Why was Jesus baptised?

[Hans Deventer]

This morning, we had a baptism in church and one of the candidates testified that he wanted to follow Jesus and hence wanted to be immersed (he had been baptised as a child).

I don't really understand that reasoning. When we read the passage in Matthew

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptised by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfil all righteousness." Then John consented.
16 As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

generally commentators understand His baptism as His complete identification with us. For John was of course right in saying "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" since his baptism was a baptism of repentance and obviously Jesus had nothing to repent of.

If the above is correct, then the idea to following Christ by imitating His baptism makes no sense. We don't have to identify with a sinful people because that's what we already are. We are baptised exactly because we need to identify with Jesus, His death and resurrection, as Romans 6 explains so well:

3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Also, John's baptism is not the same as the Christian baptism, as is clear from Paul's action in Ephesus as described in Acts 19.

1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3 So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied.
4 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

So my conclusion is that to see Jesus' baptism as a model makes no sense. It wasn't a Christian baptism and we can never have Jesus' reason to be baptised.

All we can do, and should do, is follow Paul's words in Rom 6. It is clear that immersion is the best picture of being buried and rising again, but it is also clear that it is the death to sin and the new life that really matters.

Any comments?

[Randy Wise]

This morning, we had a baptism in church and one of the candidates testified that he wanted to follow Jesus and hence wanted to be immersed (he had been baptised as a child).

I don't really understand that reasoning. When we read the passage in Matthew

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptised by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfil all righteousness." Then John consented.
16 As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

generally commentators understand His baptism as His complete identification with us. For John was of course right in saying "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" since his baptism was a baptism of repentance and obviously Jesus had nothing to repent of.

If the above is correct, then the idea to following Christ by imitating His baptism makes no sense. We don't have to identify with a sinful people because that's what we already are. We are baptised exactly because we need to identify with Jesus, His death and resurrection, as Romans 6 explains so well:

3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Also, John's baptism is not the same as the Christian baptism, as is clear from Paul's action in Ephesus as described in Acts 19.

1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3 So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied.
4 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

So my conclusion is that to see Jesus' baptism as a model makes no sense. It wasn't a Christian baptism and we can never have Jesus' reason to be baptised.

All we can do, and should do, is follow Paul's words in Rom 6. It is clear that immersion is the best picture of being buried and rising again, but it is also clear that it is the death to sin and the new life that really matters.

Any comments?

Perhaps "fulfill" is the key as Jesus stated. John didn't state the method, but John did state how he was to know who the Christ was.

John 1:

33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

[BobHunt]

I dont know if you have seen this, or even if it would help answer your questions, but it is still a good read.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminian_mag/0701Arminian.pdf

[Roy Richardson]

I've often wondered where the practice of baptism came from. You don't really see it in the OT, and when the NT opens, there are lines of people waiting to do it.

[Bob Carabbio]

Jesus WAS baptized in repentance like everybody else.

HE repented (turned away from) of being what he HAD been - head of Mary's household and a local carpenter (assumed), Was baptized, and after being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, walked out in a NEW direction - Preacher Prophet, Messiah to the house of Israel.

We've been "brainwashed" to tie "repentance" to "sin" but it actually has nothing directly to do with THAT - it just means to STOP, turn around, and go another way. In our case SIN is always involved, of course - that's a "given".

Jesus repented, and never looked back.

[Crystal Lutton]

I've often wondered where the practice of baptism came from.Actually, you see baptism, under the name of T'Vylah, throughout ancient and modern Hebrew practice. The entire Creation is started with imagery of T'Vylah; Noah was in an ark during a full immersion of the earth for it's purification; and every reference to ritual immersion speaks of "baptism". Sometimes they were done in rivers as John did, and often they were done in the Temple in ritual baths (apparently recent archaeological evidence shows that the 3000 saved at Pentecost in Acts would have been easily accomadated for ritual immersion in the Temple. I think that is so awesome!

What is different about the baptism we do is that it pictures our uniting with Jesus in his death, burial and resurrection. The practice wasn't new at all; the meaning given made it the "one" baptism in which believers are united.

So my conclusion is that to see Jesus' baptism as a model makes no sense. It wasn't a Christian baptism and we can never have Jesus' reason to be baptised.I agree.

I've heard a few good ideas about why Jesus was baptised. I think Randy's point from John is a very good one. Also, ritual purification was common practice and it would make perfect cultural sense for Jesus to have been ritually immersed before he began his public ministry.

Our Senior Rabbi also teaches that Jesus was affirming John and his role as Elijah. I agree as well.

[Ryan Scott]

I've read a view on this that said Jesus' baptism was his acceptance of his role as humanity's representative. He took on the mantle of redemption at this point and then embarked on his journey to complete the mission.

[Randy Dillon]

Jesus WAS baptized in repentance like everybody else..... We've been "brainwashed" to tie "repentance" to "sin" but it actually has nothing directly to do with THAT - it just means to STOP, turn around, and go another way. Oooo - good answer Bobby... you're so very close on this one. Haven't read the entire thread, so tired anymore at the end of the day. But hey, my 'ol pal still shows some of his deeper reflections on things. Would love to sit with ya on a back porch somewhere, sippin' on some southern ice tea as the sun tans our brows, just to muse over some of this stuff with ya again. Anyway, just wanted to jump in and out -- agreeing with you that Jesus lived in the spirit of repentance. Had to learn this "human thing" - was a totally new perspective for the eternal Logos! (Phil. 2) - Randy

[Randy Wise]

Jesus WAS baptized in repentance like everybody else.


Well I agree Jesus underwent the baptism, but I am not so sure of your other implications regarding what the process was to Him other than fulfilling what Jesus might consider a righteous act. Repentance is usually identified with turning from sin.

Randy

[Charles W Christian]

Jesus WAS baptized in repentance like everybody else.

HE repented (turned away from) of being what he HAD been - head of Mary's household and a local carpenter (assumed), Was baptized, and after being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, walked out in a NEW direction - Preacher Prophet, Messiah to the house of Israel.

We've been "brainwashed" to tie "repentance" to "sin" but it actually has nothing directly to do with THAT - it just means to STOP, turn around, and go another way. In our case SIN is always involved, of course - that's a "given".

Jesus repented, and never looked back.

I'm not sure we've been brainwashed, Bob. Repentance is most often linked with turning from sin in the Bible (not always, but often).

I guess you could say that Jesus turned away from what He had been, but more specifically, Jesus's baptism is often seen as the public "inauguration" of His Messianic ministry. It doesn't seem so much as if He "changed His mind," but rather that He was bringing into fruition what He had been born to do.

The language of "repentance" for Jesus in regard to baptism, then, seems a bit of a stretch and can too easily lead to misunderstanding, which is why nowhere in the Bible or Christian history is it tied to Jesus "repenting." Rather, it is seen a public affirmation of His Messianic role. I guess I'm saying that we can't just use whatever language we want whenever we want, especially when it may blur the big picture. Although, in fairness, I think I see your point and am in some agreement with your overall emphasis upon the baptism marking Jesus's public turning toward His Messianic ministry.

Thanks,
Charles

[Bob Carabbio]

Oh - that's right - I am - gonna be 66 in July. Between us girls, I really didn't expect to STILL be mov'in this long. I actually came back to Dallas from Cleveland in '02 to die.

'Cept I didn't, 4 more heart attacks and a second bypass since then, but I'm still a-work'in full time, and still pick'in grass on the side. And I got enough vein left in my right leg for another go-round should the need arise.

It's been a really nice Spring here in South Dallas - the HEAT hasn't hit yet, and the back porch is comfortable with the nice breeze we get being in high country here South of Dallas (Glenn Heights).

Drop in if'n you're in the neighborhood - give us warning and We'll do an Italian feed for y'all.

[Gina Stevenson]

Drop in if'n you're in the neighborhood - give us warning and We'll do an Italian feed for y'all.

This reminds me ... often when I see your name on here, it reminds me of an Italian restaurant we see here. 'Got relatives in the Italian restaurant business, eh? ;)

[Randy Dillon]

Brother, that would be great! Take care of yourself friend, keep an eye out on that eastern sky, and for another silver-haired man possibly walkin' up your road while you're a strummin' away on that banjo! ;-)

[Randy Dillon]

I guess I'm saying that we can't just use whatever language we want whenever we want, especially when it may blur the big picture.

Hi Charles, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24, Acts 19:4 all identify John's baptism as a "baptism of repentance". So, our dear brother, just want to make sure you understand we're not just using "whatever language we want". ;) Will elaborate when I get time. - Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Jesus WAS baptized in repentance like everybody else.

HE repented (turned away from) of being what he HAD been - head of Mary's household and a local carpenter (assumed), Was baptized, and after being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, walked out in a NEW direction - Preacher Prophet, Messiah to the house of Israel.

We've been "brainwashed" to tie "repentance" to "sin" but it actually has nothing directly to do with THAT - it just means to STOP, turn around, and go another way. In our case SIN is always involved, of course - that's a "given".

Jesus repented, and never looked back.

Wikipedia has a nice article on the word Metanoia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia)

Theology

In Theology, metanoia is used to refer to the change of mind which is brought about in repentance. Repentance is necessary and valuable because it brings about change of mind or metanoia. This change of mind will result in the changed person hating sin and loving God. The two terms (repentance and metanoia) are often used interchangeably.

However, the prefix "meta-" carries with it other variants that are consistent with the Eastern Greek philosophical mindset, and perhaps is at odds with Western views. "Meta-" is additionally used to imply "beyond" and "outside of." E.g., metamorphosis as a beyond-change; and, metaphysics as outside the limits of physics.

The Greek term for repentance, metanoia, denotes a change of mind, a reorientation, a fundamental transforma­tion of outlook, of man's vision of the world and of himself, and a new way of loving others and God. In the words of a second-century text, The Shepherd of Hermas, it implies "great understanding," discernment. It involves, that is, not mere regret of past evil but a recognition by man of a dar­kened vision of his own condition, in which sin, by sepa­rating him from God, has reduced him to a divided, auto­nomous existence, depriving him of both his natural glory and freedom. "Repentance," says Basil the Great, "is salva­tion, but lack of understanding is the death of repentance." Repentance thereby acquires a different dimension to mere dwelling on human sinfulness, and becomes the realization of human insufficiency and limitation. Repentance then should not be accompanied by a paroxysm of guilt but by an awareness of one's estrange­ment from God and one's neighbor.

All of this seems to have precious little to do with Jesus' own situation.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Baptism, as we know, is a sacrament. I think the most important significance is its value as a means of grace. While it did not start with the NT it finds prominence from the start of the NT. It finds connection with Isaiah 53:12. It must have been important to John because he asked to be baptized by Jesus.

Jesus asked John to baptize Him with water but He did not need water baptism. If this rite is connected to Isaiah 53:12 then, in this act, Jesus is the Example for His followers. It is a moment of significant spiritual enlightenment.

Chrysostom said, “As I was circumcised that I might fulfill the Law, I am baptized that I may ratify grace. If I fulfill a part and omit a part, I leave the Incarnation maimed. I must fulfill all things that hereafter Paul may write: Christ is the fulfillment of the Law unto righteousness for every one that believeth” (David Smith, The Day of His Flesh.)

Ramesh Deosarran

[Bob Carabbio]

That would probably be Carabba's - we got 'em here in Dallas too.

THE BEST Chicken Marsala I ever ate was from one in Cleveland.

But No - I'm not related -

[Randy Dillon]

Chrysostom said, “As I was circumcised that I might fulfill the Law, I am baptized that I may ratify grace. If I fulfill a part and omit a part, I leave the Incarnation maimed. I must fulfill all things that hereafter Paul may write: Christ is the fulfillment of the Law unto righteousness for every one that believeth” (David Smith, The Day of His Flesh.)

Ramesh Deosarran Very good, He needed to fulfill all righteousness as our "Last Adam" -or humanity's Representative- to bring our souls to life. He needed no forgiveness or repentance from sin, yet there was an actual reason for it - nothing pretentious. Understanding the induction/ceremonial aspects, my proposal is that He needed to lead us out of sin. Taking on the human frame, fully identifying with our body suit, Jesus found Himself fashioned as a dependent being that must be sourced from the Father. (John 5:30) All in attendance viewed this baptism as one of repentance - it was a baptism of repentance. Our Lord's repentance was a result of Philippians 2:8 -- which brought about His 'thinking differently after'. After what? After this dawning of realizing a repositioning of the Logos as incarnate. Lead us out Jesus! How? By imitating His steps, His attitude, humbling ourselves and 'thinking differently after' realizing our dependency to function only as we are derived and informed by Him. Living out our lives as He did, in the spirit of repentance. - Randy

[Charles W Christian]

Hi Charles, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24, Acts 19:4 all identify John's baptism as a "baptism of repentance". So, our dear brother, just want to make sure you understand we're not just using "whatever language we want". ;) Will elaborate when I get time. - Randy

Isn't this just the reason why John is hesitant to baptize Jesus??

Jesus's correction of him doesn't seem to imply that Jesus's baptism is "one of repentance." All you did here, Randy, was prove that John's baptism was one of repentence: something I already agree with you on.

What you did not do, at least with these passages, is demonstrate that the actual baptism of Jesus was about some sort of "change of mindset." It was not. It was a public affirmation of his Messianic ministry, so in that sense one can say it marked a public change, but "repentence" doesn't seem to enter in, at least as traditionally understood.

This just seems to be a stretch.....As the Acts 19 passage you cite tells us: John's baptism of repentence points to Jesus....Turning toward Jesus is the whole point. Why would Jesus have to turn to Jesus??

Charles

[Charles W Christian]

Very good, He needed to fulfill all righteousness as our "Last Adam" -or humanity's Representative- to bring our souls to life. He needed no forgiveness or repentance from sin, yet there was an actual reason for it - nothing pretentious. Understanding the induction/ceremonial aspects, my proposal is that He needed to lead us out of sin. Taking on the human frame, fully identifying with our body suit, Jesus found Himself fashioned as a dependent being that must be sourced from the Father. (John 5:30) All in attendance viewed this baptism as one of repentance - it was a baptism of repentance. Our Lord's repentance was a result of Philippians 2:8 -- which brought about His 'thinking differently after'. After what? After this dawning of realizing a repositioning of the Logos as incarnate. Lead us out Jesus! How? By imitating His steps, His attitude, humbling ourselves and 'thinking differently after' realizing our dependency to function only as we are derived and informed by Him. Living out our lives as He did, in the spirit of repentance. - Randy

Not to be picky, Randy, but if you're going to be a stickler about language, where do you get, "Bring our souls to life"? If what you're saying here is true, then Jesus's baptism is vicarious, which would mean He was baptized for us -- in our place -- NOT as a model for us. That would render baptism on our parts as far less than a sacrament, it seems to me.

I see know indication from the text that Jesus was "thinking differently" about His ministry! It was John the Baptist and the crowd who needed to think differently! Read the text, Randy. It seems that in many of your posts you are bringing your concept to the table and then simply using Scripture selectively to justify it. What does the text say about what you're saying? Is it Jesus or John the Baptist who is thinking differently? Is it Jesus or the crowds that need to properly re-think the concept of Messiah?

Thanks,
Charles
:bible

[Randy Dillon]

Good afternoon Charles, thank you for taking the time in trying to gain some kind of clarity from my responses. You write: Isn't this just the reason why John is hesitant to baptize Jesus??

Yes. Which is precisely why my point was raised Charles. As I just stated this morning, this is undeniably a baptism of repentance. John knew it, the crowds knew it, and Jesus knew it. Hey brother, we disciplined students of the scripture understand the importance of striving to get in the mind of the writers, and this should naturally lead us into a question: Why are three different authors defining this baptism as one of repentance? Then, why is our Lord communicating, at least non-verbally, that He is a participant in it? A good student of the word cannot just brush this aside. I sure have a hard time accepting that it’s OK to recognize it as such -- until Jesus comes to the baptism and then we just scissor the ‘repentance’ off from the phrase! Who’s bringing their own ideas into the text? (Randy looks over at you with a smile.)

Jesus's correction of him doesn't seem to imply that Jesus's baptism is "one of repentance." All you did here, Randy, was prove that John's baptism was one of repentence: something I already agree with you on. OK, at this point that’s already covered.. Again, this is the established view by three different writers. It IS a baptism of repentance. Hence the reason that John is taken back by the Lord’s request to be baptized. Repeating, John knew it, the crowds knew it, and yes, Jesus knew it. 19 Centuries into the future and some preachers dictate that we must exclude it! Not me brother. Our Lord clarified that this was to be allowed in order to fulfill all righteousness. Now, look closely to what I'm writing, brother Charles. This baptismal/repentance account, not Randy’s spin and eisegetical manipulation, no, THIS baptismal/repentance account needs to be investigated, it needs to be defined, it needs to be explained and articulated in such a way -- that it remains consistent with His position as our Savior. Obviously, my dear brother and friend, time and space are limited in this forum. But should I not be afforded the privilege to consult with other biblical texts to bring forth an accurate amplification of how Christ might be willing to be identified with “repenting”? -- Reiterating, the association with a baptism of repentance to fulfill all righteousness?

As Ramesh quoted in helping to explain this: “If I fulfill a part and omit a part, I leave the Incarnation maimed. I must fulfill all things that hereafter Paul may write: Christ is the fulfillment of the Law unto righteousness for every one that believeth” (David Smith, The Day of His Flesh.)

The question I was attempting to give some degree of validity to could be phrased: “How does fulfilling all righteousness tie in to a necessary baptism of repentance?” This was the reason for the scriptures that I’ve submitted for an initial attempt to that answer. What you did not do, at least with these passages, is demonstrate that the actual baptism of Jesus was about some sort of "change of mindset." It was not. It was a public affirmation of his Messianic ministry, so in that sense one can say it marked a public change, but "repentence" doesn't seem to enter in, at least as traditionally understood. And my brother disagrees that a word study on metanoia (repentance) is inappropriate and/or does not reveal a change of mind?? Where do you, brother Charles, get the substance to boldly proclaim "It is not"? This just seems to be a stretch.....As the Acts 19 passage you cite tells us: John's baptism of repentence points to Jesus....Turning toward Jesus is the whole point. Why would Jesus have to turn to Jesus?? Nice spin brother. Of course Jesus didn't need to turn to Jesus. It's rather simple actually, repentance was... (Oh no, Here I go again!) ... yes, repentance was... in the mind of the writers, John knew it, the crowds knew it, and Jesus knew it. - Randy

[Randy Dillon]

Not to be picky, Randy, but if you're going to be a stickler about language, where do you get, "Bring our souls to life"? If what you're saying here is true, then Jesus's baptism is vicarious, which would mean He was baptized for us -- in our place -- NOT as a model for us. That would render baptism on our parts as far less than a sacrament, it seems to me. I'm merely a vessel for Christ to flow through, as you are, but it sure does appear that you under-estimate that grace endowment within me. Your requested text is found in 1 Cor. 15:45 I see know indication from the text that Jesus was "thinking differently" about His ministry! It was John the Baptist and the crowd who needed to think differently! Read the text, Randy. Jesus approached the baptism. What's in His mind? I just don't know Charles.... not if I isolate my estimation from that single passage. All I can suggest with any sense of preciseness, is that it was on the minds of the spectators, and this included John. No speculation there! Now when we evaluate the characteristics of His 'functioning' in ministry, my submitted passages are quite revealing. He, for the first time in human existence, was a 'body-wrapped' Deity. Dependent completely upon His Father, He had no problem admitting that to all. (I do nothing of myself John 8:28 )The Kenosis chapter makes it clear that there was a pivotal point in this realization. I would not say it is "a stretch" to believe that this was indeed a change of thinking from His previous existence. It seems that in many of your posts you are bringing your concept to the table and then simply using Scripture selectively to justify it. What does the text say about what you're saying? Is it Jesus or John the Baptist who is thinking differently? Is it Jesus or the crowds that need to properly re-think the concept of Messiah? Both. Now it should not be necessary for me to vindicate myself in the disciplines of exegesis, especially when a brother doesn't bring his own to the table! I pray that upon re-evaluating your words you'll see how unfair that accusation is, and that without the slightest degree of evidence! (Unless you desire to substantiate it by pulling quotes from other posts - which we all know you won't do.) Frankly, it's just a cheap shot, and is really beneath your character as one of my peers in Christian ministry. No offense is taken Charles, it's just that a public defense is in order and proper here. May God richly bless you is my prayer. - Randy

[Crystal Lutton]

not if I isolate my estimation from that single passage
I do not believe we are supposed to isolate our estimation from one single text. That is proof texting and it doesn't lead to sound theology in my experience. Scripture interprets Scripture and must be sound within a full understanding.

Our Lord's repentance was a result of Philippians 2:8 -- which brought about His 'thinking differently after'. After what? After this dawning of realizing a repositioning of the Logos as incarnate.

Phil 2:8 "And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!"

Ahhh--well I do not believe he only realized who he was or his calling when he was baptized. The idea that Jesus repented is very disturbing to me. He was not going in the wrong direction before his baptism--he was actually walking directly into his full ministry.

[Randy Dillon]

Ahhh--well I do not believe he only realized who he was or his calling when he was baptized. The idea that Jesus repented is very disturbing to me. He was not going in the wrong direction before his baptism--he was actually walking directly into his full ministry. He fully identified with our frame, and even in His perfect blameless purity, demonstrated the importance of metanoia - by repositioning His mind after assessing His Father's will and His locale thereafter. It thrills me to watch this unfold throughout the scriptures. Even in the Gethsemane experience, where the all important 'fixing of the will' is sealed even under the most intense duress.

Repentance, not as a lost son, but truly, as a Son under His Father's guidance. We need to reevaluate that discipline, even as Spirit-filled believers. - Randy

[Crystal Lutton]

Repentance involves walking in the wrong direction and turning around--as was said earlier, usually related to sin. But even take away the idea of sin and we've got walking in the wrong direction and turning around. Jesus never walked in the wrong direction. Jesus walked straight to the cross without faltering. Even in the Temple at 12 when asked by his earthly parents why he had scared them he asked them why they didn't assume he would be in his Father's home.

I think it's a leap to say that because John was calling people to a baptism of repentance the immersion that Jesus received was of repentance. Immersions, or ritual cleansings, were done for many many things. John hesitated to immerse Jesus not because Jesus didn't need to repent (which I believe he didn't) but because John knew he was not even worthy to immerse Jesus--that Jesus should have been immersing him! John's role was to be Jesus' Elijah, and I would suggest that the meaning of the immersion is provided by what happened next--God affirming that Jesus was the Messiah.

[Charles W Christian]

He fully identified with our frame, and even in His perfect blameless purity, demonstrated the importance of metanoia - by repositioning His mind after assessing His Father's will and His locale thereafter. It thrills me to watch this unfold throughout the scriptures. Even in the Gethsemane experience, where the all important 'fixing of the will' is sealed even under the most intense duress.

Repentance, not as a lost son, but truly, as a Son under His Father's guidance. We need to reevaluate that discipline, even as Spirit-filled believers. - Randy

Randy-
I think your somewhat patronizing language in some of your resopnses to me and to Crystal just mask two things:
1) We all agree that John's baptism was "of repentance." You seem to be trying to make it sound like you're making a point that we're missing by saying that. You're not....We agree on that in general.

2) Your use of the term repentance still seems a bit of stretch in my view, and apparently that of Crystal's although I won't pretend to speak for her in detail.

If Jesus is "changing His mind/mindset," which is the most literal rendering of that term, then what is He changing it from and to? Did He really change His way of thinking/mindset, or did He simply change by becoming incarnate. If He became incarnate (which we all agree He did), then that is not exactly the same thing as "repenting". That is not a change of thinking/mind/mindset. It is simply, as the Councils remind us, that the Divine Logos took upon himself human body and nature. That is a change alright, but it is not associated with "repentance" in the strict sense. And His baptism, as attested by the Gospels, marks the beginning of the public Messianic ministry of Jesus. His "time" of ministry. If you want to call this a "repentance" then I guess you can, but just know that it is not something historically identified with the baptism of Jesus. His baptism is more like a public coronation or inauguration of His ministry.

Your exegesis isn't valid just because you can make a case for it. That's not what makes exegesis valid or scholarly. Does it jive with the fulness of the biblcal witness and with how scholars throughout Christian history have assessed this moment? (Charles looks at Randy and shakes his head noting the negative answer to this....)....

Also, could you stop patronizing those of us who disagree with you, please. It doesn't impress or intimidate. If I think you're wrong, I'll give my best reasons why I think so. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and move on. In this case, I really don't see any evidence you've put forth that Jesus's baptism was one of repentance. If anything, like Jesus does later with the Passover meal, He puts a specific Messianic "flavor" to this sacrament of baptism.....

Thanks,
Charles

[Charles W Christian]

Repentance involves walking in the wrong direction and turning around--as was said earlier, usually related to sin. But even take away the idea of sin and we've got walking in the wrong direction and turning around. Jesus never walked in the wrong direction. Jesus walked straight to the cross without faltering. Even in the Temple at 12 when asked by his earthly parents why he had scared them he asked them why they didn't assume he would be in his Father's home.

I think it's a leap to say that because John was calling people to a baptism of repentance the immersion that Jesus received was of repentance. Immersions, or ritual cleansings, were done for many many things. John hesitated to immerse Jesus not because Jesus didn't need to repent (which I believe he didn't) but because John knew he was not even worthy to immerse Jesus--that Jesus should have been immersing him! John's role was to be Jesus' Elijah, and I would suggest that the meaning of the immersion is provided by what happened next--God affirming that Jesus was the Messiah.

Randy,
If your thanks is affirming what Crystal said, do you recognize that she disagrees with your assumptions?

It's OK if this is the case -- in fact, I applaud your willingness to affirm an answer that is different from yours. It is different....

CWC

[Randy Dillon]

Hi Charles, thanks for being paitient with me, and for alerting me to some of your concerns. Got some time finally, let me address your last posts.1) We all agree that John's baptism was "of repentance." You seem to be trying to make it sound like you're making a point that we're missing by saying that. You're not....We agree on that in general. No, dear brother, my careful reiteration is in defense of a claim discrediting one’s homelitical discipline.

Ideally, a fella could bring in the scripture first, discuss the literary style of the text, delve into the cultural background, do a grammatical word study, a sentence outline, analyze the voice, tense, mood, and gender, etc.. strive to accurately diagnose the theme of the particular writer, and close with a discussion of the concept uncovered. Of course, the posts would be lengthy and though honoring the hermeneutical rules, the central point would be overly congested beneath the clutter of it all.

Typically, the hook pulls the reader in, then you substantiate your point. “Say what you mean, mean what you say.” So my repetitious style was to substantiate my scriptural grounds for the concept - “Jesus lived in the spirit of repentance” – rather than trying to merely prove the obvious that John’s baptism was one of repentance. 2) Your use of the term repentance still seems a bit of stretch in my view … If Jesus is "changing His mind/mindset," which is the most literal rendering of that term, then what is He changing it from and to? Did He really change His way of thinking/mindset, or did He simply change by becoming incarnate. If He became incarnate (which we all agree He did), then that is not exactly the same thing as "repenting". That is not a change of thinking/mind/mindset. It is simply, as the Councils remind us, that the Divine Logos took upon himself human body and nature. That is a change alright, but it is not associated with "repentance" in the strict sense. And His baptism, as attested by the Gospels, marks the beginning of the public Messianic ministry of Jesus. His "time" of ministry. If you want to call this a "repentance" then I guess you can, but just know that it is not something historically identified with the baptism of Jesus. His baptism is more like a public coronation or inauguration of His ministry. Again quoting my esteemed friend: “…simply change by becoming incarnate…?"

My Privileged Response: Now why would you think that my position is centered soley on His Incaranation, and not His 'mental' reaction to it? I certainly didn’t say that. Philippians 2:8, as cited, “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself” -- Jesus sees himself in a physical shell and alters his mind accordingly. I.e. He humbles himself and becomes obedient. “Being found” is in the passive voice, indicating something that happens to him, as “became obedient” (which is simply fascinating), is in the middle voice -- which is the voice depicting what we do to ourselves. Now please read carefully, I didn’t state that this happened at the baptism, cuz I don’t know when this dawned on him --- but it is his mindset, which in Philippians 2:5 we are to take on as our own.

Very clearly, our Lord demonstrates what should be “our mind” which was “His mind” and follow His lead in the manner He fulfilled all righteousness: We too are in the fashion of weak, dependent bodily vessels. What’s our recourse? To think differently. We should assume the same attitude. Humble ourselves and become obedient even to the death of OUR cross. No, not a stretch, read Paul’s testimony to Peter in Galatians 2:20. We need to admit that most associate repentance with what they "past tensed did" - before exercising saving faith. “Yeah man, I used to drink, cuss, smoke and chew, and hung around with girls that do! But I repented and am a new man now.” Oh… but Jesus takes us further and calls us to walk into a “repentance on standby mode” … for as He gives us additional light, and/or as life experiences uncover our human orientated responses, (or just to be sounding a bit more academic: our anthropocentricity rather than theocentricity) we too should be repenting “thinking differently after” those inspired encounters under the hand of the divine teacher. Your exegesis isn't valid just because you can make a case for it. That's not what makes exegesis valid or scholarly. Does it jive with the fulness of the biblcal witness and with how scholars throughout Christian history have assessed this moment? (Charles looks at Randy and shakes his head noting the negative answer to this....).... (Randy looks back in love toward his brother and utters..) “I still take the biblical witness as a greater authority than that of tradition alone.” The Wesleyan quadrilateral – more properly a trilateral – serves the final authority of Holy Scripture. I remind you that there is biblical witness to this as submitted “All my brother has to do -- is give credit where credit is due.” Also, could you stop patronizing those of us who disagree with you, please. It doesn't impress or intimidate. If I think you're wrong, I'll give my best reasons why I think so. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and move on. Please don’t take this the wrong way for I love you in the love of Christ. But I don’t really care what you think about me. You don’t need to know me, just the subject. I died out years ago to the opinions of others. (Ain’t got time to argue with every yellow dog that wants to bark at me along life’s highway.) I’m not here to be applauded or get cute “thank yous” under my posts. I’m a bit selfish actually, just come in when I see a subject that will give me a counterpoint to my own current views, like yours. I pray about it, see if the objections hold some validity, and alter my views (repent) if necessary. Now in respect to the rules of the board and more importantly to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I apologize if I rubbed the cat's hair the wrong way. (Truly and verily) But then again, maybe the ol’ cat needs to turn around! - Randy

[Charles W Christian]

Hi Charles, thanks for being paitient with me, and for alerting me to some of your concerns. Got some time finally, let me address your last posts. No, dear brother, my careful reiteration is in defense of a claim discrediting one’s homelitical discipline.

Ideally, a fella could bring in the scripture first, discuss the literary style of the text, delve into the cultural background, do a grammatical word study, a sentence outline, analyze the voice, tense, mood, and gender, etc.. strive to accurately diagnose the theme of the particular writer, and close with a discussion of the concept uncovered. Of course, the posts would be lengthy and though honoring the hermeneutical rules, the central point would be overly congested beneath the clutter of it all.

Typically, the hook pulls the reader in, then you substantiate your point. “Say what you mean, mean what you say.” So my repetitious style was to substantiate my scriptural grounds for the concept - “Jesus lived in the spirit of repentance” – rather than trying to merely prove the obvious that John’s baptism was one of repentance. Again quoting my esteemed friend: “…simply change by becoming incarnate…?"

My Privileged Response: Now why would you think that my position is centered soley on His Incaranation, and not His 'mental' reaction to it? I certainly didn’t say that. Philippians 2:8, as cited, “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself” -- Jesus sees himself in a physical shell and alters his mind accordingly. I.e. He humbles himself and becomes obedient. “Being found” is in the passive voice, indicating something that happens to him, as “became obedient” (which is simply fascinating), is in the middle voice -- which is the voice depicting what we do to ourselves. Now please read carefully, I didn’t state that this happened at the baptism, cuz I don’t know when this dawned on him --- but it is his mindset, which in Philippians 2:5 we are to take on as our own.

Very clearly, our Lord demonstrates what should be “our mind” which was “His mind” and follow His lead in the manner He fulfilled all righteousness: We too are in the fashion of weak, dependent bodily vessels. What’s our recourse? To think differently. We should assume the same attitude. Humble ourselves and become obedient even to the death of OUR cross. No, not a stretch, read Paul’s testimony to Peter in Galatians 2:20. We need to admit that most associate repentance with what they "past tensed did" - before exercising saving faith. “Yeah man, I used to drink, cuss, smoke and chew, and hung around with girls that do! But I repented and am a new man now.” Oh… but Jesus takes us further and calls us to walk into a “repentance on standby mode” … for as He gives us additional light, and/or as life experiences uncover our human orientated responses, (or just to be sounding a bit more academic: our anthropocentricity rather than theocentricity) we too should be repenting “thinking differently after” those inspired encounters under the hand of the divine teacher. (Randy looks back in love toward his brother and utters..) “I still take the biblical witness as a greater authority than that of tradition alone.” The Wesleyan quadrilateral – more properly a trilateral – serves the final authority of Holy Scripture. I remind you that there is biblical witness to this as submitted “All my brother has to do -- is give credit where credit is due.” Please don’t take this the wrong way for I love you in the love of Christ. But I don’t really care what you think about me. You don’t need to know me, just the subject. I died out years ago to the opinions of others. (Ain’t got time to argue with every yellow dog that wants to bark at me along life’s highway.) I’m not here to be applauded or get cute “thank yous” under my posts. I’m a bit selfish actually, just come in when I see a subject that will give me a counterpoint to my own current views, like yours. I pray about it, see if the objections hold some validity, and alter my views (repent) if necessary. Now in respect to the rules of the board and more importantly to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I apologize if I rubbed the cat's hair the wrong way. (Truly and verily) But then again, maybe the ol’ cat needs to turn around! - Randy

Randy -
Again, the point is that Jesus's baptism is a public initiation of His messianic ministry. The voice of the Father did not say, "Now that my Son has repented, He is finally ready," etc. Look instead what the voice of the Father DID say.

I'm still confused as to why you like the idea of Jesus's baptism being some sort of repentance upon His part. But to each his own, I guess....

Jesus's life is a model for us; Jesus's call is toward both repentance and empowerment to serve God. Jesus's baptism publicly identifies Jesus with His messanic ministry and with John the Baptist, the "Elijah" who was to prepare the way. There seems to be more of that going on in the baptism narratives than there is a "repentance" on the part of Jesus.

Happy trails....

Charles
:q)

[Hans Deventer]

I'm still confused as to why you like the idea of Jesus's baptism being some sort of repentance upon His part.

You're not alone. It beats me completely. Jesus is the one person that lived this earth that had absolutely nothing to repent of. Seems like Christian theology 101 to me.

[Randy Dillon]

... that while Sir Charles is beckoned affirmation... I, an unworthy crumb-grabbing gate-sitter, am, once again, in a familar place all alone? (The dogs lick Randy's wounds)You're not alone. It beats me completely. Jesus is the one person that lived this earth that had absolutely nothing to repent of. Seems like Christian theology 101 to me. Why I just see it as clear as this blue southern sky I'm-a parked under!

It's possible - after a body gets over the initial shock of the statement - to see how this 'metanoeo' meta-after nous - thought-disposition is necessary for all of us. The Sunday morning sermon oughta bring some afterthought, the studious searching of scripture oughta bring some afterthought, and it's just not hard for lil' 'ol me to see some afterthought with God when -in His kenosis- He realized He was to function as the last Adam. In all the other aspects that it represents, the inauguration of His ministry, etc.. it's wise to include the divine modeling -- "thinking differently after our divine encounters" is a good thing. Now Jesus exemplifies a pattern for us, one as our last Representative Man we shoulda oughta better follow.

Warning: "I'll ve back" (The good Lord willing) Oh that's right, I'm not 'sposed to say that! - Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Why I just see it as clear as this blue southern sky I'm-a parked under!

I don't know, Randy, I really don't.

[Crystal Lutton]

Randy, I can't help but feel that you are suggesting Jesus' encounter at his baptism somehow changed him--as though he wasn't fully God before that moment so everything changed for him. Was it his reality; his experience; his purpose. Because I believe all of these were consistent from the moment of his conception to the moment of his baptism and beyond. He walked a straight course or he was not God; he is the same yesterday, today and forever or he is not God.

Unless you are suggesting that God needs repent.

[Randy Dillon]

Randy, I can't help but feel that you are suggesting Jesus' encounter at his baptism somehow changed him--as though he wasn't fully God before that moment so everything changed for him. Was it his reality; his experience; his purpose. Because I believe all of these were consistent from the moment of his conception to the moment of his baptism and beyond. He walked a straight course or he was not God; he is the same yesterday, today and forever or he is not God. --- Unless you are suggesting that God needs to repent.Hi Crystal, I appreciate your intellectual honesty and your disagreements. It helps me to see this personal study more objectively. Thank you. Now sister, I'm not suggesting that God repented, but that 'the man Jesus' did repent in the purest form of the Greek word for repentance - 'metanoeo'. Also, this 'metanoeo maneuvering' of Christ has already transpired before the baptism.

There are so many angles to this study. He Who is fully God becomes a recipient? He Who is fully God is passively portrayed? He Who is fully God is endowed with the Spirit? Now, is He just ‘play-acting’? Is He moving through real time, real experiences and actualities as a mere performer on script, while His true identity is veiled behind a pretentious construct? Is this to be compared to some kind of Hollywood presentation from Heaven where the actor’s screenplay is imaginary and unrelated to his real, authentic identity? Was he some sort of apparition or phantom? Or was Jesus also fully man? Did he really move in and out of the social circles, have a flesh on like us, appetites like us, feel like us, eat like us, tire like us, age like us, and live under the pressures and stresses, trials and temptations, just like us? If this is true… then he needed replenished and sourced from above – just like us. [This was a new experience for Jesus] My response to this enfleshment: Wow, is it really possible, do we have a representative man in Heaven, rooting for us, praying for us, pleading our case – for us? Glory! Now that inspires and moves me to the core, which makes me kick the covers off in the morning and head out the door into my day. I have someone who walked this same ‘frail- trail’ before me, in settings and contingencies that sometimes threaten, but I have a Savior who met it all head-on victoriously, hey, even death!

So if God the Creator pondered the human scenario within the Triune commune, and suggested that He take on flesh… man, what a moment! Perhaps His uttering proceeded along these lines: “I know, let’s take on the case for fallen humanity by becoming one of them!! Let’s fully identify with their lot, and with no special advantages other than you my son, are born and remain sinless, so you can really ‘go to bat for them’ and knock a grand slam homer right there in the devil’s own ballpark! Hey, we’ll pick it back up right there where Adam lost it!” Yeah, I can sure follow that Savior, right into every test and situation. Because he’s been there-done that, bought that t-shirt. Yes ma’am, I’d study his life so intently. I’d watch how he “went about His Father business” .. how he handled the temptations of the devil, how he taught, how he preached, how he struggled and wrestled for the souls of humanity, and yes, how he was so careful to get situated by all-night prayers, and how he applied ‘metanoeo’ (afterthought) according to the instructions He received. - Randy

[Randy Wise]

There are so many angles to this study. He Who is fully God becomes a recipient? He Who is fully God is passively portrayed? He Who is fully God is endowed with the Spirit? Now, is He just ‘play-acting’? Is He moving through real time, real experiences and actualities as a mere performer on script, while His true identity is veiled behind a pretentious construct? Is this to be compared to some kind of Hollywood presentation from Heaven where the actor’s screenplay is imaginary and unrelated to his real, authentic identity? Was he some sort of apparition or phantom? Or was Jesus also fully man? Did he really move in and out of the social circles, have a flesh on like us, appetites like us, feel like us, eat like us, tire like us, age like us, and live under the pressures and stresses, trials and temptations, just like us? If this is true… then he needed replenished and sourced from above – just like us. [This was a new experience for Jesus] My response to this enfleshment: Wow, is it really possible, do we have a representative man in Heaven, rooting for us, praying for us, pleading our case – for us? Glory! Now that inspires and moves me to the core, which makes me kick the covers off in the morning and head out the door into my day. I have someone who walked this same ‘frail- trail’ before me, in settings and contingencies that sometimes threaten, but I have a Savior who met it all head-on victoriously, hey, even death!



If you are trying to state Jesus felt it was proper for Him to go through this baptism, but not in a sence of a need for repentance, but in a sense to fullfill all righteoueness, as Jesus is our teacher and experienced humanity , I can see that.

Randy

[Charles W Christian]

Again, Randy D., you're carefully filling your perspective with things we already agree upon and throwing in "repentance" at the end! You're making it sound like you're defending Jesus's humanity from those of us who disagree upon your usage of metanoeo. That is an unfair and meaningless way to argue your case.

We agree that Jesus was "in every way like us," as the Scripture says; however, it goes onto say, "but without sin," which would seem to preclude (disallow) Jesus's need for repentance in the most common usage of that word "repent." Jesus's changes in the Incarnation, and His role is clarified publicly in baptism, but to say He changes His mind or mindset, as the word "repent" in the Greek would imply, is a stretch that (once again) is not found in either the text or the tradition.

Now, based upon what I've seen of all your previous Naznet posts, I recognize you're not the kind who likes to change his mind on things once you're set (in other words, about your own interpretations you seem to want to argue more than you want to dialogue or even...dare I say..."repent" (change your mind)), so I'm writing this more for the sake of others. I have tried to see ways in which your point of view can be applied (a change of situation, a public affirmation of the Ministry of Jesus, a public change of role, etc.). However, you want to keep trying to maneuver your view into the text, mostly by making it sound like you are disagreeing with many of us on things we already all affirm! That way of arguing is just dishonest, and I'm calling you out on it.

Having said that, I am also glad you brought this up, since we need to see that Jesus is the focus of the sacraments of baptism (and communion). He is the focus in the sense that they point to Him (as John the Baptist himself affirmed). Jesus is not in need of repentance; rather, WE are in need of Jesus.

Thanks,
Charles

[Randy Dillon]

Again, Randy D., you're carefully filling your perspective with things we already agree upon and throwing in "repentance" at the end! You're making it sound like you're defending Jesus's humanity from those of us who disagree upon your usage of metanoeo. That is an unfair and meaningless way to argue your case.

The Subject: The premise has been stated precisely: “Jesus lived in the spirit of repentance”. Then in submitting biblical passages for reference points, the effort was steadily moved out from this specific proposal in an effort to position it within the framework of the commonly accepted branches of Christology and soteriology. More specifically, the central idea has been placed fittingly into commonly accepted understandings concerning our Lord’s humanity and our call to pattern our lives after his earthly life. And to this the accusation is lodged that is a meaningless and unfair way to argue a case?

The Spin: It's always interesting to watch -- how a diversion away from the subject shifts to a study over one’s human behavior -- this isn’t simply because someone disagrees, but because a weak opposing view needs a cover. This is popularly known as “spin”. Here, the ‘spin’ is to analyze the person rather than the stated premise. (Quote: “Again, Randy D., your… you're not the kind who..” ) This style of posting constantly focuses upon the “participant” rather than the “premise”. In reality, the objector has had very little to offer by way of substance, so objections resort to psychoanalyzing the writer and his/her supposed deficiencies. And this with the blessing of one of the board’s moderators! No offense, it has come to be expected here.

The Summation: The subject is not “Randy’s posting style”. Perhaps we need a psychology/counseling board added to Naznet? (Christian Psychology, of course.) Maybe we could call it “The Couch” and I can be the first customer or some such thing.

We agree that Jesus was "in every way like us," as the Scripture says; however, it goes onto say, "but without sin," which would seem to preclude (disallow) Jesus's need for repentance in the most common usage of that word "repent." Great point! Now we need to notice the progression of this particular ‘theology board’ discussion. It appears that we need a word study of the Greek metanoeo. (Repent) Space need not be wasted on another’s writing style that calls into question an individuals character, does it? No need for “Randy this – Charlie that… must always exchange a tit for a tat.”

The ‘meta’ prefix, what does it mean? The Greek ‘nous’? What drew me in was this wonderful quote from Bob Carabbio We've been "brainwashed" to tie "repentance" to "sin" but it actually has nothing directly to do with THAT - it just means to STOP, turn around, and go another way. In our case SIN is always involved, of course - that's a "given". This germ of an idea in the inner kernel of repentance has an ongoing application in the life of a believer and was demonstrated in the life of Christ.

Repent (metanoeite). Broadus used to say that this is the worst translation in the New Testament. The trouble is that the English word “repent” means “to be sorry again” from the Latin repoenitet (impersonal). John did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite) and conduct. The Vulgate has it “do penance” and Wycliff has followed that. The Old Syriac has it better: “Turn ye.” The French (Geneva) has it “Amendez vous.” This is John’s great word (Bruce) and it has been hopelessly mistranslated. The tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word. The Greek has a word meaning to be sorry (metamelomai) which is exactly our English word repent and it is used of Judas (Mat_27:3). John was a new prophet with the call of the old prophets: “Turn ye” (Joe_2:12; Isa_55:7; Eze_33:11, Eze_33:15). Matthew 3:2 – Robertson’s Word Pictures That way of arguing is just dishonest, and I'm calling you out on it. I’m a liar with a forum moderator giving an "amen" to this post. Is dishonest another word for liar, or am I being dishonest about the word dishonest? Just another desperation tactic - only problem, some of us just don't get chased off as easily as others. Love ya brothers - Randy

[Randy Dillon]

If you are trying to state Jesus felt it was proper for Him to go through this baptism, but not in a sense of a need for repentance, but in a sense to fullfill all righteoueness, as Jesus is our teacher and experienced humanity , I can see that. - Randy Wise Randy that is so very close, except I'm daringly opening myself for attack by stating Jesus did have to re-orientate his thinking, and being that John's baptism is so clearly a baptism of repentance, I'm stating that He knew this would be non-verbally communicated to all encompassing it. The benefit of this concept is the call for the ongoing repentance of the believer. As new light comes we are to think differently afterwards.

[Hans Deventer]

I’m a liar with a forum moderator giving an "amen" to this post. Is dishonest another word for liar, or am I being dishonest about the word dishonest?

Randy, I'm only a moderator if I write as such. Any post made as a moderator contains the sentence: "This is a moderator's post" If it isn't there, it's just Hans who is writing. Thankfully, I didn't have to write all posts I have written on NazNet as a moderator. 99.9% are just me writing, not wearing my moderator's hat.

BTW, Charles didn't call you a liar, hence, neither did I. I have no reason whatsoever to do that. I merely indicated I sympathized with Charles' frustration.

[David Cash]

I guess I hadn't looked at the commentators on this one. My own take from the part of the text about fulfilling all righteousness would indicate that Jesus was doing what people who were serious about walking with God in that setting would do. That would mean that He was setting an example more than repenting, etc. At least that's how I read it. There are some very interesting questions that I sometimes ponder about baptism, but am not ready to ponder them publicly.

David Cash

[Randy Wise]

Randy that is so very close, except I'm daringly opening myself for attack by stating Jesus did have to re-orientate his thinking, and being that John's baptism is so clearly a baptism of repentance, I'm stating that He knew this would be non-verbally communicated to all encompassing it. The benefit of this concept is the call for the ongoing repentance of the believer. As new light comes we are to think differently afterwards.

OK, but I don't see a change. Jesus as Crystal stated is on the same course. He didn't need a change of heart. He was doing the Fathers work.

Randy

[Randy Dillon]

BTW, Charles didn't call you a liar, hence, neither did I. I have no reason whatsoever to do that. I merely indicated I sympathized with Charles' frustration.I repeatedly stated in this discourse that I’m not offended. How foolish it would be for me to do a word study on ‘dishonesty and liar’ rather than metanoeo/repent! Thus, it’s not important for me to go after the bait tossed out before me. My only intention was to magnify the tactic employed to show the motivation for this conduct. The frustration should be with the “point-counterpoint” of the subject content, not with the man. Hans and Charles are wonderful Christian men who love God and His Word, are servants to their people and a blessing to many. I have no personal qualm with either of them. Now, back to the subject. - Randy

[Charles W Christian]

I repeatedly stated in this discourse that I’m not offended. How foolish it would be for me to do a word study on ‘dishonesty and liar’ rather than metanoeo/repent! Thus, it’s not important for me to go after the bait tossed out before me. My only intention was to magnify the tactic employed to show the motivation for this conduct. The frustration should be with the “point-counterpoint” of the subject content, not with the man. Hans and Charles are wonderful Christian men who love God and His Word, are servants to their people and a blessing to many. I have no personal qualm with either of them. Now, back to the subject. - Randy

I don't think lowly of you either, Randy. It just seemed to me like you were changing the subject away from the "repentance" argument a few times there. You basically linked repentance with Jesus's baptism. I don't exactly link repentance with the baptism of Jesus in the same way you do. We agree that in general John's baptism was one of repentance. We agree (I think we agree) that Jesus was not in need of repentance from sin. It seems we disagree about whether Jesus's baptism marked a "change of mindset" for Jesus - a sort of growing into His messianic ministry -- or, if it marked a public recognition of His messianic ministry accompanied by a public affirmation of the "Elijah" role of John the Baptist.

We can agree to disagree on this. We both know that metanoeo can literally mean "change" (meta) of mind(set) (nous). It seems to me to imply a marked turning in one's thinking/mindset in much of the biblical contexts, and I don't see this exactly in the baptism of Jesus, nor do I think that this is the "big point" of Jesus's baptism. I think you disagree with me on this. No problem..... We both would affirm the need for baptism, and I think we'd both affirm that baptism is a sacrament that points us to Jesus and allows us a special encounter with Jesus....

Blessed are the peacemakers.....:basic03

Charles

[Randy Dillon]

OK, but I don't see a change. Jesus as Crystal stated is on the same course. He didn't need a change of heart. He was doing the Fathers work. True, Jesus in His divinity is immutable, Jesus in His humanity has a ".. new consciousness of all experiences purely human." [A.M. Hills "Fundamental Christian Theology" pg. 291.]

Hills continues:The experience of weakness, weariness, need of sleep, pain, hunger and thirst, and the like. As the eternal Son of God He could have felt no such experiences. He could not have laid aside the radiance of His eternal glory, to become a 'root out of dry ground', 'marred more than the sons of men', having 'no form or comeliness' and 'no beauty that men should desire Him', without being conscious of a strange humiliation - an experience wholly different from anything He had ever known. There must have been a new consciousness of Deity within human limits; it could be nothing more. He goes on to state that "there may have been some self-imposed limitation of knowledge, which explain that remarkable verse". Matthew 24:36.

Somewhere, somehow, an eternal Deity had to "think differently afterwards". - Randy

[Crystal Lutton]

Randy D., I'll be honest that I understand what you are saying and I completely disagree :) If you take the theological position you are arguing for so adamantly to logical conclusions I do not believe it holds up to Scripture as a whole. It presents certain characters for God that I know some embrace but I just don't. I understand the appeal of it, I understand the human logic of it, and I understand the issues it answers--I can't get over the issues it opens up. Thanks for being open and putting yourself out there though.

[Randy Wise]

True, Jesus in His divinity is immutable, Jesus in His humanity has a ".. new consciousness of all experiences purely human." [A.M. Hills "Fundamental Christian Theology" pg. 291.]

Hills continues: He goes on to state that "there may have been some self-imposed limitation of knowledge, which explain that remarkable verse". Matthew 24:36.

Somewhere, somehow, an eternal Deity had to "think differently afterwards". - Randy

How all that opinion follows "to fullfill all righteousness" is beyond me. I don't see a Jesus who is thinking differently after that baptism. Your premise is that the Father and the Son have one mind. So Matthew 24:36 is stated as remarkable. It is clear from that scripture that the Holy One of Israel was able to keep that knowledge from the Son. Also Rev 1:1 states God gave that testimony to Jesus who gave that testimony to all. That also suggests a separate mind to me. Those questions have more to do with the doctrine of the trinity then the baptism Jesus went through.

Randy

[Randy Dillon]

I don't see a Jesus who is thinking differently after that baptism.Neither do I, I see a Jesus that was thinking differently before He even approached the baptism. This is what I stated previously to Crystal: "I'm not suggesting that God repented, but that 'the man Jesus' did repent in the purest form of the Greek word for repentance - 'metanoeo'. Also, this 'metanoeo maneuvering' of Christ has already transpired before the baptism." Look again at the kenosis for evidence of this metanoeo. Thanks for the comments though everyone, I always consider them prayerfully.

[Wesley Smith]

This thread takes me back to my college days at Bethany Nazarene College when I went through a phase where I was particularly interested in this subject of "Why was Jesus baptised?" The question became a term paper for one of my religion classes.

I do know that the paper with its research still exists in a storage box somewhere. However, we're talking at least 38 years ago, so give me some mercy here, okay?

Baptism, according to my findings, did exist in the Jewish religion as the last part of the requirements for a Gentile to become a Jew. What proceded baptism was a study of the laws and history of the religion. The final act was to shave all body hair, cut finger nails, fast, etc., in order to eliminate any physical carryover from the old Gentile life. The person was then immersed, baptised and the baptism resulted in the creation of a new person. This new person was given a new name and was for all purposes accepted as a Jew. He (I do not remember dealing with "she" converts!) was so totally a different person that debts from his former self could not be collected, his blood line was re-established, he simply was a brand new person. One writer suggested that he could marry his previous mother or sister, in that he was no longer who he used to be.

In my discovery, then, Jesus was baptised not for himself, rather to open true "Jewish-ness" to all non-Jews. Part of my logic centered on what Jesus had said regarding the fact that He would fulfill the law to a jot and tittle extent. Without going and giving exact references, the Romans 2 (at the end of the chapt.) passage where Paul declares that "a person is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and has experienced the circumcism of the heart by the Spirit" somehow factored into my college-age logic.

While I have no desire to have an ongoing participation in this current debate about whether Jesus repented at His baptism, I will say that the possibility that Jesus had to repent of something at baptism is a jolt to my understanding of who He was. Paul stated in 2 Cor. 5:21 that "God made him who HAD NO SIN to be sin for us, that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (God put the wrong on him who never did anything wrong, so we could be put right with God. [Msg])

"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself UNBLEMISHED to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God." (Hebrews 9:14)

In general terms, one might get away with conjecturing that Jesus was repenting at baptism of the direction of his life to that point. Who would argue against the fact that he was making a departure from village life in Nazareth to accept the journey to the cross? But to make that a repentence issue with his baptism by John in the Jordan river seems to me to be an incredible stretch, to trivialize the actual event, like dragging a favorite word or concept or piece of doctrine into a passage just to please oneself. Unblemished is SUCH a nice word in this context! Let it be!

I've tried over the last few years to be an old dog willing to learn new tricks, but I think I'll leave the "repentence of Jesus" up to a younger generation!

Friend,

Wes

[Randy Wise]

John 1:31

I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.


It was proper for Jesus to be baptised to "fullfill" all righteous (see above), but at the first recorded miracle, which was post baptism didn't Jesus state "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." So why then do you state He repented to a new lifestyle at that baptism, which is a misuse of the word repent? Do you see a 180 degree turn in Jesus at that time? A turning of the heart? So Jesus was made known to Israel at that baptism, but that has nothing to do with a "180 degree turn" as Jesus was already the Son of God before that event

Randy

[Randy Dillon]

John 1:31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel. I don't understand your selection of scripture here, for my assertion has nothing to do with denying John as forerunner of Christ. It was proper for Jesus to be baptised to "fullfill" all righteous (see above), but at the first recorded miracle, which was post baptism didn't Jesus state "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." So why then do you state He repented to a new lifestyle at that baptism, which is a misuse of the word repent?It's very easy to make accusations, especially when one doesn't back it up with anything concrete. If "metanoeo" has been misused -- prove how and in what manner. Do you see a 180 degree turn in Jesus at that time? A turning of the heart?No. That's already been answered and clarified as an event previous to the baptism. Is my brother reading the posts? So Jesus was made known to Israel at that baptism, but that has nothing to do with a "180 degree turn" as Jesus was already the Son of God before that event. Right.

Here's the current progression of this discussion:

1. John's baptism signified several great and significant facts in pointing to Jesus. It is in and among these that I have included "His repentance". My submission to this baptismal revelation would fall under the category of His modeling/example for us. It does not deny the other aspects, but embraces them along with His demonstration for all His disciples to follow: "Be living in the spirit of repentance."

2. John's baptism was viewed as a "baptism of repentance". This is undeniable to a true exegete of scripture. There has been no argument about that. All in John's company that day were associating Jesus with repentance.

3. It was asserted that the repentance of Jesus is shown in Philippians 2:6-8 and illustrated logically thereafter by His self-imposed limitations. Logic: A limited God/man in communion with His unlimited Father must be prepared to "think differently after" His encounters-engagements with Him. John 5:30 was another passage used to show this dependency. This was necessitated in the mind of God in order for a theanthorpic man to replace what the first Adam lost.

4. It was hoped that calm minds would engage this subject, but fear always seems to settle in with delicate presuppositions, and strange behavior inevitably arises. Here it is : "Don't mess with my Jesus!" But we're just after truth, or are we? - Randy

[Randy Wise]

I don't understand your selection of scripture here, for my assertion has nothing to do with denying John as forerunner of Christ. It's very easy to make accusations, especially when one doesn't back it up with anything concrete. If "metanoeo" has been misused -- prove how and in what manner.No. That's already been answered and clarified as an event previous to the baptism. Is my brother reading the posts? Right.

Here's the current progression of this discussion:

1. John's baptism signified several great and significant facts in pointing to Jesus. It is in and among these that I have included "His repentance". My submission to this baptismal revelation would fall under the category of His modeling/example for us. It does not deny the other aspects, but embraces them along with His demonstration for all His disciples to follow: "Be living in the spirit of repentance."

2. John's baptism was viewed as a "baptism of repentance". This is undeniable to a true exegete of scripture. There has been no argument about that. All in John's company that day were associating Jesus with repentance.

3. It was asserted that the repentance of Jesus is shown in Philippians 2:6-8 and illustrated logically thereafter by His self-imposed limitations. Logic: A limited God/man in communion with His unlimited Father must be prepared to "think differently after" His encounters-engagements with Him. John 5:30 was another passage used to show this dependency. This was necessitated in the mind of God in order for a theanthorpic man to replace what the first Adam lost.

4. It was hoped that calm minds would engage this subject, but fear always seems to settle in with delicate presuppositions, and strange behavior inevitably arises. Here it is : "Don't mess with my Jesus!" But we're just after truth, or are we? - Randy

Why don't you understand John's statement? I think it does apply to the baptism in question and could point to why Jesus used "fulfilled".

It just doesn't make sense to me to use the word that we know in our tongue as repent to describe a job change. Jesus was the Son of God before and after that baptism. (no change) I have engaged the subject at hand and not your character. However you now seem to be looking at me in regard to #4

I guess I should bail out at this point.


Randy

[Randy Dillon]

I have engaged the subject at hand and not your character. However you now seem to be looking at me in regard to #4 I'm sorry Randy Wise, I wasn't referring you on #4 and really just wanted to stress the sensitivity of the subject and no one person in particular, just the general demeanor approaching it.... always count it a privilege to talk with ya bro. I'll post some more later - Randy

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Jesus is the one person that lived this earth that had absolutely nothing to repent of. Seems like Christian theology 101 to me.

The theology 101 analysis seems to make sense. The baptism of Jesus was the beginning of His Messianic ministry. There are two important factors here – the voice from heaven and the descent of the dove. The voice and the dove are important because the former point to His messianic consciousness and the later was for John the Baptist. The dove revealed to John that Jesus was the Anointed One (John 1:32-34).

It is likely that John was aware of Isaiah 53:13. Jesus was “numbered with the transgressors.” This was probably why John wanted Jesus to baptize him. Jesus insisted on being baptized by John according to Matthew 3:14-15. Why? The answer is right there – to fulfill all righteousness. He did not become Messiah at His baptism. It was not because of some guilt. Instead He made Himself sin for us.

After Jesus’ baptism, John’s preaching changed. He contrasts his baptism with water and that of the Holy Spirit by Jesus. Thus, his sermon – The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.

[Randy Dillon]

It was not because of some guilt.Guilt? It's interesting how our preconceived ideas enter into our conversations. We see the word 'repentance' and read it as 'remorse' rather than 'thinking differently afterwards'. We agree on your other thoughts. - Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Guilt? It's interesting how our preconceived ideas enter into our conversations. We see the word 'repentance' and read it as 'remorse' rather than 'thinking differently afterwards'. We agree on your other thoughts. - Randy

We absolutely read 'thinking differently afterwards'. Regarding to sin, that is. As the Bible does all the time. Quite interesting that you are the only one who doesn't.

To me, that usually means that one has a reason for reading a text a certain way that is not part of the context.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Guilt? It's interesting how our preconceived ideas enter into our conversations. We see the word 'repentance' and read it as 'remorse' rather than 'thinking differently afterwards'. We agree on your other thoughts. - Randy

John's baptism points to guilt and for sinners to repent. In his message on repentance, he prepared people for the new life of Christ. He told sinners, “Repent and be baptized.”

Jesus came along and asked to be baptized. John did not say to Him “Repent and be baptized.” He wanted to be baptized by Jesus. There is no use of words like guilt and repentance in reference to Jesus.

There is nothing here to entertain preconceived ideas. There is no ambiguity in what John preached and to whom he directed his message of repentance. John continued the message of the prophets before him – repentance. The baptism of Jesus fulfilled the prophecies pertaining to baptism with the Holy Spirit.

In John’ baptism he told people to baptize now and be prepared for the age to come. In Jesus’ baptism He welcomed the coming of the Holy Spirit.

If you want to say, “thinking differently afterwards” in reference to the people John was addressing, I can go along with you. However, since Jesus’ baptism was not about repenting, there is no reason for me to entertain “thinking differently afterwards.”

[Charles W Christian]

Randy D,
I think Hans and Ramesh have a good point. For instance, see Acts 1:19 and other places where "repent" is used in NT context in direct reference to sin. That means that although you are correct in general that the term "repent" in its most literal fashion refers to a change of mind(set), in a practical sense, if one links the baptism of Jesus somehow to Jesus's "repentance," this would open the door for a lack of clarity to our folks on Sunday morning -- the folks we're entrusted to teach.

Again, "repent" most often seems to be linked to sin in the NT, and the point of Jesus's baptism was not to simply "repent" in the sense that John the Baptist proclaimed, as even John the Baptist attests to!

Thanks,
Charles

[Randy Dillon]

Randy D, I think Hans and Ramesh have a good point. For instance, see Acts 1:19 and other places where "repent" is used in NT context in direct reference to sin. That means that although you are correct in general that the term "repent" in its most literal fashion refers to a change of mind(set), in a practical sense, if one links the baptism of Jesus somehow to Jesus's "repentance," this would open the door for a lack of clarity to our folks on Sunday morning -- the folks we're entrusted to teach. Again, "repent" most often seems to be linked to sin in the NT, and the point of Jesus's baptism was not to simply "repent" in the sense that John the Baptist proclaimed, as even John the Baptist attests to! - Thanks, Charles Thank you, brother. Your post set me to thinking this through even more. I appreciate your challenges. I have taken your main points and responded to each individually. Again, this is just my counterpoint and isn't written to cast any negative estimate toward you at all.

Objections to accepting the idea that Jesus acknowledged repentance for Himself at John's baptism:

1. Lack of clarity for the people in understanding their own repentance.

I believe the very opposite, my esteemed brother.

This isn’t the fault of the dedicated preacher, and certainly not the wisdom my brother really intends to convey. To follow this kind of thinking through would be the equivalent of saying we need to “dumb it down” so that people will not get confused. I see this ‘gospel taste great - less filling’ happening most everywhere I’ve been.

I’ve often pondered why some of these biblical concepts and ideas are so hard to communicate to others. Personally, I see that this is the struggle I’m experiencing with communicating this metanoeo principle here. We all must prepare our hearts in prayer, study hard, and be alert to The Spirit’s pulse within the pages of this sacred book.. But hey… even Paul found it difficult to expound more deeply, and Peter agreed that some of his teaching was hard to understand! But neither of them even hinted that it was their mistake or that they were somehow in error when people didn’t flock to acclaim them for deeper truths. Hebrews 5:11 and 2 Peter 3:16 Our congregations need to be challenged to ‘think differently’ instead of being dulled down into even a deeper slumber through the monotonous rehashing of ‘theology 101’ they’ve heard a thousand times over.

Most of us are preoccupied with the temporal, having our sensitive, delicate ‘receptors’ overloaded with amusements and various day-to-day activities. Even though much of this is individually, each by itself, justifiable…. it still brings damaging consequences to a person’s spiritual abilities. Result: Higher privileged truths fail to sink deeply enough into our hearts to take root. I see this repeatedly in my own discussions knowing that in far too many occurrences, people hear only what they want to hear, or they listen long enough to find something they don’t agree with, and that’s all they choose to remember. Even in the best sense, they probably retain only a funny story here or there or a simple illustration. But that’s not the fault of a preacher who’s been wrestling in prayer over their souls all week, full afresh from the well…. splashing all over the place ‘rivers of living water’! The decisive factor today is to give most of the quality time to the praise band, endure an endearing PowerPoint sermon, and then beat the rush to the local buffet man! The devil laughs at most of our weak adulterous congregations today, rich in social flare, but poor in the things of God. I do not exclude myself – my heart is under His scrutiny.

2. It is coupled with the idea of sin in the New Testament

In most cases as it concerns we sinful beings, yes, this is true. And this is a valid point. Yet the most important part of the word is not dependent upon an evil association. The word ‘repent’ in its purest form deals with the mind and will of men and women. I don’t have to tell you that this is the heart, the crux, the nitty-gritty, or at the root of all sin. The word ‘nous’ indicates the cognitive ‘machine room’ of man’s thinking, and is the pivotal point of the Gethsemane prayer of Christ. “Not my will but thy will be done” The ‘meta’ prefix before ‘nous’ can mean ‘change’ as most quote it, but it can also mean ‘after’. Conjoined we have “changed-mind” or “after-thought” with both expressing a new pattern in our thinking. In hours of study, perhaps the best full definition for me and for my fellow Christians would be “to think differently after a divine encounter”.

Now some will continue to ask how this fits Jesus. Look at the kenosis passage -as referenced- and tell me convincingly this isn’t there. The benefit is the principle that is displayed. To let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. Be prepared to live in the same way, we are especially found in a weak body. So, look to God and always be ready to think differently, first is last, last is first, greater is least and least is greatest, the weak are strong and the strong are weak, empty yourself, humble yourself, be a servant, become obedient -- (Greek: submissively listen) even to the place of experiencing your own death on a cross.

Refined Proposition: “When the finite engages the infinite, the limited being must be prepared to think differently after each encounter.” Do we approach each Sunday worship, each Bible teaching, each Bible study, with that attitude? If and when we don’t -- We usurp His infinite traits failing do that very thing.

Jesus modeled this perfectly, for He was and is the Perfect Man.

Thanks again for your respected points on this subject - Randy

[Randy Wise]

Randy that is so very close, except I'm daringly opening myself for attack by stating Jesus did have to re-orientate his thinking, and being that John's baptism is so clearly a baptism of repentance, I'm stating that He knew this would be non-verbally communicated to all encompassing it. The benefit of this concept is the call for the ongoing repentance of the believer. As new light comes we are to think differently afterwards.

Jesus continued to pray and put His trust in God His Father after that baptism. His focus shifted to evangelizing the gospel/new covenant message, as Jesus outlined His mission from the scroll of Isaiah that Jesus read to His hometown of Nazareth. There isn't anything difficult in what you are presenting I am just not seeing a change in Jesus that you are grasping for in the baptism in question.

Randy

[Wesley Smith]

Randy,

From my perspective, it would be helpful if you would share a few references that substantiate that Jesus repented. Just to be amiable, I earlier conceded that in a broad definition of repentance that Jesus may have participated (in repentance) when he decided to leave Nazareth. But to turn that into a Sunday School lesson or Sunday morning message about how Jesus repented so we should too is quite a stretch! Please share a specific reference where it says, "Jesus repented...." Or, where there is some later reference where one of the NT writers stated, "Our Lord repented..." If I am following your logic, you are stating that one can assume that since John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, and John baptized Jesus, that Jesus had to repent at some point. That logic doesn't exactly offend me if it is followed by a verse or two that would flesh out exactly what it was that Jesus was repenting of.

Friend,

Wes

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Now some will continue to ask how this fits Jesus. Look at the kenosis passage -as referenced- and tell me convincingly this isn’t there. The benefit is the principle that is displayed. To let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. Be prepared to live in the same way, we are especially found in a weak body. So, look to God and always be ready to think differently, first is last, last is first, greater is least and least is greatest, the weak are strong and the strong are weak, empty yourself, humble yourself, be a servant, become obedient -- (Greek: submissively listen) even to the place of experiencing your own death on a cross. - Randy

I looked at the Kenosis passage (Phil. 2:6-11) and see what God expects of the believer. It is the goal of a growing Christian. That is, to walk as Jesus walked (I John 2:6). In Gen. 17:1 Abraham was commanded to walk before God and be perfect. The Kenosis passage calls the Christian to imitate Christ. He is our Example. Thus, the message is for us to have the mind of Christ.

Further, I see Jesus dying for our sins and not repenting for “something” in Himself.

Verse 6 addresses the deity of Christ. As the Son, He is of the same substance with the Father. However, it is the Father who exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name.

This passage is a great Christological hymn. In His incarnation He empted Himself of Himself and became obedient unto death. We cannot assume repentance in this context. Instead the self-empting and humiliation of Christ led to His exaltation.

Cullmann in “Christology of the New Testament” says, “The Man became a Man.” Pannenberg in “Jesus, God and Man” says, “Attributes essential to his divinity cannot be absent even in his humiliation unless the humiliated were no longer God.” Jesus became a human being but did not sin. He was humiliated and reminded God. There was nothing in Him that called for repentance.

I do not see an issue with us “thinking differently after a divine encounter” as you mentioned. Change is expected in a divine encounter. In repentance, faith, and baptism we encounter God. Therefore, we should think differently.

I do see an issue if “thinking differently after a divine encounter” is applied to Jesus. Jesus emptied Himself and became man but did not allow anything to tarnish His spotless life. Repentance does not fit into this context. If He had to re-orient His thinking, what was His thinking at baptism and what did it change to after baptism?

[Randy Dillon]

There isn't anything difficult in what you are presenting - I am just not seeing a change in Jesus that you are grasping for in the baptism in question. Then you agree that it’s not complicated for anyone to see Jesus relating Himself with repentance at John's baptism. This gains my respect, as it shows due regard for the minds of those in attendance that day. This is what I’m looking for, those who accept the disciplines of biblical exposition. Now I’m aware that you don’t agree with my assertion that Jesus did repent at some point previous, but you admit that a deeper reflection of the event acknowledges how folks would have perceived it. Thank you.

[Randy Wise]

Then you agree that it’s not complicated for anyone to see Jesus relating Himself with repentance at John's baptism. This gains my respect, as it shows due regard for the minds of those in attendance that day. This is what I’m looking for, those who accept the disciplines of biblical exposition. Now I’m aware that you don’t agree with my assertion that Jesus did repent at some point previous, but you admit that a deeper reflection of the event acknowledges how folks would have perceived it. Thank you.

Forgive me Randy D. as I am not a theology expert. I see that baptism as Gods public anointing of Jesus and as a fulfillment of the part of prophecy that proclaimed "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor". John had stated the one who sent him to baptism with water had informed him how the Christ would be revealed. Jesus had to know this and it was proper for Him to under go this baptism. The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord did come down and rest on Him according to the testimony given to all. I don't believe that Jesus viewed that baptism as one who needed change, but as one who needed to "fulfill". In regard to deeper relection I would admit that I have never spent this amount of time on that event. :)

Randy

[Randy Dillon]

From my perspective, it would be helpful if you would share a few references that substantiate that Jesus repented.Hi Wes, yes it would be helpful, wouldn’t it? It would be so much easier if Jesus would just come right out and say: “In case none of you noticed, I just acknowledged my own repentance here at John’s baptism.” Then if John would have stepped up to the mike and said: “OK, Jesus has time to take a few questions. Anybody?” Boy, we wouldn’t have to have this here thread.Just to be amiable, I earlier conceded… Yeah, just to be friendly you agreed……in a broad definition of repentance that Jesus may have participated (in repentance) when he decided to leave Nazareth. But to turn that into a Sunday School lesson or Sunday morning message about how Jesus repented so we should too is quite a stretch! Maybe my brother needs to pray and reflect…. how he would enlarge upon that ‘metanoeo’ concept, and how His servant should apply it for his students, say they need to be sanctified wholly - walking in the Spirit, or somethin’ like that, ya know. Please share a specific reference where it says, "Jesus repented...." Or, where there is some later reference where one of the NT writers stated, "Our Lord repented..." And as I do that, let me throw in a few verses that state verbatim: “Jesus limited Himself”. My dearly respected brother, we’ve both heard unrepentant people who refuse to give up some addiction say the same thing. “Show me where it says I can’t drink and get drunk every now and again. Show me where it says ‘Thou shall not smoke’” Etc… We know that tactic is just a desperate soul tryin’ to find wiggle room in order that they won't have to start ‘thinking differently’ about there sin.

Wes, I have submitted biblical references that substantiate the idea. Just like employing Paul’s command to the Ephesians to avoid “the unfruitful works of darkness”-- we admonish our people to stay away from drinking and smoking, secular entertainment, and on and on... a concept to lead them - under this rule - to arrange their lives proper by avoiding that which is unprofitable and inexpedient. In like manner, we uncover the ‘present-tense principle of repentance’ – even with our Lord – as we attempt to walk in His Spirit.

Principle: - - - Being found in a human frame, Jesus didn’t live from sheer self-initiations. He became nothing (kenosis) -- He lived under the promptings of His Supervising Father. Jesus repented while in human experience, not from sins committed, not from a sinful nature, but from what is "for us" a sinful nature: The usurping of the finite to the place of the Infinite. Though He knew it was not robbery to be equal with God, for He was fully God, yet He voluntary assumed the place of our Last Adam to gain no special advantage over or exception from the adversity of known frailty in a grace-resistant ungodly world. He lived as if He too was in the human predicament – without pretension - fully depending upon His Father for sourcing.If I am following your logic, you are stating that one can assume that since John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, and John baptized Jesus, that Jesus had to repent at some point. That logic doesn't exactly offend me if it is followed by a verse or two that would flesh out exactly what it was that Jesus was repenting of. As I was telling Randy W., that gains my respect and admiration Wes, for even though all these other ideas explaining why Jesus participated in John’s baptism of repentance are true and valid, yet an honest student of scripture has a hard time denying the non-verbal acknowledgement of Jesus to include Himself in this repentance. What a fascinating thing this must have been to John, who still had questions later on as we know!

Imagine His place, growing from the place of an embryo to birth, infancy to adulthood. One day 'the maturing theanthorpic man' looks at His predicament and exercises self-abasement! Wow... - Randy

[Charles W Christian]

Then you agree that it’s not complicated for anyone to see Jesus relating Himself with repentance at John's baptism. This gains my respect, as it shows due regard for the minds of those in attendance that day. This is what I’m looking for, those who accept the disciplines of biblical exposition. Now I’m aware that you don’t agree with my assertion that Jesus did repent at some point previous, but you admit that a deeper reflection of the event acknowledges how folks would have perceived it. Thank you.

Randy -
I don't read the quote you're referencing the way you read it (another exegetical/eisegetical dilemma!).... I hear this quote saying,"It's not that you're making an argument too complicated to understand. Rather, you're making an arguement that is not clear in the text you're referencing."

Anyway...
To say that folks perceived Jesus's baptism as one of repentance that day is different from the original argument you seemed to be making, and if it's an attempt to clarify or even change based upon deeper examination of the evidence, then I commend you for that.

In fact, we don't know for sure what every person in the crowd that day chose to think about Jesus's baptism, but we are not explicitly told. I think you say this in your response to Wes to some degree.

What we do have is Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit, too) clarifying to John the Baptist and all who were open to listening that Jesus was the Son of God to whom they should listen and whom they should obey. THIS is the thrust of the baptism, as several of us have been affirming during this ongoing conversation.

Randy, is your point:
1) That Jesus needed a change of mind(set), then had a change of mindset somehow, and then affirmed that through John's baptism?? That seems to be the logical line you're arguing toward. If so, it seems you are moving away from the emphasis I see in the baptism of Jesus.

2) Are you arguing that Jesus's baptism is a way of showing us that we need to be baptized: if the Son of God "needed" repentance, then certainly so do we? If so, this is an interesting argument, and I would agree that there is something exemplary going on in Jesus's baptism (otherwise, why bother, right?), but I think that you are trying to force too much of a "1 to 1" ratio kind of thing on this particular moment. Because, there is a sense in which Jesus's baptism is different, too....

I think you may be reading too much into this event, and it risks a serious misunderstand of who Jesus was and His purpose for baptism. What you say may be easy to preach, but it twists the theological emphasis, and I think you're sacrificing what is the overall thrust of the text for what will preach. That is bad exegesis, since exegesis is NOT just about what you can make proof statements about, but rather, it is ultimately about what the emphasis of the text in light of its context and intent is....

Thanks,
Charles

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Now I’m aware that you don’t agree with my assertion that Jesus did repent at some point previous... Thank you.

This is a troubling perspective. You are implying that Jesus sinned at some point and repented at some point. Your point of view raised several questions.
1. How do you explain the Virgin Birth?
2. What does your interpretation do to the Incarnation?
3. If Jesus repented did he sin at some point?
4. Where in Scripture is the literal reference to Jesus’ sin and repentance?
5. Where in the Scripture is the allegorical reference to sin and repentance?
6. What does your view do to the divinity/deity of Jesus?
7. If Jesus repented, then He sinned at some previous point. Is He still God?
8. Is there a repented sinner in the Trinity?
9. If He is still God, what does that make us?
10. Where is the evidence?

This may be good discussion. However, after some speculation there needs to be some sort of evidence.

[Charles W Christian]

Randy D., you wrote:
Principle: - - - Being found in a human frame, Jesus didn’t live from sheer self-initiations. He became nothing (kenosis) -- He lived under the promptings of His Supervising Father. Jesus repented while in human experience, not from sins committed, not from a sinful nature, but from what is "for us" a sinful nature: The usurping of the finite to the place of the Infinite. Though He knew it was not robbery to be equal with God, for He was fully God, yet He voluntary assumed the place of our Last Adam to gain no special advantage over or exception from the adversity of known frailty in a grace-resistant ungodly world. He lived as if He too was in the human predicament – without pretension - fully depending upon His Father for sourcing.

This seems to be the main crux of what you're trying to get across in regard to Jesus as "repenting". I think your intentions regarding the emphasis upon Jesus's "self-emptying," or kenosis is a worthwhile conversation. We do tend to over-emphasize the divinity of Jesus at the downplaying or even exclusion of his humanity. We should do our best to hold these in balance, although these are areas of mystery, of course.

Having said that, your statement about what "for us" is sinful nature seems to make a false dichotomy. Our sinful nature is not about our being finite! There is no place in Scripture where our sinfulness equals our finiteness in comparison to God's infinity. God is infinite, yes. We are finite, yes. But to equate our finitiude with our sinfulness goes where Scripture does not! This may be the fatal flaw in the argument you're trying to make. Jesus did not "repent" of His infinity. Jesus took upon Himself the limits of finitude in His human nature: the word "became flesh." This does not equate with sin, even in us! We are not sinful simply because we are finite. We are not even innately infinite, according to Scripture, since God is the Soure of all life, and through Christ, is the Source of eternal life! We do not have innate infinity and we never did, according to the OT and the NT. Our lives are "in God" and "in Christ," and apart from God there is not life at all. This makes us dependent, but it is NOT what makes us sinful. We are weaker than God in our human finitude, since God is God and we are not. However, this weakness and finitude does not in and of itself make us sinful. One becomes sinful when one turns away from the infinite loving God and toward one's own desires and ways! Repentance is needed in order to turn away from self-centeredness and to God. Jesus took upon Himself finitude in some (mysterious) way in the Incarnation. Jesus did NOT sin, nor did Jesus turn toward His own ways. Therefore, Jesus did not need to repent. There was no need of even repenting for taking upon Himself finitude, since finitude in and of itself is NOT sin!

Your reading of finitude as sin is more about Plato or even Gnosticism than it is about the Bible, Randy. I'm not saying you're a Platonist or a Gnostic by saying this. I'm simply saying you're reading something into the text and into your principle that is simply not present in the Bible. Do you agree with what I'm saying here? If not, why not?

If you are arguing that finitude is automatically "sinful", then you simply are making the wrong connection. It is true that humans are finite and that humans are sinful, but our finitude is not the CAUSE of our sinfulness! Therefore, our repentance has nothing to do with our finitude per se. This also means that to link Jesus's alleged "repentance" with His taking on of finitude is in error.

Wow, you made me work hard for that one, by the way. I see that you've put a lot of thought into this, but I think the base assumption has some flaws.

I can think of ways where you can teach something about repentance that is beyond the popular definitions, which is what you're trying to do. And I'd be glad to talk with you about those. But to keep insisting on Jesus as repenting as you're doing in connotation with baptism is just barking up the wrong tree, it seems....

Hang in there....

Blessings,
Charles

[Randy Dillon]

Randy W: I don't believe that Jesus viewed that baptism as one who needed change, but as one who needed to "fulfill". Randy W, what I’m stating is that ‘thinking differently’ was a necessary condition to meet in fulfilling the place for humanity's Representative Servant.

1 Corinthians 15:22 - Choose your representative!

Jesus Christ needed to “flesh it out” where no other human could ever find opportunity or place. He had to function as a man. A Perfect Man, yes, but in the place of Adam’s prior representative position. So to do this Christ had to give up the independent exercise of His divine attributes, and this required a change in His eternal predisposition. This occurred somewhere in the maturation of this theanthorpic Person we, who through grace, affectionately call ‘Savior’. I would add that in and during His self-imposed limitations, prayers in communion with His Father required metanoeo. I appreciate your sincere challenges brother Ran - Randy D

[Randy Dillon]

Charles writes: I don't read the quote you're referencing the way you read it (another exegetical/eisegetical dilemma!).... I hear this quote saying, “It’s not that you're making an argument too complicated to understand. Rather, you're making an argument that is not clear in the text you're referencing." Thanks Charles for the clarification. That’s the fun of it all, finding/refining truth with a strain! If it were easy we’d probably all yawn and go home.

I don’t believe we’re having a problem with the fact that - "a thought could and did occur" - that Jesus is repenting by a lot of people in the crowd. It’s just that "repent" is too closely related to sin in our previous deductions. This is the advantage for the student: Must we always associate repenting with sin, or do we need to repent in areas that are relatively amoral yet crucial to our spiritual development and utility? The kenosis passage of Philippians 2:6-11 is stressing the servanthood of Christ. How He arrived at that servant mentality is contextually vital to the church at Philippi: Finding Himself in human finiteness, He did not self promote. To say that folks perceived Jesus’ baptism as one of repentance that day is different from the original argument you seemed to be making, and if it's an attempt to clarify or even change based upon deeper examination of the evidence, then I commend you for that. Like my brother, I’m always trying to clarify and think differently upon further examination if the evidence demands it. I’d have to go back and reread the thread, but methinks this has been my thought all along. What we do have is Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit, too) clarifying to John the Baptist and all who were open to listening that Jesus was the Son of God to whom they should listen and whom they should obey. THIS is the thrust of the baptism, as several of us have been affirming during this ongoing conversation. Oh we agree here. But my expose isn’t the “what” we are to obey but more in line with how Jesus was obeying and why. The standard of repentance is what I believe to be the headline of the inauguration of His kingdom. Matthew 3:2 Matthew 4:17 Randy, is your point:
1) That Jesus needed a change of mind(set), then had a change of mindset somehow, and then affirmed that through John's baptism?? That seems to be the logical line you're arguing toward. If so, it seems you are moving away from the emphasis I