Why was Jesus baptised Luke 3:21-22?

[Eoghan]

There is a huge difference between asserting and explaining. I cannot for the life of me figure out why Christ was baptised by John. Asserting that it was necessary does nothing to explain it. Apologies if that was what you were about to do.

As near as I can make out it is a baptism in which Christ takes on the sins of the world rather than shed His own??

Luke does not discuss the hesitation on the part of John that Mathew (3:14-15) showed.

Can anyone explain the baptism?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Here are a few things I found:

Matthew 3:13 to 4:11, and Parallels - from Machen

Among those who came to be baptized was Jesus of Nazareth. Matt. 3:13–15, and parallels. Jesus did not need to be baptized for his own sake, for he had no sin to be washed away. But his baptism was part of what he was doing for his people. Just as on the cross he received the punishment of sin, though there was no sin of his own, so in his baptism, he represented the sinful people whom he came to save.

When Jesus had been baptized, there was a wonderful event which was perceived not only by him but also by John the Baptist. Matt. 3:16, 17, and parallels. The Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove, and there was a voice from heaven which said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” This event marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry as Messiah. He had been the Messiah already, and he had already possessed the Holy Spirit; but now the power of the Spirit impelled him to come forward definitely as the promised One.

Machen, J. G. (1921). Section II: The Life of Christ and the Development of the Church in Apostolic Times and in Post Apostolic Times. In Teaching the Teacher: A First Book in Teacher Training (p. 63). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

=======

THE CONFIRMATION OF HIS MESSAGE (Mark 1:9–11)
Verse 9 says, “At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Why was Jesus baptized? That is a good question. In fact, Matthew says John asked it: “But John tried to deter him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ Jesus replied, ‘Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then John consented” (Matthew 3:14, 15). Because Jesus was sinless, he needed no baptism of repentance. But in his baptism he associated himself with us sinners and placed himself among the guilty—not for his own salvation but for ours—not for his guilt but for ours—not because he feared the wrath to come, but to save us from it. His baptism meant the Cross!

My song shall be of Jesus,
The precious lamb of God,
Who gave himself my ransom,
And bought me with his blood.

See and hear the beauty of the moment: “As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased’” (vv 10, 11). What did Jesus see? Literally, he saw the heavens tearing apart. Then he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending into him, as the Spirit publicly entered Jesus for full empowerment for ministry. Jesus also saw the divine poetry, for this same Spirit brooded over the waters at the beginnning of creation (Genesis 1:2).

What did Jesus hear? “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” God was pleased with his Son’s commitment to be the humble Servant-Savior who would atone for the sins of the whole world (see Isaiah 53:11).

Hughes, R. K. (1989). Mark: Jesus, servant and savior (Vol. 1, pp. 24–25). Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

=======

Links:
Why was Jesus baptized? from Got Questions

Why Was Jesus Baptized? by John Piper

 

[Andrew35]

Didn't Jesus' early ministry also retrace the steps of Israel, to some degree? Seems to be something in this as well, as a baptism in the Jordan symbolized, among other things, a renewal of the Hebrew entry into the Promised Land. A "do-over," so to speak. Not sure how this all plays out, but I always felt there was some kind of a connection there.

 

[Jake]

When my pastor last preached on this text, he said one reason was that the baptism was a fulfillment of the requirement for priests in Numbers 8:6-7.

 

[Eoghan]

there was no shaving of body hair so maybe not numbers Jake

 

[Wretched Man]

there was no shaving of body hair so maybe not numbers Jake

Technically and for all we know, Jesus may have shaved himself and perhaps even took a Nazarite vow, which simply wasn’t recorded.... so that’s not necessarily a correct assertion.

But I’m not sure Jake or his pastor was necessarily claiming a categorical connection here - just something with a lot of similarities... add to the fact that Jesus was 30 when he began his ministry which is how old the Levites were when they began their priestly duties (ages 20 and 25 are also cited, though speculated to perhaps be ages at which apprenticeship might begin).

 

[Goodcheer68]

Wasn’t Jesus following the command of God that was given to the present OT prophet. In other words, God through John was having people baptized as a ceremony preparing the people for the work of the Messiah. And Jesus as yet had not started his ministry so he was being obedient to that command by the current prophet. It also was the inauguration of his ministry.

 

[W.C. Dean]

Concerning the idea that Christ's ministry may have in some way pointed to the journey of the Israelites, Moses and the rest of the children of Israel were 'baptized' upon leaving Egypt.

Also, I believe his baptism certainly has something to do with being an appointed priest and prophet.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Technically and for all we know, Jesus may have shaved himself and perhaps even took a Nazarite vow, which simply wasn’t recorded.... so that’s not necessarily a correct assertion.

But I’m not sure Jake or his pastor was necessarily claiming a categorical connection here - just something with a lot of similarities... add to the fact that Jesus was 30 when he began his ministry which is how old the Levites were when they began their priestly duties (ages 20 and 25 are also cited, though speculated to perhaps be ages at which apprenticeship might begin).

"The son of man came eating and drinking"

 

[Eyedoc84]

I am of the opinion that “to fulfill all righteousness” must pertain to Mosaic Law. Ergo, it has to be the cleansing and anointing of the prophet/priest/king. Why not all the other Leviticus rights? He wasn’t from Levi, but Judah. It was a transfer of priesthood.

I also believe John’s baptism comes from OT cleansings, not the Essenes, nor Jewish proselytize ceremony, nor a new out-of-the blue revelation. He was, as a prophet/priest, preparing people for the coming Kingdom, in which there is a priesthood of all believers.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"The son of man came eating and drinking"

This is a good reminder. Some people adopt the erroneous view: that in order for Jesus to "fulfill" this or that, he had some obligation (so far as humanly possible) to actually DO a particular thing in the way Moses prescribed such-and-such be done. This notion does not take into account the fact Jesus IS the Messiah.

The Nazirite vow was a vow of hyper-consecration for the ordinary Israelite. Jesus is even more consecrated than a Nazirite, more than a high priest, more than anybody. He doesn't need a special vow of consecration, or to keep Mosaic minutiae, or to belong to a certain tribe in order to have that status. He has that status by virtue of his office.

Christ fulfills the Nazirite vow, along with all the rest of the OT prophetic and ceremonial signs, types, and shadows. And no, he doesn't need a ceremonial shave to prove it. What I'm saying is: even raising the question of whether Jesus might have taken this vow, or if he was "properly shaved" or not, mistakes the matter of fulfillment. Jesus is free to choose the manner in which he fulfills the variety of the OT expectation. The critical thing is that either he identifies such-and-such as fulfillment; or it is evident that others around him recognize him by means of the fulfillment.

I think Mt.2:23, ..."He shall be called a Nazarene," (or Nazarite) is just the sort of suggestive interpretation of fulfillment as is required to help us see Jesus for who he is. The fact he spent his childhood in the town of Nazareth (note the assonance) allows Matthew to demonstrate a unique manner by which God shows Christ is already fulfilling the "crowning" or "separation" (Heb. nezer) of Jesus.

It is the case that Levitical service was assigned to be borne from 30yrs to 50yrs, Num.4:3, 23, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable that when Luke mentions Jesus' age (which would also have been around John the Baptist's age--and he was a priest's son) it is the inspired intent for readers/hearers to connect Jesus' maturity to this reference to an apt "age for ministry" listed by Moses so long before.

To speak of the substance, we could say the ancient record was specified because the future Messiah would enter his ministry around that age (and not the other way around). The Levitical ministry was the sign, something less than the reality; and the Messiah himself was the reality to which the signs pointed. Jesus doesn't think to himself, "I have to wait until John is 30yrs old, and starts to minister as a priest; and then I have to wait until my birthday, when I can go for my baptism/anointing."

Jesus doesn't work for Moses. Moses works for Jesus, Heb.3:5.

 

[Phil D.]

I, for one, am skeptical that Jesus' baptism was primarily in connection with being "commissioned" into his role as priest. For one thing, the author of Hebrews very plainly emphasizes that Jesus did not function in the role of priest while here on earth, and as such was not subject to the physical rites required of them. Rather, his inestimably superior "qualification" as everlasting priest was the power of an indestructible life, as shown forth and "proven", I believe, in his Resurrection.

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. (Hebrews 7:11-17)​

​

It is also said that Jesus entered his office as priest, at least in a consumate sense, only ofter he ascended and entered heaven.

...Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. 3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. (Hebrews 8:1-4)​

...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... (Hebrews 9:11-12)​

I really like the memorable phrase Rev. Buchanan's used: "Jesus doesn't work for Moses; Moses works for Jesus." Hebrews 3:5 is a succinct indication of this truth, which is subsequently restated from a specific angle in our immediate context:

They [earthly priests] serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. (Hebrews 8:5-6)​

​

It also seems tenuous to start an inquiry into the specific purpose of Jesus' baptism on the basis of Luke's statement concerning his age. Luke conspicuously includes the notation that he was "about" thirty. If a 1st century Jew were looking to find a direct link to the age for beginning one's service in the priesthood per the OT specification, I think he would be rather discouraged by Luke's approximation. I would nonetheless agree, and this is confirmed in Jewish sources like the Mishna, thirty was generally seen as an apt age for a man to perform various services and ministries, akin to OT statements regarding such. While not denying there's a link of continued thought between Jesus' age and baptism, I find it difficult to read Luke's narrative as intending to make a direct link of purpose. Such a conjunction just doesn't fit the flow very well. (Personally, I think Luke's mention of approximate age may have something to do with orienting the overall chronology of his narrative, though I'm not willing to stake much on this possible aspect.)

Mathew is the Gospel where we find the direct if somewhat cryptic answer as to "why" Jesus was baptized: "to fulfill all rightousness." As such I think it's important to then consider how Matthew uses this theme elsewhere in the surrounding context of his account. This article draws attention to some useful propositions in that regard.

​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I really like the memorable phrase Rev. Buchanan's used: "Jesus doesn't work for Moses; Moses works for Jesus." Hebrews 3:5 is a succinct indication of this truth,

I stole it.

It also seems tenuous to start an inquiry into the specific purpose of Jesus' baptism on the basis of Luke's statement concerning his age. Luke conspicuously includes the notation that he was "about" thirty.... I would nonetheless agree, and this is confirmed in Jewish sources like the Mishna, thirty was generally seen as an apt age for a man to perform various services and ministries, akin to OT statements regarding such.

Well said.

 

[Wretched Man]

This is a good reminder. Some people adopt the erroneous view: that in order for Jesus to "fulfill" this or that, he had some obligation (so far as humanly possible) to actually DO a particular thing in the way Moses prescribed such-and-such be done. This notion does not take into account the fact Jesus IS the Messiah.

The Nazirite vow was a vow of hyper-consecration for the ordinary Israelite. Jesus is even more consecrated than a Nazirite, more than a high priest, more than anybody. He doesn't need a special vow of consecration, or to keep Mosaic minutiae, or to belong to a certain tribe in order to have that status. He has that status by virtue of his office.

Christ fulfills the Nazirite vow, along with all the rest of the OT prophetic and ceremonial signs, types, and shadows. And no, he doesn't need a ceremonial shave to prove it. What I'm saying is: even raising the question of whether Jesus might have taken this vow, or if he was "properly shaved" or not, mistakes the matter of fulfillment. Jesus is free to choose the manner in which he fulfills the variety of the OT expectation. The critical thing is that either he identifies such-and-such as fulfillment; or it is evident that others around him recognize him by means of the fulfillment.

I think Mt.2:23, ..."He shall be called a Nazarene," (or Nazarite) is just the sort of suggestive interpretation of fulfillment as is required to help us see Jesus for who he is. The fact he spent his childhood in the town of Nazareth (note the assonance) allows Matthew to demonstrate a unique manner by which God shows Christ is already fulfilling the "crowning" or "separation" (Heb. nezer) of Jesus.

It is the case that Levitical service was assigned to be borne from 30yrs to 50yrs, Num.4:3, 23, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable that when Luke mentions Jesus' age (which would also have been around John the Baptist's age--and he was a priest's son) it is the inspired intent for readers/hearers to connect Jesus' maturity to this reference to an apt "age for ministry" listed by Moses so long before.

To speak of the substance, we could say the ancient record was specified because the future Messiah would enter his ministry around that age (and not the other way around). The Levitical ministry was the sign, something less than the reality; and the Messiah himself was the reality to which the signs pointed. Jesus doesn't think to himself, "I have to wait until John is 30yrs old, and starts to minister as a priest; and then I have to wait until my birthday, when I can go for my baptism/anointing."

Jesus doesn't work for Moses. Moses works for Jesus, Heb.3:5.

For the record, I wasn’t implying an explicit connection here or that Jesus HAD to do something ceremonial wise to accomplish his mission. I was simply pointing out a possibility and drawing out various parallels.