The Baptism of Christ

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is a minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and has authored a number of books, including (among others) the following: Doctrine According to Godliness: A Primer on Reformed Doctrine (2004), The Coming of Zion’s Redeemer: Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (2015). He was also the joint author of Saved by Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism (1995) and its accompanying study guide (all of which can be purchased at http://www.cprc.co.uk and http://www.rfpa.org).

*          *          *          *          *          *

[Previous section: “Sprinkling as a Sign of Grace”]

The argument of the Baptist for immersion that is based on the baptism of Christ has to do primarily with the prepositions used in the verses which describe that baptism.  Matthew 3:16 says, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.”  Mark 1:10 uses similar language: “And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him.”

      

It is simply assumed, by most Baptists and by many paedobaptists, that these prepositions, “out of” and “up out of,” indicate that Jesus was under the water, as a result of His being baptized by immersion and came up out of the water after being immersed by John.  Gill says:

That this was the way in which it was anciently administered, is clear from several instances of baptism recorded in Scripture, and the circumstances attending them; as that of our Lord, of whom it is said, that when he baptized [sic] he went up straightway out of the water, which supposes he had been in it.[1]

Even a convinced paedobaptist like Calvin believed that Jesus was baptized by immersion and simply takes it for granted that it was so:

              

Moreover, from these words we may infer that John and Christ administered Baptism by total immersion, though we must not worry overmuch about the outward rite so long as it accords with the spiritual truth and the Lord’s institution and rule.[2]

These assumptions are not supported by Scripture itself.

There are several considerations that lead to this conclusion:

      

1. There is, first of all, the argument about the words used.  In both texts, the Greek preposition apo, translated “out of,” is used.  This word is translated as “from” 372 times and “out of” only 27 times in the New Testament.  Note the following table:

The point is that these prepositions do not necessarily imply that Jesus was in the water at all, as the alternative translation, “from,” so clearly shows.   Indeed, the translation, “from,” is preferable, both in light of the fact that Greek has another word better translated “out of,” and also in light of the fact that the translation of apo as “from” is far more common in the New Testament.

      

This preposition, therefore, is not describing the baptism at all and says nothing about the mode of baptism.  They do not imply immersion or sprinkling, and any argument for one mode or the other must be based on other information.

      

2. There is a further consideration, however, in the story of Jesus’ baptism.  It may not be overlooked that He was baptized at 30 years of age (Luke 3:23), by a priest (John was a priest—Luke 1:5, 13), with water, and that He said at the time of His baptism, “thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15).

      

There were rules laid down by the law for the consecration of a priest, all of which rules were fulfilled in the baptism of Jesus.  That He fulfilled “all righteousness” by His baptism, then, can only refer to the fact that He fulfilled the righteous demands of the law.  What law?  The law He fulfilled can be nothing but the law for the consecration of a priest.  A priest was not consecrated until he was 30 years old (Num. 4:3, 47).  At that time, he was consecrated by another priest (Exod. 29:9) and was consecrated by sprinkling with water (Num. 8:6-7).

      

So that we have these verses in front of us, let us quote them in full:

              

All those that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron and the chief of Israel numbered, after their families, and after the house of their fathers, from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that came to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation. (Num. 4:46-47)

And thou [Moses was also a priest—RH] shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest’s office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons. (Exod. 29:9)

Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them.  And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. (Num. 8:6-7)

Christ was not of the tribe of Levi, but was nevertheless called and ordained of God to be the great High Priest of His people.  Hebrews 7:13-17 reminds us of these things:

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.  For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.  And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.  For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

That Christ’s baptism had to do with His work and calling as a priest is evident from the fact that He Himself later made reference to His baptism as proof of His priestly authority.  When challenged by the Jews concerning His authority to cleanse the temple, which was the work of a priest, He made reference to His baptism by John and asked the leaders of the Jews if John’s baptism was a legitimate baptism, implying that if it was, then He was indeed a priest and had every right to cleanse the temple (Luke 20:1-8):

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?  And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?  And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?  But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.  And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.  And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

In fulfilling the law, therefore, Christ could not have been baptized in any other way than by sprinkling, else He would have been breaking the law, not fulfilling it.  As Spencer says, “Not only is there not one shred of evidence to remotely suggest that Jesus was immersed, but such a ‘baptism’ would have contradicted, nullified, and denied all that it stood for.”[3]  Christ’s baptism is not proof, therefore, that immersion is the proper mode of baptism, but exactly the opposite. His own explanation of His baptism reminds us that also in His ordination and consecration to the priesthood He had to keep and fulfil the law.  We ask those who believe otherwise to consider this carefully.

[Next section: “John’s Baptism”]

==========

FOOTNOTES:

1. Gill, Body of Divinity, vol. II, p. 641.

2. John Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John, trans. T.H.L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, volume I, p. 78.

3. Duane E. Spencer, Holy Baptism: Word Keys Which Unlock the Covenant (Geneva Ministries: Tyler, 1984), p. 37.