# Was Jesus' Baptism an Initiation into his Role as Priest?



## Phil D. (Jan 12, 2011)

It seems to have become a favorite idea among modern commentators of all theological stripes that there is a significant link between Jesus’ baptism at “about thirty years of age,” and an account in Numbers which states that the Levites were to begin their priestly service when they became “thirty years” old. For example, Dr. Ben Lacy Rose (d.2006) wrote: 

Before any man could become a priest...he must be thirty years old (Numbers 4:3, 47). (This is why Christ’s age at His baptism is given as thirty years in Luke 3:23)...Christ knew His call, waited until He was thirty years old and then came to John to ‘fulfill all righteousness,’ that is, to meet the last demand of the Old Testament Law for a priest before He began His public ministry. (cited in Jay E. Adams, _The Meaning and Mode of Baptism_, 17f; cf. Rowland S. Ward, _Baptism in Scripture and History_, 24f.)​
Rose goes on to state that the theological implication of this supposed connection (and Adams obviously agrees) is that “Christ’s baptism was the ceremonial act of his ordination to the priesthood.” (Ibid.) I have also seen this sentiment alluded to here on the PB.

However, it seems to me that when the information provided by Scripture is taken in its entirety, it actually casts considerable doubt on such a theory. 

First, it would appear that the instructions given in Numbers 4 (c.1500 BC) pertained to an _initial_ census, commissioning and allocation of duties among the three clans of Levites (the sons of Kohath, Gershon and Merari—Genesis 46:10). Sometime after this event—though presumably still within Moses’ lifetime—the Levites were plainly instructed to begin their priestly duties at the age of _twenty-five_. (Numbers 8:23–26) Notably, the description of the priestly services in view are essentially the same in both Numbers 4:3 and 8:24.) 

After David made Jerusalem the permanent site of the Tabernacle—which was soon to be replaced by the Temple—the age for performing these duties was yet further lowered to _twenty_. (1 Chronicles 23:24–29—c.1015 BC.) This reduced age was apparently the general standard used from that time forward. (Cf. 1 Chronicles 23:27; 2 Chronicles 31:17—c.715 BC; Ezra 3:8–10—c.536 BC.)

In addition, some important distinctions were made between the duties and qualifications of priests who were directly descended from Aaron (who along with his brother Moses was a Kohathite—Exodus 6:16–20) and other Levitical priests. (Cf. Numbers 3:5–9, 4:17–20; Joshua 21:4–5; 1 Kings 8:4; 1 Chronicles 23:27–28; Nehemiah 10:28.) Nor were any age requirements ever specifically attached to the former constituency, from which the high priest apparently came. (Cf. Leviticus 16:6–19, 36–40; Numbers 18:1–7, 25:10–13—although due to various intrigues the high priesthood was permanently taken away from one branch of the Aaronic lineage, then represented by Abiathar, and given solely to another, that of Zadok [1 Kings 1–2, esp. 2:35], where it apparently remained [cf. Ezra 7:1–5; Ezekiel 40:45–46].) 

The Jewish-Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim (1825–89) remarked that in apostolic times “there was not any fixed age for entering on the office of high-priest, any more than on that of an ordinary priest.” (_The Temple; Its Ministry and Services_, p.94.) That this was indeed the historical practice is directly attested to by the Jewish historian Josephus, who recorded that in 36 BC Aristobulus (III) became high priest at the age of seventeen. (_The Antiquities of the Jews_, 15.3.3 [51].) 

There is indication, however, that in 1st century Jewish culture males were deemed to become qualified for certain positions of leadership and authority when they reached the age of thirty. (See; _Mishnah_, Abot 5:21; Leo D. Sandgren, _The Shadow of God: Stories from Early Judaism_, pp. 122, 284.) 

Yet in terms of Jesus’ age at his baptism, the Greek adverb _osei_ (_about; so to speak; approximately_) is conspicuously used in Luke’s account. As such it would appear that Luke, as he often did, may have simply been orienting this landmark event within the overall chronology of his historical record (cf. Luke 1:3, 5, 2:1–2, 3:1–2). In any case, such a generalization certainly discourages the idea that he was attempting to establish or, by the same token, accommodate a precise theological analogy between Jesus' age at his baptism and the original age for a Levitical priest’s eligibility to serve. 

In terms of relating Jesus’ baptism to his commencement of carrying out his mediatorial roles, I think Scripture actually points more clearly to its relation with the beginning of his ministry as Prophet (as opposed to Priest or King). For example Luke wrote: 

_Acts 10:36–38:_ *As for the word that he* [i.e. God] *sent to Israel, preaching good news* [euangelizomenos—‘tell (or proclaim) good news’] *of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.*​
Words spoken by Jesus himself just shortly after his baptism seem to profoundly connect his special anointing with the Spirit, which occurred as part of that same event, with the beginning of a ministry of preaching:

_Luke 4:16–21:_ *And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, *​
*“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news *[Greek: euangelisasthai <> Hebrew: basar—bring news or good tidings <> LXX: euangelisasthai] *to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim *[keruxai—announce <> qara—proclaim; read aloud] *liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” *[Isaiah 61:1–2]​
*And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”*​
Moreover, Hebrews plainly emphasizes the fact that Jesus was not a Levitical priest:

_Hebrews 7:13–17:_ *For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”*​
How then was Jesus somehow obligated to fulfill any of the initiatory rites that were incumbent on Levitical priests? It might even be argued that since Jesus was physically descended from the tribe of Judah, the law actually forbade him to undertake the duties of the Levitical priesthood. (Cf. Numbers 1:51, 3:10, 38, 8:14–19, 16:39–40, 18:2–4.) Nor did Jesus perform the ecclesial duties, or presume to displace the rightful role of earthly priests during his life on earth. (Cf. Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14.) Hebrews also makes clear that Jesus was not a priest on earth, but rather only in heaven:

*8:1–2, 4: Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man...Now if he* [Jesus] *were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.*​
_9:11–12a:_ *But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation he entered once for all into the holy places* [i.e. upon his ascension; cf. 8:1-2]...​
It seems a significant if seldom recognized fact that Hebrews is the only book in the New Testament that talks about Christ using the specific term “priest.” (See, however, Romans 8:34, 1 Timothy 2:5–6, 1 John 2:1–2.) As such it is obviously the source that most directly explains the character and meaning of His unique fulfillment of that office. Yet nowhere in that epistle’s extensive discourse on the topic is any theological inference ever drawn from, or even a passing mention made of Jesus’ water baptism. 

John Calvin also saw the significance of Jesus’ baptism at age thirty as relating to his entry into the specific office of preacher/prophet:

But here two questions arise. The first is, why did the Spirit, who had formerly dwelt in Christ, descend upon him at that time? This question is answered by a passage of the prophet Isaiah, which will be handled in another place. “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord God hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted,” (Isaiah 61:1).

Though the grace of the Spirit was bestowed on Christ in a remarkable and extraordinary manner, (John 3:34), yet he remained at home as a private person, till he should be called to public life by the Father. Now that the full time is come, for preparing to discharge the office of Redeemer, he is clothed with a new power of the Spirit, and that not so much for his own sake, as for the sake of others. It was done on purpose, that believers might learn to receive, and to contemplate with reverence, his divine power, and that the weakness of the flesh might not make him despised.

This was also the reason why he delayed his baptism till the thirtieth year of his age, (Luke 3:23). Baptism was an appendage to the Gospel: and therefore it began at the same time with the preaching of the Gospel. When Christ was preparing to preach the Gospel, he was introduced by Baptism into his office; and at the same time was endued with the Holy Spirit. (_Commentaries_, on Luke 3:21–23)​
Martin Luther also connected Jesus water baptism with his ministry of preaching: 

...We observe how Christ the Lord himself...came to John the Baptist at Jordan, just when he wished to commence, and to enter upon that office for which he had been sent, that he himself might go about and preach; and yet he would not undertake it before he should have been first baptized by John. (_Sermon on Baptism_)​
So, am I missing something, or have I misappropriated anything here?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 12, 2011)

Phil,
Personally, I think your caution is appropriate.

I also think it might be unwise to completely dismiss the connection; given that intertextual issues are part-and-parcel of good hermeneutics. The original census, and the age-cut-off that was used, should not be deemed "minor" or "arbitrary," but significant. The fact that an increase in both the numbers of and the duties assigned to the Levites called for a lowering of the general age-requirement/limit should not take away from the initial call. A thirty-year-old is clearly past childhood, past adolescence, and has attained (in a general way) the prime of his vigor and maturity.

If we're looking for connections to the OT, I don't think we ought to dismiss this one with a hand-wave. However, I do think that focusing on the age of Jesus, as though he attained a true "requirement" for his Priestly-office, is not worth maintaining. He was born King (his investiture takes place at his Resurrection); he was ordained a Priest before he left heaven, Ps.110. And the baptism was certainly his Anointing for his Prophetic work, especially.

But it is at the point of his baptism that ALL his work becomes concentrated. More important than anointing to "priestly" office, is the monumental significance of his being *Anointed* at all. This is the definition of "Christ" and "Messiah." So, it behooves us to pay attention to Jesus especially after God has so publicly Anointed him to his three-fold Office of Mediator--Prophet, Priest, and King.

That's my


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 12, 2011)

Interesting thoughts. I may have to revisit a sermon from a few years ago where this was discussed. With John as the last OT prophet it's possible that the greater connection might be to the ceremonial washing before going into the temple -- now done for the last, great high priest. You also have manifestations of the Holy Spirit at significant junctions such as with Mary and at Pentecost. OK, back to munching popcorn and seeing what others say.


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 12, 2011)

Thanks for your thoughtful (as usual) reply, Rev. Buchanan.

I guess what I object to most is declarative statements like, "Christ’s baptism was the ceremonial act of his ordination to the priesthood." That seems an unwarranted assertion. Luke's use of the term "about" also gives me great pause in terms of making such a direct connection - even in theological terms.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------




jwithnell said:


> With John as the last OT prophet it's possible that the greater connection might be to the ceremonial washing before going into the temple -- now done for the last, great high priest.



Interesting idea...


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 12, 2011)

Very interesting observations and comments. And let me add that finally, Phil, we have a thread about baptism in which I do not disagree with you.


----------

