This is my best guess. The name of God is the only thing that makes sense. This was His inception into the ministry; which was signified by the Spirit coming on Him as a dove; and in Matthew 4:1 immediately He was sent out into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. This showed total reliance on the Spirit in order to fulfill the supernatural plan to wage war and achieve ultimate victory over death for our sake. Since there is no clear O.T. baptism; only some parallels with the Red Sea passage in Exodus ( 1 Cor. 10:1-4). It fits in with a purification rite; a separation for God's purpose-which for Christ was to be the "suffering servant" mentioned in Isaiah 53. Since John's ministry was one of repentance; there still needed to be the Lamb of God who would die for the sake of the elect sheep.
It is possible that nothing needed to be said when he baptized Christ. It was the end of his time living according to Mosaic law or principles; being obedient to his parents working in his father's trade until of age for priesthood. All of that was likely done with His own Divine strength; as He never wielded His power; or displayed supernatural authority for the sake of men.
When my son was present, I am Father. When my father was present, I am son. This makes those terms, (Father-Son) titles. Not my name but the title I carry depending on the situation.
The Bible says that Mary, the mother of Jesus was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. It would be correct to say that The Holy Spirit of God fathered the child Jesus. The first commandment Moses delivered reveals that it is paramount we know that our God is ONE. The OT says quoting THE ALMIGHTY. "I AM THE LORD, BESIDE ME, THEIR IS NO SAVIOUR" Yet the book of John says, In the begining was the Word. And the Word was made flesh. It goes on to say He created the worlds. In Paul's letters to various churches, he writes, speaking of Jesus. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" Colossians 2:9
When we baptize in the name of Jesus as instructed in Acts 2:38, we indeed are using the name of The Father, The Son, The Spirit as commanded by Jesus in Mathew 28:19. Multiple countless Bible entries clearly show the Oneness nature of our Jealous God who refuses to share His Glory. Make sure to follow up with the promise in the book of Acts chapter 2 and receive the PROFOUND baptism by fire. It is essential for everyone who seeks the power to know God on a very personal level.
Great question. i found in scripture mathew 28:18-20 summarized, says we are to go into all the world teaching and preaching the gospel baptizing in the name of the father, in the name of the son jesus, and holy ghost.
We can only guess Albert, what John the Baptist said when Jesus, or any other person, was being baptized by him. In the case with Jesus, John could have said: 'To fulfil all righteousness as you have declared, I baptize you the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world'.
I don't believe that John would have baptized Jesus or anyone else in a name. For the people, his baptism was because of their declaration of their sins & the need of repentance. Of the Lord, His baptism was entirely different, involving the inauguration of His Ministry, obedience to the Father to fulfil it, & a foretaste of His Coming death, burial & resurrection. At the completion of His Baptism, the Father gave His 'full pleasure of His Son' & the descent of the Holy Spirit as that visible confirmation of this special Man & His Calling. Just my thoughts about this brief part of our Lord's Life.
Hi Albert. I hope I'm understanding you correctly. "Why do we baptize in a name and Jesus was not (baptized in a name)"? As earlier mentioned, Jesus was baptized under John's baptism, which was a different baptism given to the populace & different again what was done to Jesus. I don't believe a name was necessary on both counts as John was baptizing the people indicating a contrition of sins but had no future perspective on how those sins were going to be dealt with. John was simply a forerunner & a proclaimer - announcing the One coming after him, so I can't imagine any Name requiring to be used for Jesus' baptism.
Whereas post Cross, as Peter/Paul baptized & also the Church did so since that time, water baptism had a different meaning to John's baptism. Christian baptism now looks back to the Cross & with an identification of the new believer with Jesus, indeed the Godhead (Father, Son & the Holy Spirit). As Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize (in Matthew 28:19), so His disciples would do accordingly. But when we look at Scriptures such as Acts 19:1-5, it appears that the Trinity formula is missing. But as we read, the believers at Ephesus had only received John's baptism & not 'believers' baptism'. So then Paul baptized them in the Name of the Lord Jesus. I don't believe that the 'trinitarian formula' was specially avoided, but simply a notation that the two baptisms were different, i.e. one was according to John, the other according to Jesus (i.e. His Sacrifice). Some believe that the formula has since changed, avoiding the 'trinitarian Name', but I see nothing to prove that was the case - nor would it even matter? I wouldn't throw a fit if I heard it this way. The significance of baptism shouldn't be lost is what's important, I believe.
It is possible that nothing needed to be said when he baptized Christ. It was the end of his time living according to Mosaic law or principles; being obedient to his parents working in his father's trade until of age for priesthood. All of that was likely done with His own Divine strength; as He never wielded His power; or displayed supernatural authority for the sake of men.
Anyway; that's my best attempt. Agape. Rich P.
Matthew 28:19 Jesus says
Matthew 28:20 Jesus says
The Bible says that Mary, the mother of Jesus was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. It would be correct to say that The Holy Spirit of God fathered the child Jesus. The first commandment Moses delivered reveals that it is paramount we know that our God is ONE. The OT says quoting THE ALMIGHTY. "I AM THE LORD, BESIDE ME, THEIR IS NO SAVIOUR" Yet the book of John says, In the begining was the Word. And the Word was made flesh. It goes on to say He created the worlds. In Paul's letters to various churches, he writes, speaking of Jesus. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" Colossians 2:9
When we baptize in the name of Jesus as instructed in Acts 2:38, we indeed are using the name of The Father, The Son, The Spirit as commanded by Jesus in Mathew 28:19. Multiple countless Bible entries clearly show the Oneness nature of our Jealous God who refuses to share His Glory. Make sure to follow up with the promise in the book of Acts chapter 2 and receive the PROFOUND baptism by fire. It is essential for everyone who seeks the power to know God on a very personal level.
I don't believe that John would have baptized Jesus or anyone else in a name. For the people, his baptism was because of their declaration of their sins & the need of repentance. Of the Lord, His baptism was entirely different, involving the inauguration of His Ministry, obedience to the Father to fulfil it, & a foretaste of His Coming death, burial & resurrection. At the completion of His Baptism, the Father gave His 'full pleasure of His Son' & the descent of the Holy Spirit as that visible confirmation of this special Man & His Calling. Just my thoughts about this brief part of our Lord's Life.
Whereas post Cross, as Peter/Paul baptized & also the Church did so since that time, water baptism had a different meaning to John's baptism. Christian baptism now looks back to the Cross & with an identification of the new believer with Jesus, indeed the Godhead (Father, Son & the Holy Spirit). As Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize (in Matthew 28:19), so His disciples would do accordingly. But when we look at Scriptures such as Acts 19:1-5, it appears that the Trinity formula is missing. But as we read, the believers at Ephesus had only received John's baptism & not 'believers' baptism'. So then Paul baptized them in the Name of the Lord Jesus. I don't believe that the 'trinitarian formula' was specially avoided, but simply a notation that the two baptisms were different, i.e. one was according to John, the other according to Jesus (i.e. His Sacrifice). Some believe that the formula has since changed, avoiding the 'trinitarian Name', but I see nothing to prove that was the case - nor would it even matter? I wouldn't throw a fit if I heard it this way. The significance of baptism shouldn't be lost is what's important, I believe.
Romans 6:3, Mark 10:38,
Acts 8:12-17, Acts 11:16, Acts 19:1-5, Acts 2:38,
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?