The Baptism of Jesus

Introduction

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mark 1:9-11

The purpose of this article is not to examine the church ordinance of water baptism, but to take a closer look at the baptism of Jesus. We want to address questions like:

• Why did the perfect Son of God choose to be baptized?

• Is there a connection to His priesthood?

• What is the significance of the place where Jesus was baptized?

The Baptism of Jesus

Why Was Jesus Baptized?

The account of Jesus’ baptism is found in all four Gospels (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34) signifying its importance. The question is often asked, “Why was Jesus baptized?” This is a question that has puzzled people for years. Ancient writers have offered all kinds of suggestions.[1] In Matthew’s account of the baptism, it’s obvious that even John the Baptist is initially bewildered and tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized, offering to switch roles (Matthew 3:14).[2] So why was Jesus baptized? There is not a quick, easy answer, because the baptism of Jesus fulfilled more than one purpose.

By the time the Lord arrived for His baptism, John the Baptist had been preaching for about six months.[3] John's message focused on preparing people for the Messiah by calling them to repent of their sins for a heart cleansing, symbolized in a public water baptism (Matthew 3:6, 8; Mark 1:4).^[4] He preached and baptized in the Jordan valley, drawing crowds from Judea and Jerusalem. One summer day, around the year 28 A.D., Jesus is among the crowds that are pouring out to hear John. This is the only time in the New Testament we ever see Jesus and John together (since their mothers met before they were born).[5]

Mark 1:4 states: “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Was Jesus baptized for the remission of sin?! Absolutely not, because He knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; I Peter 2:21-22; 1 John 3:5)! Nor was John’s baptism of Jesus a required step for salvation as some might teach,[6] because Jesus didn’t need to be saved; He was perfect (Hebrew 4:15; 1 Peter 2:21-22).

So we go back to the original question, “What purpose did the baptism of Jesus serve?” You must remember that God sent John the Baptist to be the forerunner of Jesus (Isaiah 40:1-3; Malachi 4:5-6; John 1:6-8, 15-36). Christ was made known to Israel by the baptism of John (John 1:31):

• John introduced Jesus as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29, 34).^[7]

• The Spirit descends on Jesus like a dove (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32).

• And then the voice of God the Father identified Jesus as His Son in Whom He was well pleased (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32-34; Hebrews 5:5-6).

The baptism associated Jesus with His forerunner, John the Baptist; it allowed God to give His approval to what John had done; and it introduced Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God!

The day after Jesus was baptized, John saw Jesus coming toward him and proclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) John’s proclamation revealed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system. At this point, Jesus knew that His ultimate destiny was Calvary!^[8] Jesus knew that His baptism was a visual preview of what was to come: His death, burial, and resurrection.

Matthew’s account gives us more insight into the purpose of Christ’s baptism:

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness ...

Matthew 3:13-15

“To fulfill all righteousness” means to do everything that was righteous – to do absolutely everything that God required. Did John baptize because God required it? Yes, because in John 1:33, John the Baptist said, “He who sent me to baptize in water said to me …” John is saying that God had given him his message and God had given him this symbolic responsibility. This is God’s will, and Jesus approaches John at the Jordan River and says, “If this is what God commands, then I as a man must do what God commands. Although I am holy, I will be obedient.”

A Connection to the Priesthood

In addition to what has already been stated, “to fulfill all righteousness” could also be connected to the requirements for priesthood.^[9] Speaking of Jesus, the writer of Hebrews says:

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:14-17

The Corrupt Priesthood

By the end of the Old Testament, the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood had become corrupt.^[10] This is documented in Malachi, about 400 years before the birth of Christ, how the priest knowingly disregarded the laws of God by offering unacceptable sacrifices (Malachi 1:6-8). Any priest who treated his duties lightly and knowingly disregarded the laws of God was to be put to death, (Leviticus 22:9), meaning these priests were living on borrowed time.

Later in Malachi it becomes obvious that this priesthood is on the way out when God says, “There is someone coming to prepare the way before me.” (Malachi 3:1) This was a reference to John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Jesus to come (Isaiah 40:1-3; Malachi 4:5-6; John 1:6-8, 15-36)!

In Luke’s account, not only do we see John the Baptist fulfilling his role, we see something peculiar about the priesthood:

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;  As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Luke 3:2-4 

Two high priests mentioned – Annas and Caiaphas! Normally there was only one high priest, but in this case there are two.^[11] Why is that? Around the time of the birth of Jesus and John the Baptist, the occupying Roman government decided to take over the priesthood.^[12] The priesthood was supposed to be hereditary and come through the line of Levi, but the Romans started appointing their own priests that they could manipulate.^[13] So, at the time of Jesus, there were two high priests, Annas^[14] and Caiaphas^[15], both appointed by the Romans (Luke 3:2; John 18:13). Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and Jesus stood before these two priests during His trials (John 18:13-27; Matthew 26:57-75). So, the priesthood is corrupt, and God was sending someone to prepare the way for His Son – the True Priest!

Let's now turn our attention to Zacharias (Luke 1:5-25) and John the Baptist.

• Zacharias was a priest of the order of Abijah, which traces back to Aaron (Luke 1:5; 2 Chronicles 24).^[16]

• Zechariah belonged to one of the 24 priestly divisions (1 Chronicles 24).

• His wife, Elizabeth, was “from the daughters of Aaron,” meaning she was of priestly (Aaronide) descent (Luke 1:5).

• Zacharias was at the Altar of Incense in the Inner Court of the Temple performing a priestly duty (Exodus 30:7; Luke 1:8-10).

Because both parents were from the tribe of Levi and the line of Aaron, John the Baptist was born into the priestly caste. Had he chosen the normal path, he could have served in the Temple when his division was on duty (twice a year for one week each time, plus the major festivals). He was not, however, in line for the High Priesthood as some propose.

As previously mentioned, the High Priest during John’s lifetime (and for centuries before) was not chosen strictly by birth order or pure Aaronic descent anymore. Under Herodian and Roman rule:

• The High Priesthood had become a political appointment.

• Multiple priestly families (especially the houses of Annas and Caiaphas) monopolized the office.

• Even among legitimate Aaronic priests, only certain elite families were considered.

Zechariah belonged to the division of Abijah (one of the lower-status courses), not to the small circle of aristocratic priestly families who supplied High Priests. So while John was 100% qualified to be an ordinary priest, he had no realistic path to becoming High Priest.

John deliberately rejected the Temple system. Instead of taking up his hereditary priestly duties in Jerusalem, John went into the wilderness, wore camel-hair clothing, ate locusts and wild honey, and baptized in the Jordan (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:4–6). His ministry was a prophetic protest against the corrupted Temple establishment. He functioned more like an Old Testament prophet than a functioning Levitical priest.

Even though John was not serving in the office of a priest, we must still consider that John was of the tribe of Levi and a direct descendant of Aaron from both of his parents (Luke 1:5). One of the duties of the priests in the Old Testament was to present the sacrifices before the Lord. John the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus could be seen as a priestly presentation of the Ultimate Sacrifice. John’s words the day after the baptism have a decidedly priestly air: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

The Priesthood of Jesus

Now let's address the priesthood of Jesus. First of all, strictly speaking, Jesus’ baptism by John in the Jordan did not fulfill any of the normal Levitical requirements for becoming a priest (or High Priest) in the Aaronic system for several reasons:

At best, Jesus' baptism has some symbolic parallels to the Levitical requirements for becoming a priest:

• Age 30 (same as priests beginning full service) (Luke 3:23).

  
  

• A ceremonial washing/immersion in the Jordan River (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:3; John 1:28).

  
  

• The Spirit descending like the “anointing.” Oil often represents the Holy Spirit (Psalm 45:7; Exodus 29:7; Luke 4:18, 10:34; Isaiah 61:3). The Holy Spirit descended from heaven as a dove and rested upon Jesus (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; Acts 10:38).

However, these are theological and typological parallels, not legal or ritual fulfillment in the Levitical system. The New Testament itself never claims that Jesus’ baptism made Him a priest in the Aaronic sense.

But if it was prophesied that Jesus would be a priest (e.g. Psalm 110:4) and we know this was fulfilled (Hebrews 5:8‑10, 6:20, 7:14-17), how did Jesus become a High Priest? ^[17] Jesus is a priest, but not on the basis of Aaronic descent or Levitical ritual, He is a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6, 7:17). His priesthood is declared directly by God’s oath, and His once-for-all sacrifice (the cross) is what consecrates Him forever (Hebrews 7:20–28). The baptism marks the beginning of His public ministry and the anointing of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), not a Levitical ordination.

John's Baptism of Jesus as a Mikveh

Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan can legitimately be understood as a form of mikveh (ritual immersion), but with important qualifications about the type and purpose of the mikveh.

A mikveh is any valid immersion in “living water” (mayim ḥayyim) or in a properly constructed ritual pool that renders a person ritually pure (tahor) or effects a status change. Historically and halakhically, mikveh has been used for many purposes, not only for impurity:

The Jewish sources of the 1st century (and modern scholarship) overwhelmingly classify John’s baptism as a repentance mikveh performed in living water:

• It took place in the Jordan River (living water).

  
  

• It was a one-time act marking a decisive turn toward God in view of the coming Kingdom.

  
  

• Flavius Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2 §116–119) describes it explicitly in terms of purification of the body after the soul had already been cleansed by righteousness — classic mikveh language.

  
  

• The Dead Sea Scrolls community and other sectarian groups practiced very similar immersions in rivers or cisterns for ongoing repentance and preparation for the eschatological era.

So from a Jewish perspective, what John did was a mikveh. When Jesus came to be baptized, He immersed fully in the Jordan (living water) and identified with the repentant remnant of Israel, even though He Himself had no sin to repent of (Matthew 3:15 – “to fulfill all righteousness”). Early Christian writers (and some modern Jewish) writers therefore see His immersion as the supreme example of a repentance mikveh, even though He did not need purification.

But while Jesus’ baptism was a mikveh in the broad halakhic sense, it was not:

• The specific mikveh of priestly consecration (which required additional washings in the Temple, anointing with oil, and sacrifices).

  
  

• A conversion mikveh (He was already a Jew).

  
  

• A mikveh for removal of ritual impurity (He was sinless and never contracted corpse impurity in a way that required it).

The Location of Jesus’ Baptism

John identified the location where Jesus was baptized as Bethabara or Bethany beyond Jordan (John 1:28). This location goes by many names: Bethany Beyond the Jordan (John 1:28; John 10:40), Bethabara (Beit Arbarah) (Hebrew) (John 1:28), Wadi Al-Kharrar (a brook flowing into the Jordan River), Al-Maghtas (Arabic), Qaser al-Yahud, Kasser al-Yahud, and the Baptismal Site of Jesus. In addition to His baptism, Jesus also withdrew to this area after being threatened with stoning in Jerusalem (John 10:31-40).

According to the Davis Dictionary, Bethabara means “house of the ford” and signifies “the place of the passage.” This is noteworthy because it was in this area where Elijah crossed the Jordan River on dry ground and was then taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:8-11). Shortly thereafter, Elisha also parted the Jordan River in the same place by striking the water with Elijah's mantle signifying his succession as a prophet (2 Kings 2:14). But then there is another significant event in Israel’s history that has a symbolic connection to Jesus’ baptism.

It was at Bethabara where Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River to the Promised Land after the waters miraculously stopped flowing (Joshua 3:14-16). When the priests bearing the Ark of the Covenant stepped into the water, the Jordan River parted (Joshua 3:13). The Ark was a picture, or type of Jesus Christ. The Ark was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. Gold represented Jesus’ deity while wood represented His humanity. Sacrifices were made on this ark to cover the sins of Israel! There’s a lot more to it, but that’s a good overview.

When the Jordan River parted, the waters opened from the Dead Sea to a city called Adam (Joshua 3:15-16). While the river was parted, Joshua established two monuments (Joshua 4). Joshua took 12 stones from the wilderness and built a monument in the Jordan riverbed, but also took 12 stones from the Jordan River and built a monument on the bank on the Israeli side.

Centuries later, John is baptizing people in the Jordan River at this very location (John 1:28). So, when Jesus stepped down into the Jordan River, He just may have been stepping on the stones that Joshua had put there 1500 years before! Why is this significant? Remember the water rolled all the way back from the city called Adam to the Dead Sea. It’s like Jesus was saying: “Baptize me here because I am going to roll the sins back from the first man Adam in the Garden of Eden and cast them into the Dead Sea where nothing lives. I’ll take care of the sins once and for all!”

This is important because Jesus would fulfill the office of high priest and offer a sin offering (hatta't), but not for Himself. Instead, Jesus became the sin offering for others (Romans 8:3; Hebrews 9:26-28, 10:12, 13:11-12; Isaiah 53:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus was the final, perfect sin offering for the sins of the world, fulfilling and replacing the entire Levitical sacrificial (hatta't) system (Hebrews 10:1-8). In the words of John the Baptist: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). That is the ultimate sin offering.

Conclusion

Jesus' baptism was a pivotal event, serving to inaugurate His public ministry, publicly confirm His identity as the Son of God, demonstrate His solidarity with sinful humanity, validate the ministry of John the Baptist, and display a beautiful picture of the Triune God among the earliest followers of Jesus. It also established a pattern for Christian believers to be united with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5).

End Notes

[1] Why would Jesus want to be baptized? Very ancient writers suggested that Jesus came to be baptized to please His mother. In The Gospel According to the Hebrews it says, “Behold, the mother of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, ‘John the Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins, let’s go and be baptized by him.’ But He said to them, ‘What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him, except perchance this very thing that I have said is ignorance?’” This false book presents Jesus as saying, “I don’t know any sin, but maybe the fact that I don’t know this is a sin.” This implies that Jesus is limited in His understanding of who He is Himself. This spurious gospel shows us the early confusion about why Jesus would be coming to be baptized.

The Gnostics had a solution saying that Jesus was purely a man and only a man until His baptism, and at His baptism, the divine Spirit, the logos, the deity element was infused into Him. But then how do you explain that from His birth He was called Immanuel, God with us? And He was a holy child from the beginning and He was the Son of God? If He had no sin, if He needed no confession, if He needed no repentance, if He needed no conversion, no transformation, why being baptized by John?

[2] In Matthew 3:14, “John tried to prevent Him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized by you and you come to me?’” What he is saying is this: “I’m a sinner, I need to be baptized by you, you don’t need to be baptized by me.” John’s treatment of Jesus is the very opposite of his treatment of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In Matthew 3:7, when John saw the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, He said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance.” He said, “You need to repent, and you need to repent with a genuine honest repentance that manifests itself in the fruit of repentance, you snakes.” But John put Jesus  in a very different category. John refused to baptize the Pharisees and the Sadducees because of their sin and impenitence; he refuses to baptize Jesus because of His sinlessness.

[3] For more information on the timeframe of the ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus see the discussion at: history - How long had John the Baptist been preaching before Jesus started his public ministry? - Christianity Stack Exchange.

[4] When the chief priests and elders of the people questioned the authority of Jesus in Matthew 21:23‑27, these are the two questions Jesus asked.  “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or of men?” . .. But they would not answer, reasoning with themselves, saying, “If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?  But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.”  And so they gave an evasive answer “We cannot tell.”

John the Baptist “was a man sent from God” (John 1:6) ‑ “to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17).  John the Baptist was born of the lineage of the Aaronic Priesthood (Luke 1:5).  John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb” and was to be “great in the sight of the Lord” (Luke 1:15).  Jesus said “Among them that are born of women, there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist,” except for Jesus Christ himself, being the LEAST (Mikros = younger in age) in the kingdom of heaven.  John the Baptist was more than a prophet, he was a Gospel Evangelist (Matt 11:8‑15, Luke 16:16).  John's baptism was authorized by God Himself – his authority was Heaven sent.

[5] Luke 1:39-56 describes the meeting of Mary and Elizabeth when both were pregnant: Elizabeth was expecting John the Baptist, and Mary, a virgin, was pregnant with Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah and advanced in years, was in her sixth month of pregnancy, while Mary was pregnant with Jesus after being told by the angel Gabriel she would conceive through the Holy Spirit. Mary traveled from Nazareth to the hill country of Judah, a journey of about 80-90 miles, to visit her cousin. Upon hearing Mary's greeting, the infant John leaped in Elizabeth's womb, an event interpreted as a prophetic recognition of the presence of the Messiah. Filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth exclaimed that Mary was blessed among women and the child she would bear, Jesus, was blessed. Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months, likely until the birth of John the Baptist.

Beyond the meeting of Mary and Elizabeth, the occasion of Jesus’ baptism is the only meeting of John the Baptist and Jesus recorded in the New Testament. Though they were cousins, the Bible gives no indication of if they ever met growing up. Jesus was raised in Galilee and John lived as an ascetic in the desert until the day of his public appearance to Israel (Luke 1:80). Though they contacted each other through their disciples, there is no other indication they had met.

[6] Baptismal regeneration is the doctrine that, at water baptism, a person receives new spiritual life and the forgiveness of sins through the action of the Holy Spirit, being "born again" into the Christian community. This view is held by various Christian traditions, including Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, though the specific nuances of its application and the necessity of faith in conjunction with baptism are debated. Some claim that the salvation process is a combination of repentance and water baptism, and unless we are baptized, we can’t get to Heaven. This doctrine is not supported by Scripture. Water baptism is a symbolic sign of an inward spiritual change, rather than the instrument by which it is caused. While baptism is important, the new birth is a result of faith alone and precedes baptism.

[7] Though Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins, John 1:31-34 indicates that John recognized Jesus as the Messiah through miraculous signs and divine revelation at the baptism, not solely from personal acquaintance.

The verb “knew” (KJV) in John 1:31 is very significant and derives from oida, which suggests a clear, more‑or‑less complete knowledge. The pluperfect tense (past perfect tense) form casts the situation into the past.  It could be that John is confessing that, prior to the phenomenal events at the Jordan, he did not know, “in an absolute way” that Jesus was the Messiah.  For certain, John knew that Jesus was an exceptional person, for he resisted immersing the Lord, insisting: “I have need to be baptized by you” (Matthew 3:14).  It could be that he did not have a clear understanding of the Savior’s true identity until he saw the Spirit descend in the form of a dove, and he heard the divine voice from Heaven in the acknowledgment: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17).

God revealed to John the identity of Jesus as the “One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit,” and afterwards the baptizer could testify: “This is the Son of God” (John 1:33-34).  Accordingly, one of the reasons for Jesus’ baptism was to confirm the Lord’s identity to the prophet, so that John could make “manifest to Israel” (John 1:31) the good news that the Messiah had arrived.

[8] The death of Jesus, as the key ingredient in the plan of redemption, was in the mind of God before the foundation of the world (cf. 1 Peter 1:19). Christ Himself, though, developed as a normal human being, including the expansion of mental consciousness (Luke 2:52).  One cannot but wonder at what point, in His mental and physical maturation, the blessed Savior became aware of His ultimate destiny at Calvary.  We know that by the age of twelve Jesus was cognizant of His unique status as the Son of God (Luke 2:49). From the time of his infancy, Mary was privy to the dark shadows that loomed in her Son’s future (Luke 2:35).

One thing seems clear; by the time He submitted to immersion at the hands of John, He knew of His appointment with the cross – and likely long before that. Christ’s burial in the water of Jordan, and His resurrection therefrom, was a visual preview of the burial (which implies a death, of course) and resurrection of the Lord, which would occur some three and one‑half years later.

[9] From Matthew 3:15, we see from this that baptism is a work of righteousness.  Just like (1) Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21); (2) Jesus observed all the laws of Moses (Matthew 5:17); and Jesus participated in the religious feasts, He was also baptized in water. But water baptism is a work of righteousness and works of righteousness do not save us (Titus 3:5) proving water baptism does not save.  Water baptism is an ordinance in the same category as the Lord’s Supper.  It is commanded (Matthew 28:19) and therefore should be fulfilled, but water baptism is not necessary for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9).  For believers today, baptism then is an act of obedience to the pattern set by Jesus.

[10] The Book of Daniel regards the period from 536 to 171 B.C. (Joshua to Jason) as inaugurated by the first, and closed by the last, “anointed”; that is, Jason, deposed in 171, was the last of the line of legitimate high priests.

[11] Two priests was an unusual, but not unique, situation. Under David and Solomon there were two priests, Abiathar and Zadok, who simultaneously bore the title High Priest (2 Samuel 8:17; 1 Chronicles 24:3; 1 Kings 4:4). (Abiathar had also the name of Ahimelech, as well as his father.)  On the massacre of the priests at Nob, (1 Samuel 22:19), Saul conferred the priesthood on Zadok, of the family of Eleazar (1 Chronicles 6:50), while David acknowledged Ahimelech, of Ithamar's family, who fled to him.  The two high priests exercised their office under the respective princes to whom they were attached.

David established Zadock at Gibeah, or Gibeon, where the ark had been all the days of Saul; and Abiathar was established at Jerusalem, where the ark now was: so there were two high priests, and two distinct services; but there was only one ark. How long the service at Gibeon was continued we cannot tell; the principal functions were no doubt performed at Jerusalem.  On David's obtaining the kingdom over all Israel, they both retained their dignity; Ahimelech officiating at Jerusalem, and Zadok at Gibeon (I Chronicles 16:39).

[12] Around the time that Jesus was born, the Roman government decided to take over the priesthood. Could Jesus have been referring to this when He said: “It is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13)?   And in John 10:8 when He spoke of being the Shepherd, and all who came before him where thieves and robbers in control of the Temple? It is very interesting indeed to discover that Jesus was actually quoting a verse from the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:11).  In the Jeremiah text the word “thieves” as used by Jesus is actually “robbers.”  A look at the Hebrew word for “robbers” is quite unique and shocking.  That Hebrew word is “periyts” {per‑eets} (Strongs 6530).  Jesus accused the Temple Cult of being thieves, Jeremiah called them robbers, and the Hebrew word is periyts.  We know the high priesthood had long been a position of power robbed from the sons of Aaron and purchased with tax money.  The office was not filled with a son of Aaron.

Reference:  http://jesus‑messiah.com/html/without_god.html

[13] Aaron, the brother of Moses and Miriam, was of the tribe of Levi.  He married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab of the tribe of Judah, with whom he had four sons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.  Aaron’s four sons were assigned to assist their father in the Levitical priesthood, however the oldest two, Nadab and Abihu, were put to death by The Lord for disobeying His instructions.

After the death of Aaron, the priesthood continued through Eleazar and Ithamar. After the death of Aaron, Moses appointed Eleazar as the new High Priest (Numbers 20:23-28).  Eleazar served as a close assistant to Moses, and then to Joshua (Joshua 14:1).  Eleazar was Israel’s High Priest for the rest of his life, until he died and was buried in the land of Israel. The High Priesthood continued in Eleazar’s line until Eli, who was descended from Ithamar, but was restored to Eleazar in later years.

After the death of Aaron, Ithamar served as a priest under his brother Eleazar (Numbers 3:4; 38:21).  The line of Ithamar continued serving as priests until the High Priesthood was assumed by Eli, who was a descendant of Ithamar.  The Lord later removed the High Priesthood from Eli’s family line because of Eli’s corrupt sons, Hophni and Phinehas, and Eli’s weakness in not removing them himself from the priesthood, however it was not fully competed until years later when King Solomon removed disloyal Abiathar and appointed Zadok, of the line of Eleazar, in his place (1 Samuel 2:30, 35; 1 Kings 2:26‑27,35).

[14] Annas was high priest A.D. 7‑14. In A.D. 25 Caiaphas, who had married the daughter of Annas (John 18:13), was raised to that office, and probably Annas was now made president of the Sanhedrim, or deputy or coadjutor of the high priest, and thus was also called high priest along with Caiaphas (Luke 3:2).  By the Mosaic law the high‑priesthood was held for life (Num. 3:10); and although Annas had been deposed by the Roman procurator, the Jews may still have regarded him as legally the high priest.  Our Lord was first brought before Annas, and after a brief questioning of him (John 18:19‑23) was sent to Caiaphas, when some members of the Sanhedrim had met, and the first trial of Jesus took place (Matt. 26:57‑68).  This examination of our Lord before Annas is recorded only by John.  Annas was president of the Sanhedrim before which Peter and John were brought (Acts 4:6).

[15] Caiaphas was the Jewish high priest (A.D. 27‑36) at the beginning of our Lord's public ministry, in the reign of Tiberius (Luke 3:2), and also at the time of his condemnation and crucifixion (Matthew 26:3,57; John 11:49; 18:13, 14).  He held this office during the whole of Pilate's administration. His wife was the daughter of Annas, who had formerly been high priest, and was probably the vicar or deputy (Heb. sagan) of Caiaphas.  He was of the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), and was a member of the council when he gave his opinion that Jesus should be put to death “for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:50).  In these words he uttered a prophecy where like Saul, he was a prophet in spite of himself.  Caiaphas had no power to inflict the punishment of death, and therefore Jesus was sent to Pilate, the Roman governor, that he might duly pronounce the sentence against him (Matthew 27:2; John 18:28).  At a later period his hostility to the gospel is still manifest (Acts 4:6).

[16] Zacharias was of the course of Abia, or in Hebrew - Abijah (reference I Chronicles 24:6, 10, 19).  When in David’s time the family of Aaron was multiplied, he divided them into twenty‑four courses, for the more regular performance of their office, that it might never be either neglected for want of hands or engrossed by a few.  The eighth of those was that of Abia (1 Chronicles 24:10), who was descended from Eleazar, Aaron’s eldest son.  The wife of Zacharias was of the daughters of Aaron too, and her name was Elisabeth, the very same name with Elisheba the wife of Aaron (Exodus 6:23).  The priests (Josephus saith) was very careful to marry within their own family, that they might maintain the dignity of the priesthood and keep it without mixture.

[17] Melchizedek has been the source of speculation and is a most mysterious figure.  Biblical scholars know very little about him, and there has been a lot of conjecture about who he was.  He is introduced in Genesis, chapter 14 where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Abram’s nephew Lot lived, were attacked by an army made up of several kingdoms (Genesis 14:11-12).  This massive army had plundered the cities’ food and other supplies and taken captive many of the inhabitants, including Lot and his family (Genesis 14:14-16).  Abram had just won an incredible victory, bringing down this whole confederated army and was returning home from battle when Melchizedek came out to meet him (Genesis 14:17-20).  Abram paid tithes to Melchizedek from all the bounty he had taken from the defeated armies.  Scripture tells us that, in turn, the high priest blessed him (Genesis 14:19).

Hebrews tells us a little more about Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:1-4).  From this description, he sounds like some super‑human.  He has no beginning or end leading one to believe he would have had to be God!  Yet some believe Melchizedek is a flesh‑and‑blood man who serves as a type of Christ. As the writer of Hebrews tells us, Melchizedek’s name means “King of Righteousness.”  His title, “King of Salem,” means “King of Peace.”  The phrase "without father or mother” means simply that Melchizedek had no lineage of priesthood, as did the Levitical priesthood.  “Without descent” means “without a priestly genealogy.”  He was not of a “generations of priests,” as Aaron was.  Rather, he was divinely appointed a priest by God.

The writer of Hebrews also tells us that Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God” – meaning, he was like Jesus in that he had no priestly genealogy: “...our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood” (Hebrews 7:14).  Jesus' father, Joseph, was not a priest; he had no genealogical line out of Judah, from which the Levitical priests descended.  So we see here that Melchizedek was a foreshadowing of Jesus' priesthood.  This earthly high priest was meant as a type of our High Priest in glory – Jesus, King of righteousness and King of peace!