Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him.
Mat 3:14 But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.
Mat 3:17 And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
The testimony which John bore concerning Christ (cf., Mt 3:11-12) is now rendered while Jesus is present, and indeed by John himself, who confesses that he is in need of Christ’s baptism; and this testimony is given in a far more magnificent manner by the heavenly apparition and voice, by which Christ is solemnly, as it were, initiated into his office. For this reason this portion of the Gospel narrative is also most apt to demonstrate that Jesus from Galilee is the Christ by this twofold argument; hence it becomes evident why Matthew relates it.
Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him.. “When John had prepared the people by his preaching and baptism for repentance and had promised the Christ who was to come after him, it remained that Christ should be pointed out partly by John and partly by the heavenly Father, and thus, having been manifested, should soon undertake the work for which he had been sent by the Father. Therefore now, says Matthew—that is, when Jesus had been announced by John’s testimony—Jesus, leaving Nazareth, came into Judea, the special dwelling place of his heavenly Father, where the preaching of the Gospel was to be inaugurated” (Jansenius).
He came, therefore, at a time when, through John’s ministry, a great stirring and expectation among the people had already been aroused. He came to John, because it had been divinely ordained that he should be manifested in Israel while John was baptizing (John 1:31). Nor is it without significance that he came into the Jordan (ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην, “upon the Jordan”) and that baptism was administered there in the Jordan; for through the Jordan the people of old entered the land of promise. Therefore it was fitting that there too, as it were, an entrance should be opened into the Kingdom of God, of which Palestine was a type. Thus the Glossa Ordinaria gives the reason, as do Tostatus, Sylvius, and similarly St Paschasius and Salmeron. As to why Christ wished to be baptized, he himself gives the reason in verse 15, which should be consulted.
John had not yet seen Jesus, nor did he know him by sight. This is clear from John 1:31, 33: “And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize said to me: ‘Upon whom you shall see…’” He did know, however, that Christ was about to appear, and moreover that he would come to him. Both are evident from John’s words. But who could adequately express with what longing of soul and with what exultation he awaited that most blessed time? For that sacred desire burned within him in the highest degree—the same desire by which Abraham and many kings and prophets longed to see the messianic time. Hence he must be judged to have looked around anxiously and searched with his eyes to see when at last he would come to him.
Jesus, however, surely bore before himself in his countenance and in the bearing of his whole body such modesty and holiness that John, upon seeing him, could no longer doubt. Add to this that at that moment he was by no means lacking a special impulse of the Holy Spirit. He had once, while enclosed in his mother’s womb, perceived the Lord hidden in the womb; and who would persuade himself that, when he was now most earnestly awaiting him, he failed to perceive him when present? Therefore what Matthew narrates in verse 14—that Jesus was immediately recognized by John—by no means contradicts what we read in John 1:33.
Moreover, with Jansenius, Maldonatus, Lapide, and others, it may be assumed that there was a certain special divine inspiration by which John was warned, as by an interior voice, to recognize the approaching Christ, just as we read of Samuel in 1 Samuel 16:12 when the young David was brought before him: “And the Lord said: Arise, anoint him; for this is he.”
Mt 3:14 That Christ was recognized as such (and not merely, as some have supposed or thought could be explained, as a certain most holy man—Fabricius, Tostatus, Schegg) is evident from the words of Mt 3:14: John tried to prevent him (διεκώλυεν, “he was strongly, insistently preventing”), seriously and earnestly, almost with a kind of contention, attempting to restrain him, saying: “I need (χρείαν ἔχω, ‘I have need,’ ‘I am in want’) to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” He did not say, “You are baptized by me,” for he feared to say that; but what did he say? “Do you come to me?” (Chrysostom, Theophylact).
For John knew no baptism other than that which he himself had been sent to administer, and the baptism of Christ in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when he says, “I need to be baptized by you,” he professes Jesus to be the one of whom he had said in verse 11: “He himself will baptize you….” For he knew that to administer baptism required a divine mission (John 1:33); hence the Baptist could not say to someone who merely appeared very pious and holy: “I need to be baptized by you.” Baptism inaugurates and, as it were, consecrates a new order of things: John’s baptism prepares it; Christ’s baptism introduces it. The Baptist could not have conceived of a third baptism. Accordingly, by these words he professes that Jesus was recognized by him as the Christ.
From this it is sufficiently explained why he tried to restrain him; for he could not be ignorant that Jesus was most holy, and therefore baptism unto repentance could not apply to him. It was also fitting that he restrain him for the sake of the people, lest they think that Christ needed a baptism of repentance.
How this narrative is to be reconciled with John 1:33 has been attempted in various ways. The rationalists either claim that there is an open contradiction, or they maintain that Mt 3:14-15 were later wrongly inserted, since Justin also makes no mention of these words of the Baptist—as though Justin had been obliged to mention everything, so that his silence would prove that the passage was not read in the Gospel books at that time! Others hold that Jesus was recognized as a perfectly holy man by some interior impulse or instinct, or that by a certain prophetic presentiment (Keil, Mansel) John obscurely conjectured that Jesus was the Messiah. But, as I have said, in the words of verse 14 he clearly professes to know who Jesus is, as Dionysius and Sylvius rightly state.
The ancient writers had already discussed this matter. “It is no small question, my brothers,” says St Augustine; and in Tractate 5 on John, no. 9, he resolves the difficulty by saying that the Lord was already known to John, but that through the dove he learned something further: “Because the Lord, who has the power of baptizing, was going to give that power to no servant, but was going to retain it for himself, so that everyone who is baptized through the ministry of a servant might attribute it not to the servant but to the Lord” (PL 33, 1418). And similarly: “By the descent of the dove he learned that it was he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit with a certain proper and divine power, so that no man, even if he baptized someone, could say that what he gave was his own or that he himself bestowed the Holy Spirit” (De consensu evangelistarum 2.20.32; PL 34, 1093). St Augustine taught this against the Donatists; yet from the words of verse 14 it also follows that John already knew that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit.
Calvin took another path: he held that the dove appeared as soon as Jesus approached the baptism, and that by this sign he was therefore recognized. But this explanation has already been well excluded by St Augustine: “What shall we say? That we do not know when the dove came? Lest perhaps they (the Donatists) hide there—let the other Evangelists be read, and we find it stated most clearly that the dove descended when the Lord had come up from the water” (In Ioannem, Tract. 4, no. 16; PL 35, 1412). Nor can Bede’s explanation be admitted, that the one whom he already knew he now knew more perfectly when he was baptized; nor that of Albert, that he knew him before baptism in person, not in power. Various opinions are also reviewed by Toletus in his commentary on John, annotation 72; but he himself explains that John is said not to have known him because he did not yet know determinately who he was, since he had not yet seen him. Patrick concedes this view, contending that οὐκ ᾔδειν should be translated “I had not seen him.” But in the manner stated above all things are most easily reconciled.
The sign of the dove and what follows was then a further and most solemn confirmation given especially to the Baptist, who was to declare and testify publicly that this Jesus was the Christ. Hence it was very fitting that this should be established by a second and more sublime kind of proof.
Mt 3:15. Because, therefore, “the Lord came to be baptized with servants, the Judge with the guilty” (St Chrysostom), John attempted to restrain him. But Jesus, answering in Mt 3:15, said to him: “Allow it now.” He rightly said allow: permit me now to be baptized by you, not indeed reproaching the reason for which it then seemed unbecoming to John to baptize him, but rather approving it, yet showing that because of it the baptism should not be omitted (Jansenius). And Christ, in responding in this way, does not deny the eminence of his own authority; rather he affirms it, but reveals the mystery of the divine dispensation. Therefore he adds ἄρτι (“now”), permit it now, “signifying that that time, according to God’s dispensation, demanded that with divinity hidden he should present humility” (Jansenius). And he adds the reason: “For thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness”—that is, for me and for you. He indicates, therefore, that it is God’s ordinance, will, and good pleasure that he be baptized. Hence, since it befits us to obey every motion of God’s will or good pleasure, it is also necessary that I be baptized by you and that you not refuse.
Understand “righteousness,” therefore, as that which is right and holy and pertains to that rectitude which God desires to exist in human beings. And surely it belongs to this complete or supreme rectitude that, if anything is known to be pleasing to God or in any way ordained by him, it should be done. St Chrysostom well expounds the phrase οὕτως γὰρ πρέπον ἐστίν (“for thus it is fitting”): “Consider how he draws him on by that very point from which he thought it most unfitting. For he did not say, ‘Thus it is just,’ but ‘Thus it is fitting.’ Since he thought it unworthy that he should be baptized by a servant, he opposed precisely this, as if he had said: Do you avoid and restrain this as though it were unseemly? Therefore allow it, because it is supremely becoming.”
From Christ’s response it follows that the reception of baptism belonged to those things which the heavenly Father desired to be done by the Messiah. There are some who consider the reception of baptism as a command imposed upon Christ; thus it seems to S. Chrysostom, because he explains “righteousness” as the observance of commandments and says that Christ, just as he observed other things, so also observed this. Similarly Euthymius, who infers a precept from the Baptist’s words: “He who sent me to baptize”; and likewise Tostatus and Calvin teach that it was so ordained by God. But since Christ says it is fitting for us to fulfill (decet nos implere), one should not think of a strict command. Rather, why it pleased God that baptism be received—or in other words, why this act was highly congruent and fitting to the person and office of the Messiah, so that it “befitted” him to fulfill even this—many reasons are brought forward by the Fathers and interpreters.
One of the chief reasons seems to be that this ceremony was at that time established by God for the people. Christ, however, as he was “made under the law” (Gal 4:4) and underwent the other ceremonial observances (circumcision, presentation in the Temple, etc.), so also did not shrink from this one—especially because Christ wished in all things, sin excepted, to be made like his brethren. By the very act of receiving baptism he wished to declare that he was assuming the person of sinners, taking upon himself the sins of others, and presenting himself to the Father as bearing and expiating the sins of the people. This is explained in one way or another by Dionysius, Cajetan, Jansenius, Salmeron, Maldonatus, Lapide, Barradius, Coleridge, Filograssi, and Grimm (II, p. 124).
Salmanticense, Grimm, and Filograssi also rightly observe that death is signified by the very immersion; hence in baptism there is simultaneously seen Christ’s solemn profession that he wills to undergo death so that sins may be blotted out. “Christ therefore, approaching baptism, professed himself to be the surety, as it were, assuming the entire burden and debt of all sinners and resolving to discharge it in himself… when he is immersed in those waters, he signifies that he dies and is buried” (Salmanticense, t. 1, tract. 7, p. 64).
Moreover, Christ was to be manifested in baptism. This the Baptist indicates in John 1:31: “that he may be manifested in Israel; therefore I came baptizing with water” (cf. Euthymius, Paschasius, Maldonatus).
To this principal reason others are aptly joined, so that it may become ever clearer that the reception of baptism was most fitting and therefore pleasing to God. These reasons also explain and illuminate Christ’s statement it is fitting to fulfill all righteousness, or present, as it were, its parts distributed. Thus he came to baptism in order to approve John and his ministry (Pseudo-Chrysostom, Jerome, Bede, Glossa ordinaria, Rabanus, Thomas, Dionysius, Jansenius, etc.); in order to sanctify the water which he was going to use for his own baptism (St Ambrose, Bede, Rabanus, Glossa ordinaria, Albert, Thomas, Dionysius, Jansenius, Lapide, etc.); or, as St Hilary says, because through him purification in the waters of our washing was to be sanctified, and at the same time so that from the things accomplished in Christ we might know that after the washing of water the Spirit flies down upon us and that we are made sons of God by adoption (similarly Bede and Euthymius).
Further, in order to atone for the disobedience of Adam, Christ wished to fulfill all righteousness (Euthymius); to present to us an example of humility (St Jerome, Jansenius); and to exhort us by his own example to receive baptism, lest the noble or powerful despise this rite (St Ambrose, Bede, Paschasius, Thomas, Jansenius, etc.).
Mt 3:16 Euthymius reports that some said that those baptized by the Baptist were held immersed in the water up to the neck until they confessed their sins; but that Christ, since he had no sins, was not detained in the water, and therefore the Evangelist says in verse 16: Jesus, when he was baptized, immediately went up from the water. In the same way Schanz and Filograssi understand immediately (εὐθύς). Others, by a kind of transposition, refer εὐθύς either to baptized or, more commonly, to the heavens were opened (Jansenius, Maldonatus, Lapide, Lamy), but modern scholars rightly reject such a transposition (Arnoldi, Schegg, Keil, Weiss). They rather refer immediately to the manner of narration or to the rapid succession of events.
But why did he go up immediately? Perhaps Christ, with a kind of sacred eagerness, desired that the heavenly testimony should be rendered to him, by which he himself would be publicly initiated into his office and revelation would be communicated to John and the surrounding multitude—just as later he would say: “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you.” Such a desire could be signified by a rapid ascent.
“And behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him.” That Christ himself saw this is most clearly stated in the very words; and that John was also a witness of the event is certain from John 1:34: “And I have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” But what about the others who were present? That others were present is in itself probable, and Luke 3:21 clearly indicates it (“when all the people were baptized, and Jesus also having been baptized”). Some think that the others saw nothing and that the heavenly signs were perceived only by Christ and John—thus Paschasius, Dionysius, Cajetan (though he thinks the voice was heard by many), and Patrick (p. 487). But the more common opinion of the majority is that the others also perceived the divine manifestation with their senses. Thus St Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Hilary, Pseudo-Chrysostom, Rabanus, Tostatus, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Salmeron, Sylvius, Suarez (in De Incarnatione, disp. 27, sect. 1, n. 4), Lapide, Estius, Menochius, Calmet, Reischl, Coleridge, Grimm; and this also seems to have been the opinion of St Jerome, when he says: “The dove also sat upon the head of Jesus, lest anyone think that the voice of the Father was addressed to John and not to the Lord.”
Nor does it oppose this that Jerome says the heavens were opened to spiritual eyes; for he does not seem to refer the vision merely to imagination, since he adds: “with such eyes Ezekiel also records that the heavens were opened.” For he does not confine the vision shown to Ezekiel to Ezekiel’s imagination alone. Likewise St Augustine (De Trinitate 2.6) speaks in such a way that he extends the vision of the dove to many.
Against this view the arguments adduced by Patrick carry little weight: namely, that John says “I saw the Spirit descending,” therefore others did not see it; and that this was given to John as a sign so that by seeing it he might point Christ out to the people—so that if the people themselves had seen and heard, there would have been no need of the Baptist’s testimony. But was the whole people present? Suarez answers better: “All are grounded on the signification of the mystery which was made by that sensible sign; but that sensible signification was not necessary for Christ, but for us; therefore it had to be such as could be perceived by others.” Thus it is persuaded that the manifestation was so effected that something truly sensible was presented to the senses (to sight and hearing).
“And the heavens were opened to him,” that is, for him, for his sake (Pseudo-Chrysostom, Maldonatus). In the region of the air a certain visible opening or appearance of a breach was seen, from which the dove and the voice seemed to descend (Lapide, Salmeron, similarly Cajetan). For, as Suarez notes, since the Holy Spirit was to descend visibly in the form of a dove, it was necessary that the dove be visibly shown to descend from heaven in a singular and extraordinary manner. Therefore a certain opening appeared—either so that the firmament itself seemed to open and emit the dove, or so that only the clouds were parted, or so that some sudden light burst forth from the depths of heaven or from the bosom of a cloud (Calmet, Filograssi), and in the splendor shining forth from there the dove descended.
The Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:22), descended “in bodily form like a dove” (σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστεράν). In order to manifest himself in a visible way, he chose the likeness or form or figure of a dove. After Christ, assuming the person of the sinner, had been baptized and by his baptism pledged himself to undergo death for the salvation of the world, there are now shown by visible signs those realities which are in Christ himself and which are to be effected by his work. For in him “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” and “the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,” “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me” (Col 2:9; Isa 11:2; 61:1). And through him and his obedience the heavens, closed to us by the disobedience of Adam, are opened (St Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius); through him the author and effecter of holiness is sent to the human race.
He is seen to descend in the form of a dove, so that by this omen the mission of peace and reconciliation may be expressed. For, as St Chrysostom well observes: “He calls to mind for us the ancient history. For when long ago, with a universal shipwreck overwhelming the whole world, our race was in danger of being extinguished, this animal appeared and showed the end of the storm, and carrying an olive branch in its beak announced the common tranquility of the world… therefore the dove appears now not bearing an olive branch, but showing us the deliverer from all evils and bringing, instead of an olive branch, the adoption of sons.” And St Ambrose: “The dove once brought peace in the ancient type to that ark which alone was immune from the flood; it taught me of whom that dove was a type, who has now deigned to descend in the form of a dove; it taught me that in that ark was the type of the peace of the Church, because amid the very floods of the world the Holy Spirit brings fruitful peace to his Church.” And similarly Euthymius, Theophylact, Paschasius, Albert, Jansenius, Lamy, Reischl, Grimm, and others explain from that event why the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove.
Just as at Christ’s birth the angels announced peace, so when Christ is initiated into his office, the symbol of peace is shown, and he who is the author and bond of that peace descends in a visible manner.
Besides this reason, others are also assigned why the Holy Spirit chose the form of a dove for his manifestation. They note that the simplicity of the dove is commended by Christ (St Ambrose, Thomas, Jansenius); that the bride in the Canticle is praised and greeted by this name; that the dove is exceedingly loving toward its young; that it is a bearer of charity (Pseudo-Chrysostom, St Thomas, Dionysius, Jansenius, Lamy); that great fecundity is seen in it (St Thomas); finally, others see in it symbols of various virtues, especially that seven virtues are delineated in it (cf. Glossa ordinaria, Rabanus, Anselm).
Mt 3:17 The form of the dove came upon Christ ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν (“coming upon him”), so that it might be indubitably clear to whom those words brought from heaven referred: “This is my beloved Son.” Just as in the descent of the Holy Spirit the oracle of Isaiah is shown to be fulfilled in Christ, so by these words he is declared to be the one spoken of in Isaiah 42:1 and Psalm 2:7; 110:3. An emphasis is seen in ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (“my Son, the beloved”). In the Septuagint the Hebrew yāḥîd (“only, only-begotten”) is often rendered by the same word ἀγαπητός; see Genesis 22:2, 12, 16; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10; Proverbs 4:3. Hence Maldonatus and Lamy not without reason judge that even here “only Son, only-begotten” is signified—who as such is uniquely beloved, and who as the only Son is consubstantial with the Father and true God, and in whom alone the Father uniquely takes pleasure.
“In whom I am well pleased” (ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα), that is, as Theophylact explains, ἀναπαύομαι, ἀρέσκομαι (“I rest, I take delight”), as already in Isaiah 42:1: “my soul has taken delight in him.” “For in whatever the good of someone shines forth, in that he in some way takes delight in himself, as an artist delights in his beautiful work; the divine goodness is in every particular creature, but never whole and perfect except in the Son and the Holy Spirit, and therefore God does not wholly delight in himself except in the Son, who has as much goodness as the Father” (St Thomas).
And since this heavenly voice declares this concerning Christ who is assuming the person of sinners, it is simultaneously announced that through him and in him the Father wills and decrees to be appeased and reconciled to the world (Maldonatus, Sylvius), and that no one can be pleasing and acceptable to him except through Christ and in Christ (Jansenius). Formerly God had said, “It repents me that I have made man on the earth”—and this applies to earthly man; but here he shows through whom he takes delight in man who is renewed according to the image of Christ (Rabanus, Paschasius).
Thus in Christ’s baptism there is a second epiphany (Filograssi). For, as Calvin notes, these things were done to show the office of Christ preaching and redeeming the world. Jesus, indeed, up to the time of baptism lived and was regarded as one of the people; but from the time of baptism he began to carry out the office for which he had come. For this reason Peter says: “One of these men must become a witness with us of his resurrection, from the baptism of John onward…”—where it clearly appears that Christ’s public office began with the baptism of John. Therefore, since Christ’s baptism was the beginning of his office, the inauguration of so great an office was consecrated by so many mysteries. Thus he—and similarly Coleridge.
That in his baptism Christ at the same time instituted the sacrament of baptism is the opinion of many; cf. St Thomas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 66, art. 2, and Gabriel Vásquez on this passage; see also Lapide and Coleridge, p. 42.
Since Mark, omitting the narrative of Jesus’ birth, begins his Gospel with the preaching of the baptism, some—such as Volkmar—have concluded that the most ancient opinion was that Jesus was only then filled with the Holy Spirit and became the Son of God in the same way that each person can become a son of God through the Spirit, and that it was only at the baptism that Jesus became conscious of his messianic vocation (cf. Holtzmann, Handbuch). Consequently, they claim that the account of the baptism in the other evangelists—who also narrate the supernatural conception and birth—lacks all real significance.
But since those evangelists nonetheless do recount the baptism, critics should have inferred instead that their own interpretation is erroneous. For the reason why Jesus came to be baptized, and why that heavenly manifestation and declaration took place, is not difficult to discern from the Gospel itself (see the Commentary). It is likewise incorrect to assume that Mark, because he says nothing of Jesus’ birth, was ignorant of the mystery of it. To pass over other considerations, even in the Gospel of Mark—prior to the baptism of Jesus—his nature is already proclaimed as surpassing all that is merely human and as divine, in the very preaching of John: “Prepare the way of the Lord (Yahweh)” (Mark 1:3); “One mightier than I is coming after me” (1:7); “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (1:8).
All these statements presuppose not merely a prophetic mission but a dignity and power proper to God himself. Thus, even for Mark, the baptism is not the moment at which Jesus becomes something he was not before, but rather the moment at which he is publicly manifested and solemnly attested as what he already is. The descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven therefore belong not to the constitution of Christ’s sonship, but to its revelation, and to the divine pedagogy by which faith in Christ is awakened and confirmed in those who witness or hear of these events.
In this way, the baptism of Christ stands at the beginning of the Gospel proclamation not as the origin of his divine sonship, but as its epiphany; not as the reception of grace, but as its visible declaration; not as a private illumination, but as a public testimony given “propter homines,” for the sake of those who must come to believe.
CONTINUE.
Comments
Post a Comment