Christ's Baptism and ours
In the NT, when people were called to be baptized into the name of Christ it was to have their sins forgiven (Acts 2:37-38 and 22:16). But there was much more to it than that. Peter’s central affirmation in Acts 2:38 is not that baptism brings remission of sins but that baptism is “in the name of” Jesus Christ. A faith-baptism in the NT is a confession of and identification with Jesus Christ and all he means and stands for. They wanted forgiveness—as a nation and as individuals they had foundationally sinned against God and wanted it made right. How are they to make it right (2:37)?
[It’s silly at this point to say that they asked the wrong question—“What must we do?” Peter wasn’t offended by the question and those of us that verge on having a seizure every time we get a whiff of what we think is “legalism” are simply off base. See Acts 2:40-41.]
How are they to make things right with God? They must accept Jesus Christ as the one God marks him out to be (2:22-33). And how was this to be done? In trusting repentance they were to be baptized in his name, that is, acknowledging him as God’s, Lord and Messiah (2:36).
But while this is true it isn’t enough. Clear teaching on baptism in the NT (setting aside some texts that may be mused over as indecisive) is a conscious and trusting response by repentant people to identify themselves with Jesus Christ and what that name means.
I mean more than that baptism does identify them with Jesus Christ; I’m saying that in clear NT teaching people who came to be baptized meant to and were called to identify themselves with Jesus Christ. As in the case of Israel with the baptism of John the Baptist so it is with all who are called together from the nations of the world by God through the gospel concerning Jesus Christ. Baptism for Israel was a turning to God, a conscious acceptance of God’s judgement on the nation and a turning to him. So it is with all who are called into the body of Christ by the gospel—it is more than a gift they are being offered (and it mostly certainly is sheer gift), it is a call to responsive commitment. Baptism is not a simple request for forgiveness—it is a commitment to God’s agenda in Christ and his method of gaining his purposes in Christ. Baptism is a God-induced and free response from the sinner by which he commits himself to God and all God’s purposes in and for the world.
And certainly while Jesus Christ is uniquely God’s Son and was the sinless one by holy righteousness, he was called by God to commit himself to God’s creative and redemptive enterprise by being baptized by John. Though sinless and in no need of personal repentance, Jesus justified God’s judgment on a nation that needed to repent—a nation of which Christ was a part—by joining them in a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
In being baptized Jesus not only accepted the Father’s assessment of Israel’s state, he not only identified himself with his sinful family, he also saw that identification as having its place in God’s redeeming action and so he insisted on fulfilling all righteousness.
For the best reasons John might have wanted to debate the matter of Christ needing to be baptized but Jesus saw it as a matter of humble and holy obedience and not something to be debated. For the best reasons John would have turned Jesus from baptism (Matthew 3:13-15) but the sinless One saw it as the will of his Holy Father.
[And in the face of plain and consistent NT teaching why would we turn sinful ones away from baptism?]
What if Jesus had refused to be baptized? Would he even have debated it within himself?
I wonder who first asked the question, "Yes, but do I have to be baptized?"
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.