs. The practical need for communal support reinforces the underlying meaning of all Jewish practice, which is to be an effective sign marking Israel as a people set apart for God.

At the same time, the New Testament also emphasizes the importance of Gentiles becoming part of the ekklesia without becoming Jews. The text presents the ekklesia as itself an ordered community, a network of household units bound together in committed relationships. However, the leadership of the Yeshua movement determined at an early stage that the ekklesia as an eschatological extension of Israel was to be an essentially transnational reality in which the cultural particularities of different regions and ethnicities would be expressed within the broad framework of Israel’s messianic faith. The Jewish members of the ekklesia— who in the beginning held all positions of authority and influence— were to avoid exerting overt or subtle pressure on Gentile adherents to become Jews.

Only one structural arrangement would allow for distinctive Jewish communal life within the context of a transnational community of Jews and Gentiles: the one ekklesia must consist of two corporate subcommunities, each with its own formal or informal governmental and communal structures. Thus the first implication of chapters 2 and 3 is that the ekklesia is bilateral— one reality subsisting in two forms.

Given that the Jewish people as a whole remains a community set apart for God, and that the Jewish segment of the ekklesia represents and sanctifies Israel, and that faithful Jewish practice requires extensive communal support, a second implication arises out of the first: the Jewish branch of the twofold ekklesia must identify with the Jewish people as a whole and participate actively in its communal life.

These two implications then suggest a third. If the Jewish branch of the ekklesia maintains solidarity with the Jewish people as a whole, then the Gentile ekklesia is thereby brought into meaningful relationship with “all Israel.” Without becoming Jewish, it is joined to an extended multinational commonwealth of Israel and can legitimately identify with Israel’s history and destiny. This provides the Gentile branch of the ekklesia with a way of sharing in Israel’s life and blessings without succumbing to supersessionism. On this point it is noteworthy that the rise of Christian supersessionism is correlated with schism between the Jewish and Gentile branches of the ekklesia, schism between the Jewish branch and the wider Jewish people, and the demise of Jewish Yeshua-faith as a viable corporate reality."

[8] R. Kendall Soulen argues that "supersessionism has shaped the narrative and doctrinal structure of classical Christian theology in fundamental and systematic ways," and that "the rejection of supersessionism entails the reevaluation of the whole body of classical Christian divinity." Soulen describes economic supersessionism: "Everything that characterized the economy of salvation in its Israelite form becomes obsolete and is replaced by its ecclesial equivalent. The written law of Moses is replaced by the spiritual law of Christ, circumcision by baptism, natural descent by faith as criterion of membership in the people of G-d, and so forth. As a result, carnal Israel becomes obsolete." [Emphasis in the original]. Baptism thus is a pivotal issue in supersessionism. R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1996) 3, 29.

[9] The Torah warns of the possibility that the entire people of G-d may fail to understand his command. "Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error and the matter escapes the notice of the assembly, and they commit any of the things which the L-RD has commanded not to be done, and they become guilty..." (Leviticus 4:13) NASB. Surely the Church must, in grave humility, weigh the possibility it may have erred no less than Israel. Paul admonishes the bilateral Ekklesia regarding the Torah: "Now these things happened to [Israel] as an example and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall" (1 Corinthians 10:11-12). Universal Christian baptism thus is not exempt from the possible category of collective error.

[10] Inaugurated eschatology denotes the view that Israel's Kingdom prophecies have been initiated and currently are in a "now" and "not yet" process proceeding to climactic fulfilment at the eschaton. Walter Kaiser writes of the restoration promises in Ezekiel 36: "...Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, has a form of inaugurated eschatology which embodies a 'now' and a 'not yet' aspect of the Spirit's work...the new heart and the new spirit are likewise correctly connected to the Spirit's work in regeneration and the new birth." Walter Kaiser, 'The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament,' Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William C. Menzies, ed. Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Supplemental Series, vol. 11 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) cited in God, Torah, Messiah, the Messianic Jewish Theology of Dr. Louis Goldberg (San Francisco: Purple Pomegranate Productions, 2009) 45-46.

[11] The Hebrew word זרק (zarak) in Ezekiel 36:25 is often translated "sprinkle," but it bears such ideas as "scatter, toss, throw, scatter abundantly, strew" and can easily be understood as "splash."

[12] Cf. Acts 15:7-9; 11:16; 10:44-46.

[13] Versions used for Scripture quotations are noted with the text. Verses without a version noted are the author's rendition.

[14] Apostolic Judaism is a term coined by Anders Runesson and Mark Nanos who wish to "introduce Paul as a Torah-observant Jew who believed that Jesus was the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the Nations." See the description of their forthcoming book, Paul and Apostolic Judaism: An Introduction, http://www.marknanos.com/

[15] Inauguration of the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Hebrews 8:8-12) parallels this possibility.

[16] Matthew 28:19 is thought a literal rite in place of a nuanced metaphorical transformation, see below. Indeed the book, Understanding Four Views on Baptism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007) though ostensibly describing four different views from Drs. Nettles, Pratt, Kolb and Castelein, yet frames the controversy from within a similar trajectory as a result of agreement on two basic suppositions: a) Messiah commanded a universal water rite; and b) usage of the word baptizo in the NT indicates a Christian water rite that is associated with Spirit baptism, in whatever formulation. Yet neither of these two suppositions is self-evident. Matthew 28:18-19 is certainly authoritative and represents Messiah's desire. Yet, as in Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38-39, what Matthew expressed in Messiah's parting word might not refer to a water rite, but to a tremendous effect, transformation. Moreover, in the four gospels and Acts we find in the mouths of Yohanan, Messiah and Peter six repetitions of a contrast between water and the outpoured Spirit – Yohanan baptizes with water but Messiah baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Surely this six-fold repetition of a profound and unmistakable distinction between water and Spirit must have a major impact on our understanding of baptism in the NT. Moreover, when Matthew 28:19 is taken to mean a water rite, then we must concede that the Jewish people literally have to engage three different eschatological water rites: 1) Ezekiel 36:25-27, 2) John's baptism, 3) Universal Christian water baptism. On the face of it this seems quite confusing.

[17] Sacramentalists assert water baptism is the vehicle for conveying the Holy Spirit. Infants receiving sacramental water baptism are Spirit-baptized and regenerated. Cf. Paragraph 1250 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called...The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth." See also paragraph 1265: "Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte 'a new creature,' an adopted son of God, who has become a 'partaker of the divine nature,' member of Christ and coheir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit." See Article 1 The Sacrament of Baptism, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3G.HTM

[18] A central tenet of Pentecostalism is the doctrine of subsequence, meaning a baptism in the Spirit is subsequent to and distinct from the new birth. Critics say Spirit baptism occurs at conversion or, in the case of Sacramentalists, during water baptism.

[19] Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Lima Text) (World Council of Churches, Faith and Order Commission, 1982) 2 (n 6).

[20] Cf., Galatians 2:7-8. According to Gal. 2:2 Paul went up to Jerusalem to have the content of his besorah verified by leading Jerusalem apostles. That implies there was a difference in what he announced to the Nations and what Peter announced to Israel. [Go to "The Circumcision's Evangelion" here for further discussion of this question.] Galatians 2:7-8 adds convincing evidence that there was a clear difference between the uncircumcision's evangelion compared to the circumcision's evangelion. The core of both evangelia, including Yeshua's life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension and outpouring of the Holy Spirit, is identical. Gal. 2:7 ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς,

·         but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision. ERV

·         but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision. Young's Literal

·         But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. Douay Rheims

·         but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision. ASV

·         but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision. Darby

·         But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter. AKJV

·         But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. KJ2000

The above versions make clear that the text of Gal. 2:7 indicates a distinction between the content of the uncircumcision's good news entrusted to Paul, and the content of the circumcision's good news entrusted to Kayfa-Peter. In other words there was a difference and it would likely be reflected in the process of coming to faith for each group. Verse 8 ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη - For he who effectually worked for Peter for his apostleship of the circumcised effectually worked for me also for the Gentiles.

[21] The NT water rite should be viewed, like circumcision, as a distinctive of Apostolic Judaism.

[22] The UMJC Theology Committee Report, Part I, September 2, 1983, entitled, "Messianic Jews and The Law of Moses," stated in item three: "The New Covenant promised in Jer. 31:31FF and Ezek. 36:22FF was inaugurated at the time of Yeshua's death and resurrection but will find its complete expression when our Messiah returns." See also Sailhamer, The Mosaic Law, "Deuteronomy 30...looks to a future time quite distinct from that of Moses' own day. There are close affinities between this chapter and passages in the prophetic literature which look to the time of the New Covenant, e.g., Jer 31:31ff.; Ezek 36:22ff." John H. Sailhamer, The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch, Westminster Theological Journal, 53 (1991) 248 (note 23). See also Ruthven who writes, "Traditional Christian conceptions of the new covenant found New Testament support from Hebrews 9, the Paschal narratives ("the new covenant in my blood") and in the Old Testament, principally from Jeremiah 31.31-33 and Ezekiel 36.26-28." Jon Ruthven, "'This Is My Covenant with Them': Isaiah 59.19-21 as the Programmatic Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Acts of the Apostles (Part I)," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 17 (2008) 33.

[23] Evidently Ezekiel 36:25-27 is seen as a symbolic rather than prosaic promise of restoration, and the truths behind the symbols may indeed have been inaugurated. But the only element that could be considered symbolic is "throwing pure water," and evidently it is taken so only because conventional wisdom says self-immersion was the norm in second-Temple days.

[24] Louis Goldberg noted Ezekiel 36:25-27 several times, including on "Yohanan the Immerser," page 80, and on being born of water and Spirit in John 3:5, page 460, God, Torah, Messiah, the Messianic Jewish Theology of Dr. Louis Goldberg (2009); Mark Kinzer noted Ezekiel 36-37 in "Israel in the Besorah" teaching session #2, Tevilah (& Regeneration) and Ezek 36:24-28 in relation to Yochanan 3:3,5, of being born of water and of Spirit. Scott Nassau writes: "Later, Ezekiel reiterates that when G‑d gathers his people back from the exile, he will give them a new heart and a new spirit that will divinely enable Israel to live within an obedient covenant relationship with him (Ezek 36:24-28). Yet, in this account, Ezekiel confirms that this will accompany the forgiveness and purification of the nation (Ezek 36:25). Therefore, the Tanakh looks forward to a time when G-d will cleanse Israel and place his spirit within his people, which will animate them into a restored relationship with their G-d (Ezek 36:27-28; cf. Deut 30:1-6)." Scott Nassau, 'Shavuot and its Impact upon a Messianic Soteriology' in Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism, 22, (Spring/Summer 2008). http://www.kesherjournal.com/Issue-22/Shavuot-and-its-Impact-upon-a-Messianic-Soteriology?Itemid=

[25] David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible (Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. 1998).

[26] Mark 1:2-3.

[27] Mark 1:1.

[28] The example of Moses during the rebellion of Korach (Numbers 16:28) is instructive: "With this you shall know that the L‑rd sent me to do all these deeds, for I did not devise them myself." As a Cohen and prophet Yohanan would not likely devise a de novo rite if one were already promised by prophets of G‑d in the Tanakh.

[29] Another clear example of Markan - Matthean difference in the use of these prepositions can be seen in the Olivette Discourse. Matt. 24:3 Καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ὄρους τῶν Ἐλαιῶν  Mark 13:3 Καὶ καθημένου αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν. Mark cannot be translated into English that Yeshua sat down "into" the Mount of Olives. The Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byzantine textform for Mark 1:9 reads: Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις, ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην, which can bear the idea, "...and was baptized by Yohanan at the Jordan"; The NT and LXX provide examples of εἰς conveying proximity to a body of water, not entry into it. Mark 7:31, καὶ πάλιν ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τω̃ν ὁρίων Τύρου ἠ̃λθεν διὰ Σιδω̃νος εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν τη̃ς Γαλιλαίας ἀνὰ μέσον τω̃ν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως [cf., ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας in Matt. 15:29]; Matthew 17:27, ινα δὲ μὴ σκανδαλίσωμεν αὐτούς πορευθεὶς εἰς θάλασσαν βάλε ἄγκιστρον; John 9:7, καὶ εἰ̃πεν αὐτω̨̃ υπαγε νίψαι εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν του̃ Σιλωάμ ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος ἀπη̃λθεν οὐ̃ν καὶ ἐνίψατο καὶ ἠ̃λθεν βλέπων; John 9:11 ... καὶ εἰ̃πέν μοι οτι υπαγε εἰς τòν Σιλωὰμ καὶ νίψαι ἀπελθὼν οὐ̃ν καὶ νιψάμενος ἀνέβλεψα; LXX 1 Kings 2:8 (Shimei met David to curse him " εἰς the Jordan") καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ σου̃ Σεμεϊ υἱὸς Γηρα υἱὸς του̃ Ιεμενι ἐκ Βαουριμ καὶ αὐτὸς κατηράσατό με κατάραν ὀδυνηρὰν τη̨̃ ἡμέρα̨ ἡ̨̃ ἐπορευόμην εἰς παρεμβολάς καὶ αὐτὸς κατέβη εἰς ἀπαντήν μου εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην καὶ ὤμοσα αὐτω̨̃ ἐν κυρίω̨ λέγων εἰ θανατώσω σε ἐν ῥομφαία̨; 2 Kings 6:4 (lumbermen cut down wood from the banks, even though εἰς is used) καὶ ἐπορεύθη μετ' αὐτω̃ν καὶ ἠ̃λθον εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην καὶ ἔτεμνον τὰ ξύλα. Chrysostom (349—407 CE) evidently preferred to describe the scene of Messiah's baptism with ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην, e.g: Τότε φησίν, παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. [00068] De nativitate Joannis Baptistae [2]; Τότε παραγίνεται πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, φησὶν, ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην, ἐπὶ τὸ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. [00045] In Praecursorem Domini; Τότε παρα γίνεται, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην, τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. [00013] In Sanctum Joannem Praecursorem http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/1004/1003__Ioannes_Crysostomus_010/Z_7992_959_961_948_8049_957_951_957.html

[30] The term beyond the Jordan, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, (John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40) occurs some 40 times in the LXX, describing for example the inheritance of Reuven, Gad, and half-tribe Manasheh. So Yohanan would not be confined to the Jordan River.; The location of Βηθανίᾳ (Bethany), John 1:28, is uncertain. Βηθανίᾳ sounds like the Hebrew בית עין-יה, i.e. the Place of the Spring of Yah, which is unknown to history. Other speculation includes Place of the Sailing Vessel (בית אוניה) to ford the Jordan, see Identification of Bethany Beyond the Jordan, doctoral dissertation by J. Carl Laney (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977) 65. Laney says abundant evidence indicates "cartographers should place it east of the Jordan River near the Hajlah ford in the vicinity of Wadi el-Kharrar." http://www.bibleplaces.com/Identification_of_Bethany_Beyond_the_Jordan,_by_J_Carl_Laney.pdf; See also UNESCO World Heritage location in Jordan with springs at 20 related sites in an area stretching four kilometers east of the Jordan River. http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1556/.

[31] Based on Leviticus 11:36, 14:5-6, Numbers 19:17, et al, Jewish tradition determined that cool, sweet, ever-flowing spring water, i.e. "living water" (מים חים - maim haim) was highest of six grades for purification (also figuratively in the NT for the Holy Spirit, John 7:37-39). Yohanan's eschatological rite doubtless conformed to Jewish purification norms. Conventional views of immersing in the Jordan River leave Colin Brown puzzled, as he recalls Murphy-O'Connor's "question that is never asked: 'Why would the Baptist have chosen a place that was difficult for individuals, impossible for mass baptisms, and virtually inaccessible during the one season in the year when he could expect people to come to him, namely the relatively cool winter months?'" But if Yohanan purified the repentant by throwing "living water" from the springs in the vicinity of the Jordan, that question is moot. 'John the Baptist and Jesus: History and Hypotheses,' NTS 36 (1990) 359-74, esp. 359. (n 2, Brown, 'What Was John the Baptist Doing?' BBR 7 (1997) 38).; The Mishnah states that the Jordan River south of the Sea of Galilee was "mixed" waters and unsuitable as living water to prepare the ashes of the red heifer, Parah 8:10. The Jordan River north of the Galilee, emerging from the "Banias" was considered suitable for this purification, cf. Mishnah, Parah 8:11.

[32] (Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16; Mark 1:8). Webb adds, "All evidence in Second-Temple Judaism points to Jewish ritual bathing practices being self-administered. John's participation in the act of baptizing...may have contributed to his nickname, the baptizer." Robert L. Webb, 'Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications,' Bulletin for Biblical Research Studies 10.2 (2000) 280 (revised 2005) https://bible.org/article/jesus-baptism-its-historicity-and-implications;  

[33] Active Verb for Baptize: Mt 3:11a; Mk 1:8a; Lk 3:16a; Jn 1:26 Yohanan baptizes with water; Mt 3:11b; Mk 1:8b; Lk 3:16b Messiah will baptize with the Spirit; Mk 1:4, Mk 6:14, 24 Yohanan baptizes; Jn 1:25, 33a Yohanan baptizes the people; Jn 1:33b Yeshua baptizes the people with the Spirit; Jn 3:23a Yohanan baptizes the people; Jn 3:26 Yeshua/disciples baptize the people; Jn 4:1; 4:2 disciples baptize the people.

[34] Passive Verb for Baptize: Mt 3:6; Mk 1:5 the people baptized by Yohanan; Mt 3:13 Yeshua baptized by Yohanan; Mt 3:14 Yohanan protests he should be baptized by Yeshua; Mt 3:16, Mk 1:9 Yeshua baptized by Yohanan; Lk 3:7 Crowds baptized by Yohanan; Lk 3:12 Tax collectors baptized by Yohanan; Lk 3:21a the people baptized by Yohanan; Lk 3:21b Yeshua baptized by Yohanan; Lk 7:29 Tax collectors baptized by Yohanan; Lk 7:30 Pharisees not baptized by Yohanan; Jn 3:23b the people are baptized by Yohanan.

[35] Ferguson contrasts Yohanan's rite against other Jewish rites: "Unlike all of them, it was an administered rite and not a self-immersion. This practice provides the most plausible explanation for the description of John as 'the Baptist'...John's baptism, moreover, shared...the feature of purification...It differed...in being an eschatological rather than a ceremonial or ritual purification." (noted from Legasse, Naissance du bapteme, pp 42-43), Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (2009) 88, 95-96.

[36] Mark 1:4; 6:14.

[37] Mark 6:24.

[38] Yohanan's surname ὁ βαπτιστὴς may find a Hebrew parallel in הַכּהֵן הַמְטַהֵר (the Cohen who purifies) of Leviticus 14:11.

[39] Yeshua is also described as ὁ βαπτίζων with Spirit, John 1:33.

[40] Matthew 3:14 has Yohanan attempt to dissuade Yeshua from his baptism, saying that he needed to be baptized by Yeshua. Just previously, in verse 11, Yohanan proclaimed Messiah would baptize with the Spirit. It is incongruous to believe Yohanan wanted Messiah to witness his self-immersion in a pool of the Spirit (since there are no "pools of the Spirit") rather than be transformed by Messiah pouring the Spirit on him. If so, then Yohanan's work may easily be viewed as a similar activity with water.

[41] A guiding principle of second Temple sages was to "make a fence" for the Torah, i.e. to rigorously define parameters associated with a mitzvah to prevent transgression. Mishnaic tradition on mikva'ot (immersion pools) originates from the second Temple era. Sages of the first Temple era evidently were less rigorous. Ezekiel belongs to the first Temple and exilic side of the purification with water debate, and this might easily mean that throwing pure water was an acceptable form of purification. The Jewish Soncino commentary remarks on the purification with water in Ezekiel 36:25: "Since Israel's evil ways were compared to the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity (verse 17), the forgiveness of his sins is characterized as a purification by cleansing water." A. Cohen, Ezekiel, Soncino Books of the Bible, (New York: Soncino Press, Ltd., 2nd ed., 1983) 243; Others also comment on the purification of the niddah and the dashing with pure water, cf. Abarbanel, Commentary on the Later Prophets, Ezekiel, (Jerusalem: Mizrahi, תשטי) תקעא.; Also, L.C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 29 (Dallas: Word, 1990).  

[42] Beasley-Murray, G.R., Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, reprinted 1988) 37.

[43] Malachi 3:2-3 says the Coming One will purify Levites with refiner's fire, which implies the Holy Spirit as well.

[44] Cf. Ezekiel 13:6; 14:6; 18:30-32; 33:7-20.

[45] כאשר אנו מצרפים לכאן את הנאמר בפרק לו "והבאתי אתכם אל-אדמתכם וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים... ונתתי לכם לב חדש ורוח חדשה אתן בקרבכם והסרתי את-לב האבן מבשרכם ונתתי לכם לב בשר" — הרי יוצא מכל הפסוקים, שהתנאי של חזרה בתשובה קודם לטיהור ולמתן לב חדש ורוח חדשה. Introduction, (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, מוסד הרב קוק: ירושלים, 1985) 24.

[46] Cf. Titus 3:4-7, Romans 8:1-17.

[47] Davies and Allison list seven meanings to "fulfill all righteousness": (1) "According to Jewish expectations," but question this because they surprisingly do not see how Jewish expectation relates to baptism. The seventh possibility advanced is by J. P. Meier, Law, 76-80, "fulfilling prophecy" citing Ps 2.7 and Isa. 42.1 quoted during the episode. "The baptism of Jesus brings to realization Scriptural hopes. So when Jesus fulfills all righteousness he is fulfilling Scriptures." Davies and Allison, Matthew, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997) 325.; H.B. Green says to fulfil all righteousness "Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the OT." The Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975) 65.

[48] Robert L. Webb notes that repentance and confession of sins among Jews bore a corporate character. One's confession was not a "laundry-list" of personal sins. Yohanan's call likewise bore a corporate quality: "Jesus was acknowledging Israel's sin and need to turn around, and he was committing himself to do what he could to bring this about." Robert L. Webb, Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications, Bulletin for Biblical Research Studies (2000) 300.

[49] Cf. John 3:24.

[50] Luke 3:19-20. Following Yohanan's arrest two of his disciples query Yeshua, Luke 7:18-35, cf. Matthew 11:1-19.

[51] Robert L. Webb proposes that Yeshua was indeed aligned with Yohanan: "[I]t is eminently plausible for Jesus to have his own followers and to be baptizing in a separate location and yet to be associated with John's movement...[A]ny indication of separateness or rivalry in the Fourth Gospel is only between some of their disciples, not between John and Jesus. The Fourth Gospel portrays John in support of Jesus (3:27-30) and Jesus in support of John (4:1-3)." Webb does think that after Yohanan's arrest Yeshua "moved beyond the conceptual framework of John's movement in certain respects." Jesus' Baptism: (2000) 303-4.

[52] Cf. Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9.

[53] Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8.

[54] Webb observes: "John preached imminent judgment coming upon all and called people to repentance and baptism. Neither was optional—repentance and its expression in baptism went hand in hand. It was a repentance-baptism." Robert L. Webb, Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications, Bulletin for Biblical Research Studies (2000) 280.

[55] Cf. Hans Kosmala, "The Conclusion of Matthew," Studies, Essays and Reviews Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1978) 1-16. The critical text of Mark, up to 16:8, lacks a universal rite, as does the short ending. The long ending of Mark contains a universal baptism but it is typically thought to have been added by someone other than Mark. John's gospel lacks a universal rite. John 3:5 must not be wrested from the context of a Jewish leader inquiring about Yeshua's Messiahship in Jerusalem at Passover. Matthew 28:19 is treated below.

[56] Cf. Acts 1:4-5.

[57] Jews of lesser social rank used the name of a higher authority for confirmation, cf. Acts 4:7-12. The Talmud is replete with citations of rabbis speaking "in the name" of some other rabbi. Peter was not considered a rabbi in Jewish culture. How much more reasonable is it then that as Yeshua's emissary, he spoke in the name of his Lord, Yeshua the Messiah.

[58] A.M Hunter, The Gospel of John, The Cambridge Bible Commentary, NEB, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965) 22.; Robert Kysar shares a similar view, see John, The Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986) 35.

[59] Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas: Word, 1987) 24; so also D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991) 145. Kiddushin 72b leads one to believe Jewish sages looked for a purification prior to the Kingdom, supporting the idea the Pharisees expected the rite they saw Yohanan performing.

[60] R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943-1961) 116.

[61] Cf. Leon Morris' first of three possibilities for the water of John 3:5 reads: "(i) 'water' stands for purification (cf. 2:6). If this is the correct explanation there is probably a backward look at the baptism of John. This was a 'baptism of repentance' (Mark 1:4). It was concerned with purifying (v.25), and it could be explicitly contrasted with the baptism of the Spirit (1:33). The meaning then will be that Nicodemus should enter into all that 'water' symbolizes, namely repentance and the like, and that he should also enter into the experience which is summed up as 'born of...the Spirit', namely the totally new divine life that Jesus would impart... [footnote 27] '...Except you are born of all that water baptism signified, repentance; and that which the Spirit accomplishes, regeneration, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of G‑d.' '...Ezek. 36:25f combines the ideas of water purification and the giving of 'a new spirit'..." Nevertheless, Morris takes the second possibility he lists as more likely, to him, i.e. that the water of John 3:5 relates to male sexual emission, called "water" in other ancient literature. Morris rejects the third possibility, i.e. Christian water baptism. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971, Revised 1995) 191.

[62] Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970) 192.

[63] Ibid.

[64] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (1991) 195-6.; See also F.F. Bruce, New Testament History (New York: Doubleday, 1971) 156-7. See also C. Marvin Pate, 'Matthew, Pesher and Restoration of Israel,' in ch. 3, 'The Hermeneutic of Restoration,' of his book, Communities of the Last Days, The Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament & the Story of Israel (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000) 96.

[65] Beasley-Murray nevertheless goes on to say that he thinks the Qumran texts were most influential behind this passage. G. R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1999) 49.

[66] A midrash on Messianic redemption in Psalm 14 directly links Ezekiel 36:26-27 with the Spirit's outpouring in Joel: "In the Messianic age to come both will come to pass [Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Joel 2:28 (3:1) are cited]." See Treasury of Midrashim - the Twelve Minor Prophets, on Joel, אוצר המדרשים ,תרי עשר, (Jerusalem: Machon Hamidrash) (Joel,  ע' יח- p. 18).

[67] Bock says of Spirit baptism on Shavuot: "[A] careful study of the use of Joel in Acts 2 shows that 'this is that' is not 'this is all of that' or 'this is like that;' the meaning rather, is 'this is the beginning of that,' since the cosmic signs of Joel 2 are not fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus." Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, ed. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 48.

[68] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, as progressive dispensationalists, see a continuity of the doctrine of Spirit baptism from the OT through the church age into the future millennium, in contrast to classic and revised dispensationalists who see Spirit baptism restricted solely to the "Church Age." Larry D. Pettegrew, 'Dispensationalists and Spirit Baptism,' The Master's Seminary Journal 8/1 (Spring 1997) 29-46. But it seems difficult to believe there is absolutely no difference in how the Holy Spirit interacts with humanity after Messiah's Sacrifice. The ripping of the parochet from top to bottom seems to signify G-d's great desire to be free from the sanctuary's restrictions, forced on him by human iniquity. With Messiah's sacrifice not only does humanity have opportunity to freely access G-d, much more G-d can now freely approach humanity without an instantaneous fiery eruption.

[69] Prophecies of the Tanakh tend to reveal a partial aspect of a broader promise. It is not surprising that Ezekiel's promise did not focus on spiritual gifts, though it did focus on obedience to G‑d, while Joel focuses on spiritual gifts, but not strictly on Spirit-led obedience.

[70] There is a question as to the meaning of וְלֹא יָסָפוּ, the final two words of verse 25,

 .וַיָּאצֶל מִן-הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו, וַיִּתֵּן עַל-שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ הַזְּקֵנִים; וַיְהִי, כְּנוֹחַ עֲלֵיהֶם הָרוּחַ, וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ, וְלֹא יָסָפוּ.

 There is doubt whether the elders did not prophesy again, or whether they "did not cease" prophesying. The NKJV has "they never did so again," but then notes, "the Targum and Vulgate read 'did not cease.'" Targum Onkelos, says,

 וְרַבִּי מִן רוּחָא דַּעֲלוֹהִי, וִיהַב עַל שִׁבְעִין גֻּבְרָא סָבַיָּא; וַהֲוָה, כַּד שְׁרָת עֲלֵיהוֹן רוּחַ נְבוּאָה, וּמִתְנַבַּן, וְלָא פָּסְקִין.

     The second clause says, "When the Spirit of prophecy rested on them they prophesy and do not cease."

 The Vulgate and translation read that the seventy did not cease prophesying afterwards:

     descenditque Dominus per nubem et locutus est ad eum auferens de spiritu qui erat in Mosen et dans septuaginta viris cumque requievisset in eis spiritus prophetaverunt nec ultra cessarunt.

     "And the L‑rd came down in a cloud, and spoke to him, taking away of the spirit that was in Moses, and giving to the seventy men. And when the spirit had rested on them they prophesied, nor did they cease afterwards."

     The LXX has, καὶ ἐπροφήτευσαν καὶ οὐκ ἔτι προσέθεντο, "and they prophesied and no longer continued." The NIV says, "they did not do so again" but then too notes, "Or prophesied and continued to do so." Others, including Young's Literal Translation, take this view: "...and it cometh to pass at the resting of the Spirit on them, that they prophesy, and do not cease."

The reason behind receiving the Spirit was to make the elders fit to stand between Israel and G‑d. That would require readily accessible divine insight, and that would lead one to believe that they did have remarkable spiritual experiences, whether they were continually prophesying or not.

[71] Cf. Luke's citation of Joel in Acts 2:17-18 twice says that recipients of the out-poured Spirit would prophesy. Evidently many commentators do not realize the implication of Numbers 11:29. Cf. "It seems that the temporary gift of prophecy to these elders was primarily to establish their credentials as Spirit-empowered leaders rather than to make of them ongoing agents of the prophecy of the Spirit." Roland B. Allen, "Numbers," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Reference Software, 1989-1998), 11:25, cited by Gregory J. Leeper in, 'The Nature of the Pentecostal Gift with Special Reference to Numbers 11 and Acts 2,' AJPS 6:1 (2003) 28. Leeper continues, "The intent of the speech is to verify God's appointing and enabling for a task." (Ibid. 28). How one can assert the "intent" of prophetic speech in Israel is evidential verification of role seems to ignore the declaration in Amos 3:8, "the L-rd has spoken, who can but prophesy." In other words, a person upon whom the Spirit comes is impelled by a palpable experience, resulting in various expressions, including vocal prophesy. To assert that the "intent" of prophesy is to "verify" a role simply imposes an exegetical restriction on an experience where none is demanded.

[72] One might also note that the seventy had long been leaders in the Kahal of G-d, and yet only in later life were they Spirit-filled, publically and evidentially.

[73] Beasley-Murray's affirms: "Naturally, God does not bind the impartation of the Spirit to the rite of baptism, any more than He binds His other gifts to it or to any other rite." Cited by Luther B. McIntyre Jr. 'Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38' Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (January-March 1996) 57, from Beasley-Murray, Baptism (New York: St. Martin's, 1962) 273.

[74] The passage reads: "But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives and practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards G‑d, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to G‑d. 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...Yet the verdict of the Jews was that the destruction visited upon Herod's army was a vindication of John, since G‑d saw fit to inflict such a blow on Herod." Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII-XIX, The Loeb Classical Library, vol. 9 (English L. Feldman), (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969) 81-85.

[75] Ferguson finds it "notable that no mention of [proselyte baptism] occurs in Philo, Josephus, or Joseph and Aseneth," Ferguson, Baptism in the Ancient Church (2009) 77.

[76] David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnus Press, Hebrew University, 1988) 50-1.; Chilton also affirms: "Josephus more accurately observed that John's baptism was not understood to seek pardon for sins, but to purify the body." Bruce Chilton, 'John the Baptist: His Immersion and his Death' (chapter 2 of) Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 35. See also Catherine M. Murphy, John the Baptist: Prophet of Purity for a New Age (2003) 5-6.

[77] Perhaps Josephus, living in Rome, knew Yeshua-believers viewed Yohanan as the forerunner of Messiah and that his rite was performed by Yeshua-believers, but by then under the notion that sins were washed away as Ignatius appears to hold. Barnabas 11:2 writes: "Now concerning the water, it is written in reference to Israel, how that they would not receive the baptism which brings remission of sins, but would build one for themselves," followed by the castigation of Jeremiah 2:12-13. Yohanan's rite was based on repentance and included remission of sins, so is this in mind? If not, a subsequent "Christian" rite, rejected by Israel, also produces remission of sin for Barnabas. He quoted Isaiah 16:1-2, 45:2, 33:16-17, Psalm 1, and then in 11:36 says, "This He says, because we go down into the water laden with sins and filth, and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the spirit." Barnabas evidently asserts regeneration occurs in the water, like Ignatius and Justin, contra Josephus.

[78] Patmore writes: "Remnants of Ezekiel manuscripts have been found both at Qumran and at Masada. Tragically, only small fragments from six manuscripts of Ezekiel have survived at Qumran (1Q9, 3Q1, 4Q73-75, 11Q4), although the relatively small number of manuscripts does not seem to reflect the evident importance of Ezekiel to the community, as the New Jerusalem text, the Temple Scroll, and their self-identification as 'Sons of Zadok' bears witness. The small quantity of manuscripts that has been preserved at both sites, on the whole, reflects the textual tradition of the MT. 'The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran,' Hector M. Patmore, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Vol 32.2, (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore: SAGE Publications, 2007) 232-3.

[79] Patmore, 'The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel,' (2007) 236.

[80] Emanuel Tov, 'The Text of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogues,' Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran (Collected Papers, 2008) 3-4, 15. http://www.emanueltov.info/

[81] The omission of Ezekiel 36:23-38 in the LXX-allied Papyrus 967 of the Chester Beatty collection, dated from the end of the 2^nd century to the beginning of the 3^rd century CE, has led some scholars to propose a vorlage lacking that passage. However, subsequent discoveries of MT Ezekiel fragments containing the passage and that are dated much earlier than papyrus 967 render such a scenario improbable, leading others to suggest loss of a folio. Leslie Allen thinks "[i]t is probable that we are to envisage two separate phenomena, redaction amplification within the Hebrew text and coincidental omission of a wider block of material in the Greek tradition." Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1990) 177. Michael N. Van Der Meer notes: "The conclusion must be, then, that from a text-critical, literary-critical and linguistic point of view, there is no decisive evidence for regarding the eschatological passage Ezekiel 36:23bβ3-38 as a late addition to the book of Ezekiel. The absence of the passage in the earliest recoverable stage of the transmission of the Greek version may be due to the loss of a folio...The eschatological ideas expressed in Ezekiel 36:23-38 need therefore not be dated to a late post-exilic or even Maccabean period, but fit the exilic or early post-exilic period." 'A New Spirit in an Old Corpus? Text-Critical, Literary-Critical and Linguistic Observations regarding Ezekiel 36:16-38,' by Michael N. Van Der Meer, in F. Postma, K. Spronk, E. Talstra (eds.), The New Things. Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy, Festschrift for Henk Leene (Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradities. Supplement Series 3) (Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker Publishing, 2002) 147-158.

[82] The Greek NT 4^th Ed., 'Index of Quotations' has two references for Jeremiah's New Covenant, He 8.8-12; 10.16-17, and six for Isaiah 53, Jn 12.38; Ro 10.16; Mt 8.17; Ac 8.32-33; 1 Pe 2.22; Lk 22.37. Greek NT, 4^th Revised Edition (Stuttgart: United Bible Society, 1993) 888.

[83] The GNT 'Index of Allusions and verbal Parallels' covers pages 891-901 with some 240 listings per page.

[84] F.F. Bruce, Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, reprint 1984) 249-252.; See also Beasley-Murray, Baptism (1962) 247-250.; Hebrews 10:22 καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ, cf. Ezekiel 36:25 καὶ ρανῶ ἐφ' ὑμᾶς καθαρὸν ὕδωρ; A widespread view, typified by William Lane, says the verse refers to Christian baptism, e.g. "The reference in v22b is almost certainly to Christian baptism, which replaces all previous cleansing rites." Hebrews 9-13, vol. 47b, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1991) 287. Nothing in v 22 says it replaces all previous rites, though it would be the sole eschatological rite for Jews.

[85] Cf. Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Messianic Judaism (London: Continuum, 2000) 159-161.

[86] Howard Marshall, Chapter 1, 'The Meaning of the Verb 'Baptize,' Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 8-24.; See also Everett Ferguson. "[Baptizo] also meant to overwhelm and so could be used whether the object was placed in an element (which was more common) or was overwhelmed by it (often in metaphorical usages)." Ferguson, Baptism in the Ancient Church (2009) 59.

[87] Marshall, 'The Meaning of the Verb 'Baptize,' Dimensions of Baptism: BTS (2002) 17.

[88] Ibid. 22.

[89] That the word βαπτίζω cannot be limited to the idea of טבל (dip, immerse) is demonstrated in the Hebrew translation of Josephus by the Mossad Bialik which uses טבע (sunk), not טבל (dip) for βαπτίζω when describing the sinking of ships, cf.מלחמה  (Wars) 2:20:1 (p 183), 3:7:15 (p 209), 3:8:5 (p 220-1), 3:10:9 (p 232) Wars also uses החריב (destroy) 4:3:3 (p 244), (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1968, 2002); קדמוניות (Antiquities vol. 1) 9:10:2 (p 333) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1944, tenth printing 2007).; Among the first translations of Greek NT documents were those into "Old Latin." Surprisingly, the original Greek βαπτίζω was uniformly transliterated and given Latin inflection rather than translated by mergo or tingo as Latin equivalents. Jerome's 4th century revision of the Old Latin versions of the Gospels, which is found in the Latin Vulgate, left transliterated usage of βαπτίζω in place. Yet it is clear in Tertullian's late 2nd century work, De Baptismo, that mergo and tingo had similar usage in Latin, even though the title is indeed a Latinized transliteration of Greek. Yet Tertullian's rendition of Matthew 28:19 uses tingo: Ite, inquit, docete nationes tinguentes eas in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. It may be noted that tingo can include the idea of transformation, just as in modern English usage the related word tinge means some characteristic of an object has been changed. Yet Jerome's translation of Matthew 28:19 uses the transliteration of baptizo: euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Evidently many Latin translators felt justified transliterating βαπτίζω rather than translating it, and that suggests they felt the Latin words mergo and tingo did not sufficiently reflect the meaning of βαπτίζω as used in the NT.

[90] Examples presented are from the Baptist publication by T.J. Conant, Baptizein (New York: American Bible Union, 1861) which remains a handy collection of 175 ancient Greek usages of βαπτιζω. Occasionally a descriptive word is added in brackets [ ], or replaces "whelm." Conant translated βαπτιζω "whelm" ~70 times, and "overwhelm" 10 times, and not immersion.

http://www.archive.org/details/TheMeaningAndUseOfBaptizeinPt01HighRebaptizoBaptised.

[91] Caird writes of the development of metaphors: "But by repeated use [a metaphor] becomes a stock or faded metaphor, and at that point the dictionary will list the new reference as part of its sense, labelling it as figurative. The final stage is the dead metaphor, when users are no longer conscious of the word's origin, and the label (fig.) drops from the dictionary definition. A large proportion of the word-stock of any language will prove on scrutiny to have come into existence in this fashion." G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1981), 66.

[92] This example describes the effect water of the Silenus spring had on those who drank it. The baptism has nothing to do with immersion but with the peculiar effect, a usage which evidently was well-understood by readers (baptized as being drunk). The author had no fear readers would mistakenly interpret baptizo to indicate physical immersion in the spring.

[93] The Hebrew translation of Contemplative Life by the Mossad Bialik renders βαπτίζω with השתכר, (drunk), not נטבל (immersed). וידועים לי אנשים אחדים אשר בהיותם מבוסמים, אך בטרם ישתכרו כליל..., cf. Philo, vol. 1., Contemplative Life (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986) 46.; Ferguson writes: "The metaphorical use of baptizo for the effects of drunkenness began quite early, if we trust the reading of the Greek Anthology's epigram attributed to Evenus...Plato includes a quotation showing the metaphorical use of baptizo for drunkenness: I am myself one of those who yesterday was drunk." Regarding Philo's use of βαπτιζω, Ferguson agrees effect is implied. "Philo, who does not use βαπτω, employs βαπτιζω exclusively in a metaphorical sense. In accord with his classical counterparts he writes of some 'before they are completely overwhelmed [βαπτισθηναι]' with intoxication (Contemplative Life 5-46). More often he speaks philosophically: 'the river of senses that drowns [επκλυζοντα] and overwhelms [βαπτιζοντα] the soul in the corruption of passions' (Allegorical Laws 3.[6].18). The senses 'drown [overwhelm, βαπτιζη] the mind' (Migration of Abraham 37.204). Immoralities 'plunge (sic) [βαπτιζοντα] the soul in disasters' (The Worse Attacks the Better 48.176). 'Reason is drowned [overwhelmed, βαπτιζομενου]' by food and drink." Ferguson describes another usage for drowning, "Epictetus preserves a common usage for being drowned in a shipwreck: 'Just as they would not any more prefer to be drowned [βαπτιζεσθαι] in a large ship elegantly and richly adorned with gold, neither would they like to suffer distress while living in an immense and expensive house.'" Ferguson concludes: "Baptizo meant to dip, usually a thorough submerging, but it also meant to overwhelm and so could be used whether the object was placed in an element (which was more common) or was overwhelmed by it (often in metaphorical usages). The secular usage for 'destroy' or 'perish,' as in a person drowning or a ship sinking, did not make this the primary connotation; such was the effect of the submerging and the one could substitute the effect for the act, but that was a secondary application." [Emphasis added], Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Ancient Church (2009) 50, 52, 57-59.

[94] See also William Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006) 52-53, Baptize, New Testament Verb: _baptizo_ (baptizo), GK 966(S 907), 77x. "(1) The verb baptizo literally means 'to put or go under water,' although it has several different senses. It is used in the NT to describe ceremonial washing for the purpose of sanctification (Mk. 7:4; Lk. 11:38). Usually this type of "baptism" is connected to the ritual washing rooted in Israelite tradition, as in Heb. 9:10, where it refers to the purification of a person. It is also used in the NT to describe the use of water in a rite for the purpose of establishing or renewing a relationship with God. It is in this way that the act of baptizing became a technical term in the NT."

[95] Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Exeter, Devon, U.K: The Paternoster Press, 1986) 149.

[96] Matthew 16:6-12, John 11:11-15.

[97] The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I: Aachen — Basilians

 http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc01/articles/baptism.html

[98] Schaff says in his opening remarks on his article on baptism: "Conybeare has tried to prove that the original text of Matt. xxviii, 9 did not contain the baptismal command or the Trinitarian formula, which were interpolated, according to him, at the beginning of the third century. But since the investigations of Riggenbach, the ordinary reading may be considered the original. Jesus, however, cannot have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after his resurrection; for the New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts ii, 38; viii, 16; xix, 5; Gal. iii, 27; Rom. vi, 3; I Cor. i, 13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. xxviii, 19 and then only again Didache vii, 1 and Justin, Apol., i, 61. It is unthinkable that the Apostolic Church thus disobeyed the express command of the Lord, which it otherwise considered the highest authority. Occurrences like those of Acts xix, 1-7 ought to have shown that the prescribed formula of baptism could not have been shortened to "the name of the Lord Jesus," if the character of baptism was to be retained as commanded. Judging from I Cor. i, 14-17, Paul did not know Matt. xxviii, 19; otherwise he could not have written that Christ had sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Moreover, had it been known at the Apostolic Council, the missionary spheres could not have been so separated that Peter was recognized as the apostle of the circumcision, Paul and Barnabas as apostles of the heathen (Gal. ii, 7-8); rather would the original apostles have claimed the universal apostolate for themselves. Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula Matt. xxviii, 19 is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas." The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I: Aachen — Basilians

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc01/articles/baptism.html

[99] Maxwell E. Johnson, Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999) 2.

[100] Regarding the Didache, Professor Jonathan Draper writes that "[s]ince it was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and published by P. Bryennios in 1883, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has continued to be one of the most disputed of early Christian texts. It has been depicted by scholars as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising fiction of the early third century." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html; The Didache is recognized as a Jewish composition. Chapter 7 concerns baptism and reproduces Matthew 28:19, adding εν υδατι ζωντι (in living water). The Didache thus makes Matthew 28:19 an explicit formula for water baptism in Jewish purification terminology. Possibly this community did not realize the origin of Yohanan's rite, still practiced by Yeshua-believing Jews, and took Matthew 28:19 as the command for the Messianic rite. Both the candidate for baptism and administrator are enjoined to fast one or two days prior to baptism, contrary to NT practice. Oskar Skarsaune writes it is "beyond dispute" that the Didache is "based on a Jewish catechism addressed to gentiles...scholars therefore often refer to it as a 'Jewish proselyte catechism.' That may be somewhat misleading, however. The original group of addressees becomes quite conspicuous in 6:2f: 'If you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect, but if you cannot, do what you can. And concerning food, bear what you can, but keep strictly from that which is offered to idols, for it is the worship of dead gods.'" Skarsaune believes the most natural setting for such an exhortation is to "godfearing gentiles" in Diaspora synagogues, who did not undergo full conversion to Judaism and thus are not obliged to obey all Torah commandments. Skarsaune says "very likely, chs. 1-6 are based on a Jewish catechism for gentile godfearers." Oskar Skarsaune, Jewish Influence in the Early Church (Jerusalem: Caspari Center, 1997) 113. The Didache can hardly be taken to prove the practices of second Temple Yeshua-believing Jews.

[101] William Hendriksen takes the εις to mean "into" the name, and not "in" the name, as though it were performed "on the authority of" G-d, but he then comments: "Not as if the rite of baptism as such brings a person into vital union with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." So Hendriksen admits the goal is "vital union," a reality far beyond the power of a water rite. This accords with what he stated previously, "'Being baptized into the name of,' therefore means 'being brought into vital relationship with' that One..." William Hendriksen, Matthew (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1973) 1000-1.; "The editor [of Matthew] may well have written [Matthew 28:19]...without at all wishing to represent Christ as having prescribed a fuller formula, but simply the intention of summing up the end and aim of the Christian life into which the convert entered at baptism." W.C. Allen, Gospel According to S. Matthew, The International Critical Commentary (1907) 307.

[102] Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1998) 888, 883. Hagner comments that scholarly criticism casts doubt on Matthew 28:19 as originally written in the current triune form. "There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read 'make disciples in my name' (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation...It is Kosmala, [Hans Kosmala, "The Conclusion of Matthew," Studies, Essays and Reviews Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1978) 1-16.] however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isa. 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21." Ibid., 887-888. Apparently the earliest extant texts containing Matthew 28:19 are fourth century, and have the triune form, as do all subsequent texts. Earlier texts are incomplete, with the verse missing. Conybeare found 17 uses of the short reading of Matthew 28:19 in Eusebius, with only 5 of the triune form, and those in his later works. The shorter version omits baptism and the triune name. It should be mentioned that Tertullian's late 2nd century Latin rendering of Matthew 28:19 in De Baptismo, is the full reading. Ite, inquit, docete nationes tinguentes eas in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. This evidently indicates the received standard long version is very old, and most likely original. That still does not prove that water baptism was in mind in this verse. It is also interesting that Tertullian uses tingo and not mergo here, and he used mergo in other places in this work.

[103] Rather than ipsissima verba Matthew expressed ipsissima vox, or the voice of Messiah (Messiah's intent), as he perceived it at the time. In any case Matthew 28:19 has Messiah saying, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age," and this certainly leaves open the possibility of additional commands long after the resurrection.

[104] Cf. Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50.

[105] ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν.

[106] While the following exegetes doubtless believe in a universal Christian rite, their comments express a reality far beyond symbolic ritual. Donald Hagner writes: "[T]his baptism brings a person into an existence that is fundamentally determined by, i.e. ruled by, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit." [Emphasis added], Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary (1995) 888.; R.V.G. Tasker writes: "Furthermore, it may well be that the true explanation why the early church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name, is that the words of xxviii 19 were not originally meant by our Lord as a baptismal formula. He was not giving instructions about the actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." St. Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976) 275. Similarly J.K. Howard writes: "The one who is baptized, 'into the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,' has entered the sphere of an entirely new relationship with God. He knows God as Father in the unique way in which Christ the Son came to reveal Him. Further, the knowledge of this revelation is made actual in real experience by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit." J. K. Howard, New Testament Baptism (London: Pickering and Inglis Ltd., 1970) 45. Simcox writes, "We are to baptize all into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: into the manifested nature, into the very life, of God, as God pours forth this life through His Son...Baptism is infinitely more than an appropriate sacrament of initiation into membership of the Church; it is the communication of the new and eternal life which Christ has triumphantly brought into the world and which he lovingly offers to all who will receive it. Once men have been baptized into this new life, they are to be taught the simple but revolutionary laws of Jesus by which this new life is to be lived out on earth." Simcox, The First Gospel. Its meaning and message. Greenwich, Conn: Seabury Press, 1963) 311. Plummer writes, "Our Lord may be explaining what becoming a disciple really involves, it means no less than entering into communion with, into vital relationship with the revealed Persons of the Godhead." Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (London: E. Stock, 1909) 433.

[107] A typical rebuttal is that Paul meant he was not mainly concerned with baptism. But that should have been obvious to the Corinthians because he had baptized so few. The implication is that Paul's statement is absolute; Messiah did not send him to baptize, which makes sense if Paul continued to perform Yohanan's Messianic rite for Yeshua-believing Jews, even though he was primarily sent to non-Jews.

[108] At the very least it would be remarkable that the early Yeshua-believing community could be convinced Messiah sent apostles to baptize the nations, but Paul, the premiere apostle to the nations performed it so infrequently.

[109] NT Jewish thought on Gentile uncleanness evidently centered on diet, since that was the focal point of Peter's sheet vision, cf. Leviticus 11:1-47. G-d warned: "Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. I am the L-RD your G-d...therefore be holy, because I am holy" (Leviticus 11:43-45).

[110] Evidently the Messianic eschatology of the first Yeshua-believing Jews emphasized the national redemption of Israel, which is entirely in line with promises in Ezekiel 36.

[111] G-d never abolished "clean and unclean" but revealed that Messiah's sacrifice purifies from all defilement, permitting G‑d's reconciliation with non-Jews and revealing that the purity laws incumbent on Israel are nevertheless a shadow and form of Messiah's greater reality.

[112] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007) 390.

[113] Joseph Fitzmyer writes "the first Gentile to whom the word is carried bears a Latin name, Cornelius." Fitzmyer believes previous salvation stories in Acts are not about Gentiles. Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 31, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1997) 448. 

[114] "The vision accorded Peter is not meant for his glorification, but rather to make clear that it is God's will that Gentiles become part of God's people without the obligation of obeying prescriptions of the Mosaic law." Fitzmyer, Acts (1997) 448.

[115] "Peter still thinks like a Jew, as he addresses the assembled Gentiles...Luke makes Peter state that is was unlawful for a Jew, not only to visit the house of a Gentile, but even to come into close contact with one." But Fitzmyer does believe the vision of the sheet has abrogated Jewish life, including food and association with non-Jews. Fitzmyer, Acts (1997) 461.

[116] "The outline of Peter's summary very much parallels Mark's presentation of Jesus's Ministry: John the Baptist, the Galilean ministry, and then Jesus meeting his fate in Jerusalem. Luke's Gospel follows this outline as well." Bock, Acts (2007) 397. This is apparently the Besorah Peter announced for ten years. The question arises, why mention Yohanan's rite if it was inferior to a "Christian" rite? Mention of Yohanan's rite in the Besorah for ten years is evidence it was the only one of which Peter was aware. 

[117] Cf. Acts 2:33.

[118] Cf. Galatians 3:14.; "In recording the amazement of the Jews that the Spirit has fallen on Gentiles, a promise traced throughout Luke-Acts reappears (Luke 3:15-17; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:16-41; 11:15-17; 15:8)." Bock, Acts (2007) 400.

[119] "G-d is working directly to make the point. There is no apostolic intermediary on earth who helps with the distribution. Those present immediately understand the importance of what has taken place, appreciating the divine initiative." Bock, Acts (2007) 400-401.

[120] Peter did not ask non-Jews if they wanted to be baptized, but queried Jewish companions if, as Jews, they could permit this rite for non-Jews. He doubtless considered the rite subject to evaluation by Torah principles.

[121] Use of κωλύω may parallel Jewish legal binding injunctions (איסור) or release from obligations (היתר) (Matthew 16:19).

[122] Bock apparently sees no uncertainty: "Peter asks if there is anything to prevent their being baptized. The interrogative particle (mēti) tells us the expected answer: 'No, nothing should prevent this.' (Culy and Parsons 2003: 216)." Bock, Acts (2007) 401. But the phrasing "nothing should prevent" leaves open the possibility some factor might oppose. This verse may actually hint at bold Peter in character, cf. Luke 9:33, where he spoke out, "not knowing what he was saying," and Luke 22:33; 22:49 (John 18:10); Luke 22:54-62; 24:12.

[123] But lack of full appreciation of what occurred might render their cumulative opinion mistaken.

[124] Luke-Acts has no command from Messiah for a water rite that replaces Yohanan's, cf. Luke 7:29-30; Acts 1:5.

[125] Also relevant in view of the purification promised Israel in Ezekiel 36:25.

[126] Bock observes: "Marshall (1980: 195) is right that the RSV's rendering, 'circumcision party,' is not correct (see the same phrase in 10:45 merely of Jewish Christians). The NET renders this 'circumcised believers.' These sensitive Jewish Christians are not organized but react out of an instinctive concern for the law and the covenant. Marshall notes that the problem is one of both food and fellowship (also Bruce 1990: 267)." Bock, Acts (2007) 406.

[127] Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; John 1:33; Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16.

[128] Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, v 34A, WBC (1989) 25.

[129] Beasley-Murray, Baptism (1988) 37.

[130] Peter's recognition in Acts 11:16 of Spirit baptism as the true purification must then also be the background for 1 Peter 3:21 about the baptism that provides salvation, ὃ ἀντίτυπον νῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς σῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ρύπου, ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν, δι' ἀναστάσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The baptism that saves is explicitly said to be not of flesh for the putting away of filth, but of a συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς, a good conscience, supporting the view that he speaks of Spirit baptism. The equating of Acts 2:28 with 1 Peter 3:21 must certainly be reconsidered in light of Acts 11:16.

[131] Cf. Bock, "So the implication here is that Peter allowed them to be baptized in water as a confirmation of their faith and presence in the new community (on water and Spirit, John 3:5; Ezek. 36:25-27; Bruce 1990: 269). Peter remembers this teaching of Jesus about the Spirit as the sign of the promise and repeats it here in verse 16." Bock, Acts (2007) 409. Also F.F. Bruce, Acts, NICNT (1988) 222.

[132] This episode contradicts the sacramental notion that a water rite, of necessity, conveys the Holy Spirit, ex opere operato. Rather than engaging the issue Joseph Fitzmyer simply disregards it: "One should not ask how they might have received the Spirit without having been baptized; that would be to miss the point of the Lucan story. Gentiles are baptized, because that is part of the process by which one becomes a Christian." Fitzmyer, Acts (1997) 467.

[133] In the mouths of Yohanan (Luke 3:16), Messiah (Acts 1:5) and Peter (Acts 11:16).

[134] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998) 926.

[135] Acts 2:38 relates solely to Yeshua-believing Jews who are obligated to Torah-loyal behavior. Peter commands the Jewish audience to repent and undergo Yohanan's eschatological purification rite in Messiah's name. Many denominations mistakenly apply this verse to all Christians, teaching there is no salvation from eternal damnation unless one undergoes a water rite to obtain forgiveness of sins, unwittingly putting performance of a water rite above faith in Messiah for his gracious salvation.

[136] Evidently G‑d wanted Messiah's highest representatives in Jerusalem to ensure full Samaritan repentance from the 1000 year estrangement from Jerusalem and Judah; Ben Witherington notes that Acts 8:16 "is another example of a narrative aside. It suggests that Theophilus would need an explanation to the effect that the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on any of the Samaritans, but rather they previously had only received water baptism in Jesus' name. Theophilus might have assumed from accounts in Acts 2-3 that water and Spirit would in normal course of affairs come more closely together." The Acts of the Apostles: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 286. Acts 8:16 is thus a qualification about the goings-on in Samaria and one must heed unusual features of the verse, such as the periphrasis, βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπη̃ρχον -- Thayer's translation of Winer's grammar states: "Huparchein with the Part(iciple) in Acts viii 16...is not a mere circumlocution for the finite verb, for 'bebapt. esan' would be the regular expression, there being no other form for the Plup (erfect)." Winer, George Benedict. A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament. 7th ed, translation by J. Henry Thayer (Philadelphia: Smith, English, & Co., 1869) 350. By writing "not a mere circumlocution" Winer says huparchein coupled with bebaptismenoi has grammatical significance different from bebaptismenoi esan, the regular expression for the pluperfect, i.e. a fixed state of existence in the past that resulted from a finished action. Perhaps βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπη̃ρχον does not indicate the pluperfect, unlike typical translations, cf. "they were baptized." Make a Beginning — J.R. Lumby says of Acts 8:16: "16. huperchon. This verb seems to be used with somewhat of its original force = 'to make a beginning.' These men had taken one step, and had been baptized and thus admitted into the community." Lumby, The Acts of the Apostles, Cambridge Greek Testament (Cambridge: University Press, 1920) 181. So huperchon was flexible and usage subject to interpretation. The Expositor's Greek Testament by Nicoll cites Lumby's "to make a beginning." Furthermore, item 354 of Blass, Debrunner, Funk 9/10th edition grammar (BDF) says: "Huparchein only with the perfect participle...is sometimes used in an analogous way to denote the beginning of a state or condition" (emphasis added). Blass, F. & Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, translated by Robert Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 8th printing 1975). So huparchein can cause a periphrasis to indicate the beginning of a state. BDF concludes in item 414 that the periphrasis is "perfect passive infinitive" which apparently indicates, "to have been baptized." BDF evidently assumes baptize speaks of water unless explicitly told otherwise. But if Luke rather relates to New Covenant spiritual transformation, then huparchein may instead indicate an initial and incomplete stage of being baptized into the name of the Lord Yeshua (i.e. beginning to have been baptized...). It should be noted that Lukan material accounts for nearly half the usages of βαπτιζω in the NT, and the vast majority are aorist tense. In fact no usage of βαπτιζω in the perfect tense occurs in the NT other than Acts 8:16. This unique usage stands out and supports the idea of "beginning to have been baptized into Yeshua."; In addition, Howard Marshall commented: "It is to be noted that the story presupposes that it can be known whether or not a person has received the Spirit." Acts, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 158.

[137] John Stott, The Message of Acts, (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994) 160.; so also Fitzmyer, Acts (1997) 410.

[138] See for example the survey in Stanley E. Porter's article 'Did Paul Baptize Himself?' Porter writes: "The use of the middle, here seems to indicate that Ananias does not tell Paul to baptize someone else (that would require the active voice form), nor does he tell him to be baptized by someone (that would require the passive voice form), but he does tell him to be involved in the baptismal process, with Paul the subject of the verb. The action of baptism is internal to the process itself, rather than an action acted upon another or being caused by someone or something external to the process. Whether someone else was actually involved in the process by Paul is not something that can be decided by the use of the middle voice form, and to ask it to do so is to ask the wrong question of the Greek middle." Porter suggests the following gloss, "get up, experience baptism and wash away your sins" which is amenable to Spirit baptism by Messiah. 'Did Paul Baptize Himself? A Problem of the Greek Voice System' in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 91-109.

[139] Neither is this proselyte baptism. There is no evidence proselyte baptism was then in practice, and if it had been proselyte baptism Cornelius' house literally became Jews and part of Israel.

[140] F.F. Bruce writes that Apollos evidently did not know of water baptism in the name of Messiah Yeshua. The Book of the Acts - Revised, (1988) 359.

[141] Cf. Fitzmyer who says, "This would make Apollos a "Johannine" Christian at most, to use Conzelmann's term, or an adept of "an immature form of Christianity" (Käsemann, "Disciples of John")." Fitzmyer, Acts (1997) 639.

[142] The remaining twenty-six usages of μαθητὴς in Acts beyond 19:1 all refer to Yeshua-believers. Three times Luke introduces "disciples" without a definite article, 9:10 Ananias; 9:36 Tabitha; 16:1 Timothy. The following examples of τις in Acts point to the virtual certainty that the anarthrous τινας μαθητάς in 19:1 are Yeshua-believers. Acts 5:1 Ἀνὴρ δέ τις Ἁνανίας ὀνόματι; 9:10 ...ην δέ τις μαθητὴς ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὀνόματι Ἁνανίας; 9:36 Ἐν Ἰόππῃ δέ τις ἦν μαθήτρια ὀνόματι Ταβιθά; 16:1 ...καὶ ἰδοὺ μαθητής τις ἦν ἐκεῖ ὀνόματι Τιμόθεος; 16:14 καί τις γυνὴ ὀνόματι Λυδία; 18:2 καὶ εὑρών τινα Ἰουδαῖον ὀνόματι Ἀκύλαν; 18:24 Ἰουδαῖος δέ τις Ἀπολλῶς ὀνόματι, Ἀλεξανδρεὺς τῷ γένει; 19:1 ...[κατ]ελθεῖν εἰς Ἔφεσον καὶ εὑρεῖν τινας μαθητάς.

[143] Only four places in Acts are thought to describe a "formula" for baptism. The Messianic water rite commanded twice by Peter — Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48 — "In the name of Yeshua the Messiah" — ἐπὶ (ἐν) τω̨̃ ὀνόματι 'Ιησου̃ Χριστου̃, and Luke's two narratives on Samaritans and Ephesians that speak of the "Lord Yeshua" — Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5 — baptized in (into) the name of the Lord Yeshua." — εἰς τò ὄνομα του̃ κυρίου 'Ιησου̃. The formulations are different. F.F. Bruce said "[t]here is probably a slight difference in force between this phrase (ἐν the name in Acts 2:38) and εἰς τò ὄνομα του̃ κυρίου 'Ιησου̃ (8:16; 19:5). Here [in Acts 2:38] the ἐν is to be understood instrumentally: the name of Jesus is an attendant circumstance of baptism...ἐπὶ, [means] 'on the authority of someone.'" Regarding εἰς τò ὄνομα του̃ κυρίου 'Ιησου̃ Bruce says, "So the person baptized 'into the name of the Lord Jesus' passes into the sphere in which Jesus is acknowledged as Lord, becoming (so to speak) Jesus' property." Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990); 129, 221. We note that this difference might be related to receiving the Holy Spirit; Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5 are episodes where the Spirit was not initially received.; Philip Schaff has a similar view as Bruce: "The Greek phrase baptizein en or epi toi onomati Iesou means that the act of baptism takes place with the utterance of the name of Jesus; baptizein eis to onoma Iesou means that the person baptized enters into the relation of belonging to Christ, of being his property." http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc01/articles/baptism.html

[144] "Ezekiel echoes — linked by the key themes and word groups of 'cleansing', 'lawlessness,' 'nationhood' — encompasses the new Spirit-reality, even if he delays explicit reference to the Spirit until [Titus] 3:5-6." Towner lists Ezekiel 36:25-29, 31, 33 as the basis of Spirit promise in Paul's thought. Philip Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, The New International Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006) 765-784.

[145] Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11.

[146] "'Washing' in everyday usage refers to literal cleansing with water, or to the place of bathing. But here, as in Eph 5:26, the term falls into the metaphorical sphere, with the image of washing referring to a spiritual cleansing. Some have seen in this image a reference to the rite of water baptism, but there is reason to see it rather as a reference to the work of the Spirit in terms of a 'washing' that, then, the outward rite of water baptism might serve to symbolize." Towner, NICNT (2006) 781. The λουτρόν of Ephesians 5:26 bears similar import, ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, and here we are told the analogy is directly related to "water of the word" of the Good News about Messiah. Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11, ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν.

[147] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, vol. 38, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1988) 253-66.

[148] Howard Marshall observes: "The theological point which Paul is making is thus not drawn from baptism as such but from the historical fact of what happened to Christ, and hence it is not tied to a particular mode of baptism. Immersion may afford a useful symbolism of burial with Christ, but we do not need to presuppose immersion in order to explain Paul's terminology any more than in the case of circumcision regarded as an aspect of baptism (Col. 2.11-12)." See 'The Meaning of the Verb 'Baptize,' Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (2002) 22.

[149] Paul used this word, συνετάφημεν (co-entombed), with eleven others, to describe the profound "union" Yeshua-believers share with Messiah. Consider the following twelve shared aspects of his suffering, death, resurrection and exaltation: 1) Romans 8:17, συμπάσχω, co‑suffer; 2) Romans 6:6, συσταυρόω, co-crucified; 3) 2 Timothy 2:11, συναποθνᾑσκω, co-died; 4) Romans 6:5, σύμφυτος, co-united (in death); 5) Romans 6:4, συνθάπτω, co-entombed; 6) Ephesians 2:5, συζωοποιέω, co-quickened; 7) 2 Timothy 2:11, συζάω, co-live; 8) Ephesians 2:6, συνεγείρω, co-raised; 9) Romans 8:17, συνδοξάζω, co-glorified; 10) Ephesians 2:6, συγκαθίζω, co-seated; 11) 2 Timothy 2:12, συμβασιλεύω, co-reign; 12) Romans 8:17, συγκληρονόμος, co-heirs.

[150] James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 452-3.

[151] "On any analysis of the tradition history lying behind this talk of being 'baptized in the Spirit' there is one obvious trail to be followed — though surprisingly neglected by most commentators. It is the trail which begins in the tradition of John the Baptist's most striking utterance: 'I baptize you with water, but he [the Coming One] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (and fire).'" Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (1998) 450.; See also Gordon Fee: "What makes the Corinthians one is their common experience of the Spirit, the very Spirit responsible for and manifested in the great diversity just argued for in vv. 4-11. For Paul the reception of the Spirit is the sine qua non of Christian life. The Spirit is what distinguishes the believer from the nonbeliever (2:10-14); the Spirit is what especially marks the beginning of Christian life (Gal. 3:2-3); the Spirit above all is what makes a person a child of G‑d (Rom. 8:14-17)." Fee says the word baptize by no means proves water was intended, for though it was used as a Christian technical term "one may not thereby assume that Paul intended its technical sense here." Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987) 603-4.

[152] Mark Nanos sees Galatians 3:27 referring to a water rite and notes a blatant contradiction. Paul's argument against circumcision results from his desire to "undermine a natural aspect of any ritualized approach to identity such as is undertaken in the rite of proselyte conversion," yet Paul supposedly performed a water rite that, in effect, negated this intended outcome. See The Irony of Galatians, Paul's Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress 2002) 225.

[153] Paul's circumcision of Messiah motif (Colossians 2:11, cf. Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3) likely draws directly from an eschatological Torah promise (Deuteronomy 30:6, cf. Deuteronomy 10:16), "The L-RD your G-d will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live."

[154] βαπτιζω, βάπτισμα or βαπτισμός are found in Galatians 3:27; 1 Corinthians 1:13-17; 10:1-2; 12:13; 15:29; Romans 6:3‑4; Ephesians 4:5; and Colossians 2:12.

[155] Popular teaching says Israel was immersed in the cloud and sea which is thought prototypical of NT immersion. When the prepositions are examined one is hard-pressed to sustain the idea. Rather the cloud and sea are seen as agents of influence to change Israel's mind about Moses, cf. Exodus 14:30-31.

οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμα̃ς ἀγνοει̃ν ἀδελφοί (for I don't wish you to be ignorant, brothers)

ὅτι οἱ πατέρες ἡμω̃ν πάντες (that all our fathers)

ὑπò τὴν νεφέλην ἠ̃σαν (under the cloud were) καὶ πάντες (and all)

διὰ τη̃ς θαλάσσης διη̃λθον (through the sea passed-through) καὶ πάντες (and all)

εἰς τòν Μωϋση̃ν ἐβαπτίσθησαν (into Moses were baptized)

ἐν τη̨̃ νεφέλη̨ καὶ (by the cloud, and)

ἐν τη̨̃ θαλάσση̨ (by the sea)

The spatial relationship to the cloud and sea is described by ὑπò and διὰ. Paul's choice of ἐν, with both cloud and sea as datives, indicates they are "instruments of influence" to baptize the people εἰς τòν Μωϋση̃ν, into Moses. Paul did not write that the people self-immersed in the cloud and sea in the name of Moses.

[156] It may be that "baptizing for the sake of the dead" refers to the Jewish practice of purifying deceased Jews with water prior to burial to be prepared for the resurrection. F.F. Bruce observed that the washing of Tabitha (Acts 9:37) was "in accordance with the Jewish custom of purification of the dead" and cites the Mishnah, Shabbat 23.5, The Book of the Acts - Revised, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988) 199. Paul would have used the middle-passive forms of the verb and participle in 1 Corinthians 15:29 to indicate subject-focus. So Paul's argument against deniers of the resurrection may have included a remark about the Jewish practice of purifying their dead specifically because they, the Jewish people who perform the purification, believe in the resurrection.

[157] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of The Christian Faith (1998) 926.

[158] In accord with his dictum in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, that one who was circumcised (Jewish) when called, let him not be uncircumcised (he should not abandon his Jewish heritage). Peter and Apollos also directed much of their energy toward Jews so that their performance of Israel's eschatological purification for Jews is unsurprising (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:12).

[159] The Pew Forum, On Religion & Public Life, reports: "Pentecostalism and related charismatic movements represent one of the fastest-growing segments of global Christianity. At least a quarter of the world's 2 billion Christians are thought to be members of these lively, highly personal faiths, which emphasize such spiritually renewing 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' as speaking in tongues, divine healing and prophesying." http://pewforum.org/Christian/Evangelical-Protestant-Churches/Pentecostal-Resource-Page.aspx; The WCC reports: "According to the World Christian Database, classical Pentecostals number 78 million, Charismatics 192 million and Neo-charismatics 318 million." http://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/church-families/pentecostal-churches.html

[160] Cf. Professor Frank Macchia, "...I entered the room then I fell to my knees and began to pray. I began to cry and to search for words that I could not find. Meanwhile, my schoolmates began to pray for me. I felt a fountain well up within me. It grew stronger and stronger until it burst forth with great strength. I began to pray in tongues. It was not forced, neither from me nor from God. In fact, it seemed at the moment to be the most natural thing to do. By now I lay there on the floor with my eyes fixed on that cross. I felt God's powerful presence embrace me, and while accepting my calling to the ministry, I made promises to God that have accompanied me throughout my life." Frank Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006) 13.

[161] Cessationism holds that the Spirit has ceased to operate with evidential charismata after some point early in the Messianic era, typically said to be either the inscripturation of the Besorah or the canonization of NT scripture.

[162] Even a critic of Pentecostal theology like James Dunn does not dismiss possibility of vibrant Spirit experience. "[I]n case it should be thought that I have been less than just to the Pentecostals let me simply add in reference to these questions that Pentecostal teaching of spiritual gifts, including glossolalia, while still unbalanced, is much more soundly based on the NT than is generally recognized." Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970) 229. For a systematic refutation of cessationism see, On the Cessation of the Charismata, The Protestant Polemic on Post-Biblical Miracles (1993, 2008) by Jon Ruthven, Professor Emeritus, Regent University. Note that in the Apostolic era spiritual volatility was known and required treatment (cf. 1 Corinthians 12-14). So the presence of spiritual failure or excess in modern times does not of itself prove Pentecostal experience is fundamentally erroneous.

[163] 'The Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Initial Experience and Continuing Evidences of the Spirit-Filled Life,' General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God on August 11, 2000, page 3.

[164] Stronstad wrote, "If we have interpreted Luke's Pentecost narrative correctly, then the gift of the Spirit is not for salvation, but it is for witness and service. In other words, with the transfer of the Spirit to the disciples on the day of Pentecost, they become a charismatic community, heirs to the earlier charismatic ministry of Jesus." Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1990) 62. See also Robert P. Menzies, 'Luke's Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit. A Pentecostal Perspective,' PentecoStudies, vol. 6, no. 2, 2007, p. 108—126.

[165] "Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method," by Robert P. Menzies, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies Volume 1, Number 2 (August 1998) 5.

[166] Guelich, Mark (1989) 25.

[167] Guelich says Mark did not intend for 'the baptism with the Holy Spirit' to be read through the Lukan eyes of Acts. "We have no hint of his bestowing the Spirit as a gift of power on his followers [in Mark's gospel]." Guelich, Mark (1989) 25. But surely the giving of the eschatological Spirit by Messiah to Israel would imply no omission of such gifts either, even if not noted explicitly.

[168] Bear in mind the 120 were baptized when filled with the Spirit on Shavuot (Acts 2:4-Acts 1:5) but after Shavuot Peter was filled (Acts 4:8) and not baptized, and the prayer group too was filled (Acts 4:31) and not baptized. Disciples can be filled often with the Spirit, but baptized once only. Βαπτιζω in Acts then apparently describes a non-repeatable, qualitative New Covenant transformation, and has nothing to do with a repeatable quantitative immersion. Cf. Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9.

[169] Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5.

[170] "A third function of John's baptism was that it purified from uncleanness. Josephus states that 'baptism certainly would appear acceptable to him [i.e., God] if used for purification of the body' (Ant. 18.117)." Robert L. Webb, Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications, Bulletin for Biblical Research Studies 10.2 (2000) 282.

[171] See Psalm 51 as a prophecy of what Messiah would do permanently for all who trust him.

[172] Apparently cessationism and subsequence both flow from Reform theology. The Reform tenet, Sola Fide, led to rationalizing the gospel while Sola Scriptura led to cessationism. Yet Wesleyan Perfectionism, Methodism, holiness movements, and Keswickism promoted personal experience, resisted rationalization of the gospel and were precursors to Pentecostalism. Both streams evidently resisted the Roman Church's assertion that ex opere operato the Spirit must accomplish baptismal regeneration.

[173] Titus 3:5-6 the Spirit is "poured out richly." Romans 10:12, "for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him." Titus 3:6, οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ' ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, Romans 10:12, πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν. Surely these verses describe the same wonderful eschatological Gift of the Spirit.

[174]  זריקת המים הטהורים אינה אלא סמל לטיהור וחידוש כמו ארחץ בנקיון כפי ואסבבה את מזבחך ה' (תה' כו ז) עמוד רפו-רפז יחזקאל לו-הערה

[175] הערה ב. - לפי פשוטו של מקרא "מים טהורים" שבפרקנו אינם מי-נידה... עמוד רפו-רפז יחזקאל לו

[176] Mishnah, Parah 3.5: Moses prepared the first batch of red heifer ashes and Ezra, of second-Temple days, prepared the second, after which seven more were prepared. The batch Moses prepared was not replenished during the Mishkan and first Temple. Yet in second-Temple days eight batches including Ezra's were prepared.

[177] Richman states: "This book began with the words of the prophet Ezekiel...'Then I shall sprinkle pure waters upon you...' Yet as one of the holy sages asks, to what water is this verse actually referring? It can't be speaking of the waters mixed with the heifer's ashes - for although that solution is the key to cleansing, purifying all it touches - the mixture itself is impure, which is why it contaminates those who were already pure!" R. Chaim Richman, The Mystery of the Red Heifer: Divine Promise of Purity, (no longer in print), (Jerusalem, 5757/1997), online (2005) http://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/symbolic_levels.htm

[178] Tractate Yoma 8:9 (85b) of the Mishnah — R. Akiva's combines Ezekiel 36:25 with Jeremiah 17:13 in a "drash" (homiletical) form of teaching, linking two images, purification in a mikveh and the dashing of Ezekiel. Jeremiah reads:מִקְוֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה כָּל־עֹזְבֶיךָ יֵבֹשׁוּ וְסוּרַי בָּאָרֶץ יִכָּתֵבוּ כִּי עָזְבוּ מְקֹור מַיִם־חַיִּים אֶת־יְהוָה׃  Not only is G-d the hope or "mikveh" of Israel, he is also a "source of Living Water"מְקֹור מַיִם־חַיִּים אֶת־יְהוָה . Ezekiel 36:25 is not of necessity related to sprinkling red heifer ashes, but it does relate to מַיִם־חַיִּים. This "drash" form of teaching would not preclude R. Akiva taking Ezekiel 36:25 as the eschatological purification from a "pashat" (literal) point of view.

[179] Moreover, a persuasive article, "The Observance of Ritual Purity after 70 C.E.," states that the Numbers 19 purification was practiced up to three centuries after the destruction of the second Temple. In light of Tannaic rabbinical recognition of Ezekiel 36:25 as an end-time rite, Kiddushin 72b, it would be very difficult to assert that it nevertheless is to be identified with the Numbers 19 rite that was still practiced. "Studies by Shmuel Safrai and Ya'acov Sussmann have shown that red-heifer ashes continued to be used for purification of the corpse-impure throughout the Tannaitic period. Sussmann has asserted that tannaitic rulings...indicate an animate and vital praxis carried out in daily life and not simply an intellectual exercise confined to the cloisters of the rabbinic college... Safrai and Sussmann have shown that red-heifer ash was still in use during the Amoraic period (from ca. the mid-third century C.E. until the second half of the fourth century)." Yonatan Adler and David Amit, "The Observance of Ritual Purity after 70 C.E..." in Follow the Wise (B. Sanhedrin 32b): Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 121-143.

[180] Cf. Haftarah of Ezekiel 36:16-38 for Shabbat of Parashat Parah (Red Heifer).