Why was it necessary that Jesus allowed his own baptism by John the Baptist?

[blaskoman]

As Jesus was without sin, it was unnecessary that he be baptized. Additionally, it was of no benefit to him that Mary/Joseph presented the child to the Temple with their humble offerings.
What is the theological basis behind why Jesus allowed these acts of religious custom to be performed for his behalf?

 

[YoungTradCath]

As Jesus was without sin, it was unnecessary that he be baptized. Additionally, it was of no benefit to him that Mary/Joseph presented the child to the Temple with their humble offerings.
What is the theological basis behind why Jesus allowed these acts of religious custom to be performed for his behalf?

He did not have to do it. He chose to do it, likely so that there was (is) historical antecedent for baptism in the life of Jesus Himself. We don’t know precisely why he did it, but that is our best guess, based on deductive reasoning.

 

[EphelDuath]

Summa Theologiae III, Q39a1

I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because, as Ambrose says on Luke 3:21: “Our Lord was baptized because He wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism”; and, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), “that He might bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized afterwards.” Secondly, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), “although Christ was not a sinner, yet did He take a sinful nature and ‘the likeness of sinful flesh.’ Wherefore, though He needed not baptism for His own sake, yet carnal nature in others had need thereof.” And, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix) “Christ was baptized that He might plunge the old Adam entirely in the water.” Thirdly, He wished to be baptized, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxvi), “because He wished to do what He had commanded all to do.” And this is what He means by saying: “So it becometh us to fulfil all justice” (Matthew 3:15). For, as Ambrose says (on Luke 3:21), “this is justice, to do first thyself that which thou wishest another to do, and so encourage others by thy example.”

Source: New Advent

 

[MichaelHowling]

Something JUST hit me reading this post…

I side with everything the last poster posted on this. I’d also like to add: I wonder if this action of Christ would also be the baptism of allllll others who would not be baptized through no fault of their own…all the other people who are apart of His body through no fault of their own either didn’t have the chance or through ignorance were not baptized.

 

[dee_burk]

As Jesus was without sin, it was unnecessary that he be baptized. Additionally, it was of no benefit to him that Mary/Joseph presented the child to the Temple with their humble offerings.
What is the theological basis behind why Jesus allowed these acts of religious custom to be performed for his behalf?

Joseph was a devout and righteous member of Jewish society, therefore it was right for him to present Jesus in the temple “according to the law”. once Jesus’ ministry began and he died and was resurrected, that’s when HE (Jesus) changed the law of God.

And on the baptism, if Christ wasn’t baptized as an example to future Christianity, would baptism be necessary for us? Christ did as he taught; led by example.

 

[TimothyH]

As Jesus was without sin, it was unnecessary that he be baptized. Additionally, it was of no benefit to him that Mary/Joseph presented the child to the Temple with their humble offerings.
What is the theological basis behind why Jesus allowed these acts of religious custom to be performed for his behalf?

Jesus was baptized to to fulfill the requirements of the law - to “fulfill all righteousness.”

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him. (Matthew 3:13-15)

Scripture is pretty clear on this.

Jesus was a Nazarene. The Nazarenes frequently engaged in ritual purification baths called the mikveh. John the Baptist was administering the mikveh (or baptism)so that Jews could be ritually clean in fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Only those who were ritually clean could enter the temple.

Although he did not need it, Jesus was ritually cleansing himself in the mikveh of John the Baptist.

The same is true of the presentation at the temple. The presentation of a child at the temple wasn’t just to show him off. Eight days was the time for a boy to be circumcised, and thus enter into the covenant with God. Althought Jesus did not need it, he was circumcised, entered into the covenant which God made with the Israelites, and in so doing, he fulfilled the Law of Moses - fulfilled all righteousness.

In doing both, there was great benefit for him. No one could say that he wasn’t a Jew, that he was unclean, or that he did not fulfill the law, and that he wasn’t allowed in the temple.

-Tim-