The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum My first question?

1. Matt 3:15 was the intended verse not Matt 13:15 my fat fingers and this notebook computer doesn't always mesh well.

2. In response to your original statement:My reply was that Jesus had to be baptized because it was a requirement of God to Israel, as Christ, Jesus was to fulfill all that was required of Israel. So he had to be baptized. There was no other option.

3. Your comment here:
Is totally out of left field, where you appear to be getting most of your hermeneutics, unless you were trying for the allegorical/gnostic version of exegesis?

Main point: Jesus had to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness to suggest otherwise is to ignore what the Bible clearly teaches.

Can we have chapter and verse, please?

Matthew 3:13-17 (NKJV)

John Baptizes Jesus

13 Then 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.” Then he allowed Him.
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

John was reluctant to baptize Jesus because he recognized that Jesus was the person who had no need for repentance. But in order for "all righteousness" to be fulfilled, Jesus had to be identified with His people as the bearer of their sins (2 Cor.5:21). Ultimately John's baptism pointed to Jesus, for only Jesus' death on the cross, which He called a "baptism" (Luke 12:50), could take away sins. Jesus' identification with His people included His baptism and death, His anointment with the Spirit, and His victory over temptation.

There is continuity between John's baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4) and the trinitarian baptism instituted by Jesus (Matt. 28:19). Both were symbols of cleansing, and had remission of sins in view (Mark1:4; Acts 2:38). But they were not identical.
Those baptized by John needed Christian baptism as well (Acts 19:5). Christian baptism is a sign of initiation pointing to a relatonship with the Christ who has come; John baptism was a preparatory rite, signifying readiness for the coming of Christ and His judgment (Matt. 3:7-12; Luke 3:7-18; Acts 19:4).

Jesus insisted that John, His cousin, must baptize Him, overriding John's protests (Matt. 3:13-15. In His role as Messiah, "born under the law" (Gal.4:4), Jesus had to submit to all God's requirements for Israel, and identify with those whose sins He had come to bear. His baptism proclaimed that He had come to take the sinner's place under God's judgment. It is in this sense that He was baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15 cf. Is.53:11).


Wes

John's preparatory baptismal ministry, to which Wes referred you* above, was publicly and explicitly mandated by God:

Please note again the clear calling of John by the angel of the Lord, by the word of God, in the Holy Spirit, both from birth and at the outset of his ministry, to do exactly what he did, that is, call all Israel to repentance.

* And yes, people do use direct 2nd-person references with some frequency here, since most of these posts are not a "civil debate" at all, but rather an attempt to encourage and exhort real, individual people to find, turn to, or return to, or not turn away from, the faith once delivered to the saints.

xyz Wes has so kindly fulfilled your request. Very considerate Wes, thank you. Now do you understand Jesus had to be baptized there was no option to do otherwise.

He recognized that Jesus was a person who had no need for repentance. He testified that he did not know who Jesus was until the sign given at the baptism.


The text does not say so, but even if it was necessary then, it does not mean that it would always be so. There is no general command for water baptism anywhere in Scripture.

That is not in Scripture. Scripture says that, to be saved, one must believe and witness to one's belief with one's mouth. That witness can be at water baptism, but witness must be a continuing fruit of the Spirit until death or Christ's return.

In view of the fact that water baptism became to great extent the next circumcision, a work vainly put towards justification, the saints may decide to omit this now empty ritual. John's riposte to the Pharisees and Sadducees lost no relevance for other pretenders in the post-apostolic period and beyond.

Water baptism is nowhere entailed under Mosaic Law. Had it been, John would not have turned away, not just Jesus, but teachers of the Law!

A call to repentance is not command for baptism.

xyz,

Strange how all my English translations of the Bible and both my Greek texts (Westcott-Hort and TR) all have myriad passages which specifically state that believers+ are to be baptized. Whereas you may not be using the same reference material, I'll provide just a few of those passages for your benefit below:

Matthew 28:19 (ASV) "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:"

Acts 2:38 (ASV) "And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Acts 10:48 (ASV) "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

1 Corinthians 1:12-16 (ASV) "Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." (the passage undeniably implies that Christian baptism was universally practiced and is assumed here by Paul)

Secondly, I cannot understand your description of baptism as a "now empty ritual"? The covenant sign of baptism, which replaced the covenant sign of circumcision (cf. Col 2:11, 12) is hardly an "empty ritual" but contrariwise a sacrament of great import and teaching for the Church which has always administered it albeit for various reasons. The apostle Peter probably has the best summary statement concerning baptism here:

1 Peter 3:18-22 (ASV) "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, [even] baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."

In His grace,

The first of these is a general command, but does not mention water; the next two are not general commands; the last is not command. The fact that Paul baptized so remarkably few is indication of his own view of its importance.

You do not understand what John said to the Pharisees and Sadducees?

The 'circumcision done by Christ' is spiritual, in obedience to this command:

'"Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer."' Dt 10:16 NIV

Are we to understand, then, that it is water baptism that justifies?

So are you saying that in light of the Lucan passages, in which the anointing of John is ascribed to the angel of the Lord, the word of God, and the Holy Spirit, John went beyond his office in commanding his hearers to be baptised?

Only when he thought they needed to repent, and intended to repent.

So ....

In view of the fact that corporate worship became to a great extent rules taught by men, may I assume that:

the saints may decide to omit this now empty ritual?

and...

In view of the fact that giving to the needy became to a great extent a loving to be seen, may I assume that:

the saints may decide to omit this now empty ritual?

and...

In view of the fact that public prayer became to a great extent a loving to be heard, may I assume that:

the saints may decide to omit this now empty ritual?

and...

In view of the fact that the apostles' teaching became to a great extent disbelieved, may I assume that:

the saints may decide to omit this now empty ritual?

and...

In view of the fact that the breaking of bread together became to a great extent idol feasts, may I assume that:

the saints may decide to omit this now empty ritual?

and...while we're at it...

In view of the fact that marriage became to a great extent a prelude to adultery, may I assume that:

the saints may decide to omit this now empty ritual?


Wow. It's getting easier all the time to be a Christian!

Are you saying that--apart from the single unique case of Jesus Christ--John made a distinction among the Israelites between those who needed to repent and those who did not? Chapter and verse, please?

How is it known that this case was unique?