Christ'S Baptism

[Wants2know]

Hello all, Curious about your thoughts on this. So in the class this week someone raised the question about why did Christ wait until he was 30 to be baptized by John the Baptist. A member was in the class, and he said, "I don't mean to be flippant, but why does it matter?" I thought it was a fair question and promised to research it. I'm not really finding anything on the subject, but as I understand it we don't have much about his life other than the last three years.

[rpn]

I don't think we know. Some speculation? He was about to go through the 40 days and nights of fasting (at which time I think he also had the temple ordinances) and needed to do it in the proper sequence? It wasn't until He was 30, that John The Baptist was prepared to do the baptizing? Age 30 is about the age of Jewish rabbi's and therefore ordinance would have properly been done then?

BTW, do the scripture say he was 30 when he was baptized?

[LeSellers]

t='1209095355']do the scripture say he was 30 when he was baptized?

Yes. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age…” (Luke 3:21-23)

Lehi

[Storm Rider]

A little bit more speculation: 1) When he was a young man there was no John the Baptist there to baptize him. 2) Christ's mission had not yet begun and would not begin until he was 30 3) Christ's purpose was to introduce the gospel i.e. fulfill the Law of Moses, and baptism was a sign entering the Kingdom of God 3) his apostles were not yet called and could not be taught or begin to baptize others.

Fundamentally, it was not his time to begin his mission. Baptism in our day is a sign of taking upon us the name of Christ. The only reason we do it at eight years of age for member family children is we believe they know the difference between right and wrong. It is not a magic number or age.

[mfbukowski]

Hey- he was born Jewish.

That makes him a convert.

[zerinus]

A little bit more speculation: 1) When he was a young man there was no John the Baptist there to baptize him. 2) Christ's mission had not yet begun and would not begin until he was 30 3) Christ's purpose was to introduce the gospel i.e. fulfill the Law of Moses, and baptism was a sign entering the Kingdom of God 3) his apostles were not yet called and could not be taught or begin to baptize others.

Fundamentally, it was not his time to begin his mission. Baptism in our day is a sign of taking upon us the name of Christ. The only reason we do it at eight years of age for member family children is we believe they know the difference between right and wrong. It is not a magic number or age.

Also, Jesus didn't really need to be baptised, but did so in order to set us an example, or "fulfill all righteousness". That was best done when He began His ministry as an adult.

Edited February 28, 2012 by zerinus

[Bond...James Bond]

Most everyone is rebellious in their 20s. Why not Christ?

[Calm]

As a side note:

When did baptism at the age of eight become policy?

There is no scriptural evidence I am aware of that prior to the restoration anyone was baptized before adulthood except in the case of the rejection of infant baptism.

[Storm Rider]

The age is not imporant, but accountability is:

Moroni 8:10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are ^aaccountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little ^bchildren, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

D&C 107:78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

I cannot quickly find when it was determined that a child of eight years has learned the difference between right and wrong or has become accountable. Maybe someone else has that at hand?

[Storm Rider]

Most everyone is rebellious in their 20s. Why not Christ?

Because he was the Son of God, member of the Godhead, and lived a perfect life on earth as in heaven.

[CV75]

Hello all, Curious about your thoughts on this. So in the class this week someone raised the question about why did Christ wait until he was 30 to be baptized by John the Baptist. A member was in the class, and he said, "I don't mean to be flippant, but why does it matter?" I thought it was a fair question and promised to research it. I'm not really finding anything on the subject, but as I understand it we don't have much about his life other than the last three years.

I beleive it was because the baptism and the testimonies of John, the Father and the Holy Ghost signaled the beginning of His dispensation.

[Saints Alive]

As a side note:

When did baptism at the age of eight become policy?

november 1831 (see D&C 68:27) and since it is revelation from the Lord I would say that it is Commandment and not merely policy, thanks.

There is no scriptural evidence I am aware of that prior to the restoration anyone was baptized before adulthood except in the case of the rejection of infant baptism.

There are a few passages in Moroni that mention the age of accountability being a prerequisite for Baptism, but you are right that no specific age is mentioned before 1831, perhaps 8 has always been the age of accountability, perhaps not. It is clear that the lord has now specified that it is to be 8 years old.

[mfbukowski]

As a side note:

When did baptism at the age of eight become policy?

There is no scriptural evidence I am aware of that prior to the restoration anyone was baptized before adulthood except in the case of the rejection of infant baptism.

I find it interesting that Catholic children do their first confession and receive first communion around the same age- usually 7 for Catholics, as I recall.

Confession requires prior sin- therefore the presumption is that the "age of reason" - when one is old enough to understand that they have sinned- is about the same for Catholics as it is for Mormons.

[blueadept]

I find it interesting that Catholic children do their first confession and receive first communion around the same age- usually 7 for Catholics, as I recall.

Confession requires prior sin- therefore the presumption is that the "age of reason" - when one is old enough to understand that they have sinned- is about the same for Catholics as it is for Mormons.

We do have our similarities...

[David T]

I wrote a blog post on this very question. I think it's relevent, so I'll repost a version of it here. It involves us contextualizing Jesus - as a growing man who did not know all things at all times, and who at some point needed a revelation to understand his full significance and mission, and who received it based on his diligence and faith:

I need to begin this post by plugging the fantastic series A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John Meier. In unexpected ways, it has been a wonderful companion to my study of early LDS Church history. The series, written by a believing Catholic scholar, sets out to present all that is knowable about the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth from purely a scholastic perspective, a set of data that could be agreed upon by a theoretical 'unpapal conclave' made up of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Atheists, and others. It deeply analyzes the culture of the time, and asks many provocative questions I had not even considered asking.

The second volume in the series ( Volume 2: Mentor, Message, and Miracles) opens with an exploration of John the Baptist, and what we can understand concerning Jesus' relationship to him. In the course of this, the question was raised as to why Jesus actually went to John to be baptized.

We LDS generally have a quick answer to that question, an interpretation coming from the Book of Mormon's meditative take on the subject in 2 Nephi 31:6-8:

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

This is generally simplified and summed up to express, "Jesus was baptized because baptism was a commandment, and he did it to set an example."

The assumption generally comes that when Christ was baptized, and the sign of the dove appeared with the concurrent voice declaring his Sonship, that this was nothing new to Jesus, but was rather meant for the benefit of others.

While I had earlier been turned to think of this experience as being a first apocalyptic-esque vision experience for Jesus ( inspired by a reading of Margaret Barker's The Revelation of Jesus Christ), Meir's book substantially added to the power of this concept for me.

Meier asks about Jesus' motivations for receiving John's baptism, a baptism that was presented as a unique means of declaring one's allegiance to God, and as a sign of protection and one's freedom of sin, against the coming fiery Eschaton.

The question is first raised, "Was Jesus baptized by John because he was a sinner?" - it is immediately pointed out that, from a historical and scholastic perspective, this is an impossible question. Since Sin is by definition that which is unpleasing to God and separates one from him, one cannot historically and scholastically determine if anyone has done anything that is 'unpleasing to God and separates one from him'.

The relevant question, however, is, “"Was Jesus baptized because he thought he could have been a sinner?"

This question blew me away. I had never even considered it before.

But then I looked at the accounts of Jesus' ministry which followed, in which he is constantly accused of being a lawbreaker. During his ministry, Jesus was always very clear to point out the difference between the artificial 'hedge' or traditional laws, and that which was truly ordained of by God.

Just as a young Joseph Smith was being bombarded by sectarian definitions of sin, salvation, and religious experience - could not Jesus of Nazareth have found himself in the same position? Wondering who, if any of all the sects, were right? If his inclinations to have harsh disagreements with the establishment's practice of what was professed as God's Word and God's Temple were Good, or Evil?

In Joseph Smith's earliest account of his theophany (1832), he prayed not to learn which Church was true (an auxiliary question), but to learn about his standing with God (see my post Joseph Smith's First Vision As More Than An Origin Story ). In connection with this, the first words of comfort Joseph receives in this vision are that his sins are forgiven. He is assured that God has seen his seeking , desires and questioning, and had approved of them - and further validated them through this visionary experience and expression of his pleasure.

Why not the same with Jesus? Could Jesus not have approached the prophet John, in humility, seeking assurance through this symbolic act of cleansing he was offering, that he was reconciled and right with God? That he was dedicating himself to be obedient to God in ways according to his understanding, even if opposed by others?

Could the resulting Visionary Experience have served the same purpose for Jesus as the corresponding vision did for Joseph Smith - to comfort him, to build his confidence, to enlighten him with new intelligence, and to serve as a formal 'start' to what would become his ministry?

I find this reading highly satisfying - not that Jesus was baptized because baptism in itself was a known specific commandment (there is a lot of historical issues on hand that make this a difficult subject), but rather because a prophet was presenting an opportunity to declare and commit to one's general obedience to the revealed will of God - and that is what Jesus submitted to, and as a result, was given a marvelous personal revelatory vision - one which was not expected, and resulted in his needing to get away in meditative prayer and fasting in the wilderness in order to work out what it meant to and for him.

Edited February 28, 2012 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

As a side note:

When did baptism at the age of eight become policy?

There is no scriptural evidence I am aware of that prior to the restoration anyone was baptized before adulthood except in the case of the rejection of infant baptism.

That was my first thought. I would have responded with the question "Why do we get baptized at age 8?"

I've also always assumed Jesus was getting baptised at the start of his ministry, which couldn't start until he was 30 (and married ) according to Jewish law. It's one of those things I heard somewhere sometime growing up, and haven't thought much more about it.

Some people might assume that 1 Peter points to the number "8" as the age of baptism becuase there were 8 people in the ark:

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I've seen bigger stretches made when it comes to the scriptures, so why not?

Edited February 28, 2012 by cinepro

[LeSellers]

When did baptism at the age of eight become policy?

There is no scriptural evidence I am aware of that prior to the restoration anyone was baptized before adulthood except in the case of the rejection of infant baptism.

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

Enjoy,

Lehi

Edited February 28, 2012 by LeSellers

[mfbukowski]

As my kids were growing up I noticed a definite change around that age- they did in fact become "accountable".

[mfbukowski]

We do have our similarities...

Indeed!!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

nack:

I find that reading highly satisfying as well (I just bought Barker's The Revelation of Jesus Christ a few days ago, so that should be fun to dig into. Wish I had money for A Marginal Jew.) and I came to similar conclusions without reading the sources you cited, so that might be a very slight point in favor of independent confirmation.

Specifically, for pretty much as long as I can remember, I've wondered whether Jesus was "baptized because he thought he could have been a sinner"; I've certainly long been very uncomfortable with the view that Christ's sacrifice was only worthwhile in bloody, superstitious, "the magic only works if the virgin is undefiled" sort of way.

So question: what do people think of the alleged "sinlessness" of Christ?

The only references to "sinlessness" I can find are in the Bible Dictionary and the guide to the scriptures, which I frankly do not accept as scripture themselves. "Without sin" was used in the letter to the Hebrews (9:28, 4:15), but it's referring to the ritual functions of the High Priest and Christ's body after the Resurrection. The point being, it seems to me that we've built up a rather elaborate theological edifice on these very few, enigmatic references.

But Christ was "perfect", right? Ergo "sinless"?

Perfect = per, "completely" + facere, "to perform." Perficere = accomplish, finish, complete

"Perfect" does occur quite a bit, but it usually refers to the glory of the resurrected body (ie, a perfect physical form which has "completed" the journey to glory, in that it is no longer subject to disintegration) or else to a state of wholeness and at-one-ment. In other words, the perfect completion of the work in which Christ did only what He saw His Father do, laying down His body to receive the glorious form of the next life, not to a Greek philosophical "perfection" in which mistakes (in respect to behavior) are never and can never be made.

The way I read it, it seems more like a state of being one with others, a comprehensive faith. When God says to Abraham to "Be ye perfect", it reads to me that he's saying be ye perfect [in relation to your faithfulness towards others, like God is to humanity]. Alma says God is a perfect, just God in relation to how well He fulfills the at-one-ment. Not that He has never made a mistake while in mortal life; it's more like He turns all bad situations to good, and part of His eternal progression is His experience of life on this world, where He had to learn things just like we did.

From what I can see, from sermons like the King Follett Discourse especially, part of our eternal progression is to learn how to become Gods in the same way that Christ did. As Brigham Young put it, speaking about the Adam-God kerfluffle, "Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species."

If Christ and the Father and all uncreated intelligences are part of the same family and all Gods who have gone before experience a similar sort of "evolution", then it becomes nonsensical to say that Christ was always "perfect" in the Greek way in which the term is usually used. He worked to become perfect, to complete His journey in order to provide us with a witness of the Resurrection and make His body into a Template for us, becoming the Teacher of Righteousness and the Way through His example, as the firstfruits of theosis. So baptism might very well have been in response to the questioning and yearning of a sinner trying to make Himself right with God and then receiving a divine commission.

(I also think Egyptian purification rituals relating to the Queen of Heaven and "rebirth" have something to do with all this, as detailed in Nibley's Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, but that's a hobby-horse of mine people are probably tired of hearing about, so I'll shut up. *grin*)

Edited February 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Wants2know]

Just as a young Joseph Smith was being bombarded by sectarian definitions of sin, salvation, and religious experience - could not Jesus of Nazareth have found himself in the same position? Wondering who, if any of all the sects, were right? If his inclinations to have harsh disagreements with the establishment's practice of what was professed as God's Word and God's Temple were Good, or Evil?

In Joseph Smith's earliest account of his theophany (1832), he prayed not to learn which Church was true (an auxiliary question), but to learn about his standing with God (see my post Joseph Smith's First Vision As More Than An Origin Story ). In connection with this, the first words of comfort Joseph receives in this vision are that his sins are forgiven. He is assured that God has seen his seeking , desires and questioning, and had approved of them - and further validated them through this visionary experience and expression of his pleasure.

Why not the same with Jesus? Could Jesus not have approached the prophet John, in humility, seeking assurance through this symbolic act of cleansing he was offering, that he was reconciled and right with God? That he was dedicating himself to be obedient to God in ways according to his understanding, even if opposed by others?

Could the resulting Visionary Experience have served the same purpose for Jesus as the corresponding vision did for Joseph Smith - to comfort him, to build his confidence, to enlighten him with new intelligence, and to serve as a formal 'start' to what would become his ministry?

I find this reading highly satisfying - not that Jesus was baptized because baptism in itself was a known specific commandment (there is a lot of historical issues on hand that make this a difficult subject), but rather because a prophet was presenting an opportunity to declare and commit to one's general obedience to the revealed will of God - and that is what Jesus submitted to, and as a result, was given a marvelous personal revelatory vision - one which was not expected, and resulted in his needing to get away in meditative prayer and fasting in the wilderness in order to work out what it meant to and for him.

Thank you for this very helpful post. This makes a lot of sense to me. I'll be bringing it with me next week to class.