K
kbwall
Guest
Why did Jesus need to get baptised? He was without sin, and therefore didn’t need to have any sin cleansed off. Did He do it just to set the example?
- Status
R
runningdude
Guest
My guess is that it is sort of a “reverse baptism”, where Christ receives the first baptism to make it available to humanity.
For instance, prior to the coming of Christ, reciting the words of baptism while pouring water may have had no effect. Following John’s act of baptizing Christ, sanctifying grace poured out from Christ into the act of Baptism.
From that moment forward, baptism might have had sacramental effect. However, this is just my speculation and I’m not sure of any official teaching regarding the matter.
For instance, prior to the coming of Christ, reciting the words of baptism while pouring water may have had no effect. Following John’s act of baptizing Christ, sanctifying grace poured out from Christ into the act of Baptism.
From that moment forward, baptism might have had sacramental effect. However, this is just my speculation and I’m not sure of any official teaching regarding the matter.
P
poptown
Guest
We know that the old ritual baptism transform into the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And that transformation took place exactly through Jesus’ baptism. This is my understanding.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nope. The baptism of John the Baptist (which is what Jesus received) was a baptism of repentance – in other words, it was a baptism in anticipation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (which is a baptism that cleanses a person from sin).
So, although Jesus doesn’t need the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (i.e. of cleansing), he does participate in the baptism of John the Baptist.
Does this help?
V
victorg001
Guest
Many of the reasons noted above sound good but the reason seen in the scripture is Matt 3:13-15 NAB, 13 then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 John tried to prevent him saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me? 15 Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
Here John acknowledges that Christ is the Messiah. John felt he needed to be baptized by Christ, but what reason does Christ declare? “To fulfill all righteousness”.
Here John acknowledges that Christ is the Messiah. John felt he needed to be baptized by Christ, but what reason does Christ declare? “To fulfill all righteousness”.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
I would say that it is more for our sake than His. After Baptism heaven opens up to Him and God declares openly “This is my Son”. When we undergo Baptism heaven opens up to us and God becomes our Father. This is my understanding as I meditate the Rosary. He showed us what we must do to have heaven opened up to us. He could have easily avoided the whole scene altogether but He did not. He instituted this sacrament.
R
runningdude
Guest
Oddly enough, according to Wikipedia, the confusion as to why a sinless man would undergo baptism is a major reason why scholars consider the baptism of Jesus to be an historical event, under the “Criteria of Embarrassment”. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baptism_of_Jesus#Historicity).
It’s a situation so odd, that it had to have happened!
It’s a situation so odd, that it had to have happened!
R
RyanBlack
Guest
At last one Father of the Church (I can’t recall which one) taught that Christ was baptized in order to sanctify the waters of baptism in order that the waters of baptism might sanctify us.
P
patrick457
Guest
A little explanation about the ‘criterion of embarrassment’.
The ‘criterion of embarrassment’ is one of the criteria many historical Jesus scholars use in determining the authenticity of a given tradition (another is multiple attestation), and a particular favorite at that. As the name implies, it basically involves looking at a particular Jesus tradition preserved in the gospels and seeing whether it contains material that could have been potentially ‘embarrassing’ for the early Christians but which was still recorded by the Evangelists.
The baptism of Jesus is a classic textbook example: as it is commonly put, this tradition about Jesus being baptized by John is ‘embarrassing’ in that it could be construed as implying that John is superior to Jesus. The way it is often explained, the Evangelists make reference to this episode but they seem to have devised ways to ‘soften the blow’: Mark does not dwell over the event too much (“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan”), Matthew records John at first hesitating to baptize the highly-superior Jesus, Luke only implies that Jesus was baptized (“Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying…”; he does not say directly “by John,” as Matthew and Mark does), and John omits directly telling about the baptism, only making reference (via John the Baptist’s dialogue) to the descent of the Holy Spirit (“I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him…”). Other examples include Jesus’ reaction to the Syro-Phoenician/Canaanite woman and the cry “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” at the cross.
That being said, there is a problem with the the term ‘criterion of embarrassment’. It seems to imply that early Christians are ‘ashamed’ of these traditions, which begs the question: why have they chosen to preserve it if it was so ‘embarrassing’? Hence, some people have proposed alternative, less subjective terms like ‘against-the-grain’ traditions. Another thing that people need to beware of is an uncritical, wooden use of this criterion: chopping off material simply because they are ‘with-the-grain’.
S
stevekehl
Guest
After Jesus came out of the water the Holy Spirit descended from heaven and came to rest on Him. Agreed that Jesus didn’t need forgiveness,but this is what Peter says in Acts 2 says in response to those asking what they must do to be saved.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No… Acts 2:38 tells us, “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.’”
Jesus wasn’t baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “for the forgiveness of sins”. Jesus also did not “receive the gift of the holy Spirit”, since in Peter’s context, he’s talking about something that wasn’t able to be received until after Pentecost. That the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus is a completely different thing; the Spirit came to Jesus because he was Jesus, not by virtue of the baptism of John, per se.
D
Dies_Irae_1
Guest
Jesus’ baptism was an example for us to follow. He did not need to be cleansed from sin (duh!), but in a sense, he did “receive” the Holy Ghost. It was his baptism and confirmation all at once.
It is also the appearance of the Trinity in the New Testament : Jesus (being baptized), the Holy Ghost (in the form of a dove) and the Father (a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”)
Note : none of these are my original ideas. I have my priest to thank for this.
It is also the appearance of the Trinity in the New Testament : Jesus (being baptized), the Holy Ghost (in the form of a dove) and the Father (a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”)
Note : none of these are my original ideas. I have my priest to thank for this.
P
patrick457
Guest
- Status