The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS: ITS HIGHER MEANING.
(St. Matthew 3:13-17; St. Mark 1:7-11; St.
Luke 3:21-23; St. John 1:32-34.)
The more we think of it, the better do we seem to understand
how that 'Voice crying in the wilderness: Repent! for the Kingdom of Heaven is
at hand,' awakened echoes throughout the land, and brought from city, village,
and hamlet strangest hearers. For once, every distinction was levelled.
Pharisee and Sadducee, outcast publican and semi-heathen soldier, met here as
on common ground. Their bond of union was the common 'hope of Israel' - the
only hope that remained: that of 'the Kingdom.' The long winter of
disappointment had not destroyed, nor the storms of suffering swept away, nor
yet could any plant of spurious growth overshadow, what had struck its roots so
deep in the soil of Israel's heart.
That Kingdom had been the last word of the Old Testament. As
the thoughtful Israelite, whether Eastern or Western,1
viewed even the central part of his worship in sacrifices, and remembered that
his own Scriptures had spoken of them in terms which pointed to something
beyond their offering,2
he must have felt that 'the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an
heifer sprinkling the unclean,' could only 'sanctify to the purifying of the
flesh;' that, indeed, the whole body of ceremonial and ritual ordinances 'could
not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience.'
They were only 'the shadow of good things to come;' of 'a new' and 'better covenant,
established upon better promises.'3
It was otherwise with the thought of the Kingdom. Each successive link in the
chain of prophecy bound Israel anew to this hope, and each seemed only more
firmly welded than the other. And when the voice of prophecy had ceased, the
sweetness of its melody still held the people spell-bound, even when broken in
the wild fantasies of Apocalyptic literature. Yet that 'root of Jesse,' whence
this Kingdom was to spring, was buried deep under ground, as the remains of ancient
Jerusalem are now under the desolations of many generations. Egyptian, Syrian,
Greek, and Roman had trodden it under foot; the Maccabees had come and gone,
and it was not in them; the Herodian kingdom had risen and fallen; Pharisaism,
with its learning, had overshadowed thoughts of the priesthood and of
prophetism; but the hope of that Davidic Kingdom, of which there was not a
single trace or representative left, was even stronger than before. So closely
has it been intertwined with the very life of the nation, that, to all
believing Israelites, this hope has through the long night of ages, been like
that eternal lamp which burns in the darkness of the Synagogue, in front of the
heavy veil that shrines the Sanctuary, which holds and conceals the precious
rolls of the Law and the Prophets.
1. It may be said that the fundamental tendency of Rabbinism was anti-sacrificial, as
regarded the value of sacrifices in commending the offerer to God. After the destruction of the Temple it was, of course, the task of Rabbinism to show that sacrifices had no intrinsic importance, and that their place was taken by prayer, penitence, and good works. So against objectors on the ground of Jer.
xxxiii. 18 - but see the answer in Yalkut on the passage (vol. ii. p. 67 a, towards the end) dogmatically (Bab. B. 10 b; Vayyikra R. 7, ed. Warsh.
vol. iii. p. 12 a): 'he that doeth repentance, it is imputed to him as if he went up to Jerusalem, built the Temple and altar, and wrought all the sacrifices in the Law'; and in view of the cessation of sacrifices in the
'Athid. labho' (Vay, u.s.; Tanch. on Par. Shemini). Soon, prayer or study were
put even above sacrifices (Ber. 32 b; Men. 110 a), and an
isolated teacher went so far as to regard the introduction of sacrificial
worship as merely intended to preserve Israel from conforming to heathen
worship (Vayyikra R. 22, u. s. p. 34 b, close). On the other hand,
individuals seemed to have offered sacrifices even after the destruction of the Temple (Eduy. viii. 6; Mechilta on Ex. xviii. 27, ed. Weiss, p. 68 b).
2. Comp. 1 Sam. xv. 22; Ps. xl. 6-8; li. 7, 17; Is. i. 11-13; Jer. vii. 22, 23; Amos v.
21, 22; Ecclus. vii. 9; xxxiv. 18, 19; xxxv. 1, 7.
3. Hebr. ix. 13, 9; x. 1; viii. 6, 13. On this subject we refer to the classical work of
Riehm (Lehrbegriff des Hebraerbriefes, 1867).
This great expectancy would be strung to utmost tension during
the pressure of outward circumstances more hopeless than any hitherto
experienced. Witness here the ready credence which impostors found, whose
promises and schemes were of the wildest character; witness the repeated
attempts at risings, which only despair could have prompted; witness, also, the
last terrible war against Rome, and, despite the horrors of its end, the
rebellion of Bar-Kokhabh, the false Messiah. And now the cry had been suddenly
raised: 'The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!' It was heard in the wilderness of
Judæa, within a few hours' distance from Jerusalem. No wonder Pharisee and
Sadducee flocked to the spot. How many of them came to inquire, how many
remained to be baptized, or how many went away disappointed in their hopes of
'the Kingdom,' we know not.4
But they would not see anything in the messenger that could have given their
expectations a rude shock. His was not a call to armed resistance, but to
repentance, such as all knew and felt must precede the Kingdom. The hope which
he held out was not of earthly possessions, but of purity. There was nothing
negative or controversial in what he spoke; nothing to excite prejudice or
passion. His appearance would command respect, and his character was in
accordance with his appearance. Not rich nor yet Pharisaic garb with wide Tsitsith,5
bound with many-coloured or even priestly girdle, but the old prophet's poor
raiment held in by a leathern girdle. Not luxurious life, but one of meanest
fare.6 And then,
all in the man was true and real. 'Not a reed shaken by the wind,' but
unbendingly firm in deep and settled conviction; not ambitious nor
self-seeking, but most humble in his self-estimate, discarding all claim but
that of lowliest service, and pointing away from himself to Him Who was to
come, and Whom as yet he did not even know. Above all, there was the deepest
earnestness, the most utter disregard of man, the most firm belief in what he
announced. For himself he sought nothing; for them he had only one absorbing
thought: The Kingdom was at hand, the King was coming - let them prepare!
4. Ancient commentators supposed that they came from hostile motives; later writers that
curiosity prompted them. Neither of these views is admissible, nor does St. Luke vii. 30 imply, that all the Pharisees who come to him rejected his baptism.
5. Comp. St. Matt. xxiii. 5. The Tsitsith (plural, Tsitsiyoth), or borders
(corners, 'wings') of the garments, or rather the fringes fastened to them. The observance was based on Numb. xv. 38-41, and the Jewish practice of it is indicated not only in the N.T. (u. s., comp. also St. Matt. ix. 20; xiv. 36) but in the Targumim on Numb. xv. 38, 39 (comp. also Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Numb.
xvi. 1, 2, where the peculiar colour of the Tsitsith is represented as the
cause of the controversy between Moses and Korah. But see the version of this story in Jer. Sanh. x. p. 27 d, end). The Tsitsith were
originally directed to be of white threads, with one thread of deep blue in each fringe. According to tradition, each of these white fringes is to consist of eight threads, one of them wound round the others: first, seven times
with a double knot; then eight times with a double knot (7 + 8
numerically = hy); then eleven times with a double knot (11
numerically = hw;) and lastly, thirteen times (13 numerically =
dx); or, altogether dx) hwhy, Jehovah One). Again, it is pointed
out that as Tsitsith is numerically equal to 600 (tycyc), this, with the
eight threads and five knots, gives the number 613, which is that of the
Commandments. At present the Tsitsith are worn as a special undergarment
(the twpnk (br)) or on the Tallith or prayer-mantle, but anciently they
seem to have been worn on the outer garment itself. In Bemidbar R. 17, end (ed. Warsh, vol. iv. p. 69 a), the blue is represented as emblematic
of the sky, and the latter as of the throne of God (Ex. xxiv. 10). Hence to look upon the Tsitsith was like looking at the throne of glory (Schürer
is mistaken in supposing that the tractate Tsitsith in the Septem Libri Talmud. par. pp. 22, 23, contains much information on the subject).
6. Such certainly was John the Baptist's. Some locusts were lawful to be eaten, Lev. xi. 22. Comp. Terum. 59 a; and, on the various species, Chull. 65.
Such entire absorption in his mission, which leaves us in
ignorance of even the details of his later activity, must have given force to
And still the voice, everywhere proclaiming the same message, travelled upward,
along the winding Jordon which cleft the land of promise. It was probably the
autumn of the year 779 (a.u.c.),
which, it may be noted, was a Sabbatic year.8
Released from business and agriculture, the multitudes flocked around him as he
passed on his Mission. Rapidly the tidings spread from town and village to
distant homestead, still swelling the numbers that hastened to the banks of the
sacred river. He had now reached what seems to have been the most northern
point of his Mission-journey,9Beth-Abara ('the house of passage,' or 'of shipping') - according to the
ancient reading, Bethany ('the house of shipping') - one of the best known
fords across the Jordan into Peræa.10
Here he baptized.11
The ford was little more than twenty miles from Nazareth. But long before John
had reached that spot, tidings of his word and work must have come even into
the retirement of Jesus' Home-Life.
7. Deeply as we appreciate the beauty of Keim's remarks about the character and
views of John, we feel only the more that such a man could not have
taken the public position nor made such public proclamation of the Kingdom as at hand, without a direct and objective call to it from God. The treatment of
John's earlier history by Keim is, of course, without historical basis.
8. The year from Tishri (autumn) 779 to Tishri 780 was a Sabbatic year.
Comp. the evidence in Wieseler, Synopse d. Evang. pp. 204, 205.
9. We read of three places where John baptized: 'the wilderness of Judæa' - probably
the traditional site near Jericho; Ænon, near Salim, on the boundary between Samaria and Judæa (Conder's Handbook of the Bible, p. 320); and Beth-Abara, the modern Abarah, 'one of the main Jordan fords, a little north of Beisân' (u. s.).
10. It is one of the merits of Lieut. Conder to have identified the site of Beth-Abara. The word probably means 'the house of passage' (fords), but may
also mean 'the house of shipping,' the word Abarah in Hebrew meaning 'ferryboat,' 2 Sam. xix. 18. The reading Bethania instead of Bethabara
seems undoubtedly the original one, only the word must not be derived (as by Mr. Conder, whose explanations and comments are often untenable), from
the province Batanea, but explained as Beth-Oniyah, the 'house of shipping.' (See Lücke, Comment. u. d. Evang. Joh. i. pp. 392. 393.).
11. St. John i. 28.
It was now, as we take it, the early winter of the year 780.12
Jesus had waited those months. Although there seems not to have been any
personal acquaintance between Jesus and John - and how could there be, when
their spheres lay so widely apart? - each must have heard and known of the
other. Thirty years of silence weaken most human impressions - or, if they
deepen, the enthusiasm that had accompanied them passes away. Yet, when the two
met, and perhaps had brief conversation, each bore himself in accordance with
his previous history. With John it was deepest, reverent humility - even to the
verge of misunderstanding his special Mission, and work of initiation and
preparation for the Kingdom. He had heard of Him before by the hearing of the
ear, and when now he saw Him, that look of quiet dignity, of the majesty of
unsullied purity in the only Unfallen, Unsinning Man, made him forget even the
express command of God, which had sent him from his solitude to preach and
baptize, and that very sign which had been him by which to recognise the
In that Presence it only became to him a question of the more 'worthy' to the
misunderstanding of the nature of his special calling.
12. Considerable probability attaches to the tradition of the Basilideans, that our Lord's Baptism took place on the 6th or 10th of January. (See Bp. Ellicott's Histor. Lect. on the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, p. 105, note 2.
13. St. John i. 33.
14. The superficial objection on the supposed discrepancy between St. Matthew iii. 14 and St. John i. 33 has been well put aside by Bp. Ellicott (u. s. p.
But Jesus, as He had not made haste, so was He not capable of
misunderstanding. To Him it was 'the fulfilling of all righteousness.' From
earliest ages it has been a question why Jesus went to be baptized. The
heretical Gospels put into the mouth of the Virgin-Mother an invitation to go
to that baptism, to which Jesus is supposed to have replied by pointing to His
own sinlessness, except it might be on the score of ignorance, in regard to a
limitation of knowledge.15
Objections lie to most of the explanations offered by modern writers. They
include a bold denial of the fact of Jesus' Baptism; the profane suggestion of
collusion between John and Jesus; or such suppositions, as that of His personal
sinfulness, of His coming as the Representative of a guilty race, or as the
bearer of the sins of others, or of acting in solidarity with His people - or else
to separate Himself from the sins of Israel; of His surrendering Himself
thereby unto death for man; of His purpose to do honour to the baptism of John;
or thus to elicit a token of His Messiahship; or to bind Himself to the
observance of the Law; or in this manner to commence His Messianic Work; or to
consecrate Himself solemnly to it; or, lastly, to receive the spiritual
qualification for it.16
To these and similar views must be added the latest conceit of Renan,17
who arranges a scene between Jesus, who comes with some disciples, and John,
when Jesus is content for a time to grow in the shadow of John, and to submit
to a rite which was evidently so generally acknowledged. But the most reverent
of these explanations involve a twofold mistake. They represent the Baptism of
John as one of repentance, and they imply an ulterior motive in the coming of
Christ to the banks of Jordan. But, as already shown, the Baptism of John was
in itself only a consecration to, and preparatory initiation for, the new Covenant
of the Kingdom. As applied to sinful men it was indeed
necessarily a 'baptism of repentance;' but not as applied to the sinless Jesus.
Had it primarily and always been a 'baptism of repentance,' He could not have
submitted to it.
15. Comp. Nicholson, Gospel according to the Hebrews, pp. 38, 92, 93.
16. It would occupy too much space to give the names of the authors of these theories. The views of Godet come nearest to what we regard as the true explanation.
17. I must here, once for all, express my astonishment that a book so frivolous and
fantastic in its treatment of the Life of Jesus, and so superficial and often inaccurate, should have excited so much public attention.
Again, and most important of all, we must not seek for any
ulterior motive in the coming of Jesus to this Baptism. He had no ulterior
motive of any kind: it was an act of simple submissive obedience on the
part of the Perfect One - and submissive obedience has no motive beyond itself.
It asks no reasons; it cherishes no ulterior purpose. And thus it was 'the fulfilment
of all righteousness.' And it was in perfect harmony with all His previous
life. Our difficulty here lies - if we are unbelievers, in thinking simply of
the Humanity of the Man of Nazareth; if we are believers, in making abstraction
of his Divinity. But thus much, at least, all must concede, that the Gospels
always present Him as the God-Man, in an inseparable mystical union of the two
natures, and that they present to us the even more mysterious idea of His Self-examination, of the voluntary obscuration of His Divinity, as part of His
Humiliation. Placing ourselves on this standpoint - which is, at any rate, that
of the Evangelic narrative - we may arrive at a more correct view of this great
event. It seems as if, in the Divine Self-examination, apparently necessarily
connected with the perfect human development of Jesus, some corresponding
outward event were ever the occasion of a fresh advance in the Messianic consciousness
and work. The first event of that kind had been his appearance in the Temple.
These two things then stood out vividly before Him - not in the ordinary human,
but in the Messianic sense: that the Temple was the House of His Father, and
that to be busy about it was His Life-work. With this He returned to Nazareth,
and in willing subjection to His Parents fulfilled all righteousness. And
still, as He grew in years, in wisdom, and in favour with God and Man, this
thought - rather this burning consciousness, was the inmost spring of His Life.
What this business specially was, He knew not yet, and waited to learn;
the how and the when of His life-consecration, He left unasked
and unanswered in the still waiting for Him. And in this also we see the Sinless,
the Perfect One.
When tidings of John's Baptism reached His home, there could be
no haste on His part. Even with knowledge of all that concerned John's relation
to Him, there was in the 'fulfilment of all righteousness' quiet waiting. The
one question with Him was, as He afterwards put it: 'The Baptism of John,
whence was it? from heaven, or of men?' (St. Matt. xxi. 25). That question once
answered, there could be no longer doubt nor hesitation. He went - not for any
ulterior purpose, nor from any other motive than that it was of God. He
went voluntarily, because it was such - and because 'it became Him' in so doing
'to fulfill all righteousness.' There is this great difference between His
going to that Baptism, and afterwards into the wilderness: in the former case,
His act was of preconceived purpose; in the latter it was not so, but 'He was
driven' - without previous purpose to that effect - under the constraining
power 'of the Spirit,' without premeditation and resolve of it; without even
knowledge of its object. In the one case He was active, in the other passive;
in the one case He fulfilled righteousness, in the other His righteousness was
tried. But as, on His first visit to the Temple, this consciousness about His
Life-business came to Him in His Father's House, ripening slowly and fully
those long years of quiet submission and growing wisdom and grace at Nazareth,
so at His Baptism, with the accompanying descent of the Holy Ghost, His abiding
in Him, and the heard testimony from His Father, the knowledge came to Him,
and, in and with18
that knowledge, the qualification for the business of His Father's House. In
that hour He learned the when, and in part the how, of His
Life-business; the latter to be still farther, and from another aspect, seen in
the wilderness, then in His life, in His suffering, and, finally, in His death.
In man the subjective and the objective, alike intellectually and morally, are
ever separate; in God they are one. What He is, that He wills. And in the
God-Man also we must not separate the subjective and the objective. The
consciousness of the when and the how of His Life-business was necessarily
accompanied, while He prayed, by the descent, and the abiding in Him, of the
Holy Ghost, and by the testifying Voice from heaven. His inner knowledge was
real qualification - the forth-bursting of His Power; and it was inseparably
accompanied by outward qualification, in what took place at His Baptism. But
the first step to all was His voluntary descent to Jordan, and in it the
fulfilling of all righteousness. His previous life had been that of the Perfect
Ideal Israelite - believing, unquestioning, submissive - in preparation for
that which, in His thirteenth year, He had learned as its business. The Baptism
of Christ was the last act of His private life; and, emerging from its waters
in prayer, He learned: when His business was to commence, and how
it would be done.
18. But the latter must be firmly upheld.
That one outstanding thought, then, 'I must be about My
Father's business,' which had been the principle of His Nazareth life, had come
to full ripeness when He knew that the cry, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,'
was from God. The first great question was now answered. His Father's business
was the Kingdom of Heaven. It only remained for Him 'to be about it,' and in
this determination He went to submit to its initiatory rite of Baptism. We
have, as we understand it, distinct evidence - even if it were not otherwise
necessary to suppose this - that 'all the people had been baptized,'19
when Jesus came to John. Alone the two met - probably for the first time in
their lives. Over that which passed between them Holy Scripture has laid the
veil of reverent silence, save as regards the beginning and the outcome of
their meeting, which it was necessary for us to know. When Jesus came, John
knew Him not. And even when He knew Him, that was not enough. Not remembrance
of what he had heard and of past transactions, nor the overwhelming power of
that spotless Purity and Majesty of willing submission, were sufficient. For so
great a witness as that which John was to bear, a present and visible
demonstration from heaven was to be given. Not that God sent the Spirit-Dove,
or heaven uttered its voice, for the purpose of giving this as a sign to John.
These manifestations were necessary in themselves, and, we might say, would
have taken place quite irrespective of the Baptist. But, while necessary in
themselves, they were also to be a sign to John. And this may perhaps explain
why one Gospel (that of St. John) seems to describe the scene as enacted before
the Baptist, whilst others (St. Matthew and St. Mark) tell it as if only
visible to Jesus.20
The one bears reference to 'the record,' the other to the deeper and absolutely
necessary fact which underly 'the record.' And, beyond this, it may help us to
perceive at least one aspect of what to man is the miraculous: as in itself the
higher Necessary, with casual and secondary manifestation to man.
19. St. Luke iii. 21.
20. The account by St. Luke seems to me to include both. The common objection on the
score of the supposed divergence between St. John and the Synoptists is thus met.
We can understand how what he knew of Jesus, and what he now
saw and heard, must have overwhelmed John with the sense of Christ's
transcendentally higher dignity, and led him to hesitate about, if not to
refuse, administering to Him the rite of Baptism.21
Not because it was 'the baptism of repentance,' but because he stood in the
presence of Him 'the latchet of Whose shoes' he was 'not worthy to loose.' Had
he not so felt, the narrative would not have been psychologically true; and,
had it not been recorded, there would have been serious difficulty to our
reception of it. And yet, withal, in so 'forbidding' Him, and even suggesting
his own baptism by Jesus, John forgot and misunderstood his mission. John
himself was never to be baptized; he only held open the door of the new
Kingdom; himself entered it not, and he that was least in that Kingdom was
greater than he. Such lowliest place on earth seems ever conjoined with
greatest work for God. Yet this misunderstanding and suggestion on the part of
John might almost be regarded as a temptation to Christ. Not perhaps, His
first, nor yet this His first victory, since the 'sorrow' of His Parents about
His absence from them when in the Temple must to the absolute submissiveness of
Jesus have been a temptation to turn aside from His path, all the more felt in
the tenderness of His years, and the inexperience of a first public appearance.
He then overcame by the clear consciousness of His Life-business, which could
not be contravened by any apparent call of duty, however specious. And He now
overcame by falling back upon the simple and clear principle which had brought
him to Jordan: 'It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' Thus, simply
putting aside, without argument, the objection of the Baptist, He followed the
Hand that pointed Him to the open door of 'the Kingdom.'
21. The expression diekwluen (St. Matt
iii. 14: 'John forbade Him') implies earnest resistance (comp. Meyer ad locum).
Jesus stepped out of the baptismal waters 'praying.'22
One prayer, the only one which He taught His disciples, recurs to our minds.23
We must here individualise and emphasise in their special application its
opening sentences: 'Our Father Which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name! Thy
Kingdom come! They will be done in earth, as it is in heaven!' The first
thought and the first petition had been the conscious outcome of the
Temple-visit, ripened during the long years at Nazareth. The others were now
the full expression of His submission to Baptism. He knew His Mission; He had
consecrated Himself to it in His Baptism; 'Father Which art in heaven, hallowed
be Thy Name.' The unlimited petition for the doing of God's Will on earth with
the same absoluteness as in heaven, was His self-consecration: the prayer
of His Baptism, as the other was its confession. And the 'hallowed be Thy Name'
was the eulogy, because the ripened and experimental principle of His Life. How
this Will, connected with 'the Kingdom,' was to be done by Him, and when,
He was to learn after His Baptism. But strange, that the petition which
followed those which must have been on the lips of Jesus in that hour should
have been the subject of the first temptation or assault by the Enemy;
strange also, that the other two temptations should have rolled back the force
of the assault upon the two great experiences He had gained, and which formed
the burden of the petitions, 'Thy Kingdom come; Hallowed be Thy Name.' Was it
then so, that all the assaults which Jesus bore only concerned and tested the
reality of a past and already attained experience, save those last in the
Garden and on the Cross, which were 'sufferings' by which He 'was made perfect?'
22. St. Luke iii. 21.
23. It seems to me that the prayer which the Lord taught His disciples must have had
its root in, and taken its start from, His own inner Life. At the same time it is adapted to our wants. Much in that prayer has, of course, no application to Him, but is His application of the doctrine of the Kingdom to our state and wants.
But, as we have already seen, such inward forth-bursting of
Messianic consciousness could not be separated from objective qualification
for, and testimony to it. As the prayer of Jesus winged heavenwards, His solemn
response to the call of the Kingdom - 'Here am I;' 'Lo, I come to do Thy Will'
- the answer came, which at the same time was also the predicted sign to the
Baptist. Heaven seemed cleft, and in bodily shape like a dove, the Holy Ghost
Jesus, remaining on him. It was as if, symbolically, in the words of St. Peter,25
that Baptism had been a new flood, and He Who now emerged from it, the Noah -
or rest, and comfort-bringer - Who took into His Ark the dove bearing the
olive-branch, indicative of a new life. Here, at these waters, was the Kingdom,
into which Jesus had entered in the fulfilment of all righteousness; and from
them he emerged as its Heaven-designated, Heaven-qualified, and
Heaven-proclaimed King. As such he had received the fulness of the Spirit for
His Messianic Work - a fulness abiding in Him - that out of it we might
receive, and grace for grace. As such also the voice from Heaven proclaimed it,
to Him and to John: 'Thou art ('this is') My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well
pleased.' The ratification of the great Davidic promise, the announcement of
the fulfilment of its predictive import in Psalm ii.26
was God's solemn declaration of Jesus as the Messiah, His public proclamation
of it, and the beginning of Jesus' Messianic work. And so the Baptist
understood it, when he 'bare record' that He was 'the Son of God.'27
24. Whether or not we adopt the reading eiV auton in St. Mark i. 10, the remaining of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus is clearly expressed in St. John i. 32.
25. 1 St. Pet. iii. 21.
26. Here the Targum on Ps. ii. 7, which is evidently intended to weaken the Messianic interpretation, gives us welcome help. It paraphrases: 'Beloved as a son to his
father art Thou to Me.' Keim regards the words, 'Thou art my beloved Son,' &c., as a mixture of Is. xlii. 1 and Ps. ii. 7. I cannot agree with this view, though this history is the fulfilment of the prediction in Isaiah.
27. St. John i. 34.
Quite intelligible as all this is, it is certainly miraculous;
not, indeed, in the sense of contravention of the Laws of Nature (illogical as
that phrase is), but in that of having nothing analogous in our present
knowledge and experience. But would we not have expected the supra-empirical,
the directly heavenly, to attend such an event - that is, if the narrative
itself be true, and Jesus what the Gospels represent Him? To reject, therefore,
the narrative because of its supra-empirical accompaniment seems, after all, a
sad inversion of reasoning, and begging the question. But, to go a step
further: if there be no reality in the narrative, whence the invention of the
legend? It certainly had no basis in contemporary Jewish teaching; and, equally
certainly, it would not have spontaneously occurred to Jewish minds. Nowhere in
Rabbinic writings do we find any hint of a Baptism of the Messiah, nor of a
descent upon Him of the Spirit in the form of a dove. Rather would such views
seem, à priori, repugnant to Jewish thinking. An attempt has, however,
been made in the direction of identifying two traits in this narrative with
Rabbinic notices. The 'Voice from heaven' has been represented as the 'Bath-Qol,'
or 'Daughter-Voice,' of which we read in Rabbinic writings, as bringing
heaven's testimony or decision to perplexed or hardly bestead Rabbis. And it
has been further asserted, that among the Jews 'the dove' was regarded as the
emblem of the Spirit. In taking notice of these assertions some warmth of
language may be forgiven.
We make bold to maintain that no one, who has impartially
examined the matter,28
could find any real analogy between the so-called Bath-Qol, and the
'Voice from heaven' of which record is made in the New Testament. However
opinions might differ, on one thing all were agreed: the Bath-Qol had
come after the voice of prophecy and the Holy Ghost had ceased in
Israel,29 and, so
to speak, had taken, their place.30But at the Baptism of Jesus the descent of the Holy Ghost was accompanied by
the Voice from Heaven. Even on this ground, therefore, it could not have
been the Rabbinic Bath-Qol. But, further, this 'Daughter-Voice' was regarded
rather as the echo of, than as the Voice of God itself31
(Toseph. Sanh. xi. 1). The occasions on which this 'Daughter-Voice' was
supposed to have been heard are so various and sometimes so shocking, both to
common and to moral sense, that a comparison with the Gospels is wholly out of
the question. And here it also deserves notice, that references to this Bath-Qol
increase the farther we remove from the age of Christ.32
28. Dr. Wünsche's Rabbinic notes on the Bath-Qol (Neue Beitr. pp. 22, 23) are taken from Hamburger's Real-Encykl. (Abth. ii. pp. 92 &c.)
29. Jer. Sot. ix. 14; Yoma 9 b; Sotah 33 a; 48 b; Sanh 11 a.
30. Hamburger, indeed maintains, on the ground of Macc. 23 b, that occasionally it was
identified with the Holy Spirit. But carefully read, neither this passage, nor the other, in which the same mistranslation, and profane misinterpretation of
the words 'She has been more righteous' (Gen. xxxviii. 26) occur (Jer. Sot. ix. 7), at all bears out this suggestion. It is quite untenable in view of the distinct statements (Jer. Sot. ix. 14; Sot. 48 b; and Sanh. 11a), that after the cessation of the Holy Spirit the Bath-Qol took His place.
31. Comp. on the subject Pinner in his Introduction to the tractate Berakhoth.
32. In the Targum Onkelos it is not at all mentioned. In the Targum PseudoJon. it
occurs four times (Gen. xxxviii. 26; Numb. xxi. 6; Deut. xxviii. 15; xxxiv. 5),
and four times in the Targum on the Hagiographa (twice in Ecclesiastes, once in Lamentations, and once in Esther). In Mechilta and Siphra it does not occur at
all, and in Siphré only once, in the absurd legend that the Bath-Qol was heard a distance of twelve times twelve miles proclaiming the death of Moses (ed. Friedmann,
p. 149 b). In the Mishnah it is only twice mentioned (Yeb. xvi. 6, where the sound of a Bath-Qol is supposed to be sufficient attestation of a man's death to enable his wife to marry again; and in Abhoth vi. 2, where it is impossible to understand the language otherwise than figuratively). In the
Jerusalem Talmud the Bath-Qol is referred to twenty times, and in the Babylon Talmud sixty-nine times. Sometimes the Bath-Qol gives sentence in favour of a popular Rabbi, sometimes it attempts to decide controversies, or bears witness;
or else it is said every day to proclaim: Such an one's daughter is destined for such an one (Moed Kat. 18 b; Sot. 2 a; Sanh. 22 a). Occasionally it utters curious or profane interpretations of Scripture (as in
Yoma 22 b; Sot. 10 b), or silly legends, as in regard to the
insect Yattush which was to torture Titus (Gitt. 56 b), or as warning against a place where a hatchet had fallen into the water, descending
for seven years without reaching the bottom. Indeed, so strong became the
feeling against this superstition, that the more rational Rabbis protested
against any appeal to the Bath-Qol (Baba Metsia 59 b).
We have reserved to the last the consideration of the
statement, that among the Jews the Holy Spirit was presented under the symbol
of a dove. It is admitted, that there is no support for this idea either in the
Old Testament or in the writings of Philo (Lücke, Evang. Joh. i. pp.
425, 426); that, indeed, such animal symbolism of the Divine is foreign to the
Old Testament. But all the more confident appeal is made to Rabbinic writings.
The suggestion was, apparently, first made by Wetstein.33
It is dwelt upon with much confidence by Gfrörer34
and others, as evidence of the mythical origin of the Gospels;35
it is repeated by Wünsche, and even reproduced by writers who, had they
known the real state of matters, would not have lent their authority to it. Of
the two passages by which this strange hypothesis is supported, that in
the Targum on Cant. ii. 12 may at once be dismissed, as dating considerably
after the close of the Talmud. There remains, therefore, only the one passage
in the Talmud,36
which is generally thus quoted: 'The Spirit of God moved on the face of the
waters, like a dove.'37
That this quotation is incomplete, omitting the most important part, is only a
light charge against it. For, if fully made, it would only the more clearly be
seen to be inapplicable. The passage (Chag. 15 a) treats of the
supposed distance between 'the upper and the lower waters,' which is stated to
amount to only three fingerbreadths. This is proved by a reference to Gen. i.
2, where the Spirit of God is said to brood over the face of the waters, 'just
as a dove broodeth over her young without touching them.' It will be noticed,
that the comparison is not between the Spirit and the dove, but between the closeness
with which a dove broods over her young without touching them, and the supposed
proximity of the Spirit to the lower waters without touching them.38
But, if any doubt could still exist, it would be removed by the fact that in a
the expression used is not 'dove' but 'that bird.' Thus much for this
oft-misquoted passage. But we go farther, and assert, that the dove was not
the symbol of the Holy Spirit, but that of Israel. As such it is so universally
adopted as to have become almost historical.40
If, therefore, Rabbinic illustration of the descent of the Holy Spirit with the
visible appearance of a dove must be sought for, it would lie in the
acknowledgment of Jesus as the ideal typical Israelite, the Representative of
33. Nov. Test. i. p. 268.
34. The force of Gfrörer's attacks upon the Gospels lies in his cumulative
attempts to prove that the individual miraculous facts recorded in the Gospels are based upon Jewish notions. It is, therefore, necessary to examine each of
them separately, and such examination, it careful and conscientious, shows that his quotations are often untrustworthy, and his conclusions fallacies. None the
less taking are they to those who are imperfectly acquainted with Rabbinic
literature. Wünsche's Talmudic and Midrashic Notes on the N.T.
(Gottingen, 1878) are also too often misleading.
35. Jahrh. des Heils, vol. ii. p. 433.
36. Chag. 15 a.
37. Farrar, Life of Christ, i. p. 117.
38. The saying in Chag. 15 a is of Ben Soma, who is described in Rabbinic
literature as tainted with Christian views, and whose belief in the possibility
of the supernatural birth of the Messiah is so coarsely satirised in the
Talmud. Rabbi Löw (Lebensalter. p. 58) suggests that in Ben Soma's
figure of the dove there may have been a Christian reminiscence.
39. Ber. R. 2.
40. Comp. the long illustrations in the Midr. on Song i. 15; Sanh. 95 a; Ber. R. 39; Yalkut on Ps. 1v. 7. and other passages.
The lengthened details, which have been necessary for the
exposure of the mythical theory, will not have been without use, if they carry
to the mind the conviction that this history had no basis in existing Jewish
belief. Its origin cannot, therefore, be rationally accounted for, except by
the answer which Jesus, when He came to Jordan, gave to that grand fundamental
question: 'The Baptism of John, whence was it? From Heaven, or of men?'41