The Work of Jesus Pictured in Baptism
Text:
While there are resemblances between this passage and the corresponding sections in Mark and Luke, they are not nearly as many or as close as in the preceding passage. Indeed, the differences are so many that it is not easy to see Matthew as using the same source as either of the others; the changes are too many and too significant. There is no parallel to Matthew 13:14–15, with John’s attempt to dissuade Jesus from baptism, and there are significant differences in verse 16. The words of the voice from heaven are closer, but Matthew has “This is” where the others have “You are.” We should regard this section as independent of the parallel passages in the other Synoptists.
This is the point in Matthew’s story where Jesus takes an active role. Though it will initially take a form which is a puzzle to John, Jesus’ ministry is to emerge out of the ministry of John. Between them, Jesus’ dialogues with John the Baptist and with the devil establish, for the reader, foundational perspectives on the nature of Jesus’ ministry to come. 3:13–4:12 constitute a period of preparation of the adult Jesus for his ministry. The two episodes are bracketed together by notices of Jesus’ arrival from and departure to Galilee (3:13; 4:12).
There is broad scholarly agreement that Matthew is responsible for the material of vv. 14–15. For the rest there is no clear evidence of anything beyond the Markan source, despite the likelihood that Matthew’s source for 4:1–11 was preceded by some form of baptismal declaration of Jesus as Son. The historicity of Jesus’ baptism by John cannot be doubted, and with good confidence we can speak of a major impetus for the beginning of Jesus’ ministry as coming at this time. The precise form in which Jesus may have spoken of this experience to others is now lost from sight for us since it is clear already from the different form the words from heaven take in the different Gospels that we are dealing with reflective formulations of a Christian confession.1
I. The Need for Jesus’ Baptism (3:13-14)
A. Two Factors - 13
13. For Matthew’s characteristic Then see on 2:7. Here it denotes that which follows next in sequence. For comes we have the same verb and the same tense as that used of the Baptist in verse 1 (both Mark and Luke prefer the aorist in their equivalent expressions); the present gives it greater vividness, and we get the thought that Jesus makes his appearance on the scene. Matthew mentions both his starting point and his destination,54 but he says nothing about the journey. He further tells us that Jesus came specifically to John to be baptized by him. The construction55 indicates purpose; Jesus came to John in order to undergo the baptism John was administering
B. John’s obvious question - 14
14. But sets John’s purpose over against that of Jesus. Jesus came with the purpose of being baptized, but John objected.56 A further contrast is brought out with the use of the emphatic pronouns for I and you. John sets himself over against Jesus and says that any baptism should be the other way around: he should be baptized by Jesus and not Jesus by him. He points to his need; it is not a question of what he wants (or what Jesus wants) but of need. This is a further illustration of John’s humility and of his recognition of his own sinfulness, for a baptism like John’s was for penitent sinners, not for people who needed no repentance.57 His and is in the sense “emphasizing a fact as surprising or unexpected or noteworthy: and yet, and in spite of that” (BAGD, χαί, I.2.g). John is surprised at finding Jesus among his baptizands. It does not seem right and therefore he does not want this baptism to proceed. The Fourth Evangelist tells us that the Baptist did not know Jesus until he saw the Spirit descend on him like a dove (John 1:33), which may mean that he did not know Jesus or that he did not know him to be the Messiah. But Matthew does not address himself to this question. He simply tells us that John recognized his inferior place without going into the question of how he came to know it or for that matter how he understood it. Since John does not speak of Jesus as Messiah, he may have meant only that he knew that Jesus had greater authority than he or was morally superior to him.
Transition:
II. The Purpose of Jesus Baptism (15)
B. The Fulfillment
1. It pictured the death and resurrection - Luke 12:50
2. It prefigured the significance of baptism
3. It marked public identification with those whose sins He would bear
4. It was a public affirmation of his Messiahship by direct testimony from heaven.
15. Another but carries on the contrast. Jesus answers58 not so much the question John asked as the problem that lay behind it for John. Let it be so now clearly means “Let us get on with the baptism at this point”; the words negate John’s request not to proceed to baptize Jesus (the word now leaves room for something different in the future and thus for some recognition of John’s lower place than that of Jesus). It is fitting also presents no great problem. Jesus is saying that it is seemly or proper that they should go ahead. What is not so clear is how we should understand the words for us to fulfil all righteousness.59 Suggestions such as taking the expression “in the sense of fulfilling the divine statutes” (BAGD, 2.a; Carr is similar with “the requirements of the law”) should be rejected; what divine statute was fulfilled when Jesus was baptized? The view that it is the righteousness of the whole life that is in mind is somewhat better, though it is not easy to understand how Jesus and John were fulfilling that in this baptism.60 The expression is undoubtedly difficult and has aroused a great deal of discussion. But in this Gospel “fulfil” is often used of the fulfilment of prophecy, and this is surely in mind here. We should probably understand righteousness as in Isaiah 53:11: “by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.”61 Matthew is not averse to referring to Isaiah (e.g., 1:23; 12:18–21; he cites this very chapter in 8:17), and a reference to the righteousness of the Servant would suit the present passage admirably. Jesus might well have been up there in front standing with John and calling on sinners to repent. Instead he was down there with the sinners, affirming his solidarity with them, making himself one with them in the process of the salvation that he would in due course accomplish.62 If there is a reference to Isaiah 53, it is relevant to note that in that chapter we read: he “was numbered with the transgressors” (Isa. 53:12). There may also be something of the Israel typology here. Jesus himself had no need of repentance, but Israel certainly did; in submitting to John’s baptism Jesus is pointing to the people’s need. Matthew pictures Jesus as dedicating himself to the task of making sinners righteous, an appropriate beginning of his public ministry. John understood enough of what Jesus was saying to play his part; despite his initial hesitation he baptized Jesus.
3:15 The words here carry extra weight as the first words Matthew sets on the lips of Jesus. Jesus’ insistence represents a modification in some respects of the timetable announced by John in vv. 10 and 12 (and cf. v. 2). What is to happen now (ἄρτι) is not yet what John was anticipating. ‘Now’ allows for a future in which what John expects will transpire, but first there is to be an interlude which is to begin with the surprising development that Jesus seeks baptism from John. Both John’s baptism of Jesus and Jesus’ submission to baptism at the hands of John (note the use of ‘for us’) are identified as having their part to play in the unfolding of God’s purpose. According to Jesus, this act of baptism administered and received strikes a fitting opening note (πρέπον ἐστιν [‘it is fitting’]) for the role to which he is called2 in the present period. It is not the baptism alone which ‘fulfil[s] all righteousness’; rather, the baptism constitutes the opening move of an unfolding sequence designed (building on John’s existing efforts) ‘to fulfil all righteousness’.3
But what can Matthew mean by ‘fulfil all righteousness’? Matthew has already used πληροῦν (‘fulfil’) four times for the fulfilment of Scripture, and will do so eight more times (see at 1:22). Otherwise Jesus is said to have come to fulfil the Law and the Prophets (5:17 [using the infinitive as here]), a fishing net is filled (13:48), and the scribes and Pharisees are sarcastically invited to ‘fill up the measure [of the sin] of your ancestors’ (23:32). Matthew also favours the word ‘righteousness’. Of immediate relevance is 21:32: ‘John came to you in [the] way of righteousness’. Otherwise, righteousness is something to be hungered and thirsted for (5:6); the kingdom of God and his righteousness are to be sought as the top priority (6:33 [see the discussion there]); one can be persecuted for righteousness (5:10); it is important to have more of it than the scribes and Pharisees have (v. 20), and one should not practice one’s ‘[acts of] righteousness before others in order to be seen by them’ (6:1).4
John’s coming in the way of righteousness clearly means more than that he was, as an individual, righteous. His concern was, with an urgency based on his conviction of the imminence of the kingdom of God, to call people back into a right relationship with God. Through repentance and baptism people would once again be set on the path of righteousness. Beginning with his baptism by John, Jesus was committed to carrying forward the mission begun by the preparer (3:3).
The righteousness that both John and Jesus are concerned to establish involves being restored to a right relationship with God and living this out in a quite tangible righteousness of life. The righteousness that both John and Jesus have their eyes set on is the righteousness of the kingdom of God: that state of affairs in which all is right between God and his world. This is what John and Jesus are concerned to see anticipated in the lives of God’s people in the present.
Jesus’ words suggest, however, that there is more to be done than has been or can be done by John’s prophetic ministry. The ‘now’, which was said above to separate the future expected by John from what is for the moment coming in the ministry of Jesus, is also likely to mark (but not so strongly) a transition from the time when John’s ministry stood alone to the time when Jesus is ready to play his own active role.
The use of ‘all’ points to a developing and unfolding process that may involve a number of stages. The culmination of this process remains the purification and judgment John anticipates at the hands of the one he heralded (vv. 11–12), but first a preliminary role for the historical Jesus, quite unanticipated by John, is to be intercalated.
The language of fulfilment here is likely intended to pick up on its use with the formula quotations. Matt. 5:17 (‘to fulfil … [the Prophets]’) may serve in part to confirm this connection by providing a bridge between the form in 3:15, with its use of the active infinitive verb form and with no specific reference to Scripture, and the passive forms with clear reference to the Prophets which characterise the formula quotations. The concern ‘to fulfil all righteousness’ is the concern to prepare for and see it in the kingdom of God as anticipated in Scripture and the Jewish faith.5
It still remains to consider how in the Matthean view the baptism of Jesus is intended to function within this framework. It is clear that in baptism Jesus is placing himself alongside his fellow Israelites. Does this involve a commitment to be himself first what he will call others to be? Probably. In light of the contrast pointed up by John’s objection, we may also talk about Jesus taking a path of humility (see 21:5; cf. 12:20; 5:5), a path which opens up the way, ultimately, to the cross. See also the discussion above at v. 13. At quite another level, it is the baptism by John which prepares for the endowment with the Spirit of the one who will in the future ‘baptize’ with the Spirit, and it is the baptism which leads to the heavenly affirmation of the identity of Jesus.
The compliance of John, his doubts dispelled, gains emphasis from the use of a historic present.
III. The event of Christ’s Baptism (3:16-17)
A. The Occurrence - 16
1. He was baptized
2. Immediately when He was out of the water
3. The heavens were opened.
16. Matthew does not describe the baptism, but takes up his narrative from the time when it was completed. He says that Jesus immediately went up from the water,63 and he follows this with look, the heavens were opened. His characteristic look (see on 1:20) draws attention to what follows and makes it all more vivid. It is not easy to see what is meant by the opening of the heavens, but we should probably think that for a short time the barrier between this world and heaven was set aside so that there could be some form of intercourse between the two. But it is not easy to understand whether Matthew is referring to a vision Jesus had which was personal to himself, or whether he is saying that all present shared in the experience. The manuscripts do not agree; many have “to him”64 after were opened (so GNB), and if we accept this reading Matthew is writing about what Jesus alone experienced (which would accord with Mark’s “he saw the heavens opened,” Mark 1:10). But if we follow the MSS that do not include “to him,” Matthew is saying that others, too, saw the opened heavens. He goes on to say that Jesus saw the Spirit coming down on him, but he does not say whether this vision was shared by others (Mark agrees with Matthew, Luke does not say who saw it, while John does not record the opening of heaven). On the whole it appears that Matthew is putting his emphasis on the experience of Jesus. The sight of the opened heavens and the visible manifestation of the Spirit would have been an encouragement to Jesus, and this is the way Matthew records it. Whether other people shared in the experience or not was apparently not so important to him, and he leaves us to puzzle about it.
This Evangelist alone says that it was the Spirit of God65 who came down (Mark and John have “the Spirit,” and Luke “the Holy Spirit”). Usually the Spirit is referred to as “the Holy Spirit,” but “God’s Spirit” is found in a number of places (e.g., 12:28), as are “my Spirit,” “his Spirit,” and “the Spirit of the Lord.” The Spirit descended on Jesus “like a dove.”66 There are two problems here. One is the precise nature of the bird. I have translated the word “dove,” but we must bear in mind that until comparatively recent times animals and birds seem not to have been named with great precision, apart from a few outstanding forms. Matthew’s word67 can refer to any one of a variety of pigeons and doves. It is impossible to attain certainty, but it is usually held that a dove is in mind and there is no reason to quarrel with this. The other problem is the meaning of the symbolism.68 In modern times it is often urged that the dove was an accepted symbol of the Holy Spirit, but this is not supported by the evidence. That the Spirit “was moving over the face of the waters” at the creation (Gen. 1:2) may be relevant, but there is no mention of “dove” in that passage. The dove was sometimes a symbol for Israel69 (cf. Hos. 7:11), and it is possible that this is in mind here. If so, Jesus is seen as the true, ideal Israelite when he receives the Spirit of God at the threshold of his public ministry. Morgan further points out that the dove “is the emblem of weakness,” so that “the Spirit of God in the form of a dove is an emblem of power in gentleness.” Matthew is the only one of the Evangelists who adds to the Spirit’s descent the fact that he “came” on Jesus. This apparently means that what looked like a dove alighted on Jesus and the Spirit of God now rested on him. It should not be overlooked that John linked the Holy Spirit and fire, whereas when the Spirit came on Jesus it was in the form of a harmless dove. Both pieces of symbolism, of course, point to truth and neither can be neglected.
B. He saw - 17
17. Once again Matthew has his And look; he is fond of the expression and the emphasis it can give to what follows. All three Synoptists tell us of the voice out of heaven, which, of course, means the voice of God, “heaven” being a reverent periphrasis for the deity.70 Mark and Luke have the words addressed to Jesus, “You are my Son …,” but Matthew’s This is my Son makes the words relevant to the bystanders; they are an open testimony to the Father’s approval of his Son (cf. 17:5 and see the note on 4:3), and we should view “Son” as a messianic title. The heavenly voice points to a relationship shared by no other. Beloved71 tells us of the strong affection the Father has for the Son; it is probably (as Allen thinks) “an independent title = ‘the Beloved’ = the Messiah” (see further the note on the same expression in 17:5). It is reinforced with in whom I am well pleased.72 The verb has the meaning “to think it good, give consent” and thence “to be well pleased, take pleasure in”; the latter is, of course, the meaning here. The divine voice gives approval to Jesus as he begins his public ministry. The words are reminiscent of Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1; they show us that right at the beginning of his ministry Jesus was identified with both the Messiah and the Suffering Servant,73 “and this strange combination exactly describes the nature of the Lord’s ministry soon to begin” (Melinsky). We should perhaps notice the mention of the three Persons of the Trinity in this passage; Matthew has a certain trinitarian interest (cf. 28:19).74
3:17 To whom does the Matthean heavenly voice speak? The dove made her way from heaven to earth, but this is not necessarily the case for the voice, which Matthew presents as a distinct and separately important second part of this scene. Whereas the voice addresses Jesus in both Mark and Luke (‘You are …’), this is not the case in Matthew (‘This is …’). Commentators normally assume that we have here a public divine affirmation of Jesus, directed towards the crowds standing nearby. Occasionally the suggestion is made that the scope of the revelation should be restricted to John the Baptist.12 Since, however, neither John nor the crowds are reported as making any response to this dramatic event, we must clearly identify Matthew’s readers as in his own mind the primary recipients of this revelation. But is the voice from heaven intended to have hearers on the Matthean story line? To John the Baptist the words would confirm the identity of Jesus despite his insistence on baptism. While this would not be inappropriate, it would seem better to hold that John has fulfilled his role and drops from sight after the end of v. 15. It is not clear what specific role the words could have for the wider public. Crowds are not present in the immediate context, and the Pharisees and Sadducees who form the wider public in vv. 7–12 are not very likely candidates for such a revelation. I would suggest that it is best to think of the words from heaven as being heard in heaven: this is God’s acclamation of Jesus before the heavenly court.13 It is an open question whether Matthew thinks in terms of Jesus overhearing the acclamation (for him—but not for others—the heavens are at this point open), but perhaps it is best to think of Jesus as privileged to overhear the heavenly conversation.14
With the change from first to third person in the opening clause of the words of the heavenly voice comes the need for a corresponding change in the second clause. Instead of making the obvious change from ‘you’ to ‘him’ Matthew links the clauses more closely by using ‘whom’ to create a relative clause.
The question of the meaning of the voice from heaven is closely tied to the question of possible OT allusions. The texts primarily considered here are Gn. 22:2; Ex. 4:22–23; Ps. 2:7; and Is. 42:1. ‘There can be no doubt that in Matthew the voice from heaven and Isa. 42:1 are bound together since Matthew’s rendering of Isa. 42:1 in Matt. 12:18 contains the two key words ἀγαπητός, “beloved,” and εὐδοκεῖν, “to come to delight in.” ’15 Matthew’s change to the third person has weakened the links with Ps. 2:7 (‘You are my son’). But almost certainly there is a pre-Matthean link, and nothing suggests that Matthew intended to obliterate it. ὁ ἀγαπητός (‘beloved’ or ‘the beloved’) could signal a tie with Gn. 22:1, but its presence is more readily explained as a natural change from ὁ ἐκλεκτός (‘the chosen’) of Is. 42:1 at the point where Ps. 2:7 and Is. 42:1 were linked.16 The main point in favour of an echo of Ex. 4:22–23 is the obvious Matthean typology encountered above in chap. 2 (for the connection here cf. esp. 2:15), in which Jesus reiterates key aspects of the experience of the nation Israel. More of the same will come in 4:1–11.17
Since the keyword ‘servant’ is missing from the allusion to Is. 42:1, the point of the connection is not likely to be to identify Jesus as the Isaianic servant as such. The focus of the link to Is. 42:1 is on the use of εὐδοκεῖν. The verb means ‘take pleasure, delight, be glad in’, but it can also involve an element of decision or choice.18 Jesus is acclaimed as God’s favourite, approved and chosen for the role for which he is now endowed by the Spirit. It is likely that part of what is involved here is an endorsement of the attitude of mind reflected in Jesus’ decision to seek baptism from John.
The significance of a tie to Ps. 2:7 would be to identify a messianic element in the language of sonship. For Matthew it is clearly important that Jesus is the messiah. What is not so clear is that Matthew intends to use the language of sonship to make this point. Since, however, Matthew obviously has no difficulty juxtaposing the Sonship of Jesus in reference to a quite exalted christology with reference to his identity as one who recapitulates the history of his people, there should be no difficulty in principle with including a messianic element as well. ‘Son of God’ will refer to the messiah on the lips of the high priest in Mt. 26:63, and probably no more is intended on the lips of those who mock in 27:40, 43. But even in these references Matthew is likely to be interested in an ironic fuller sense. It is important to note that even in connection with the messiah ‘son’ is not simply another word for ‘messiah’: sonship refers to a special status and relationship with God which the messiah may experience. It is sonship as status and relationship which ties together the different strands involved in identifying Jesus as Son of God.
For Matthew, Ps. 2:7 is probably meant to play only a minor role in understanding the voice from heaven; Matthew will be more concerned to open up the way for the more profound understanding of Sonship which will become clear as his story unfolds. It will not be an accident that the close linking here of (the voice of) the Father, the Son, and the Spirit will be repeated at the climax of Matthew’s tale in 28:19: ‘baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’.
I have suggested above that ἀγαπητός (‘beloved’) is based on ἐκλεκτός (‘chosen’) in Is. 42:1 and marks the seam where Is. 42:1 and Ps. 2:7 were combined. In light of this, ἀγαπητός should probably be allowed the connotation ‘only’, which it periodically has in the LXX.19 In the present context of divine acclamation in heaven, this implied uniqueness and the use of εὐδοκεῖν to identify Jesus as God’s favourite prepare for the unique father/son relationship which will come into clearest focus at 11:27.