Mark 1:9 Commentary - Mr. D's Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
Here we have the simple statement that Christ came for baptism. This would make most wonder about the present "cometh" used in the previous text. Was John looking upon the scene around him and did he see Christ coming, or were the two passages removed from one another more than that?
The phrase "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan." would indicate that this was a different time than the passage relating to Christ coming. The synoptics do not shed any further light on this either.
Only Matthew records the hesitation of John to baptize the Lord. Mat 3:14 mentions "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."If our assumption is correct that John knew a lot more than others about the baptism of the Spirit then this passage would only add further weight to our thinking. He states that he needs Christ's baptism rather than Christ needing his. John knew that his baptism was for one purpose, while Christ's baptism was for another purpose.
It is always rather strange to me that those that trace baptism back to the New Testament time go clear back to John the one that had an inferior baptism to the Lord's or believer's baptism. Indeed in Acts the baptism of John was shown to be inferior to church age baptism or believer's baptism. Why would you trace your "spiritual lineage" to an inferior baptism?
Those that believe that the local church is the only church often hold to what is called apostolic succession which goes back to John. Their doctrine is really named incorrectly since John was not an apostle in the sense of the twelve. Indeed if they held to their name they would be more correct - holding to succession back to believer's baptism. They believe that if you are not baptized by one that was baptized by one that was baptized by one that was baptized -- back to John that you have not been properly baptized.
The question should arise, if you trace your authority and purpose back to a man who offered an inferior/different baptism, is your baptism then not inferior also?
Consult other comments:
Mr. D's Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D. Copyright 2006
Used by Permission.