Why was Jesus baptized?

Personally, I believe that it is far fetched, that is, unless one is arguing for the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration—in that case it could come in very handy because of the fact that the thief on the cross was not physically baptized is one of the primary arguments against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Even so, it is still somewhat far fetched, especially if you are a Baptist rather than a Lutheran .

 

Martin Luther’s interpretation (see the Erlangen edition of Luther’s Works, vol. 19, pages 2 and 482; vol. 20, page 457; etc.) was that Jesus was baptized as our substitute, and that He took our sins down into the waters of the Jordan River and buried them there. Some have interpreted this to mean that our salvation was secured through Christ’s baptism. According to this interpretation, Christ secured the salvation of the thief on the cross through His baptism. My belief, however, is that Christ secured the salvation of the thief on the cross the same way that He secured our salvation—that is, through His blood in His atoning death.

 

Perhaps to leave us an example of what we should do.

 

I think maybe Christ was baptized to show obedience to God since John the Baptist was telling people to repent and be baptized. Even though Jesus had no sins to repent of, He humbled himself by doing this and this goes along with Jesus humbling himself by leaving God and being born as a baby. It was also the way John recognized Jesus as the Messiah (outside the womb), and it at the baptism with Jesus that God spoke and the HS descended, showing all 3 Persons of the Trinity present together, so to speak.

 

I was doing a little bit of looking at this passage because I noticed something interesting. the "us" in that passage is not capitolized, which means the "us" isn't referring to God, but is in general referring to Jesus and John.

Could this have some bearing on the interpretation of the baptism of Jesus?

 

What then was the purpose of John's baptism of the masses, and what is the purpose of our baptizing believers today?

 

I am trying to post a message here, but there is a technological problem.

 

No, I quoted Richard Lenski to accurately show some of his thoughts regarding Acts 8:38.

I don't think that Richard Lenski was necessarily wrong. He probably knows more about baptismal regeneration than do. [/QUOTE]

Russ! You need to read my posts more carefully.

• The discussion that you are referring to is a verbatim quote from Richard Lenski:

This is emphasized strongly in the addition: "for or unto remission of your sins." It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to en), R. 592, or, as is commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, or better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in eis. This preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys nothing real. In order to make baptism such a symbol, we are told that Peter's phrase means only that baptism pictures remission, a remission we may obtain by some other means at some later day.

• Richard Lenski did NOT say that the preposition in Acts 2:38 is ek; he said that it was eis.

Note: This time I had to transliterate the Greek characters used by Lenski due to technical problems with this message board.

 

My initials are not B.S., and Craig is only a message board appellation. You can call me “Craig,” but to call me Craig B. S. might mislead some folks.

Uncle Russ,

Is it MY fault that I am a theologian and a genius (195, would you believe? That’s close to Einstein, but I’m not so good at math—I have to use a calculator just to figure out my income taxes!).

My secretary and my graduate assistants type out the long quotes from my books (actually, they probably cheat and use one of the scanners in our offices).

Russell, you need to fire your secretary and hire a new one that can type! Let me repeat that, YOU NEED TO FIRE YOUR SECRETARY AND HIRE A NEW ONE THAT CAN TYPE! (That was just for you—I took a position on something!!!).

I asked my graduate assistants to analyze your posts and tell me what your first language is so that I could respond to your posts in that language, and they told me that your first language is Creole. Unfortunately that is not one of the languages in which I am fluent, and no one here at the university seems to be fluent in it either. However, my wife’s aunt’s third cousin is a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Louisiana. Maybe he is fluent in Creole. Next time I see him, I will ask him.

Oh, back to Richard Lenski. I don’t believe that Richard was wrong about baptismal regeneration—I simply believe differently, as I have explained.

I have a grip on what I believe, but I also have a grip on what Richard believed.

I don’t teach in a Baptist institution, therefore I am free to grip whatever I want to. And Russell, I very freely acknowledge your right to grip whatever you want to, even if it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Here at the university we have people who grip all kinds of stuff, and some who simply do a whole lot of griping. Comein’ to think on it—you do a whole lot more griping about my posts than you do gripping my posts. Maybe you should try doin’ more gripping and less griping. Whatever, you are a cool brother and I enjoy beating the air with you (I sorta suspect that my assistant got that last idiom a bit wrong). Anyhow, I pray that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will richly bless you and your family with every good thing.

Have a good night, Uncle Russ!

CBTS,
B.S.
M.A.
Litt.D.
Th.D.

 

Uncle Russ,

I enjoy your fellowship. There aren’t a whole lot of well-educated geniuses like us on the message board. Let's start another thread so that we can massacre it together.

 

Personally speaking I think that Jesus was Baptized as a show of obedience to his own commandments. He never asked anyone to do anything that he didn't do himself.

 

Jesus was baptized to SET AN EXAMPLE for us; that WE should be baptized after being saved. Remember, Jesus participated in all the traditions of Jewish males; He was circumcised, He observed all the feasts and holy days, He grew a beard, etc. BUT...He observed these things in the ways and spirit GOD MEANT for them to be observed...He reminded the Pharisees that on the Sabbaths they still took care of their animals, and worked to rescue their animals or other people if they fell into a hole, etc.

Yes, Jesus set many examples for both Jew and Christian. While here, He lived as a perfect Jewish man, while in His offices as God and The Word, He added a great deal to the Scriptures. Therefore, I believe His baptism was an example for the rest of us.

Now, did JESUS HIMSELF baptize? Those who say He did use the following verse:John 3:22 (NIV) "After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized."


Those who say He didn't use this verse: John 4:2 (NIV) "although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples."

Personally, I don't believe He did. Why? Someone who'd been baptized by Jesus Himself might've gotten the "big head" & said, "MY baptism is better than YOURS, because MINE was done by JESUS HIMSELF!" Also, John 4 seems to follow the time line of John 3 closely.