Why John Baptized Jesus

One of the puzzling things about the Gospel records of Jesus’ life is the purpose of his baptism by John. It is customary to understand it as the way he identified with his sinful people. Since he had never sinned, he did not need to repent personally and so being subject to John’s “baptism of repentance” had to serve a different purpose for Jesus when compared with the rest of the nation. One of the supports for this interpretation is the discussion between John and Jesus, recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. When Jesus comes to be baptized John says he ought to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way about. It is Jesus’ answer that interpreters use to describe his baptism as covenantal in nature, and designed to unite him to sinful Israel.

John comment recognizes Jesus’ did not need his baptism so that when Jesus says to him: “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” it seems natural to assume Jesus’ baptism represents the union of  Messiah and his people in order to effect their redemption from bondage to sin. Further support comes from the question Jesus asks of his disciples, James and John “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Jesus clearly intended them to answer that they could not. One difficulty with the identify-with-his-sinful-people interpretation is that there is nothing in Matthew’s record to explain what Jesus meant by “fulfill[ing] all righteousness.”

A further interpretive problem is the way Jesus responds to those who challenge his authority, specifically when he chased the money-changers out of the temple (in Luke 20 and Matthew 21, for example). He asks his challengers whether God or man was the source of John’s baptism which hardly seems to answer their questions. It almost seems as if he used one of their own tactics; raising the matter only to silence their objection by their fear of the people. As leaders of the people they had the right to ask the question so there should have been an answer made — which the parables supplied. We have to wonder, then, what was the purpose of the question?

If we accept the baptism was merely to identify Jesus with his fallen people, would acknowledging John’s baptism was from God impart the necessary authority for Jesus’ actions? Why, then, would they want to insist that it was from man? Would answering either way have added to, or detracted from, Jesus’ authority? That such an interpretation does not provide a truly satisfactory answer to those questions leads us to wonder if he really did ask the question only to distract and silence? It is true that Jesus was able to use irony and sarcasm effectively but surely there was a more direct aim to his question than that.

Now there are some things for which we have no answers. If all four Gospels record an event, however, it has to be significant. To their credit, all who deal with the matter have tried to make sure we note the event as significant.  Given that both Matthew and Luke begin the record of of the life and ministry of the Lord with his birth of a virgin we might also ask why Mark describes the beginning of his Gospel by referring to Jesus’ baptism. While the common answer, that it was the beginning of his public ministry, is acceptable (in the absence of other evidence) I do believe there is a better answer. We will go into more detail later but we contend that Mark shows evidence of Christ’s authority so we can lay a solid foundation for the good news that follows. It is an introduction well worth the statement in verse 1 — “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” That evidence if we are correct in our assessment makes us see Mark’s introduction is still abrupt but it does provide us with a satisfying view of both the person of the Messiah and his credentials through whom the gospel is to be realized.

The next few posts are intended to show how the common interpretation of Jesus’ baptism introduces some difficulties, contingent on that approach, which are removed by a better understanding of John’s role in redemption history.