The baptism of Jesus

[Arphaxad]

Mathew 3:13 Than Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.
14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"
15 But Jesus answered and said to him,"Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Than he allowed Him.

How did Jesus being baptized by John fulfill all righteousness?
Was Jesus baptized in the name of John?

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Jesus is without sin, so why be baptized for the remission of sin? (How would that fulfill all righteousness?)

[Sam]

How many people saw the dove at that baptism? (ref John 1:29-34)

How many people heard the voice that said, "thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased"? (ref Mark 1:11)

Did the disciples who had been baptized by John and then left him to follow Jesus ever get rebaptized by Jesus or by His disciples? I'm speaking of those who were disciples of Jesus during His earthly ministry, not that bunch of Baptists who were rebaptized by Paul in Ephesus 23 years after the crucifixion (ref Acts 19:1-7)

[JTTNMinistries]

Originally Posted by Arphaxad

Mathew 3:13 Than Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.
14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"
15 But Jesus answered and said to him,"Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Than he allowed Him.

How did Jesus being baptized by John fulfill all righteousness?
Was Jesus baptized in the name of John?

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Jesus is without sin, so why be baptized for the remission of sin? (How would that fulfill all righteousness?)

John did not baptize in any formula concerning a name as far as Scripture says. As far as Jesus being without sin, I think everyone on this board agrees with that.

John's baptism was shocking because Jews did not have to get baptized but rather baptism was for proselytes converting to Judaism. In essence to need to be baptized showed that proselyte person was coming into covenant with God. John's baptism and later Christian baptism was demonstrating to the Jews that they were not truly in covenant with God simply because of their birth. I believe one reason Jesus as a man needed to be baptized to show that He was not basing his identity in covenant on only being a Jew but by performing and fulfilling all righteousness.

Just a thought.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Sam

How many people saw the dove at that baptism? (ref John 1:29-34)

How many people heard the voice that said, "thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased"? (ref Mark 1:11)

Did the disciples who had been baptized by John and then left him to follow Jesus ever get rebaptized by Jesus or by His disciples? I'm speaking of those who were disciples of Jesus during His earthly ministry, not that bunch of Baptists who were rebaptized by Paul in Ephesus 23 years after the crucifixion (ref Acts 19:1-7)

Uh Sam, no one saw a dove because there was no dove.

Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

It describes how the Spirit descended, not in the form but in the manner. There was no dove, only the Spirit.

It is describing the attributes of how the spirit descended. It was peaceful, not warlike perhaps like a eagle, it was gentle, not harsh, etc.

[TJJJ]

Another reason that Jesus had to be baptized by John was that John was the last Old Testament prophet and Jesus was becoming the High Priest.

Look back at Moses and Aaron.

Exo 40:12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.
Exo 40:13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Exo 40:14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats:
Exo 40:15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

One purpose of His baptism was that John was washing Jesus for the High Priesthood. Then we see that Jesus is anointed. He was getting ready to fulfill the ministry of the High Priest.

That is why Baptism is essential for us. One of the reasons for baptism is to put us into the area of priesthood.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:

[Arphaxad]

Isn't a disciple of a rabbi baptised with his teacher's/master's name? Another reason why we're baptised in Jesus' name, or so I've heard.

[A.W. Bowman]

So far, most everything stated is "on track".

I don't remember how many Mikvah (baptism) pools there were outside of the Temple, but it is (or was) a goodly number. As noted, there were (are) a number of reasons for undergoing a Tevilah (ritual cleansing). As some examples, after touching a dead person or unclean object, recovering from various illness, and most women undergo a Tevilah on a monthly bases and after childbirth. The practice started as a formal ritual at Mt. Sinai, prior to the giving of the Torah to the nation of Israel - and the practice continues among the Jews of today. In many scriptural references, the practice of baptisms is simply referred to as one of the several forms of "to wash".

Jesus had to under go a Tevilah in order to become ritually clean, prior to taking up His ministry as God's personal emissary (apostle) to the world. No one, except John's disciples, was baptized "into" the name of John (which is different than being baptized into John or into Christ as a disciple, or "the taking on of the name of" a rabbi). Rather, people were baptized in (by, through) the name of the authority in which the baptism is being performed, such as it was "John's baptism".

A Tevilah is performed in the name (authority) of the one overseeing (authorizing) the process. John baptized in his name (authority) as a prophet, for the remission of sins before God, not "into" his name as gaining more personal students (Talmidim, disciples). Paul was glad that he baptized only a few, so no one could accuse him of baptizing people in his own name (authority), or "into" his name, as a rabbi.

When Gentiles are baptized, we do so by the authority of Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:26-29), and we are indeed baptized "into Christ", as both converts to Judaism (in general) and disciples of the Rabbi Jesus Christ (in particular), as noted by another poster (also see 1 Peter 3:18-21).

In the performance of a baptism, no one lays hands on another. The one "performing a baptism" is only a witness of the event! If there is a laying on of hands at all (Acts 8:17) it is done after the baptism (1 Tim 5:22). Why? Because when one lays hands on another prior to a Tevilah, the "uncleanness" of the other is transferred upon the one doing the laying on of hands. Or, in another mode, as when the High Priest lays his hands on the scapegoat at Yom Kippur, he is transferring the sins of Israel onto the goat that is to be led out into the wilderness. The laying on of hands is a serious matter (James 5:14-15, Acts 8:14-17 & 1 Timothy 4:14).

This is a very quick overview and it misses much of the history, spiritual significance, social and religious traditions, and scriptural requirements concerning the how, why, when, and where of a Mikvah and the performance of a Tevilah. It is some of the Torah (Law) that we continue to practice (go through a ritual) without knowledge or understanding. Which, I also confess I am still not well versed in, but I am studying.

I hope this contributes a little toward understanding the original question.

[A.W. Bowman]

This paragraph is very difficult.

Jesus had to under go a Tevilah in order to become ritually clean, prior to taking up His ministry as God's personal emissary (apostle) to the world. No one, except John's disciples, was baptized "into" the name of John (which is different than being baptized into John or into Christ as his disciple, or "the taking on of the name of" a rabbi). Rather, people were baptized in (by, through) the name of the authority in which the baptism is being performed, such as it was will known as "John's baptism".

Let me reword it.

Jesus had to under go a Tevilah in order to become ritually clean, prior to taking up His ministry as God's personal emissary (apostle) to the world. No one, except John's disciples, was baptized "into" the name of John (which is being baptized into John as a disciple, or in "the taking on of the name of" a rabbi). Rather, people were baptized in (by, through) the name of the authority in which the baptism is being performed, such as it was "John's baptism".

In context with the rest of the post, I hope this rework will make more sense.

[Aquila]

I personally don't believe that Christ's baptism was a Mikvah. The full immersion washing known as "mikvah" began around the time of Ezra and was a tradition based off of a Babylonian cleansing custom. It isn't mentioned, described, or commanded by the Torah. It's just another extra-biblical Jewish tradition. Jesus wouldn't have been fulfilling all righteousness by taking part in a man made tradition.

Also, the customs regarding Mikvah were rather strict. It had to be ritually clean water. The Jordan was known for being muddy and wouldn't have fit the bill for the use of Mikvah.

Thirdly, there were three kinds of Mikvah. One was for an initiate who joined the community of faith, one was for ritual cleansings performed regularly before entering the Temple, and the other was a daily washing. If Jesus believed in and practiced the Mikvah custom he'd be being immersed every day as was the very ceremonial Jews. Please note, the washing of an initiate was to be performed with the initiate being naked. We do not read of Jesus being naked when baptized. Also this washing required the candidate to be immersed three times for cleansing.

There's a lot more to this...but I'm convinced that Christ's baptism was not a Mikvah.

Then why was Christ baptized? How did it fulfill anything? First, I do think that age has a lot to do with it. Interestingly, priests under the Law entered priestly service at 30 years of age (Numbers 4:23, 30, 35). But there’s more; under the law priests were required to be cleansed prior to beginning their priestly vocation with water. Here is a description of the first consecration of the Old Testament Priesthood:

Numbers 8:5-7
{8:5} And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, {8:6}
Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and
cleanse them. {8:7} And thus shalt thou do unto them, to
cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and
let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their
clothes, and [so] make themselves clean.

The Old Testament custom in regards to purifying the priests was to sprinkle the “water of purifying” upon them as they stood in or beside basins or running natural water (as they practiced in their exile). I believe that Jesus was preparing for his priestly duties as our great high priest, and was “fulfilling all righteousness” by seeking this purification and consecration for service from John the Baptist. Seeing that Jesus did this at 30 years of age (Luke 3:23) we see the correlation to this custom of preparation for priesthood. At any rate, if this is so, Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly as our high priest by standing in water allowing John to sprinkle “water of purifying” upon him. Many would say that the reference to Jesus coming, “up straightway out of the water”, requires that Jesus was completely immersed. However, it can also be understood as Jesus immediately walking out of the river in which he stood as John baptized him with the sprinkling of the water of purifying.

In this manner Jesus “fulfilled all righteousness”, pointing to the Law. If one believes this, they will believe that Jesus may have stood in the water while John sprinkled him with water or poured water over him with a bowl.

Also consider,

Hebrews 9:9-14
{9:9} Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in
which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not
make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the
conscience; {9:10} [Which stood] only in meats and drinks,
and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on
them] until the time of reformation. {9:11} But Christ being
come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater
and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to
say, not of this building; {9:12} Neither by the blood of
goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once
into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for
us. ]{9:13} For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the
ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh: {9:14} How much more shall the
blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered
himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from
dead works to serve the living God?

Here, these washings are described….

Numbers 19:17-22
{19:17} And for an unclean [person] they shall take of the
ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running
water shall be put thereto in a vessel: {19:18} And a clean
person shall take hyssop, and dip [it] in the water, and
sprinkle [it] upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and
upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched
a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave: {19:19} And
the clean [person] shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the
third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he
shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself
in water, and shall be clean at even. {19:20} But the man
that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul
shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he
hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of
separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he [is]
unclean. {19:21} And it shall be a perpetual statute unto
them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall
wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of
separation shall be unclean until even. {19:22} And
whatsoever the unclean [person] toucheth shall be unclean;
and the soul that toucheth [it] shall be unclean until even.

The purifying element of these washings was the sprinkling of the “water of separation”. Even more interesting is the Greek word the writer of Hebrews uses for these sprinkled “washings”; the writer uses the Greek word, “baptismos”, also translated in the Authorized King James Version as both “washing” and …“baptism”. These sprinklings are therefore “washings” (baptismos), meaning... a form of baptism.

And lastly, there is the prophecy of Pentecost:

Ezekiel 36:25-27
{36:25} Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your
idols, will I cleanse you. {36:26} A new heart also will I
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will
take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give
you an heart of flesh. {36:27} And I will put my spirit
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye
shall keep my judgments, and do [them.]

Why would God place such a strong emphasis on Mikvah... seeing that it is only a later development, a tradition of men?

[Aquila]

What? You guys think that Christ's fulfilling all righteousness was related to Mikvah? Can someone explain how fulfilling a human tradition would fulfill all righteousness?

C'mon guys! I really want to know.