Skip to main content

"The Baptism Of Our Sinless Savior" By Steve Horn (http://christianthotsataglance.blogspot.com/2005/12/baptism-of-our-sinless-savior.html)

Interesting article written by my friend and brother Steve Horn. Brother Steve use to write Sunday School materials.....


The Baptism of Our Sinless Savior!

Jesus Baptism An Official Act For Public Ministry

.
Q. Was the baptism of Jesus an official act? A. Yes, It was an official act as was His temptation and crucifixion.
.
(NOTE: The official acts are those Old Testament requirements that God had ordained for the setting aside of people for the priesthood and other holy offices.)
.
Q. Are Christians commanded anywhere in the Bible to follow the official acts of Jesus? A. No, they are commanded to follow His moral acts.
.
Q. If the baptism of Jesus was an official act are those good people wrong who contend that Jesus was baptized to set an example to His followers? A. Yes.
.
Q. Is there any evidence in the Bible that Jesus was baptized to set an example to His followers? A. We have never found any such evidence.
.
Q. For what reason did Jesus say He should be baptized? A. "Thus it becometh us (John and Jesus) to fulfill all righteousness."( Num. 4:3; Luke 3:21-23; and Matt. 3:13-15) .
.
Q. What was meant by fulfilling righteousness? A. Righteousness among the Jews had always meant conforming to the law, the doing things in a commanded way, now there is no evidence that it meant anything else in this instance. ( Deut. 6:25 ).
.
Q. Was there any New Testament law that Jesus could fulfill by baptism at thirty years of age, or any other age? A. No.
.
Q. Where in the law of the Old Testament is it required a Jew to be thirty years old before he could minister the Holy things? A. Yes. (Num. 4:2-4, 35, 39, 47; Num. 16:8-9; Num. 8:14-15, 21, 22.)
.
Q. Was Jesus to minister publicly in Holy things? A. Yes.(Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Heb.3:1; Heb.9:11; Rom. 15:8) .Q. How old then was Jesus when He was baptized? A. Thirty years old. (Luke 3:23) .
.
Q. What law required Him to be thirty years old before He could fulfill it? A. The law of public ministry, the only law of the kind in the Old Testament. ( Num. 43-4, 35, 39, 47; Heb. 9:15-17)
.
Q. Was the ordination or induction of Jesus into His public ministry different from other priests of His time? A. Not in any essential feature.
.

Q. Could any one perform the duties of a public minister until he had been baptized? A. No (Num. 8:7, 14, 15, 21-22.)

......

John the Baptizer inherited his office of priest from his father Zacharias. It was necessary for a priest to perform baptism, therefore John, being a priest (Lev. 16:32-34) baptized the thirty year old Jesus (Num. 4:3, 35, 39, 47). Jesus Christ then being baptized and officially set apart began His earthly ministry.
……….

The Biblical Way Which Jesus Was Baptized

Q. What mode of baptism was prescribed by for inducting one into Holy office? A. Sprinkling. Num. 8:7.
.
Q. Then if Jesus was inducted into His public ministry at baptism, what mode must have been used? A. Without question the mode of baptism was that of sprinkling.
.
Q. If Jesus had been baptized by another mode, would He not have broken God's law for public ministers? A. Yes, when the law said sprinkle, no other mode would suffice.
.
Q. What did Jesus say about the law? A .He stated that He would not break the law! "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matt. 5:17
.
Q. Do not further acts of Jesus show fully that He complied with the law at baptism? A. Yes, there is no record that He preached, chose apostles, performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, or performed any other part of His public ministry until He had been baptized.
.
Q. Who baptized Jesus? A. John the Baptist. Matthew 3:13-17
.
Q. Who was John the Baptist? A. He was the last of the Old Testament prophets. "The law and the prophets were until John."
.
.
He was also a priest in the regular order. His father was Zacharias, the officiating high priest of his time, and his mother was Elizabeth of the daughters of Aaron. We are reasonably assured that he was circumcised at eight days old, presented in the temple at forty days old, confirmed at twelve years of age, and we know that he was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.
.
Q. If John was a prophet, how did he baptize? A. In the same manner that all other prophets baptized--sprinklings.
.
Q. Was there ever a question raised that John had departed from the law of Moses in his baptism? A. No.
.
Q. Did John baptize publicly? A. Yes, Jerusalem and Judea, and all the region round there attended his baptism. ( Matt. 3:5)
.
Q. Were those who came competent to judge as to what the law was? A. Yes. The Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism. (Matt. 3:7) .
.
Q. Why was no complaint ever raised against John? A. Because he was baptizing just like Moses and all the prophets said he should baptize-- sprinkling people. .
.
Q. If John had been immersing when those Pharisees and Sadducees came to him, would he not have been pronounced an impostor and violator of law? A. Yes
.
Q. If Jesus had failed to do all the prophets said about Him, or had not fulfilled all the law required Him to do, would He have been thought the promised Redeemer? A. "What think ye?" NO!.
.
Q. Since John was six months older than Jesus, and began his ministry six months earlier than Jesus, or when he was thirty years old, how was John set apart to his ministry? A.Set apart by being sprinkled according to Old Testament law?
.
Q. If John was sprinkled at thirty years old, how did he baptize Jesus at the same age? A. By Sprinkling. Note: Would there not be a striking contrast, if John was sprinkled, and Jesus was immersed?
.
.
.
A believer does not follow the Lord Jesus in Baptism. Our baptism is not to fulfill righteousness, but Jesus was under the law and all the law had to be righteously fulfilled. Our Baptism is not to take on a public ministry but the baptism upon Jesus was the “ordination” for His taking upon Him the public ministry at age thirty thereby fulfilling all righteousness."( Num. 4:3; Luke 3:21-23; and Matt. 3:13-15). Righteousness among the Jews had always meant conforming to the law, the doing things in a commanded way. In all investigation completed there is no evidence that it meant anything else. ( Deut. 6:25 ) If Jesus sought to do His public ministry without proper baptism being administered He would have sinned and He would not have accomplished redemption for His people. His baptism was a must for the working of his Holy work (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Heb.3:1; Heb.9:11; Rom. 15:8)

......

Is it any wonder that there was “celebration” and an announcement from the Father within the Godhead! Mat 3:15-17 But answering, Jesus said to him, "Permit [it] now, for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permits Him. (16) And having been baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water. And look! The heavens were opened to Him, and he [i.e. John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him. (17) And listen! A voice [comes] out of the heavens, saying, "This is My Son-the Beloved-in whom I am well-pleased!"
.
Jesus baptism is:

Not baptized for repentance – he was sinless
Not a baptism as our example – we are not to wait until 30 years old;
Not a baptism preparing Immanuel for the Lord - he was God;
Not a baptism for an answer of a good conscience toward God – He was pure and sinless;
Not a baptism for remission of sin – He never sinned.

.
Celebrate my Friends…… CHRIST IS RISEN! HE IS RISEN INDEED! ……. The Messiah has accomplished His work and is at the Right hand of the Father! WE ARE REDEEMED!
.

Q. Do not some claim that it makes no difference which mode of baptism is used, nor as to the age of Jesus at His baptism? A. Yes, but Jesus was under the law and all the law must be fulfilled.
.
Q. Are you glad that our Savior fulfilled all the law required of Him? Q. Yes for Jesus would not have fulfilled the law, if He had been circumcised at ten days old, or baptized at twenty years old?
.
Q. When John the Baptist baptized in Jordan, does that necessarily mean in the river by that name? A. No. The country had the same name as the river. John 1:28 says: "These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing."
.
Q. What did Jesus understand in Jordan to mean? A. When they were near, or at the brink of Jordan, the Jews understood that to be in Jordan. Joshua 3:3 says: "When ye are come to the brink of the water of Jordan, ye shall stand still in Jordan."
.
Q. Did John live at Bethabara when he baptized Jesus? A. Yes, and was there the next morning after the baptism, when he pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God.
.
Q. What kind of water is at Bethabara? A. A spring. .Q. Do ministers ever immerse in springs nowadays?
Q. If John baptized the multitude by sprinkling, how did he baptize Jesus? .

.
Q. Was it a novel scene in Israel for men like John the Baptist to go to streams for baptism? A. No, all priests did so.
.
Q. Was John the Baptist the only priest that ever baptized "in Jordan"? A. No. His fathers and grandfathers had baptized in the region.
......
Jesus’ baptism was to fulfill the Scriptures, God ordained in the law sprinkling, and had by prophet after prophet inscribed the ceremony. To do anything less would have been sin. Jesus would have failed His calling. Suffice us to end here in saying that Jesus DID NOT ignore the very Scriptures He was fulfilling. To God be the Glory!

Comments

Pester Brat said…
I love and appreciate Brother Steve Horn. I posted this article to get us thinking, and because I do agree with the aspect of it, that "we don't follow the Lord in believer's baptism." Indeed our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized for a different reason then we are.

However, while he does have some good arguements to try to support the "mode" of His baptism, I do not think they are conclusive. I think mode is important, but not as important as the timing of baptism (infant vs., believer's). Although neither are salvific.

Here are some of my reasons why I don't think the arguments used for sprinkling Christ at His baptism are conclusive:

1. Num. 8:7 also says that they shaved their whole body and washed their clothes. Jesus didn't do that. Also, not all manuscripts has the Hebrew word for "sprinkle," including the NASB.

2. Lev. 8:6 mentions that Moses "washed" Aaron and his sons. Different Hebrew word that will not allow for sprinkling. It is translated "washed" in the KJV, NASB, ESV, and NKJV.

3. The Priesthood (Levitical) by the writer of the article) and Aaron (by me) cannot be used to support the mode of baptism imo. Jesus was not of either of these priesthoods, but was after the order of Melchizedek.

4. The Greek word used for baptism may not always mean immersed, but it does most of the time, and still cannot support "sprinkled."

5. While our paedobaptist friends may argue that Matt.3:16 (immediately coming up out of the water) does not conclusively support immersion, the same can be said in the reverse, that it doesn't support sprinkling. As a matter of fact, I lean to it being immersion for the very reason of them going into the water. Something not necessary for sprinkling. And I like the following quote by John Gill:
"One would be at a loss at first sight for a reason why the Evangelist should relate this circumstance; for after the ordinance was administered, why should he stay in the water? what should he do there? Everyone would naturally and reasonably conclude, without the mention of such a circumstance, that as soon as his baptism was over, he would immediately come up out of the water. However, we learn this from it, that since it is said, that he came up out of the water, he must first have gone down into it; must have been in it, and was baptized in it; a circumstance strongly in favour of baptism by immersion: for that Christ should go down into the river, more or less deep, to the ankles, or up to the knees, in order that John should sprinkle water on his face, or pour it on his head, as is ridiculously represented in the prints, can hardly obtain any credit with persons of thought and sense. But the chief view of the Evangelist in relating this circumstance, is with respect to what follows; and to show, that as soon as Christ was baptized, and before he had well got out of the water."

I respect my brother, and his article got me thinking, but I don't think his arguments support sprinkling. And I'm curious as whether he thinks this argument lends support for paedobaptism. At this point I don't know for sure if he thinks that or not.

Soli Deo Gloria...

Popular posts from this blog

Issues I Have Been Associated With Recently

The King James Only Controversy : I have been in 3 churches since the Lord was pleased to save me, the last 2 of them as a pastor. The first church was when I was not a pastor, but did teach Sunday School, and preached occasionally. It was a church that used the KJV of the bible, but neither I or the pastor was hardcore KJV Only. The second church was the first church I pastored. For the sake of some long time members in that small church, I used the King James version for sermons, but after I was there a year or two, I began using the NKJV for Scripture Readings. My third church, which is the one I'm pastoring now in Idaho, does not use the KJV. We offically use the NASB for our sermons, and the ESV many times when quoting other scriptures. I know some of my long time Christian friends from Maryland are KJV Only. I am not. I think it is an issue that we can agree to disagree on, but it seems there may be some that cannot. In the not so distant future, I'll post on the Blog why

Christian Discussions and Chem-Trails

What a title, huh? I just didn't want to post these separately :-). This morning as we were sending off our daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren, there was a Chem-Trail right over us in the sky. Have you heard of Chem-Trails? They are chemicals being put in the sky to supposedly help with so called global warming  :-). Sadly, too many people still think this is a conspiracy theory. For those that do, I recommend you just put that in a search engine and see what comes up and just start reading. They come from the exhaust of commercial airliners, but they are not the same as "contrails." Contrails dissipate and follow the plane. Chem-trails stick around. They have certain chemicals in them (Aluminum and Barium are two of them if I recall correctly) and they just add to the list of toxins that our bodies absorb and endanger our health. If more people would pay attention and communicate with our elected officials at all levels perhaps, we could put a stop to this Lord will

"The Pill: Is It Abortifacient?" From Challies.com

Interesting article for your information. First 10 responses included. To see the article and all of the responses, go to www.challies.com/archives/000564.php . The Pill: Is It Abortifacient? Here's a topic I've been meaning to bring up for a while. Before I start, I should point out that my knowledge of the sciences (other than aspects of computer science) is absolutely shameful. I last studied science in my second year of high school and only passed because during the final exam I sat behind and to the right of the class brain and was able to copy her multiple choice answers (I offer no excuse for my behaviour except to say I was unregenerate at that time). So my knowledge of biology and chemistry are poor at best. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that I have no aversion to using birth control. My wife and I have had only two children in our six years of marriage, so you could correctly draw the conclusion that we have employed birth control to space out our children