037. Chapter 16 - Essays on the Baptism

Chapter 16 - Essays on the Baptism (1) The Baptism of Jesus in the Apocryphal Gospels Apocryphal Additions The popular writings of the early Christians with their more or less foolish legends about Jesus show how strongly they felt the problem as to why Jesus was baptized. Jerome quotes this passage from the Gospel according to the Hebrews: “Lo the mother of the Lord and His brethren said unto Him, John the Baptist baptizeth for remission of sins: let us go and be baptized by him. But He saith to them, Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Except perchance this very thing which I have said is ignorance.” The Pauli Praedicano is represented as saying: “Christ, the only man who was altogether without fault, both making confession respecting His own sin, and driven almost against His will by His mother, Mary, to accept the baptism of John Both of these fragments are ridiculous and contradict the Gospels. Note the growing importance of Mary — the beginnings of Mariolatry. And we find no “except perchance” admissions of ignorance and sin on the part of Jesus in the New Testament. The author of the second fragment adopts the extremely interesting way out of the dilemma of asserting that Jesus was sinless, and yet made confession of sin by acceptance of John’s baptism; but that He was not responsible for the performance because He was driven to do it by His mother, Mary, “almost against His will”! All of this shows how the baptism of Jesus had impressed at least certain sections of the early church. They were struggling to harmonize it with the personality of Jesus. But the Gospel of Matthew plainly shows that both John and Jesus recognized that a baptism “unto the remission of sins” was not needed by Jesus. It was a baptism “to fulfill all righteousness” which was administered, and Jesus knew it had an essential part in His lifework. The Voice The impression this scene made on the early church is evidenced by other stories which are found afloat in early Christian literature. Epiphanius quotes the Gospel of the Ebionites as follows: “And as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit) coming down in the form of a dove and coming unto him. And there was a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased. And again: This day have I begotten thee. And immediately a great light shone about the place. John seeing it, said to him: Who art thou, Lord? And again the voice from heaven said to him: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” This heretical gospel confuses the baptism of Jesus with the conversion of Saul. Note the heresy creeping in that Jesus became the Son of God at baptism — the adoptionist heresy. This writer also attempts to harmonize the differences in Matthew 3:17, “This is my beloved Son” and Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22, “Thou art my beloved Son” by supposing that the voice from heaven spoke twice — once as recorded in Mark and Luke and again as in Matthew. But it is evident that the difference in the records is merely the manner of stating the testimony of God. Mark and Luke doubtless record the exact words. Matthew records them in the third person, as John the Baptist would quote them. The Light Is the Gospel of the Ebionites the source of the idea in the early church of “a great light” appearing in the water or about the place, or does it have some other origin? The Pauli Praedicaijo is quoted thus: “Also that when he was baptized fire was seen on the water which is not mentioned in any gospel.” Justin Martyr and the Gospel according to the Hebrews also tell of this but do not say it was recorded by the Apostles. Two cursive manuscripts of the New Testament (a, g) have: “And when he was baptized a bright light shone about on the water so that all those who had come together were frightened.” This reading seems to be a reflection of the account of Justin and the others. The idea of a great light was evidently added from the account of the conversion of Saul. This report of a great light seen in the Jordan River at the time of the baptism of Jesus, if it has historical verity, may have the following factual content. By tracing the chronology back from the first Passover when Jesus cleansed the temple the first time, we can establish the fact that it was the rainy season when Jesus was baptized. Luke says: “the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove” (Luke 3:21, Luke 3:22). If it was a cloudy day when Jesus was baptized, a sudden, miraculous parting of the clouds would have caused the sun to shine upon the surface of the river with a startling, blinding light. This dazzling light may have seemed to many as if the Jordan River was on fire with an amazing light. They would have been unable to face the light on the surface of the river momentarily. The Purpose

Ignatius says that all water was purified by the baptism of Jesus. Other Christian writers and liturgies state that Jesus consecrated the element of water for perpetual use by His baptism. “ ‘By the Baptisme of thy wel beloved sonne Jesus Christe, thou dydest sanctifie the fludde Jordan, and al other waters to this mystical washing away of synne’ (First Prayer-Book of Edward VI, 1549, Public Baptism): which follows the Gregorian address, ‘By the Baptism of Thine Only-Begotten Son hast been pleased to sanctify the streams of water’ (Bright, Ancient Collects, p. 161)” (Plummer on Luke 3:22).

(2) The Youth of John and of Jesus The Problem The baptism of Jesus raises the interesting question: Did Jesus and John know one another intimately in their mouth? We have no definite information. The visit of Mary to Elisabeth causes us to wonder if such visits were frequent. We do not know exactly where the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth was in the hill country of Judah (tradition says they lived at Juttah, S.E. of Hebron), but the journey from Nazareth would have been considerable — perhaps 75 miles. Immediately upon the announcement of the angel Gabriel to her, Mary hastened to Elisabeth, but this does not necessarily mean that their homes were near at hand or that such visits were common because the angel had connected his announcement of a son to Mary with that of the birth of a son to Elisabeth. The amazing character of the whole series of events would lead Mary to go to Elisabeth for consultation. The fact that she remained until the birth of John seems to indicate, however, close relationship.

(3) The Descent of the Spirit The descent of the Spirit is represented by Luke as taking place “bodily in the form of a dove.” This should end the discussion as to the visible character of the descent. But critics who attempt to discredit the supernatural object to this account. They must then explain the appearance of the dove or at least show why a dove is mentioned in the New Testament records. Some argue that a dove just happened to fly down and light on Jesus’ head the moment He came up out of the water! What God’s power cannot accomplish, a happy accident, always awaiting the ready call of the critic’s imagination, never fails to achieve! Others regard the account as fiction, pure and simple. But how then explain the fact that a dove and not some other creature figures in the account? They have searched the Old Testament in vain for proof that the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. The Jews used the dove to symbolize Israel. Tongues like as of fire appeared at Pentecost, as the dove at the baptism: the outward symbols of the Spirit’s descent. Does the one symbol suggest the gentleness and humility of Him who walked the way of the cross, and the other, the sweeping, invisible power of His church that conquers the world?