Two TOUGH questions about Jesus' baptism. Any takers?

[Lepanto]

1. Why did Jesus need to be baptised in the first place? Since He is “like us in all things but sin,” Jesus had no original sin to be washed away by baptism. So what was the point?
2. The Catholic Church only recognizes the Trinitarian baptism formula as valid (“I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”). There is no possible way that John the Baptist would have used the Trinitarian formula, since Trinitarian theology was still in its infancy and had yet to be developed.

 

[NotWorthy]

1. Why did Jesus need to be baptised in the first place? Since He is “like us in all things but sin,” Jesus had no original sin to be washed away by baptism. So what was the point?

What were His words? “To Fulfill all Righteousness”. Jesus did it to show the Church that He was going to institute the Sacrament of Baptism.

1. The Catholic Church only recognizes the Trinitarian baptism formula as valid (“I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”). There is no possible way that John the Baptist would have used the Trinitarian formula, since Trinitarian theology was still in its infancy and had yet to be developed.

True. As evidenced in Acts of the Apostles, John’s baptism was NOT sacramental. It was simply a baptism of repentence and nothing more. You’ll read in Acts where those who had only received John’s baptism, had to be baptized “in Jesus’ name” in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[LilyM]

True. As evidenced in Acts of the Apostles, John’s baptism was NOT sacramental. It was simply a baptism of repentence and nothing more. You’ll read in Acts where those who had only received John’s baptism, had to be baptized “in Jesus’ name” in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

John himself recognised that his baptism was different from those of Jesus - ‘I baptise you with water for repentance, He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire’ - and even says that he needs baptism from Jesus.

In the end we are left with the words that Jesus commanded the Apostles to use - the Trinitarian formula. Surely His commandment overrides anything John may have practiced.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t think the question would be why did Jesus NEED to be baptized, but rather why did he WANT to be baptized by John. There was no need in the sense that we NEED to be baptized.

With that understanding, I am sure there are many commentaries that suggest reasons why Jesus WANTED to be baptized by John.

 

[drafdog]

Consider that his ministry began only after his baptism in the Jordan. Consider also the presence of the Holy Spirit at that event. May it be that this is a precursor to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which was necessary for the apostles before they began their ministries? Perhaps this is an indication that the Christian life is unempowered without the active, conscious presence of the Spirit.

Matthew

 

[Joe_5859]

I recommend reading chapter 1 of Pope Benedict XVI’s great book Jesus of Nazareth. Chapter 1 is all about the Baptism of Jesus.

Many of the posters have hit the main points (the Baptism of John is different than the Christian Baptism, etc.), but I will add a few more things.

Baptism is symbolic of death. Particularly death to sin. Jesus’ Baptism by John, in part, prefigures his death where he also stands in place of us sinners.

Pope Benedict, in his book, speaks on the word righteousness. Scripture says that Jesus was baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness. The Pope says, “In Jesus’ world, righteousness is man’s answer to the Torah, acceptance of the whole of God’s will." In other words, Jesus is saying that John’s Baptism is “an expression of an unrestricted Yes to God’s will."

It’s not that Jesus needs to be cleansed from sin, but it’s a visible, public way for Jesus to show the world his unrestricted “Yes” to the Father.

Also, I’ve heard it said that, in our Baptism, the water makes us clean. In Jesus’ Baptism, he made the waters clean, so that they would, in turn, make us clean.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The trinity was present at Jesus baptism.

God the Father, spoke “this is my Son, in whom I am pleased”

Jesus as the Son, being obedient, commiting himself to ministry

Holy Spirit descended as a dove, anointing Jesus

Thus one could view Jesus’ baptism as being an orindation to ministry.

And, it would not make sense for Jesus to be baptised into his own name.

 

[quasimodo]

Jesus “needed” to be baptized to fulfill the will of the Father that the waters of baptism be sanctified for the salvation of God’s people. He needed to do it to establish the sacrament as efficacious.

John’s baptism was not salvific, was not Trinitarian and did not forgive sins. It was one of several such rites & practices in Judaism at the time.

A tougher question is, when Jesus went out and baptized, was it Trinitarian? Was it salvific? Did it forgive sin? And what of the baptism of the 72 disciples Jesus sent out?

 

[NotWorthy]

The trinity was present at Jesus baptism.

God the Father, spoke “this is my Son, in whom I am pleased”

Jesus as the Son, being obedient, commiting himself to ministry

Holy Spirit descended as a dove, anointing Jesus

Thus one could view Jesus’ baptism as being an orindation to ministry.

And, it would not make sense for Jesus to be baptised into his own name.

Daniel, good call on the presence of the Trinity here. I’ve been racking my brain for some time trying to see if there is any other time that the Trinity is explicitly present in one scene. I know there are several pre-figurements in the OT, but I know of no explicit ones.

Am I correct or are there other times we witness the Trinity in the same scene? And if not, is there anything significant about this fact?

 

[Layp3rs0n]

What were His words? “To Fulfill all Righteousness”. Jesus did it to show the Church that He was going to institute the Sacrament of Baptism.

True. As evidenced in Acts of the Apostles, John’s baptism was NOT sacramental. It was simply a baptism of repentence and nothing more. You’ll read in Acts where those who had only received John’s baptism, had to be baptized “in Jesus’ name” in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

Ok NOW I am confused. If John’s baptism was not sacremental, then it would mean the apostles were not legitimately baptised and yet received Communion and Holy Orders anyway? Furthermore can someone explain where this leaves the sacrement of Confirmation? I thought that people were baptised with water by John, and later the apostles went out and “baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit” (Confirmation). Maybe I got my wires crossed… SOMEONE please explain.

 

[duskyjewel]

Those aren’t tough… Jesus was baptized to show obedience to His Holy Father. Doesn’t He say that right there in the Scripture? Looking it up…

John the Baptist HIMSELF said that his baptism was not sufficient, and that one was coming who would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.

God Himself supplied the Trinitarian formula. The Father spoke, the Son was there bodily, and the Holy Spirit descended as a dove.

The Apostles received their baptism at Pentecost, with fire and the Holy Spirit, directly from Jesus.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ok NOW I am confused. If John’s baptism was not sacremental, then it would mean the apostles were not legitimately baptised and yet received Communion and Holy Orders anyway? Furthermore can someone explain where this leaves the sacrement of Confirmation? I thought that people were baptised with water by John, and later the apostles went out and “baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit” (Confirmation). Maybe I got my wires crossed… SOMEONE please explain.

To baptize (baptizo I think is the Greek word) means to immerse, pour, or sprinkle water on. The Apostles of the Church baptized with water and the words (I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…). But the water is not what saves you. It’s the Spirit and Fire that saves you (the Holy Spirit and His Graces).

If you look in Acts there are two different sets of occasions for the “laying on of hands”:
a) When a new priest is annointed
b) After someone is baptized - This is confirmation.

 

[Joe_5859]

Ok NOW I am confused. If John’s baptism was not sacremental, then it would mean the apostles were not legitimately baptised and yet received Communion and Holy Orders anyway? Furthermore can someone explain where this leaves the sacrement of Confirmation? I thought that people were baptised with water by John, and later the apostles went out and “baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit” (Confirmation). Maybe I got my wires crossed… SOMEONE please explain.

The Apostles could have been baptized sacramentally later on. Actually, I don’t know that Scripture says anything about the Apostles being baptized by John, either.

Of course, God instituted the sacraments, but he is not bound by them. The fact that Jesus hand-picked them may have been enough to wipe away their Original Sin.

This is all just speculation, though.

 

[FCEGM]

Ok NOW I am confused. If John’s baptism was not sacremental, then it would mean the apostles were not legitimately baptised and yet received Communion and Holy Orders anyway? Furthermore can someone explain where this leaves the sacrement of Confirmation? I thought that people were baptised with water by John, and later the apostles went out and “baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit” (Confirmation). Maybe I got my wires crossed… SOMEONE please explain.

The baptism that John the Baptist performed could not have been sacramental because sacramental Baptism is a baptism into the Life, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord. John’s baptism, was not for the removal of Original Sin and being born into the New Covenant; rather it was a preparation for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit through the Death and Resurrection of Our Savior. It is the Christian baptism by water and the Spirit into His Death and Resurrection that accomplishes in the soul (1 Cor. 1:13; Romans 6:3 & 9) what it signifies – a rebirth into Christ, the Sinless One, who signs us with His Cross and the power of His Resurrection.

Regarding the baptism of the Apostles into Christ, this was discussed earlier here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=219376

 

[SilentKnight]

Also, I’ve heard it said that, in our Baptism, the water makes us clean. In Jesus’ Baptism, he made the waters clean, so that they would, in turn, make us clean.

Along these lines, I was going to offer the following image:

Imagine yourself being covered in red (oil-based) paint, submerging yourself in a pool of water. You come out clean. The water is dirtied. Imagine I then am covered in yellow paint. I submerge myself in the water and come out clean. The next person is covered in green, dunks and comes out clean, etc., etc.

Jesus then enters the water clean and cleans the water out by coming out of the pool with all the paint on him, taking it eventually to the cross.

We adore you, O Christ, and we praise you. Because by your holy cross, you have redeemed the world…

SK

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Daniel, good call on the presence of the Trinity here. I’ve been racking my brain for some time trying to see if there is any other time that the Trinity is explicitly present in one scene. I know there are several pre-figurements in the OT, but I know of no explicit ones.

Am I correct or are there other times we witness the Trinity in the same scene? And if not, is there anything significant about this fact?

I seem to remember that someone pointed out,

Acts 7:54-56 54 When they (the Jewish religious authorities) heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him (Stephen) with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

The sence at the baptism and transfiguration is often linked to psalms 2:7 or Psalms 110.

I think someone also brought up,

Matthew 28:19 (King James Version)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mark 12:36
David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”

Its possible the first Lord is God the Father and the Second is his Son.

Luke 1:35
The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Acts 2:33
Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

Romans 15:16
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

In Romans 8 we have both Jesus and the Holy Spirit praying to God the Father.

26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.

34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

From John, we are taught that the even as the Son (“the only begotten”) proceeds from the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son – “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me” (John 15:26).

The three persons of the Godhead are enumerated again and again in John’s writings: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things …” (John 14:26).

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

“According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:2).

“To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ … praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 1,20,21).

forerunner.com/orthodoxy/X0005_4._Trinity.html

 

[LilyM]

The Apostles could have been baptized sacramentally later on. Actually, I don’t know that Scripture says anything about the Apostles being baptized by John, either.

Of course, God instituted the sacraments, but he is not bound by them. The fact that Jesus hand-picked them may have been enough to wipe away their Original Sin.

This is all just speculation, though.

John 3:22 does indicate that Jesus Himself, as well as His Apostles, went out and baptised. Presumably they would’ve been baptised by Him before they did so. Trust me, whatever form of baptism the Son of God chose to use, it would be more than sufficient. Even if He chose not to baptise them, His mere word was sufficient to save the Good Thief. So you can be sure the Apostles were all sacramentally cleansed of original sin one way or another!

 

[Subrosa]

1. Why did Jesus need to be baptised in the first place? Since He is “like us in all things but sin,” Jesus had no original sin to be washed away by baptism. So what was the point?

Jesus’ baptism was the beginning of His ministry here on earth. This event marks the start of that ministry. Also, since previous baptisms did not have the efficacy of cleaning sin, entry into the Body, et. al., Jesus’ baptism consecrated the waters and made them effective in the spiritual sense we know them today, allowing us to become Christians and parts of the Body of Christ.

2. The Catholic Church only recognizes the Trinitarian baptism formula as valid (“I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”). There is no possible way that John the Baptist would have used the Trinitarian formula, since Trinitarian theology was still in its infancy and had yet to be developed.

Where is the question?

It is true that John could not have used the Trinitarian formula, and the baptism of John is not enough to effect entry into the Body of Christ. This is evident even in the Book of Acts…

**Acts 19:**1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

How’d I do?
Sub

 

[NotWorthy]

I seem to remember that someone pointed out,

Acts 7:54-56 54 When they (the Jewish religious authorities) heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him (Stephen) with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

Yes, I am aware of references to the Holy Trinity, as the other verses indicate, and this vision here of Stephen’s comes close. But I still thinkk that the Baptism is the only time we definitely see the Three in one scene.