By Water and By Blood

The first comprehensive booklet I ever read concerning baptism was entitled “All About Water Baptism.” It was produced and distributed by the Worldwide Church of God and I found the content of that booklet disappointing; especially so when the title’s descriptive “All About” suggested a complete and in-depth discussion. Since then I have read several other Church publications and have found them to be similarly lacking.

In fact, there is an almost total lack of information in any of these booklets as to “the origin of the rite” of baptism as it was understood, taught, and practiced by John. I also question several of the supposed facts being presented as doctrine in these publications.

1st John 5:6 “This is He who came by water and blood -- Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood.”

This verse almost certainly refers to the baptism and sacrifice of Jesus. I say almost, because the statement is somewhat ambiguous and is open to possible error through faulty interpretation. In fact, if you were to spend some time in meditation over this single verse, you might begin to wonder (as I did) whether it may be pointing us towards a more perfect understanding of one of the many mysteries of God -- the mystery of the virgin birth of the Messiah.

Luke 1:76-77 [Zacharias the father of John the Baptist is quoted as saying:] “And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Highest: for you shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways: to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins.”

And in Luke 3:2 we are told: “…the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.”
Note: There is no direct reference in any of this to the rite of baptism; nor does it tell us how it should be carried out or why it should be accepted as a sanctified rite of cleansing.

There are examples that could be used to explain the practice of baptism, such as the passing of Israel through the Red Sea; and apparently the Jews in the time of John and Jesus practiced a form of immersion for individuals wanting to enter Jerusalem. But to my knowledge there is no evidence of explicit instructions ever being given to John as to how baptism should be carried out by him.

That having been said: there is no question that the rite of baptism as taught and practiced by John had the blessings of God our Father and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, who is the Christ. Therefore, in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary, we must accept that the instructions given to John were both explicit and correct. But when and from whom did he receive those instructions?

We have been taught, and many of us blindly accept, that knowledge of this form of justification from sin was given to John by divine inspiration. There is no question that the Spirit of God can, and often does, spiritually inspire individuals in many wonderful ways; but I wonder if sometimes we have a habit of dwelling on “spiritual things” when the answer we’re looking for is more factual than spiritual.

I’m not sure how most people believe the inspiration which led John to the rites of baptism was manifest, but in times past I believed it had come to him in a dream. Another possibility is that John himself saw the parallel of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea and after much study, prayer and meditation, devised on his own (by spiritual inspiration) the rite of baptism as we have come to know it. There is however at least one other possible answer to the question.

We need to remember that Jesus and John were related through their mothers! There was only a six month difference in their ages! They lived within a reasonable travelling distance from each other and both they and their parents had shared many wonderful and miraculous events surrounding the time of their births. Both of these boys became young men with an extraordinarily well developed faith and sense of whom and what they were. Is it reasonable to believe that they grew up totally unaware of each other?

It is my belief that Jesus and John were not only related (as second-cousins through their mothers) but that they also became very close friends and confidants! I believe that as they grew older, they developed a relationship which allowed them to confide in each other and that together they were able to discuss their individual understanding of scripture to a truly wonderful degree.

I believe in the very real possibility that together, Jesus and John under inspiration of God came up with the idea of baptism as it was to be practiced by both of them; not only the method, but the reason behind it and the purpose for it! There is a very good reason why I believe this and I shall try to explain; but you must understand that there is very little direct scriptural evidence to support what at this time can only be accepted as theory.

There is one further comment that must be made before we begin: Even if Jesus did confide in John, it would have been done in a very limited and subtle way. Contrary to what many Christians believe, Jesus did not bring any of his followers to a clear and perfect understanding of the many mysteries of God! In fact, during Jesus’ ministry even the closest of his disciples were often allowed to drift along in ignorance.

With regard to whether Jesus and John knew each other -- I have heard at least one of our ministers use the following passage as proof they did not know each other and had probably never even met until the day of Jesus’ baptism. Notice:

John 1:29-34 “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold; the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.’ And John bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ ‘And have seen and testify that [Jesus] is the Son of God.’”

Take time to really study this passage. John said: “I did not know Him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit…’” Is John telling us he did not know his cousin Jesus -- or is he saying that he did not know Jesus was the promised Messiah? He does say that “someone sent him” to baptize with water! He also says that “someone told him”: “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit…” Who was that someone? Was it God speaking directly to John in a dream -- or was it his cousin Jesus speaking to him as his friend, his confident, and his mentor?

Even when the ministry of John was over and the ministry of Jesus was well under way, John still did not know for certain whether Jesus was the Promised Messiah. Notice:

Matthew 11:2-3 “And when John had heard in prison about the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples and said to him, ‘Are you the Coming One, or do we look for another?’”

This question asked by John in the final few days of his life raises yet another mystery which I hope to discuss sometime very soon. You should open your Bible and read the reply Jesus gave. Think carefully about His answer and allow the Spirit of God to direct your understanding -- no matter how improbable that understanding may seem to be!

Note: Thought, conjecture, meditation, and prayer; all these tools and many others are of value when studying the word of God. The knowledge and understanding of the many keys to Bible understanding also have great value; but above all else the begotten child of God who strives for perfection must do so in righteousness, with faith, humility, and compassion, knowing that only by the Spirit of God can all things be revealed.

It has been my habit when studying the Bible to allow myself to question everything! Some time ago I asked myself why it would be necessary for the Messiah to be born to a virgin. There is no doubt that for a virgin to conceive would be a truly wondrous event; if such a birth were to be prophesied then the actual fulfillment of that prophecy would surely reveal the hand of God.

The young Jesus heard from his own parents the story of his virgin birth -- by this and by many other miraculous and incontrovertible events he knew that he was indeed the prophesied Messiah. However, I believe Jesus also saw a prophecy within the prophecy of the virgin birth! It is this hidden prophecy (if indeed such a prophecy exists) that may have led to a discussion between Jesus and John which in turn may have led to the conception of the rites of baptism.

I would like you to consider the duality inherent in the way a human child is born of the flesh and the way a child of God will one day be born of the Spirit. Both come by water and by blood!

The human child is introduced into life from a water-filled sanctuary; and with every birth some blood is involved. The child of God is begotten after he or she has risen from the watery grave of baptism; but without the blood of Jesus, baptism in little more than a simple gesture of faith.

Note: At first glance the concept of this duality having anything to do with the rite of baptism may seem tenuous; please bear with me for just a little longer.

Man is born of the flesh by water and by blood. Man may one day be born again of the Spirit, by the water of baptism and by the blood of the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus was born of the flesh by water and by blood; however, the human birth of Jesus was exceptional in that he was born to be both Messiah and King. The rebirth of Jesus as the first-born son of God was also exceptional in that at the moment of his death he also became: “Our High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.”

For those who do not fully understand the function of the High Priest you need to search the scriptures and learn for yourself. Pay particular attention to the instructions found in Leviticus 16 concerning the High Priest and his entry into that Most Holy Place within the Temple of God. Once a year, and only once a year, the High Priest was allowed to pass “beyond the veil” and enter the Holy of Holies -- even then, only after strict observance to rituals of cleansing which involved much water and blood sacrifice. Behind the veil in the Holy of Holies could be found the mercy seat which typified the very throne of God.

Once a year, on the annual holy day known as the Day of Atonement, the High Priest went into this Holy of Holies to offer a sacrifice for the sins of all Israel. The rituals to be followed by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement were in fact a prophecy which saw its partial fulfillment on the day Jesus was crucified. At the moment of his death Jesus “became our High Priest forever” -- and at that very instant “the veil of the temple was torn in two” (Matthew 27:51).

It doesn’t really matter whether Jesus realized the actual veil of the temple would literally be torn in two at his death. What does matter is that he knew one of the positions the Messiah was destined to assume was that of High Priest. I believe he became aware of this part of his destiny from his understanding of the prophecy of the virgin birth.

The Female Hymen

The hymen is that which in a physical sense denotes virginity in the human female. It is a thin fold of mucous membrane found at the entrance to the vagina. I find it interesting that in the past I have heard the hymen referred to as “the maiden veil.” The Bible tells us that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin when she conceived and that Joseph her husband: “…knew her not [in the biblical sense] until she had brought forth her firstborn son.”

Is it reasonable to assume that until the birth of Jesus the hymen of Mary remained intact? If so, then the human birth of Jesus would not only have been by water and by blood, but also by the tearing of his mother’s maiden veil. In duality, his birth as the firstborn son of God was by the water of baptism, and by the blood of his sacrifice, and by the tearing of the veil of the temple.

Were the rites of baptism as practiced by John the brainchild of Jesus himself as devised by him according to what he understood his destiny to be? Did the understanding of the rites of baptism come to John in discussion with his cousin Jesus? Is it reasonable to assume that as boys and as young men both Jesus and John enjoyed each other’s company in the beauty and seclusion of the wilderness; and is it possible they may have discussed at length their separate understanding of their own individual destinies?

I find quite interesting, the definition given by Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of “word” as it is used in Luke 3:2. Notice: “word” = 4487 = “rhema” = an utterance (individually, collectively, or specifically); by implication a matter or topic (especially of narration, command, or dispute.) As I understand this: we are being told in Luke 3:2 that: “…the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness, by means of command, discussion or narration” -- (but if so, by or with whom)?

Please Father; increase our understanding, strengthen our faith!

Note: Next week I hope to discuss the fate of the angels that followed Lucifer in his rebellion -- are they all destined to follow Satan into the lake of fire? If they have already been found guilty and condemned; does this not make you wonder about the words of the Apostle Paul when he said: “Know you not that you shall judge angels?