Did Jesus baptize John the Baptist?

[convicted1]

Now, I am not a believer in this, but I know some who believe that Jesus did, indeed, baptize John. Anyone on here believe this, or know some who do?

I have never read into any of the texts that prove that Jesus baptized John, btw.

 

[Amy.G]

Now, I am not a believer in this, but I know some who believe that Jesus did, indeed, baptize John. Anyone on here believe this, or know some who do?

I have never read into any of the texts that prove that Jesus baptized John, btw.

Interesting. To be honest, I've never thought about it til now. I would say John was baptized by the Holy Spirit while in the womb. So my answer is yes, he was baptized, but not with water.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

 

[Jerome]

Yet John confesses in Matthew 3:14, "I have need to be baptized of thee".

 

[Scarlett O.]

Now, I am not a believer in this, but I know some who believe that Jesus did, indeed, baptize John. Anyone on here believe this, or know some who do?

I have never read into any of the texts that prove that Jesus baptized John, btw.

I agree with Amy. Jerome, I think that John was telling Jesus that he didn't feel worthy to baptize Him and that the baptizing should be the other way around because of who John as and who Jesus was. I don't think John was requesting a literal baptism.

I also like this comment from thywordistruth.com.

Can you tell me who baptized John the Baptist?

The Answer: The short answer is “No.” The Bible does not say who baptized John and any other answer would be pure speculation. As a matter of fact, there is no record of John’s being baptized at all. John was the divinely appointed forerunner of Christ. Malachi 3:1; 4:5-6; Matthew 10:17-13. His baptism was from God. Matthew 21:24-26. There is no reason to believe that the divinely prophesied and appointed forerunner needed to receive the baptism that he was sent to administer.

 

[Mark_13]

Can you tell me who baptized John the Baptist?

The Answer: The short answer is “No.” The Bible does not say who baptized John and any other answer would be pure speculation. As a matter of fact, there is no record of John’s being baptized at all. John was the divinely appointed forerunner of Christ. Malachi 3:1; 4:5-6; Matthew 10:17-13. His baptism was from God. Matthew 21:24-26. There is no reason to believe that the divinely prophesied and appointed forerunner needed to receive the baptism that he was sent to administer.

Oddly overstated, in that even Jesus evidently "needed" to be baptized, and by John, but John the Baptist himself didn't "need" it - and after he himself tells Jesus he needs to be baptized? Sure, we don't know that John was baptized (and why its crucial to determine escapes me) but saying there is no reason to believe it is inaccurate. (Would be ironic to say the least though if the original baptizer never got baptized himself. (This issue is so much more crucial than the Calvinism/Armenianism debate - why can't this be debated for the next several months.)

 

[convicted1]

Thanks for the replies. As I stated earlier, I can pull nothing from the texts that shows that Jesus baptized John. I know of only three people who believe this, and one of them is now deceased.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Oddly overstated, in that even Jesus evidently "needed" to be baptized, and by John, but John the Baptist himself didn't "need" it - and after he himself tells Jesus he needs to be baptized? Sure, we don't know that John was baptized (and why its crucial to determine escapes me) but saying there is no reason to believe it is inaccurate. (Would be ironic to say the least though if the original baptizer never got baptized himself. (This issue is so much more crucial than the Calvinism/Armenianism debate - why can't this be debated for the next several months.)

Yes, Jesus “needed” to be baptized. Why? He wasn’t a sinner and didn’t need to repent. That was not the need. He was not lacking in anything. So that was not the need. So what purpose did it serve?

• He demonstrated a public commitment to obeying the will of the Father and beginning His public ministry.
• It allowed for John the Baptist to publicly declare that that Jesus was the man that he had been talking about all this time. He had shouting, “Prepare ye the way of the LORD!” This was the best opportunity to disclose who he was talking about.
• It gave a public opportunity for God, Himself, along with the Holy Spirit, to recognize Jesus as Messiah.
• People were beginning to believe and believed for a long time that John was the Messiah and many later believed that Jesus was John the Baptist come back. This setting showed that they were two separate individuals.
• Jesus, Himself, said that His own baptism fulfilled all righteous.

No, John the Baptist did not “need” the water baptism of repentance. Was he a sinner? Yes. In need of repentance? Yes. Then why didn’t he undergo a water baptism that we know of?

• He had a Holy Ghost baptism in his mother’s womb.
• The angel, who prophesied to Zachariah about John’s birth, said that John would go forth in the “spirit and power of Elijah”. Jesus even told people who were asking Him if HE were Elijah that Elijah has already come back and that they missed him (speaking of John and not speaking of reincarnation).
• John spent literal decades in the wilderness. What did he do there? I don’t know. But I believe that God was preparing him to prepare the people. It was a job he was ordained to do from the Old Testament and from his mother’s womb.

Did John the Baptist need to repent from sin? Yes. He was a flawed human being. I believe, unfortunately with no concrete evidence, that his repentance before God had been taken care of in the wilderness and that when we first see John in the gospels, he comes to the people in the spirit and power of Elijah, making ready the way of the LORD as an already repentant man empowered by God.

 

[convicted1]

Yes, Jesus “needed” to be baptized. Why? He wasn’t a sinner and didn’t need to repent. That was not the need. He was not lacking in anything. So that was not the need. So what purpose did it serve?

• He demonstrated a public commitment to obeying the will of the Father and beginning His public ministry.
• It allowed for John the Baptist to publicly declare that that Jesus was the man that he had been talking about all this time. He had shouting, “Prepare ye the way of the LORD!” This was the best opportunity to disclose who he was talking about.
• It gave a public opportunity for God, Himself, along with the Holy Spirit, to recognize Jesus as Messiah.
• People were beginning to believe and believed for a long time that John was the Messiah and many later believed that Jesus was John the Baptist come back. This setting showed that they were two separate individuals.
• Jesus, Himself, said that His own baptism fulfilled all righteous.

No, John the Baptist did not “need” the water baptism of repentance. Was he a sinner? Yes. In need of repentance? Yes. Then why didn’t he undergo a water baptism that we know of?

• He had a Holy Ghost baptism in his mother’s womb.
• The angel, who prophesied to Zachariah about John’s birth, said that John would go forth in the “spirit and power of Elijah”. Jesus even told people who were asking Him if HE were Elijah that Elijah has already come back and that they missed him (speaking of John and not speaking of reincarnation).
• John spent literal decades in the wilderness. What did he do there? I don’t know. But I believe that God was preparing him to prepare the people. It was a job he was ordained to do from the Old Testament and from his mother’s womb.

Did John the Baptist need to repent from sin? Yes. He was a flawed human being. I believe, unfortunately with no concrete evidence, that his repentance before God had been taken care of in the wilderness and that when we first see John in the gospels, he comes to the people in the spirit and power of Elijah, making ready the way of the LORD as an already repentant man empowered by God.

Another reason why Jesus needed to be baptized was as a sign that was promised to John. This baptism, coupled with the Holy Ghost descending and remaining on Jesus, was his sign from God, that this was indeed, the Messiah.


John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 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.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

This baptism did not make Jesus any more Christ, but was used as a sign to John, that the prophesied Messiah had come to "fulfill the law", "seek and save that which was lost", etc.

 

[Jerome]

Jack Hyles, Let's Baptize More Converts (Sword of the Lord, 1967):

"Who baptized Jesus?" asked a beginner Sunday school teacher.
After a few moments of deliberation little Johnny raised his hand and answered, "John the Baptist did."
"That's right," replied the teacher. "Now another question: Who baptized John the Baptist?" This was a real stumper. Finally, after much deliberation, little Johnny's hand went up again. "All right, Johnny, who did baptize John the Baptist?"
"Brother Hyles did," replied the boy.
. . . .
Johnny said a great deal about his pastor in that little statement. He was saying, "My pastor must have baptized almost everybody because he baptizes so much." He was also saying, "My pastor puts a great stress on baptism and even John the Baptist would have been pleased to have Brother Hyles baptize him.

 

[Mark_13]

Has someone else already printed these:

(Mat 3:13-14) Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?"

(John 3:22) After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.

(John 3:23) John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and were coming and were being baptized--

(John 4:1-3) Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), He left Judea and went away again into Galilee.

(Luke 3:16) John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Another reason why Jesus needed to be baptized was as a sign that was promised to John. This baptism, coupled with the Holy Ghost descending and remaining on Jesus, was his sign from God, that this was indeed, the Messiah.......

Agreed, brother. :flower:

Johnny said a great deal about his pastor in that little statement. He was saying, "My pastor must have baptized almost everybody because he baptizes so much." He was also saying, "My pastor puts a great stress on baptism and even John the Baptist would have been pleased to have Brother Hyles baptize him.

I'm going to give that one a double and one .

 

[Mark_13]

Yes, Jesus “needed” to be baptized. Why? He wasn’t a sinner and didn’t need to repent. That was not the need. He was not lacking in anything. So that was not the need. So what purpose did it serve?

For the record, I do know and affirm that Jesus was sinless - didn't feel I needed to do that for an audience of 50 or so fellow Baptists. But the fact remains that it was crucial to Jesus' ministry, for whatever reason, that he be baptized. And if it was even worthwhile for the Savior of all mankind to be baptized, is it completely without basis for someone to think that John might have been baptized as well (or at least wonder if he was)? The quote you listed that I commented on said that John had no "need" to be baptized -unfortunate choice of words, as John himself said he "needed" to be baptized - by Christ.

In all honesty the long list of reasons you provided for why Jesus was baptized, was pretty much all speculation - reasonable to an extent - but still speculation. In fact it is far more extensive and elaborate speculation than the simple thought that possibly John was baptized.

He demonstrated a public commitment to obeying the will of the Father and beginning His public ministry.

This first one however is not speculation, just obvious and really a non-answer in that we all already affirm that whatever Jesus did was the father's will, including getting baptized. It doesn't explain why God the father wanted Jesus to be baptized

It allowed for John the Baptist to publicly declare that that Jesus was the man that he had been talking about all this time. He had shouting, “Prepare ye the way of the LORD!” This was the best opportunity to disclose who he was talking about.

But there was another instance where the scripture says

(John 1:29) The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

So evidently this public proclamation could take place without Jesus being baptized (so it doesn't explain the baptism).

It gave a public opportunity for God, Himself, along with the Holy Spirit, to recognize Jesus as Messiah.

Interestingly, this apparently happened more than once, and before Jesus was baptized - in John 1:33, John says he didn't even know who Jesus was until he saw the Holy Spirit descend on him (which God told him would happen). But he knew who Jesus was when he baptized him, so he was referring to a previous incident. So evidently the Holy Spirit descending on Christ did not require his baptism.

People were beginning to believe and believed for a long time that John was the Messiah and many later believed that Jesus was John the Baptist come back. This setting showed that they were two separate individuals.

How would John baptizing Jesus tend to make people quit thinking that John was the Messiah. Sure the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus right afterwards, but that had happened at a previous occasion as well.

So, as I say, this is all more speculative than people just saying Jesus might have baptized John. Actually though, I don't believe Jesus baptized John, because those verses I listed in #10 establish that, for me anyway. I won't go over my rationale there, judge for yourself.

Not trying to be overly critical, just engaged in the discussion.

 

[Mark_13]

I have to revise my comments above regarding John 1:29-33. I had a teacher in the past that said it related another instance when the Holy Spirit descended on Christ, as John says there he didn't know who Christ was until that happened, and he knew Christ before actually baptizing him. That's a reasonable extrapolation, but actually, John maybe just meant that he did not absolutely know it was the Messiah until the Holy Spirit descended, and after the baptism.

But really my objection to your list there, is that you're just indicating auxiliary events that accompanied the baptism of Jesus - but they don't explain the baptism itself. Another whole thread should be started just on that.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Perhaps he pulled a John Smythe and baptized himself? Just kidding.

 

[Scarlett O.]

But really my objection to your list there, is that you're just indicating auxiliary events that accompanied the baptism of Jesus - but they don't explain the baptism itself. Another whole thread should be started just on that.

Brother, by the very definition of the word auxiliary, you are implying that the events that accompanied the baptism of Chris DID explain it - at least to a great degree.

Auxiliary details support the main idea. That's one of the basics of reading comprehension.

If you wish to believe that all the events surrounding the baptism of Christ don't explain why He was baptized, that's fine. I believed these documented events all served a great purpose and contribute to explaining why He was baptized in the first place.