Why did John the Baptist need to be baptized?

[mizpeh]

Matthew 3:13-15 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

John was preaching about the One who would come after him in verse 11:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

But in Luke 1:15, we are told that John was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb:

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Why did John tell Jesus that he needed to be baptized by Jesus since he had already been filled with the Holy Ghost before he was born?

[pelathais]

My understanding of Matthew 3:13-15 is that here we see something of an exclamation by John concerning his perception of own unworthiness and helplessness to do anything that would "save" himself. I don't think Matthew intends for us to see John's words here as a teaching; rather they are an expression of emotion and faith; a sort of rhetorical statement by John.

John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sin..." (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77, Luke 3:3 and others). John's apparent incredulity was caused by the fact that Jesus came to be baptized by John when Jesus had no sin. Jesus instructs John that His request did not involve sin, but righteousness. Baptism itself alone accomplishes no cleansing (1 Peter 3:21). It signifies the passage into a new life (Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12) when accompanied by faith. Jesus began His ministry with the "baptism of John" and this event was considered pivotal in the nascent church (Acts 1:22). Thus, Jesus' baptism shows us (among many other things) that Jesus had surrendered His human will to that of the Father and would embark upon His mission.

John's only "need" for baptism was would have been:

1) To demonstrate a similar purpose,
2) To signify his own repentance and remission of sins had taken place.

Since John was already on his mission he had no need for the life changing event of baptism at the time Jesus approached him. Whether or not he had been baptized earlier is an interesting question. Having been raised in the household of a Jewish priest with access to the temple, John no doubt had gone through the mikvahot or ritual Jewish cleanings which involved immersion in water.

Whether or not John needed to be baptized (see your reference to Luke 1:15) had either become moot or already been answered by the time the events described in Matthew 3 took place. Unfortunately the exact details appear to elude us. Perhaps John being filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb solves some questions concerning his own sin and repentance. The fact that he was a Nazarite (an Old Testament "holy warrior") from birth would seem to indicate that his own mission and new life may have been coincidental to his natural birth.

But my take on John's words are that they are intended as an exclamation of emotion and are not didactic.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

My understanding of Matthew 3:13-15 is that here we see something of an exclamation by John concerning his perception of own unworthiness and helplessness to do anything that would "save" himself. I don't think Matthew intends for us to see John's words here as a teaching; rather they are an expression of emotion and faith; a sort of rhetorical statement by John.

Thank you, Pel, for your well thought out answer.

It makes you wonder how close to the chest Jesus and John's parents kept what God had revealed to them about these two from before they were born. Did Elizabeth, Zacharias, Mary, and Joseph ever get together at family reunions or feast days in Jerusalem and discuss what the prophets and angels had foretold them concerning their offspring? Or did they keep it quiet? afterall Joseph was made to flee Judea early on to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill Jesus. If they voiced who their Son was, they might invite attacks from others. All this to say, Did John know Jesus was the Christ who came to save us from our sins? He seemed to know that He was paving the way for the coming of the LORD, who without a doubt, John was unworthy (as are we all) to untie His shoelaces. How much more if John knew that Jesus was the LORD coming to save us from our sins, and John's baptism consisted of repentant Jews confessing their sins in the river and then being baptized for the remission of those confessed sins, that John would feel inadequate to baptize the One who had no sin and had come to save mankind from their sins? Of course John would feel the need to be baptized by Jesus and not to be the one to baptize Jesus!!!

Do you think Thomas's exclamation to Jesus "my Lord and my God" was that of emotion like "OMG" or more in the line of declaring "you are my Lord and my God"?

John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sin..." (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77, Luke 3:3 and others).

Does this mean John was baptizing "because" the repentant person's sins were already forgiven or so that the repentant persons sins would be forgiven?

John's apparent incredulity was caused by the fact that Jesus came to be baptized by John when Jesus had no sin. Jesus instructs John that His request did not involve sin, but righteousness.Baptism itself alone accomplishes no cleansing (1 Peter 3:21). It signifies the passage into a new life (Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12) when accompanied by faith. Jesus began His ministry with the "baptism of John" and this event was considered pivotal in the nascent church (Acts 1:22). Thus, Jesus' baptism shows us (among many other things) that Jesus had surrendered His human will to that of the Father and would embark upon His mission.

I get a little mixup in this section and that's why I speculated above. I've always understood that Jesus coming to John to be baptized was to reveal Jesus to Israel as their long awaited for Messiah, yet John seems to know this before he baptized Jesus.


John 1:29-36 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

John's only "need" for baptism was would have been:

1) To demonstrate a similar purpose,
2) To signify his own repentance and remission of sins had taken place.

How would John's sins have been remitted prior to baptism?

Since John was already on his mission he had no need for the life changing event of baptism at the time Jesus approached him. Whether or not he had been baptized earlier is an interesting question. Having been raised in the household of a Jewish priest with access to the temple, John no doubt had gone through the mikvahot or ritual Jewish cleanings which involved immersion in water.

Is it taught in the Law of Moses that ritual cleansings or the mikvah remitted sins?

Whether or not John needed to be baptized (see your reference to Luke 1:15) had either become moot or already been answered by the time the events described in Matthew 3 took place. Unfortunately the exact details appear to elude us. Perhaps John being filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb solves some questions concerning his own sin and repentance. The fact that he was a Nazarite (an Old Testament "holy warrior") from birth would seem to indicate that his own mission and new life may have been coincidental to his natural birth.

Wasn't John under the Law of Moses? How would John have had access to the "new life" we receive by being born again?

But my take on John's words are that they are intended as an exclamation of emotion and are not didactic.

I respectfully disagree with you.

[Sam]

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John
Matthew 11:11-13 KJV

1 6The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Luke 16:16

It is my understanding that John was the last of the Old Testament prophets.
Was John in the kingdom of God/heaven also?

[Scott Hutchinson]

AW let's see The Law and Prophets were emphasized till John The Baptist,then the message that was proclaimed was that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand or near because when Jesus went to the cross,a change was wrought.
The question is that is asked should be asked was John the baptist was a member of the NT. church ?

[jimmyrrs]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

John was preaching about the One who would come after him in verse 11:

But in Luke 1:15, we are told that John was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb:

Why did John tell Jesus that he needed to be baptized by Jesus since he had already been filled with the Holy Ghost before he was born?

Sorry, but I'm going down a side trail.

I'd like to address the HG John was filled with in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

His mother & father was filled also.

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Luke 1: 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Yet in John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

What is your thoughts on the HG, John, Elizabeth, & Zacharias received?

Jesus had not yet been cruified, nor the Comforter sent back spoken of in John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Thank you, Pel, for your well thought out answer.

It makes you wonder how close to the chest Jesus and John's parents kept what God had revealed to them about these two from before they were born. Did Elizabeth, Zacharias, Mary, and Joseph ever get together at family reunions or feast days in Jerusalem and discuss what the prophets and angels had foretold them concerning their offspring? Or did they keep it quiet? afterall Joseph was made to flee Judea early on to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill Jesus. If they voiced who their Son was, they might invite attacks from others. All this to say, Did John know Jesus was the Christ who came to save us from our sins? He seemed to know that He was paving the way for the coming of the LORD, who without a doubt, John was unworthy (as are we all) to untie His shoelaces. How much more if John knew that Jesus was the LORD coming to save us from our sins, and John's baptism consisted of repentant Jews confessing their sins in the river and then being baptized for the remission of those confessed sins, that John would feel inadequate to baptize the One who had no sin and had come to save mankind from their sins? Of course John would feel the need to be baptized by Jesus and not to be the one to baptize Jesus!!!

John 1:33 would seeem to indicate that Jesus' identity was unknown to John. Now, John may have known who his cousin, the carpenter's son was but been ignorant of His ministry. Or it may have been that they hadn't seen one another since infancy - if ever at all. What we can safely infer is that John needed that vision to identify the Messiah to him.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do you think Thomas's exclamation to Jesus "my Lord and my God" was that of emotion like "OMG" or more in the line of declaring "you are my Lord and my God"?

Perhaps it was both. Jesus's reaction was key there - He didn't correct Thomas's declaration in any way.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Does this mean John was baptizing "because" the repentant person's sins were already forgiven or so that the repentant persons sins would be forgiven?

The famous (or infamous?) debate over "eis" (Greek word "for") can go either way, in my opinion. There is some ambiguity here for our 21st century ears. But whatever application you make for Acts 2:38 must be made for John's baptism in Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; Luke 3:2-3; and others.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I get a little mixup in this section and that's why I speculated above. I've always understood that Jesus coming to John to be baptized was to reveal Jesus to Israel as their long awaited for Messiah, yet John seems to know this before he baptized Jesus.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

John 1:29-36 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

It's as Jesus approaches him that John sees the vision and hears the voice described in John 1. Then, the next day John points Him out to Peter and Andrew.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

How would John's sins have been remitted prior to baptism?

I don't know, and I doubt know that they were. All I can conclude is that by the time Jesus meets John in the river Jesus isn't concerned with getting John baptized nor does He demand to see John's "fruit meet for repentence." John seems to be "okay" by this point. I say he got that way by faith in God. I would say the same of you. "By grace are ye saved through faith..." John was saved the same way. Abraham was saved because he "believed God..." That same salvation is available to us today.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Is it taught in the Law of Moses that ritual cleansings or the mikvah remitted sins?

Leviticus 11:32-38 has the principle. A "mikvah" means a "gathering" as in the gathering of the seas in Genesis 1. That passage in Leviticus and its context deals with a sort of heirarchy of what things can contaminate what, and what it takes to cleanse things made to be unclean. Somethings have to be simply thrown out. Other things scoured and rinsed. "But if there's a fountain..." or a "mikveh" - a pool or gathering of water "wherein there is plenty of water..." then this fount could make all things clean.

The mikvehs (or more properly mikvahot) don't appear to have been expressly commanded by Moses. However, in the "just to be certain" mindset of Rabbinical Judaism they were used to cleanse the masses before the Temple festivals. After all, you never know where those people have been; especially the Galilaeans! They were always suspected of taking that dreaded short-cut through Samaria.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Wasn't John under the Law of Moses? How would John have had access to the "new life" we receive by being born again?

You're being too rigid of a Dispensationalist again. You said yourself that he had the Holy Ghost "from his mother's womb."

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I respectfully disagree with you.

Sigh! Of course you do!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John
Matthew 11:11-13 KJV

1 6The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Luke 16:16

It is my understanding that John was the last of the Old Testament prophets.
Was John in the kingdom of God/heaven also?

Ultimately, isn't that where we all end up? After we get poor Abraham out of his own bosom and into paradise isn't he in the Kingdom as well?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Ultimately, isn't that where we all end up? After we get poor Abraham out of his own bosom and into paradise isn't he in the Kingdom as well?

I love it!

[ManOfWord]

Another view point from Judaism is that baptism/mikveh was never a salvational experience. It was for ritual cleansing and it took place and does take place multiple times in the life of a Jew.

Many young men were baptized in the name of their Rabbi to signify that they had separated themselves to the teaching of that particular Rabbi. Too often the Christian church superimposes its viewpoint over top of Judaism to interpret Judaism in its light. It really is to be the other way around.