Why was Jesus baptized?

[ryanoneil]

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?

There is no provision for John’s baptism in the Torah. But Jesus was definately acknowledging his obedient acceptance of God’s will for him. The whole of righteousness being fulfilled is acceptance of the whole of God’s will. It was God’s will that the burden of all mankind’s guilt would be loaded on Jesus’ shoulders. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners.

This all anticipates the cross. Immerson in the water was about purification from the filth of the past and beginning again. People were confessing thier sins and asking for forgiveness in order to make a new beginning. Jesus’ yes to “bear all rightousness” started with a symbolic death and resurrection. Later, Jesus would refer to his own death as a baptism (Lk 12:50). And Paul would develop the connection of Christian baptism to dying and rising in (Rom 6).

Jesus’ baptism by John is anticipation. He identified with us so we could identify with him. We symbolically die and rise with Christ in our baptism in anticipation of dying and rising with Christ into everlasting life.

 

[Crumpy]

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.

I read an evangelical online who suggested this, and it makes sense to me: Jesus’ baptism, his immersion, is him taking on the sign of Noah’s flood – the condemnation of mankind for sin.

Although God said he’d never use that punishment on mankind again, the sign is preserved in the Jewish mikvah and in the Christian baptism. That is the ritual sign that we deserve death for our sin. But, Jesus the innocent goes into the water to take on the sign of God’s condemnation for our sins.

Recall that John is the son of Zechariah, a temple priest. So, John is a priest as well. So, some OT prefigurement is going on here as well. John is imputing to Jesus the sins of the world, just as the high priest during the Passover festival imputs his sins and the sins of the people to two animals, one that is immediately sacrificed and one that is led out in the wilderness to be ravaged by wild animals. So, too, after the sins are imputed to him (John says Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world), it says that Jesus is immediately led out into the wilderness.

So, too, in our baptism, we die to our old self and are born to eternal life - born again.

So, the symbolism of condemnation and death pervade Jesus’ baptism. God the Father vows never to wipe out mankind again, as in the flood, but the plan is set to send Jesus to die once and for all for sin.

The symbolism of Jesus’ baptism became the reality of his death on the cross.

 

[Simka]

I read an evangelical online who suggested this, and it makes sense to me: Jesus’ baptism, his immersion, is him taking on the sign of Noah’s flood – the condemnation of mankind for sin.

I know that “evangelicals” - well, Pentecostals, for example - are big on the notion of baptism by immersion, so they’ll find some analogy that fits. The fact that baptism in Jesus’ day was not by immersion has never stopped them from making such comments.

 

[Simka]

There is no provision for John’s baptism in the Torah. But Jesus was definately acknowledging his obedient acceptance of God’s will for him. The whole of righteousness being fulfilled is acceptance of the whole of God’s will. It was God’s will that the burden of all mankind’s guilt would be loaded on Jesus’ shoulders. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners.

There are abundant descriptions in the Torah, and in both Old and New Testament practice, of ceremonial cleansings. John’s baptism was just one more example. And we certainly agree that Jesus was indeed acting in compliance with God’s will for Him by being baptized.

But I would assert that, until that moment on the cross when the sins of all mankind were laid on Him and he became our substitute in death … until that moment, Jesus was never in the place of sinners. His entire life was without sin, and while he associated with sinners, he was never like them in their sin … never “in their place.”

 

[mangy_dog]

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?

Boulder is very correct,

Additionally, Jesus shows us His humanity - truly human when He: Is born of the woman; submits to the authority of his parents and is baptized.

He shows his affliation with us when he prays to the Father and teaches us how He prays to the Father - Our Father who art in heaven… He is truly affiliated with us - truly human while remaining truly divine.

 

[Simka]

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.

If Jesus’ baptism was in fulfillment of the requirement for ceremonial cleansing, in consideration of His role as High Priest, then it also says something significant about how that baptism was conducted.

See Numbers 8:5f. Note in particular that the Levites, being set apart as priests, were to be “ceremonially clean”, and in execution of the purification process God commanded Moses to “sprinkle the water of cleansing on them.” In other words, he was to baptize them.

I have no doubt that Jesus and John would have done it “by the book”.

As John the Baptist, a Levite, passed on to Jesus the ministry of High Priest, together they fulfilled the righteousness of obedience to God’s command for the ceremonial cleansing of a consecrated priest, as John “sprinkled the water of cleansing” on Jesus in baptism.

 

[ryanoneil]

There are abundant descriptions in the Torah, and in both Old and New Testament practice, of ceremonial cleansings.

I agree.

John’s baptism was just one more example.

I agree, but it is unique. It is different from the usual religious absolutions. John was prepairing the way of the Lord and telling people to confess their sins because the kingdom was at hand and judgement was coming. That is why all the country of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Something big was happening. In other words, it wasn’t just another example of a repeatable rite perscribed in the law.

And we certainly agree that Jesus was indeed acting in compliance with God’s will for Him by being baptized.

Yes! And part of the symbolism of the baptism was a preview of his death and resurrection.

But I would assert that, until that moment on the cross when the sins of all mankind were laid on Him and he became our substitute in death … until that moment, Jesus was never in the place of sinners. His entire life was without sin, and while he associated with sinners, he was never like them in their sin … never “in their place.”

I agree Jesus was never like us in his sins but somewhat disagree about the time he was associated with sinners. Baptism itself was a confession of sins and the attempt to put off an old failed life to recieve a new one. And Jesus came to be baptized, blending into the huge mass of sinners waiting on the banks of the Jordan. How could he do that?

Because in his first public act he stepped into the place of sinners. John said “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). He is identified as the servant of God who bears the sins of the world. I absolutely agree that Jesus was in the place of sinners on the cross, but he is identified with them before that.

For example, after his baptism, he goes into the desert to be tempted. Jesus is the representative of the new Israel. Israel and Jesus are both called God’s son. The temptations of both Israel and Jesus are preceded by a baptism. Israel is tested for 40 years and Jesus is tempted for forty days and nights. Israel failed its wilderness testing while Jesus triumps. That is what I mean by being identified with sinners. He takes their place throughout his life before he does it in death (and he succeeds where we failed).

 

[Simka]

Yes! And part of the symbolism of the baptism was a preview of his death and resurrection.

On this issue, perhaps more than any other, I couldn’t disagree more !!!

A “death and resurrection” scenario for Christian baptism has only been around for a couple of hundred years, instituted by relatively new denominations that disavow any sacramental aspect to baptism.

That’s not how it was understood in Jesus’ day, or in the early church.

And following that train of thought will lead you to all sorts of other misunderstandings.

 

[ryanoneil]

On this issue, perhaps more than any other, I couldn’t disagree more !!!

A “death and resurrection” scenario for Christian baptism has only been around for a couple of hundred years, instituted by relatively new denominations that disavow any sacramental aspect to baptism.

That’s not how it was understood in Jesus’ day, or in the early church.

And following that train of thought will lead you to all sorts of other misunderstandings.

Please don’t misunderstand when I say symbolism. I believe in the sacramental aspect of baptsim. A death and resurrection scenario for immersion in water was already present at the time of John’s baptism. It was about starting life all over again. Granted, Christian baptismal theology would be explicityly worked out later, but it was already implicit.

**Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-4)

You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:12)**

 

[Simka]

A death and resurrection scenario for immersion in water was already present at the time of John’s baptism. It was about starting life all over again.

Nope. It was about a ritual or ceremonial cleansing … the washing away of sin … which did not require actual washing. As Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, and said they were clean all over. As people who returned from the market baptized themselves and their kitchenware and their furniture. (Mark 7:4). As Nebucchadnezzar was baptized with the dew of heaven (Daniel 4:25).

Since you hauled out the two verses in Scripture in which baptism and burial are mentioned in the same sentence, I presume you consider this establishes a link. Of course, in these passages, Paul was not trying to teach us about baptism, and the thought of immersion could hardly have been on his mind, since the ‘burial’ he was referring to was Jesus’ being laid on a slab in a cave, and the actual ‘burial’ consisted of rolling a stone over the mouth of it. He surely would not have referred to Jesus as being immersed in the cave.

This is hardly the place to argue the merits of immersion as baptism; suffice it to say her, I think you’re entirely off-base. Have you seen copies of the artwork from walls of the caves where Christians met during times of later persecution? Many show two people standing in water, not even up their knees, one holding a seashell or similar vessel, and pouring water over the bowed head of the other. This is how the people themselves depicted baptism in Jesus’ day, and in the early church.

 

[ryanoneil]

Nope. It was about a ritual or ceremonial cleansing … the washing away of sin … which did not require actual washing. As Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, and said they were clean all over. As people who returned from the market baptized themselves and their kitchenware and their furniture. (Mark 7:4). As Nebucchadnezzar was baptized with the dew of heaven (Daniel 4:25).

Since you hauled out the two verses in Scripture in which baptism and burial are mentioned in the same sentence, I presume you consider this establishes a link. Of course, in these passages, Paul was not trying to teach us about baptism, and the thought of immersion could hardly have been on his mind, since the ‘burial’ he was referring to was Jesus’ being laid on a slab in a cave, and the actual ‘burial’ consisted of rolling a stone over the mouth of it. He surely would not have referred to Jesus as being immersed in the cave.

This is hardly the place to argue the merits of immersion as baptism; suffice it to say her, I think you’re entirely off-base. Have you seen copies of the artwork from walls of the caves where Christians met during times of later persecution? Many show two people standing in water, not even up their knees, one holding a seashell or similar vessel, and pouring water over the bowed head of the other. This is how the people themselves depicted baptism in Jesus’ day, and in the early church.

Of course it is about a ritual or ceremonial cleansing but the imagery was there. I could really care less about arguing for immersion, pouring or sprinkling right now. I’m talking about the imagery. You said:

A “death and resurrection” scenario for Christian baptism has only been around for a couple of hundred years, instituted by relatively new denominations that disavow any sacramental aspect to baptism.

That’s not how it was understood in Jesus’ day, or in the early church.

That is just not true. Paul was alluding to the liturgy of Baptism, where the recipient (regardless if they were immersed or not) is symbolically submerged in water as a body is buried in a grave, only to rise again to a new life with God. Baptism joins us to Christ crucified and risen, so that united to his death, our sins are put to death, and united with his rising, our souls are filled with life. And as far as only being a couple hundred years old, Paul was talking that way about baptism almost immediately.

So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. (2 Cor 5:17)

“We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9:9 (A.D. 359).

“This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” Basil, On the Spirit, 15:35 (A.D. 375).

“[T]he birth by water and the Spirit, Himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things He became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to His own by water and the Spirit.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 2:8 (A.D. 382).

“And that the writer was speaking of baptism is evident from the very words in which it is stated that it is impossible to renew unto repentance those who were fallen, inasmuch as we are renewed by means of the laver of baptism, whereby we are born again, as Paul says himself: ‘For we are buried with Him through baptism into death, that, like as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we, too, should walk in newness of life.’” Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, 2:8 (A.D. 390).

This idea is not just a couple hundred years old. Peace.

 

[ryanoneil]

Here is an excerpt from Catechetical Lecture 3 from Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350)

1. Jesus sanctified Baptism by being Himself baptized. If the Son of God was baptized, what godly man is he that despises Baptism? But He was baptized not that He might receive remission of sins, for He was sinless; but being sinless, He was baptized, that He might give to them that are baptized a divine and excellent grace. For since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same Hebrews 2:14, that having been made partakers of His presence in the flesh we might be made partakers also of His Divine grace: thus Jesus was baptized, that thereby we again by our participation might receive both salvation and honour. According to Job, there was in the waters the dragon that draws up Jordan into his mouth. Job 40:23 Since, therefore, it was necessary to break the heads of the dragon in pieces , He went down and bound the strong one in the waters, that we might receive power to tread upon serpents and scorpions. Luke 10:19 The beast was great and terrible. No fishing-vessel was able to carry one scale of his tail : destruction ran before him , ravaging all that met him. The Life encountered him, that the mouth of Death might henceforth be stopped, and all we that are saved might say, O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory 1 Corinthians 15:55? The sting of death is drawn by Baptism.
2. For you go down into the water, bearing your sins, but the invocation of grace , having sealed your soul, suffers you not afterwards to be swallowed up by the terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, you come up quickened in righteousness. For if you have been united with the likeness of the Saviour’s death Romans 6:5, you shall also be deemed worthy of His Resurrection. For as Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world, and died, that by putting sin to death He might rise again in righteousness; so thou by going down into the water, and being in a manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock, art raised again walking in newness of life.

 

[Simka]

Paul was alluding to the liturgy of Baptism, where the recipient (regardless if they were immersed or not) is symbolically submerged in water as a body is buried in a grave, only to rise again to a new life with God.

It is apparent that you and I have radically different ideas of the mind of Paul, when he was writing in Romans 6 about the relationship between Christ and baptized believers … that is, between Christ and the church … which ultimately is Paul’s topic, not the ‘liturgy of baptism’.

Let’s explore what Paul had to say, and let’s have Scripture interpret Scripture.

First, you may recall that the church is occasionally referred to as the Bride of Christ. Jesus is the Bridegroom, the church His Bride. Paul wrote explicitly about that relationship in his letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 5:25-30). This passage is pretty specific, but to be sure there is no misunderstanding, in v.31 Paul quotes from the Genesis account (Genesis 2:24 – God’s standard for marriage); then in v. 32 he confirms the significance of the passage in his context: “I am saying it refers to Christ and the church.”

So in Paul’s understanding, a man and a woman come together in marriage, and as husband and wife they are joined together in an inseparable unity. They’re together in everything, through thick and thin … which Paul then applies equally to Christ and His Church. Through baptism into Christ, we come together in the same way, and just like a bride and groom, we unite together with Him in an inseparable oneness – for better, for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us …

No!!! Not even Death has the power to separate us from Christ! And this is precisely the point Paul makes in Romans 6 when he talks about being baptized into Christ. Our unity with Christ is so permanent that it survives everything, including death. (Not that death is the only important thing, but we cannot ignore the fact that our union with Christ is so all-encompassing that sharing in His death is an unavoidable part of the whole package.)

In his first letter to the Corinthians, written about a year earlier, Paul had more to say about this baptism (I Cor 12:12-27). Read the whole passage for a fuller understanding, but three points stand out:

(1) In this union with Christ, we never lose our personal identity. There is no hint in Paul’s writing that we’re swallowed up by, absorbed into, or immersed into this body of Christ. We are, each of us, separate and individual parts of the Body. We retain our personal identities. (vv.12, 14, 27)

(2) We are baptized by the One Spirit into the One Body of Christ Jesus. (v.13) There’s the same phrase as in Romans 6:3, but amplified for us. It is the Holy Spirit that produces this union. The Holy Spirit, working in and through us, points us to Christ, draws us to Christ, and joins us to Him. That joining process, executed by the Spirit, is our baptism into Christ. Paul says nothing at all about the “liturgy of baptism”. As a sacrament, his comments are directed entirely to the inward and spiritual grace, not the outward and visible sign.

(3) A point that he develops further in Romans 6 is that, if one part of the body suffers, we all suffer. (v.26) In Romans 6, he reaffirms the idea that, as Christ suffered and died, so because we have been baptized into His body, we all suffer and die. His death becomes our death. We die to sin, and the power that sin once held over us; and we die to the old self, and the lusts and passions that once drove us. This all happens on a spiritual level, as we are empowered by the Holy Spirit. Paul is not in the least concerned about the “outward and visible” aspects of baptism … the liturgy of the church ceremony. He uses the outward and visible, the earthly and familiar, like marriage between husband and wife, and a body with many parts, to describe the inward and spiritual baptism into Christ. This is the subject of his continued teaching.

As a sacrament, baptism is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. That grace, that “undeserved gift from God” which Paul tells us is the important part of baptism, is specifically the indwelling of all believers by the Holy Spirit, and our complete union with Christ which necessarily results. Of course, that even includes a spiritual “death and resurrection” as an incidental part of the much larger picture. But to limit the interpretation of baptism to this one aspect exclusively is to miss the major thrust of Paul’s teaching on the subject. He wants us to recognize the full measure of what it means to be baptized into Christ.

And so, in sacramental churches today, our baptismal liturgy is designed as the outward and visible sign, not merely of death and resurrection, but of the inward and spiritual gift, the indwelling Holy Spirit, poured out on all believers.

It was not until a couple of centuries ago, with the advent of denominations that dismissed the sacramental aspect of baptism, and it became merely an ordinance of the church, that the focus then shifted from the gift of the Holy Spirit to “burial and resurrection” as the primary significance of baptism. It was not always so.

 

[ryanoneil]

I agree baptism is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. And I was not trying to limit the interpretation of baptism to this one aspect as the primary significance. God bless.