Why was Jesus baptized?

[Simka]

John’s was a baptism of repentance, but Jesus had nothing to repent of. John naturally wanted an explanation, and Jesus replied that this was an appropriate action “for us to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:13-15). What did He mean?

 

[Boulder257]

Jesus came not only to save us, but also to show us, through actions, how to live. This was just another example of Jesus doing something He didn’t have to do in order to be an example for the rest of us. He didn’t have to do alot of things, but He did them to show his unending love for us.

 

[FCEGM]

John’s was a baptism of repentance, but Jesus had nothing to repent of. John naturally wanted an explanation, and Jesus replied that this was an appropriate action “for us to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:13-15). What did He mean?

Keep in mind that Jesus wasn’t undergoing a Christian baptism; He submitted to the baptism performed by John as a sign of His entry into His public life (and, as the Fathers teach, His entry into the water sanctified it as the sign of Christian baptism).

The baptism performed by John is that it is “a unique baptism in the desert in view of the repentance and pardon (Mk 1:4p). . .The baptism of John set up only a provisional economy: it is a baptism of water which is preparatory to the Messianic baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire,” Xavier Leon-Dufour, Dictionary of Biblical Theology. It was an external ritual signifying an effort of conversion of the baptized (much as many Protestant denominations look upon baptism today).

The baptism of John was the “mikveh”, a ritualistic bath which was a common “rite” in Jewish worship. However, in the case of the baptism of John, he was applying the mikveh in a particular sense: a sense of conversion TO Judaism. When one becomes a Jew (even today, in Orthodox Judaism), one has his head shaved and his fingernails and toenails closely cut - as if one is a baby again; and one is immersed into the mikveh (the ritualistic bath) so as to emerge and be “reborn” as a Jew. This is exactly what John was doing as the precursor to the Messiah.

For 2000 years God has asked the people of Israel to keep faith with His Commandments - and for 2000 years the Israelites had failed to do this. Yet, now St. John comes along preaching a baptism of repentance to prepare for the Messiah. Here, what St. John is saying is: "Okay, everybody! Come on back! Become REAL Jews and truly commit yourself to the Jewish Covenant to which you have been unfaithful. THIS is what is meant by the “baptism of John” - a baptism into Judaism, into the Jewish Covenant - in preparation for the Messiah’s coming.

However, Jesus’ Baptism (the Baptism He instructs His Apostles to perform in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) will do something greater. It will be the Baptism into a NEW Covenant - a Baptism into His Church. The Greek work for “Church” (Ekklesia) means “those who are called out” - that is, out of Judaism, out of the old Covenant of law and into the New Covenant of love. Thus the Church will be that remnant of Israel which, along with the Gentiles, will accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. John’s baptism was not enough to accomplish this. While John’s baptism made one fit to be a Jew (one faithful to the Covenant), it did not make one “born again” into the new Covenant in Christ - just as Christ tells Nicodemus in John 3. So a new baptism was necessary.

John’s baptism, therefore, 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. It is the new and greater “circumcision” that now joins together Jew and Gentile, male and female, adult and babe into the Familial Covenant of Christ.

 

[Simka]

Keep in mind that Jesus wasn’t undergoing a Christian baptism; He submitted to the baptism performed by John as a sign of His entry into His public life (and, as the Fathers teach, His entry into the water sanctified it as the sign of Christian baptism).

Thank you for your lengthy (name removed by moderator)ut. I understand that this was not the first Christian baptism; but I do not understand how all this relates to Jesus and John working together to “fulfill all righteousness”.

Any suggestion that the act was nothing more than Jesus giving us an example to follow is a “non-answer” that completely begs this question. When Jesus said it was necessary for Him to do this, I am persuaded that it was because there was some requirement, some law pertaining to ‘righteousness’ that He and John together had to fulfill.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

A lot of this is in the OT. Fulfillment of prophecy?

Also, Jesus by his actions, allowed us to become ‘adopted’ sons of God.

 

[OchsFam]

In Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit descends upon the water, making them Holy for future baptisms (also indicating a new creation). He was empowering the waters of baptism for Christian baptism, which is our entry into His death and resurrection. This was just the first step in this process that was advanced with His death and resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but the end result is that baptism is now an efficacious sign of the grace we receive.

I guess in simple terms, the purpose of His baptism was to make the waters of baptism holy, set apart for the sacrament.

God Bless

 

[mcrow]

This is going back to OT laws on becoming a chief in the Melchizedek priesthood.

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 3:15

This is the rite you shall perform in consecrating them as my priests.

Exodus 29:1

Aaron and his sons you shall also bring to the entrance of the meeting tent, and there wash them with water.

Exodus 29:4

This is one of Melchizedek’s rules for entering the priesthood.

So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” 6 And he says in another place, “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 5:5-6

"The LORD has sworn and will not waver: “Like Melchizedek you are a priest forever.”

Psalms 110:4

Son though he was he learned obedience from what he suffered;
and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 5:8-10

where Jesus has entered on our behalf as forerunner, becoming high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 6:20

Bringing forward Aaron and his sons, he first washed them with water.

Leviticus 8:6

So, it appears this was done to satisfy the OT rules for assuming the higher priest’s position according to Melchizedek’s rules.

I think was the first public sign of his authority, the next was:

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, 13 with whom I am well pleased.”

Matthew 3:16-17

18 And he is the head of the body, the church;

Colossians 1:18

Every warrior’s boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.

Isaiah 9:5

This whole scene was to establish his divine nature and authority to the world.

 

[OchsFam]

I am not disagreeing with mcrow’s comment, but I wonder if we can apply Aaronic priesthood requirements (Ex 29) to Melchizedek. They are two different priesthoods that would have likely had distinct differences in how they were chosen, especially considering that before Aaron and the Levites, priests were the head of the household so every father would have been a priest.

That being said, there is clearly a connection to Jesus’ baptism and the washing ritual for the Levitical priesthood (even though Jesus was not a Levite).

Interesting insight, I will have to think about that one.

God Bless.

 

[mcrow]

I am not disagreeing with mcrow’s comment, but I wonder if we can apply Aaronic priesthood requirements (Ex 29) to Melchizedek. They are two different priesthoods that would have likely had distinct differences in how they were chosen, especially considering that before Aaron and the Levites, priests were the head of the household so every father would have been a priest.

That being said, there is clearly a connection to Jesus’ baptism and the washing ritual for the Levitical priesthood (even though Jesus was not a Levite).

Interesting insight, I will have to think about that one.

God Bless.

I think Hebrews 5:5-6 and 8-10 plus 6:20, makes it fairly clear that he was intended to be the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, if that’s the case why wouldn’t Aaronic priesthood requirements apply? According to the author of hebrews it was God’s will that He be the Highe Priest “in the order of Melchizedek”, thus it would be logical that he would have to meet the requirements.

 

[OchsFam]

I think Hebrews 5:5-6 and 8-10 plus 6:20, makes it fairly clear that he was intended to be the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, if that’s the case why wouldn’t Aaronic priesthood requirements apply? According to the author of hebrews it was God’s will that He be the Highe Priest “in the order of Melchizedek”, thus it would be logical that he would have to meet the requirements.

Like I said, I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I was pondering. I see the connection with high priest and Melchizedek and there is no question about Christ fulfilling that. What is under question is if the priesthood of Melchizedek is related to Christ’s baptism.

In Hebrews, you have a statement placing Jesus as a high priest (Levitical priesthood) in the order of Melchizedek (no beginning or end and not by lineage). The problem I see that if you start trying to apply Levitical priesthood requirements to the priesthood of Melchizedek, you end up needing to have lineage as well (or why would it stop at just baptism is another way of saying it) which would make the point the author of Hebrews is trying to make moot.

Just a thought.

God Bless.

 

[Simka]

In Hebrews, you have a statement placing Jesus as a high priest (Levitical priesthood) in the order of Melchizedek (no beginning or end and not by lineage). The problem I see that if you start trying to apply Levitical priesthood requirements to the priesthood of Melchizedek, you end up needing to have lineage as well …

Oh, this is good! Thank you, mcrow and OchsFam

We often forget that a significant part of Jesus’ ministry is as our Great High Priest. In Jesus’ day, the High Priest was a Levite.

In the time of Moses, the Levitical priesthood had been established by command of God. All the descendants of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi, were to serve at the altar as priests … from the age of thirty. (Numbers 4: 3,23,30,46).

The baptism of Jesus occurred as a prelude to His public ministry, when he was “about thirty years old.” (Luke 3:23)

But Jesus was not of the priestly tribe of Levi. “He … belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” (Hebrews 7:13,14). Note also that “when there is a change in the priesthood there must also be a change of the law.” (Hebrews 7:12)

Jesus was not a Levite, but John was! (Luke 1:5) It’s as if John was “passing the torch” to Jesus … a Levite consecrating a non-Levite. This would explain why it was as necessary for John to do the baptizing, as it was for Jesus to be baptized.

 

[mcrow]

Oh, this is good! Thank you, mcrow and OchsFam

We often forget that a significant part of Jesus’ ministry is as our Great High Priest. In Jesus’ day, the High Priest was a Levite.

In the time of Moses, the Levitical priesthood had been established by command of God. All the descendants of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi, were to serve at the altar as priests … from the age of thirty. (Numbers 4: 3,23,30,46).

The baptism of Jesus occurred as a prelude to His public ministry, when he was “about thirty years old.” (Luke 3:23)

But Jesus was not of the priestly tribe of Levi. “He … belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” (Hebrews 7:13,14). Note also that “when there is a change in the priesthood there must also be a change of the law.” (Hebrews 7:12)

Jesus was not a Levite, but John was! (Luke 1:5) It’s as if John was “passing the torch” to Jesus … a Levite consecrating a non-Levite. This would explain why it was as necessary for John to do the baptizing, as it was for Jesus to be baptized.

Yes, that’s exactly it.

The way I understand it Melchizedek is earlier than Moses and Aaron and thuis preceded them. His priesthood was not passed down via genetic lineage.

Hebrews 7:11-35
New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Like Melchizedek
11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”**

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. **

 

[ryanoneil]

All the kings of the house of David were anointed by Levite priests, and often those priests were known as prophets as well. John was a Levite and a prophet.

David and all the kings of his line were given an extraordinary promise by God: “I will be a Father to him and he shall be a son to Me” (2 Samuel 7:14). When an Old Testament king was anointed, “the spirit of the LORD rushed upon” that king (1 Samuel 16:13). So Jesus was being washed to be identified with sinners, even though he had no sin himself, but the other ceremonial significance was that he was the “Lord’s annointed” and the “Son of God” (two titles that belonged to the Son of David who reigned as King of Israel).

 

[Mintaka]

Also, David and the kings of his line claimed to have priestly powers (like Melchizadek, King of Salem/Jerusalem) by virtue of being kings anointed by God and kings of Jerusalem. That’s the whole point of all that stuff with David dancing before the Ark of the Lord and publically praying to God and so forth (and even stuff like feeding the Showbread/Bread of the Presence to his men when they were starving). David kept insisting that God had made him priest and prophet as well as king; that’s a big part of his story. (Especially since a lot of times he wanted the lifestyle of a king without the righteousness required by his other roles.)

 

[Simka]

So Jesus was being washed to be identified with sinners …

What is the Scriptural support for this theory?

 

[ILoveTheLordGod]

What was taught to me in my school was that His baptism was supposed to be a mark of the start of his ministry.

 

[tskrobacz]

John’s was a baptism of repentance, but Jesus had nothing to repent of. John naturally wanted an explanation, and Jesus replied that this was an appropriate action “for us to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:13-15). What did He mean?

Jesus, the incarnation, came to confirm for us that we too are the fusion of spirit and matter…in Baptism he modeled this message for all so that we to may believe what we truly are…

 

[Simka]

Jesus, the incarnation, came to confirm for us that we too are the fusion of spirit and matter…in Baptism he modeled this message for all so that we to may believe what we truly are…

Unrighteousness, or sinfulness, is “transgression of the Law” (1 John 3:4). In contrast, then, ‘righteousness’ is full compliance with the law, complete obedience to God’s commands. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul introduced a radical new doctrine when he declared that “now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known”. (Romans 4)

But, as Jesus lived in sinless obedience under the law, it seems reasonable to conclude that on the occasion that He met John, and He said that this was “to fulfill all righteousness”, He had in mind a particular requirement of the law that still had to be fulfilled, a command of God that had to be obeyed … and that He regarded His baptism as the necessary step in obedience to that law. But, what law?

Earlier comments about the law as it pertained to the required cleansing of a High Priest make sense to me. I wonder if there are any other thoughts … ???

 

[ryanoneil]

What is the Scriptural support for this theory?

The fact that he submitted to the rite. He was sinless and had no need for it, but washing was a visable token of repentance and sign of purification.

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. (Mt 3:13-15)

That is what I mean by doing it to identify with sinners. He performed Old Covenant regulations to fulfill and perfect them in the New (Mt 5:17). In other words, he subjected himself to the things that were put in place for sinners even though he was not one.

 

[Simka]

The fact that he submitted to the rite. He was sinless and had no need for it, but washing was a visable token of repentance and sign of purification.

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. (Mt 3:13-15)

That is what I mean by doing it to identify with sinners. He performed Old Covenant regulations to fulfill and perfect them in the New (Mt 5:17). In other words, he subjected himself to the things that were put in place for sinners even though he was not one.

The New Covenant in Jesus’ blood did not start until after His death and resurrection. Jesus lived and died under Old Covenant regulations … for example, His circumcision when He was eight days old. He continued from there, living a sinless life, in complete obedience to the law, to all God’s commandments. That was hardly for the purpose of identifying with sinners! He was doing what no other human being could do. It wasn’t as an example for us, because we couldn’t follow even if we tried.

It’s quite a stretch to assume that identifying with sinners was the purpose of His baptism, without some Scriptural corroboration to that effect. Ceremonial cleansing was a common practice that often had no connection with being a sinner. Jesus makes it clear, as you acknowledged, that He had John perform this rite “to fulfill all righteousness.” That would indicate that there was still another law or command of God that required His obedience at that time. What do you suppose that commandment was?