3 sections below, building on one another, concerning what it meant to be a “convert,” and particularly the New Testament baptism question:
- Section 1: Three steps for Gentile converts in Second Temple Judaism
- Section 2: What “immersion” meant for them
- Section 3: Seeing these Jewish “conversion steps” in the NT in Acts 2 and Colossians 2, which has ramifications for the New Testament circumcision of heart, baptism/immersion, and participation in Jesus’s sacrifice
___
When studying about what a “proselyte” technically was (as it’s an uncommon word) in Matthew 23:15, there was many I read who talked about how it was a specific for Jewish people in the intertestamental period/Second Temple Judaism to try to get Gentiles to become “proselytes” (or “converts,” like we talk today).
The question then became, What did they need to do?
1) Three steps for Gentile converts in Second Temple Judaism
Overall scholarly consensus, due to many texts in the Talmud/Mishnah, is that there were 3 distinct steps recognized by Jews at the time for a Gentile to become Jewish. First, Gentiles needed to be circumcised (of course). Second, they needed to be immersed in water (see point 2 below, yes, fully immersed). Third, then they needed to participate in the sacrifices.
Yet I needed to see this in original sources. So, I was directed to Yebamot 46a (in the Talmud, here: https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.46a?lang=bi). The sections of relevance are 46a:14 and 46a:16. Here is each quoted fully:
Yebamot 46a:14: The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba once happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who had become pregnant from converts who were circumcised but had still not immersed to complete their conversion process; and he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinking it; and he saw lupines [turmusin] that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eating them; but he did not say anything to them.
Yebamot 46a:16: The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning in two halakhot: The first is as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One is never considered to be a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since the convert in the case in Gavla had not immersed, he is still considered a gentile. And the second halakha is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring of that union is a mamzer.
As seen, the order was circumcision and then immersion. Then they “completed the conversion process” and could participate in and benefit from the sacrifices. This was seemingly the standard and heavily followed practice in Second Temple Judaism before, in, and after Jesus’s day. (See final paragraph in essay for more on that).
2) A specific type of “immersion” was required
What’s further interesting is that what was over and over called for in conversion was not just to be “washed” but “immersed.” The Hebrew root word for this is taval, which would mean dip in a little bit of water (Leviticus 4:6), or it could be as big as full body dip/immersion (like Naaman in 2 Kings 5:14).
But in the texts above, the word used isn’t just tabal, but a more detailed version that meant something specific for the rabbi’s: tevilah. That word in the rabbinical literature at the time specifically meant only to immerse: a complete head-to-toe immersion, done in a certain prescribed way, with enough water, or else it was invalid. And that’s what converts needed to do. (See above for this, and how even today, Jews translate the word as “immerse” always.)
This, it seems, may relate to why the New Testament word is not the more basic baptō verb, but baptizō—a more emphatic version usually talking about immersion. That isn’t definite, but it may be a strong connection.
3) Seeing these same exact steps in Acts 2 and Colossians 2
Perhaps the biggest thing I’ve never seen before is how these agreed-on conversion steps from Gentiles-to-Jews for the rabbis was seemingly in Luke/Peter’s mind in Acts 2 and Paul’s in Colossians 2, but for all people (Jews and Gentiles) converting to Christ.
Acts 2 records this after Peter’s long sermon:
[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” [38] And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:37–39)
Two key insights from the above from Acts 2:
First, Luke decides to say they were “cut to the heart.” Now, that’s not technically a circumcision word itself; it’s a word talking about a violent piercing. So, again, it is not the verb for circumcision. But in the OT, they physically “cut off” their foreskins. And God always promised he’d “circumcise the heart” of his people in the New Covenant (like Deuteronomy 30:6). So, it seems a strong connection that in the first major preaching of the new covenant in history to the masses, concerning the ones who heard and were wondering how to be saved, we are first told that they were “cut” to “the heart” by the narrator. Hence it seems he may be saying a circumcision of heart happened first.
Which is why, second, it fits that Peter would tell those asking to display the evidence of that “cut to the heart” with baptism/immersion. That fits the paradigm exactly, and it makes sense why the command to “be baptized” didn’t come out of nowhere for them. If in Luke/Peter’s mind, the circumcision of heart had happened, the next step in the “conversion process” was baptism/immersion.
So, just like the Jews converted Gentiles to Judaism at the time, now all Christians (Jews and Gentiles!) do so in a similar way: But it’s circumcision of heart, immersion, then you get to participate fully in the sacrifice of Jesus.
See the same in Colossians 2 from Paul:
[11] In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, [12] having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11–12)
On this famous passage, the paedobaptists always want to emphasis how Paul links talking about circumcision to baptism here in the same sentence (which he does!), while the credobaptists always seek to just emphasize “baptism…through faith.”
But it seems that perhaps the biggest thing Paul does here, like Luke/Peter in Acts 2, is he follows the typical standard practice of conversion from Gentiles to Judaism.
First, is “circumcision,” but Paul is clear, this was for all Christians (Jew and Gentile) “a circumcision without hands…the circumcision of Christ.” Now, we know Paul’s massive emphasis in Galatians that Christians don’t need to be circumcised physically to be saved. But why is that? Well, it’s because the law is over (see Galatians), but it’s also seemingly because to now be “converted to God,” yes, there’s still a circumcision, but it’s a handless circumcision, by Christ, “of heart” as God always promised.
Then, second on Colossians 2, notice, after talking about circumcision, Paul talks about baptism—exactly as the Jewish rabbis did during Second Temple Judaism.
So, as in Acts 2, the order stands (and again, it seems it wouldn’t have been surprising to them): First, a circumcision (this time though not physical, but a handless circumcision (by Christ). Then second, baptism/immersion (through faith).
Conclusion
For me this all came, again, while studying what the Jewish people (like the Pharisees Jesus was talking to in Matthew 23) did to “proselytize” a Gentile. It is surprisingly consistent with what Christians did—with both Jews and Gentiles coming to Christ! Circumcision (of heart), baptism/immersion, then you enjoy the benefits of (Jesus’s finished) sacrifice (and Lord’s Supper regularly participating in it).
Therefore, I think the people of Jesus’s day—Gentiles who perhaps knew what it would’ve meant to proselytize to Judaism, and especially the Jews themselves—they would’ve known the steps common in their day to “convert”: 1. Circumcision, 2. Immersion, then 3. You could participate in the sacrifices.
So when Christians started calling people to believe in Jesus and be baptized, it seems people wouldn’t have thought that the “baptism” was now the sign that replaced “circumcision” as a sign. Rather, consider the New Testament evidence:
- The shocking thing from John the Baptist to open the NT is that he was calling Jewish people (circumcised people!) to be immersed/baptized. Meaning, he was saying that Jewish people as well needed repentance/washing through immersion to enter into the (coming) kingdom. That at the time was primarily for Gentile
- Then, Jesus called all his followers to do the same at his Great Commission, but now the baptism was in the “name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)—which was shocking.
- Then when the gospel message went out, like in Acts and the Epistles, it was still: 1. Circumcision, 2. Immersion, 3. Participation in sacrifice. But now, circumcision wasn’t physical but of the heart (that’s a massive New Testament emphasis, in Acts and from Paul!). But the baptism was still physical, but now radical in that it was, again, “in the name of the Father, Son, Spirit (Matthew 28 from Jesus). Then the sacrifice was the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus, remembered at the Supper.
Or to say that another way, someone saying the sign of Old Testament circumcision was replaced by baptism would’ve, I think, gotten weird looks: Both from the Jewish rabbis who already practiced immersion after circumcision for Gentiles, and from the Gentiles who knew what would’ve been asked for them to become Jewish (circumcision then immersion). Rather, circumcision outwardly was now done away with as a marker of God’s people (and become internal alone, see Romans 2:29), and immersion now remained but for Gentiles and Jews, and was (radically) done in the name of the Trinity.
Finally, the only pushback more liberal scholars sometimes make is that, since the Mishnah was gathered around 200 AD (gathered as a document, not written) and the Talmud gathered around 400 AD, people could say that the circumcision, immersion, sacrifices steps more so became a thing after Christians. Yet when considered, that’s almost certainly not the case, and almost all scholarship agrees. Especially because: Why would the rabbis, and only post-Jesus, copy the Christian practices? Rather, they’d do the opposite. Plus, we have so many details, written it seems from before Jesus as well, collected in these books, that show the technical, very specific process of conversion from a Gentile to Judaism, one last time, is circumcision, then immersion, then sacrifices. It is no wonder then, from Acts, baptism especially is just accepted by everyone when asked. It isn’t questioned, like, “Why are we doing this though?” Rather, they knew this pattern. But it had now become: Circumcision of the heart, immersion/baptism, finished sacrifice of Jesus enjoyed (and remembered and participated in regularly in the Lord’s Supper).
__
Side note: If one pushes back on the above “3 steps” idea in the New Testament by saying that it therefore implies that for someone to truly be “converted” to Christ, you must, for example, be baptized and partake of the Lord’s Supper, then, while that may be logical, that isn’t true in the New Testament itself. For example, consider the (unbaptized and never participated in the Lord’s Supper) thief on the cross in Luke 23:43. Hence, again, such a thought may be logical if we run with the “3 steps” idea, but saying one must do all three to be saved isn’t ever in the New Testament teaching. Instead, although the Christians seemingly might’ve followed the same overall three steps of “conversion” from Gentile-to-Judaism from the rabbis, the reality is, with Jesus, once someone is in Christ, right away they’re a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Plus, no one is ever saved by their doings and actions (whether doings and actions of circumcision of heart, or baptism, or participating in the Lord’s Supper), but by being united by faith to Jesus alone.
Yet, all that said, the three-step conversion process from the rabbis does seem to be taken up in the New Testament by the Jewish apostles and Christians at large to display what’s true of someone in Christ: Circumcised in heart, baptized/immersed (into Christ, in the Spirit, because of Jesus’s command, not just due to rabbi tradition), enjoying the finished sacrifice of Jesus (and regularly participating in the Lord’s Supper).
