Why did John baptize Christ?
John Gill makes an interesting comment about Jesus’ visit on this occasion. “It appears from hence, that John knew Christ before he baptized him, and before he saw the Spirit descending and abiding on him.” But when was that John recognized Christ and how did it come about? In John 1:33 the Baptist says, “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.” Gill says that John’s recognition of Christ was not based on their kinship, or by any previous conversation that they had, but rather upon immediate, divine revelation. As this Galilean traveler approach him, the Holy Spirit told John that this was the Messiah. And based upon that information, John argued against Jesus’ baptism. Then after he had relented, and when he immersed our Saviour, John saw the Holy Spirit and heard the voice of the Father, confirming that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.
I think that we can understand John’s reluctance and his argument. There is no question that the Lord Jesus was infinitely superior and more important than John. But that didn’t do away with the fact that John had been sent by God to baptize. “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” The same came with a very special commission, which among other things, was to immerse repentant souls in the Name of the Lord. It was John’s commission to baptize; it was his duty. When the Saviour insisted, it became an act of obedience for John to immerse Christ.
Turning that around, why did John baptize Christ? Because it would have been disobedience for not to do so. There is a lesson, coming from a far greater man than any of us. John obeyed the command of God and Christ.
In that regard consider that in this case John didn’t demand any of the fruits of repentance. He didn’t insist on a week, or a month, for observation and doctrinal inspection. The Holy Spirit convinced the baptizer that the Baptizee was worthy of this ordinance – immediately.
Additionally, why did John baptize Christ? Well, as the Lord Jesus put it…
This is, without a doubt, a difficult statement, depending on the interpreter’s point of view. For example, some wicked-hearted man, might say that this proves that Jesus’ righteousness was less than perfect. Some heretics might go on to declare that this was proof that baptism is a part of salvation. They might say that if nothing more, it completed that which was lacking – first in Christ and then in a believing, repenting sinner. But that, of course, has to be faulty thinking. To imply that the righteousness – the holiness – of the Son of God was somehow faulty is heresy of the highest order. Not only did Christ never sin, nor could He ever sin, He has always been absolutely perfect in every possible way.
I think that the doorway to our understanding of this statement hangs upon two hinges. The first is that tiny pronoun “us.” Why didn’t the Lord say, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh ME to fulfil all righteousness”? It was because this obedience was primarily about John, and only secondarily about Christ. This baptism, as do all baptisms, involved two people. Whether or not this righteousness was fulfilled was dependent upon John. Jesus’ use of the word “us” was an editorial use, more specifically referring to John.
In the Fourth Gospel, we are told – “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.” And later in the same chapter John said, “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.” We have said that John’s primary MESSAGE was – “Repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” While that is true, it might also be said that John’s primary MINISTRY was to point out the King. And the exclamation mark on that task was when the Holy Spirit visibly descend upon the Saviour, and the voice of the Father was heard from Heaven. Apparently John had been previously told that this exclamation mark would be made at Jesus’ baptism. John must baptize Christ in order to complete the Lord’s will – to fulfill all righteousness.
The second hinge to understanding this verse relates to the word “righteousness.” The Greek doesn’t help us because the word is always translated this way. The question is whether or not we understand the definition. Here is James Strong’s definition of the Greek word…. “Dikaiosune (dik-ah-yos-oo’-nay), translated righteousness 92 times out of 92 occurrences. In a broad sense: the state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God.” It is only in righteousness that any man is accepted before God. Obviously we need the imputed righteousness of Christ, because our human righteousness is corrupt. If John’s commission was to baptize the Saviour, and for whatever reason – humility, fear, or pride – he refused to do his duty, he would have failed to fulfil all righteousness. It would certainly have reflected upon Christ, but it was not Jesus’ righteous which was in question.
Having said that, there is something else about this which ought to be considered. John was sent by God to baptize. Christ Jesus later asked the question – “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” It was not a rhetorical question – it had an appropriate response, but the Jews refused to answer. John was sent by God to baptize; he was the only man on earth with that divine commission.
We seem to be a diminishing body of people in the world today, but this church has always believed in the importance of divine authority. Only groups of Christians with divine authority can rightly call themselves “churches of Christ.” Only churches of Christ have a divine right to observe the ordinances, or evangelize the world, or teach all things as Christ has taught us. And that includes the authority to baptize.
We believe that, as expressed in the so-called “Great Commission,” the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, gave to His church authority to baptize. Without diminishing the personal authority, dignity and deity of Christ, where did He get His authority to baptize? Might he be argued that since John was the only man on earth authorized to baptize, and he baptized Christ, that he was passing his authority onto the Lord Jesus, who then passed it on to His church? I realize that this will give some people an excuse to say that anyone who has been baptized, has authority to baptize other, but I still don’t agree. The fact remains that Christ passed His authority on to His church, not to a bunch of unorganized disciples. You could say that Christ narrowed it down and made sure that this authority was confined to His church. Going back to John’s baptism of Jesus, wasn’t John fulfilling all righteousness in giving to the Messiah the authority which God the Father had given to him?
If John had flatly and permanently refused to baptize Christ, that two-fold declaration of Jesus would not have occurred. This baptism was necessary to fulfill all righteousness – to complete the will of God in this regard. This baptism was necessary for the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah. This ordinance was part of the plan for the inauguration of the King of kings.