Matthew 3:15

‘But Jesus answering said to him, “Allow it now, for thus it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness (or ‘do fully what is right' or ‘advance the way of righteousness to the full').” Then he allows him.'

But Jesus then set about persuading John. He clearly knew how baptising Him would make John feel, but He asked him to allow it. By this He was emphasising how important He saw His being baptised to be. It was not just to be a matter of doing what others did. It was to have a deeper significance.

We can understand John's dilemma. How could he be expected to baptise One Whom he knew was so far above him morally? And for us the question comes with even more force, for we must ask, why should the One Who had come to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), and was Himself sinless and in no need of repentance, be baptised with a baptism which seemingly indicated repentance? But while we recognise the dilemma we should note what John's problem was. It was not the same as ours. In his eyes the problem was not concerning whether Jesus should be baptised. Of that he seemingly had no doubt. His problem lay in the sense of his own unworthiness. This suggests that John did not quite see his baptism in the way that we interpret it.

It therefore initially raises the question of the significance of John's baptism. It is true that it was a baptism ‘in view of (‘unto') repentance and forgiveness of sins', that is, because those who were baptised had repented of their sins and had been forgiven. But what was the baptism itself really signifying? John in fact in his proclamation makes this clear, for he parallels his baptism with the Coming One's action in pouring out the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11). This suggests that he saw his own baptism as a prophetic portrayal of the expected pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the drenching with the Spirit promised by the prophets (Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 44:1; Ezekiel 36:25). It was an acting out of what the prophets had promised in readiness for its final fulfilment, and by being baptised people were declaring their desire to have a part in His working. And this is confirmed in the remainder of John's preaching where his emphasis is on fruitfulness and harvest, which are both the products of the pouring down of the rain. This would therefore indicate that by being baptised Jesus was simply indicating His desire to partake in the coming outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And as we know this is what He did then do in Matthew 3:16.

Note on the significance of John's Baptism.

It is probable that whatever commentary or article you read on baptism, it will refer in explaining it, to being cleansed from sin (with the inference of being washed), and to Old Testament ritual washings, combined with the idea of proselyte baptism. And that is also how Josephus saw it. We must, however, remember in this regard that Josephus had among other things a Pharisaic background and we might therefore have expected him to see it in that way if he did not really stop to think about it. And modern men are steeped in long centuries of misinterpretation. But it is quite frankly difficult to see how anyone who considers it in its context, and does stop to think about it, can see it in those terms. For there is absolutely nothing in John's preaching that would suggest this, nor interestingly is there any indication in the attitude of the Scribes and Pharisees that would seem to confirm it. We will deal with this latter fact first.

The Scribes and Pharisees do not appear to have questioned the act of baptism itself, for they seem to have assumed that had John been the Messiah, or the coming Elijah, or the coming Prophet it would have been explicable (John 1:25), although they do not say why. It would suggest, however, that they saw it as a prophetic action and not a priestly one. And the prophetic link with water is of it as a picture of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing about John's baptism which parallels Pharisaic washings, Old Testament washings or proselyte washing. In all cases but proselyte washing the washings had to be continually performed, and in all cases, including proselyte washing they were self-administered. In all cases they were ritualistic, and connected with other rituals. John's baptism on the other hand stood alone, apart from all ritual, was administered by him, and was once for all. Furthermore in all cases ritual washings were not seen as cleansing from sin, but as removing defilement (the only exception is where the water is treated with sacrificial ashes). In the case of the Old Testament washings we have the constant refrain that the one who performed the act had then to separate himself and would ‘not be clean until the evening'. This indicates that the washing was not seen as cleansing, but as preparatory to later cleansing. It was a washing away of the ‘filth of the flesh' so that the person in question could wait on God until the evening, the latter resulting in the cleansing. The Pharisaic washings were similarly for ritual purification, that is, for the removal of the defilement caused by contact with an impure world, that is, a world which did not conform to Jewish requirements for the maintenance of ritual purity. Proselyte washing was similarly a once for all act of removing the defilement of the Gentile world. There is nothing in all this about cleansing from sin (which was seen as resulting from the sacrifices). And in regard to all this we should note that Peter makes quite clear that baptism was not for the purpose of removing such defilement. It was not for the removal of ‘the defilement of the flesh' (1 Peter 3:21). We would also suggest that if the Pharisees had considered that John was indicating the need for Jews to have a proselyte baptism they would have been more than irate. They were no doubt angry enough at his suggestion that being a child of Abraham was no grounds for their acceptance by God. To suggest beyond that that they required the same baptism as that required by Gentile proselytes would have added fuel to the fire. They would hardly have refrained from commenting on the matter.

John also gives no indication whatsoever in all his preaching that this is how he saw it. He certainly saw it as connected with repentance, that is, with a change of heart and mind and a turning to God, but the only actual indication of its significance lies in his paralleling it with the Coming One's ‘drenching in Holy Spirit' in accordance with the prophets (Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 44:1; Ezekiel 36:25, compare also Isaiah 35:6; Isaiah 55:10; Ezekiel 47:1). And this ties in with his constant reference to fruitfulness and harvest, both the results in Palestine of rain poured from above. In an agricultural community that was the main benefit of water.

We should also note in this regard that the main emphasis elsewhere in the New Testament is also of baptism as a sign of the renewal of life (e.g. Romans 6:3) and of the ‘washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit' (Titus 3:5), rather than as cleansing by washing. Where washing is referred to it is as ‘the washing of water with the word', which could again well signify the washing of regeneration (compare Isaiah 55:10 where word and Spirit are connected), but has to be manipulated in order for it to refer to baptism. The only possible exception in Acts 22:16 is ambiguous, for there the washing away of Paul's sins connects more directly with his calling on the name of the Lord than with his being baptised (compare Romans 10:9 and see Isaiah 1:16 which is in total contrast with ritual activity as depicted in Isaiah 1:11). It should be noted that in the parallel Acts 9:17 Paul's baptism is connected with his receiving his sight and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Furthermore whatever the significance with regard to Christian baptism, this should not be read back into John's baptism.

End of note.

Jesus' reply to John's questions as to why He should be baptised by John is that it is in order ‘for us to fulfil all righteousness'. So the question that we must then consider is as to what exactly He means by that.

We must first note that in any interpretation of these words we must take into account the ‘us'. By saying ‘us' Jesus is indicating that He is involving more than just Himself in His action. Any interpretation cannot thus just be personal to Him. This ‘us' may therefore be seen in one of two ways, either as linking Jesus with John in the action, or as linking Him with the crowds of believers gathered for baptism as He is being baptised along with them. If we see it as linking Him with John in the action there are at least two possible alternative explanations.

· He may be indicating that just as it is right for all men to be baptised (assuming their repentance) then John must baptise Him along with them. This would be in order that He might do ‘what is right' and be included, along with all those who are being declared to be acceptable to God, as a ready recipient of the coming Holy Spirit. (It is not to be forgotten that in His case the Holy Spirit did descend on Him once He had been baptised by John). And this because He Himself is above all others acceptable to God (Matthew 3:17). By it He would therefore, with John's cooperation, be doing what was fully right, and putting the cap on all that He had done up to this point. He would be ‘filling to the full' all righteousness.

· He may be indicating that He is by it uniting Himself with John in his ministry and in his ‘coming in the way of righteousness' (Matthew 21:32). By it He is capping what John has come to do. John has come ‘in the way of righteousness' to turn the hearts of the people to God in preparation for ‘the great and terrible Day of the Lord' (Malachi 4:5). He Himself is therefore now signifying His full part in this work by being baptised by John. He is making clear that He will be bringing to completion John's work, by participating it and carrying it forward to its ultimate conclusion, and thus bringing to completion all righteousness.

If we see Him as linking Himself with the believing crowds in His action we may see in it that:

1). Jesus linking Himself with the people as their Representative. By it He is identifying with these sinners by being baptised along with them, in order that He might continue to represent them in the future. He had already ‘come out of Egypt' on their behalf (Matthew 2:15). Now He will, as it were, ‘repent' on their behalf, because of His oneness with their sins (compare Matthew 1:21; Matthew 8:17; Matthew 20:28), and all so that in the future He might die on behalf of their sins (Matthew 20:28). As a result of His baptism He will then on their behalf receive the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:17), Whom He will subsequently pour out on all who truly become His, and from this will result an even greater growth in the establishment of the way of righteousness, which will result in the ‘fulfilling of all righteousness' as God's ways are brought to completion. And through this means a new Spirit-endued Israel will be established as the prophets had promised. Thus His cooperation with John and his ministry is to be seen as a part of God's overall plan without which that plan will not come to full fruition. And by His being baptised He is thus to be seen as validating John's baptism and fulfilling its significance as pointing forward to the work of the Holy Spirit.

This serves to confirm that Jesus is very much aware that it is precisely by His being associated with John's baptism that His own future will come to fulfilment, simply because that is God's declared plan and purpose. He must do His Father's will. First must come the forerunner, and then the Messiah Who has been involved with the forerunner in his work. And thus by being baptised He will be identifying Himself with that work.

And as John's Gospel makes clear, Jesus did in fact constantly refuse to supplant John all the time that John was preaching, and rather preached alongside him, with His disciples baptising as John did, so much so that when it did seem that He might be supplanting John He withdrew to Galilee (John 4:1). He was determined that the work of His forerunner would fulfil its course and not be interfered with. And His recognition of the unique work of John was indeed one reason why, when He did begin His own ministry, He began it in Galilee. For it was important, when He did commence it, that it was not just seen as a continuation of John's ministry, as Elisha's had been of Elijah. It was in order to demonstrate that He had a greater ministry than that of John, one that was independent and not just a follow-up to John's.

2). It may be that He is intending by it to stress His oneness with the crowds in the whole work of God that is going on. In other words it is His way of declaring the need for Him to be one with the crowd in John's baptism, because without it their baptism will be incomplete. As the Baptiser with the Holy Spirit He knew that He could not be excluded from being a part with those whom He would baptise as their community Head. Thus as the One Who was about to receive the Holy Spirit on behalf of all, something that He considered that He could only do once He had been united with them and identified with them, it was necessary for Him to participate with them in the same baptism, which was to be seen as uniting all the baptised in the coming work of the Spirit. The idea is then that John must baptise Him in order that He might be one with the community of the baptised, so as to receive the Holy Spirit on their behalf. Then, as a result, all would grow together into the fullness of righteousness (Ephesians 4:12).

So by being baptised by John, Jesus would both validate John's baptism, and at the same time be identified by it with righteous Israel, and be shown as ‘repenting' along with them on their behalf. He had come bringing ‘righteousness and salvation' (Isaiah 59:16; Isaiah 59:20). He had come to bring them repentance and forgiveness of sins. And He was thus demonstrating by this that without their repenting and receiving the Holy Spirit there could be no righteousness and no salvation. And at the same time He would Himself be fulfilling the perfect way of the righteous man on Israel's behalf. (Compare here Luke 3:21). So by being baptised by John, and then walking in the way of the Holy Spirit that that baptism signified, both on behalf of Himself and on behalf of Israel (on whose behalf He had come out of Egypt - Matthew 2:15), He would then ‘fill to the full' all righteousness on their behalf, and would draw after Him all who were truly His, who would also walk in the same way of righteousness. And it would all be seen as commencing with John's baptism which under God's hand would unite them together under that baptism's portrayal of the uniting Holy Spirit. For John had come from God ‘in the way of righteousness' (Matthew 21:32), and this way of righteousness, which was open to all who responded in repentance, was now to find its completion in Him. He would move it forward in the way that John had begun it and would ‘fill it to the full'.

To put it another way, by being baptised by John He would be identifying Himself with what John had begun, would be doing what was truly right for all men, indeed was at this time necessary for all righteous people to do, and would be identifying Himself with His people in doing so, as the One Who would bring it all about on their behalf. For in the end all needed to partake in the new work of the Holy Spirit, both He Who would receive the Holy Spirit in order to ‘dispense' Him, and those who would receive Him from Jesus. In this sense ‘all righteousness' would thus spring from the significance of John's simple act of baptising Him. For the point was that John's baptism was not just John's own idea. He had been sent by God to baptise with water (John 1:33), as the precursor to what was to come, and it was therefore necessary for Jesus to be aligned with it in the continuation of God's purpose.

Jesus Himself might also have quietly seen in His act of being baptised His own submission to His future death on the cross, something which baptism came later to symbolise (Romans 6:3), and something which John the Baptist also soon came to see. From John 1:29 it is clear that John came to understand the Coming One in terms of the Servant of Isaiah 53. Thus as the Lamb of God Who would take away the sin of the world Jesus is now recognising that He must die in order to rise again in newness of resurrection life, something which He is now symbolising by His being baptised.

Had John thought about it he would have recognised that all His life Jesus had so identified Himself with a sinful people. Offerings had been offered for Him Who needed no atonement, by unworthy priests, as revealing His thanksgiving to, and worship of, God, and oneness with His people. He had regularly partaken of the Passover and other aspects of the feasts of Israel. For in all things He had wanted to show that He and His people were one. Thus His being baptised as an indication that He too was repentant on their behalf, and would partake in the Holy Spirit as well as they, was all one with all that had gone before.

This serves to demonstrate quite clearly that baptism did not symbolise washing from sin. For that Jesus could not have partaken in (as He no doubt never offered a sin or trespass offering). What baptism did symbolise was that the one who was being baptised was putting away any sin of the past, if there was any, by repentance, and was seeking to be a part of the work of God's Holy Spirit upon his life for the future. As with the offerings only a part of this applied to Jesus. And what followed then emphasised the significance of baptism.

Other interpretations of why He was baptised include:

· By this He fulfilled the Law to the full. But John's baptism was not obtained from the Law. Nor did it indicate fulfilment of the Law.

· By this His life was revealed as fully righteous. This was, of course, true, especially as He would have had no sins to confess. But it is doubtful if we can stop at the idea of a personal significance in One Who was the Messiah of Israel.

· By this He would be fulfilling all that the prophets had spoken, for by taking on Himself as Israel's representative the symbol of God's future working, He would be demonstrating that He was here to fulfil all righteousness in terms of the prophetic pronouncements and purposes of God concerning Him. He was being numbered with the transgressors, in order to establish righteousness among men through His own righteousness (Isaiah 53:11). This was certainly true, but probably not what He would have expected John to fully grasp, especially as John was not yet fully aware of Who He was. John would, however, grasp it soon enough once he had witnessed what happened at Jesus' baptism (John 1:29). This suggestion does tie in very closely with that above, simply adding the Old Testament prophecies to John's message as the last of the prophets.