Part 12
(c) The new procedure to be ushered in is throughout described as bearing a redemptive character. This is accomplished, first of all, by giving it, both in the objective announcement by God and in the subjective apprehension of those addressed, the background of a state of sin and unworthiness, and the corresponding signature of grace and salvation. God's unique dealing with His people at this point is recognized as an act of sovereign mercy. This has found its typical expression in the words of Mary [Lk. 1:46, 51–53]. There is no trace of the view that anything well-deserving has evoked this
visitation of God, least of all anything resembling faithful observance of the law. The gulf between the better Israel of ancient times and the apostate Israel of the present is realized. Zacharias is told that the child to be born to him shall turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. The source of all blessedness is sought in the berith, which is but another way of saying that it flows from the free promise of God. God fulfils what He promised to the fathers (the patriarchs) [Lk. 1:54, 55, 72, 73].
(d) Equally significant is the absence of the political element from these pieces. In itself this element would not have been objectionable, for under the Old Testament theocracy national and religious interests intertwined. The nearest to a reminiscence from this comes in Lk. 1:71, 74 (salvation from enemies through the Messiah), but even here this feature is purely subsidiary to the end named in vs. 75.
(e) The legalism of Judaism is nowhere in evidence. It must be granted that even in Judaism this figures scarcely as an end in itself. It served as a means for bringing about the Messianic blessedness. The Jewish self-righteousness rested on the deeper basis of egoistic eudæmonism. But the legalism had become so inveterate, that to a considerable extent the vision of the other world remained coloured by it. Still, its main significance pertains to the pre-eschatological period. The Jewish sequence is: Israel is first to fulfil the law, then, by manner of recompense, the Messiah, with all that pertains to Him, will appear. The new sequence is: first the Messiah will appear, as a gift of divine grace, and through Him Israel will be enabled to yield the proper obedience. The effect of this is twofold: by shifting the law from the beginning of the process to the end the Jewish selfrighteousness is eliminated; by vindicating for the law its permanent place at the end, the ethical import of the salvation is emphasized. Of John the Baptist, Gabriel predicts that he shall turn many of the children of Israel to Jehovah their God [Lk. 1:16]. To Joseph it is
predicted that Jesus' chief work will consist in saving His people from their sins [Matt. 1:21].
(f) The closeness of the bond with the Old Testament is shown through the prolongation into these early revelations of the two lines of ancient eschatological prophecy. The one of these moves towards the coming of Jehovah Himself in a supreme theophany. The other moves towards the coming of the Messiah. It is by no means certain that even in Old Testament prophecy these were mutually exclusive: one writer or prophet might, under certain circumstances, favour the one, and under other circumstances the other representation. And it is even possible, that as the concept of the Messiah expanded into the supernatural and super-creaturely, the combinableness and somewhat of the identity of the two were perceived. On the whole, however, they are like two separate streams. The full development of New Testament revelation has first fully disclosed their convergence through its teaching that in the divine Messiah Jehovah has come to His people.
In the pieces under review there is the beginning of this, but the coalescence has not yet fully been reached. It is to be observed that the two representations are so distributed, that in the circle of Mary and Joseph the Messianic kingship out of the line of David stands in the centre, whilst in the circle of Zacharias and Elizabeth the idea of Jehovah's coming prevails, although not exclusively (for the former compare Matt. 1:20; 2:1, 5, 8; Lk. 1:32; for the latter Lk. 1:16, 17, 76). For the entrance of the Davidic strain into the Jehovah-coming complex compare Lk. 1:32, 69; 2:4, 11. It is in accordance with the assignment of this line to the Baptist's family that the later word of God coming through John was so largely borrowed from Isa. 40. About 'the Lord' and 'the mother of my Lord' [Lk. 1:16, 17, 43] see later under the discussion of the name Kyrios.
Some intimation of the identity between Jehovah and the Messiah seems to be contained in the words of the angel [Matt. 1:21]. Here the name Jesus, to be given to the child, is understood in its etymological
sense: 'Jehovah is Salvation.' In itself, of course, this need not by any means imply that the Messiah, as personally identical with Jehovah, will be the Saviour. For this identical name had been borne under the Old Testament by purely human servants of God, not to mark them as Jehovah, but simply to render their work symbolic of the fact that Jehovah in His own Person provides salvation for Israel. And in the abstract it might have been not otherwise in the case of Jesus. This exegesis, however, overlooks the important fact, that Jesus bears the name, as is explicitly stated, because He (Jesus) saves His (Jesus') people from their sins. We have, therefore, in close succession the statements, that Jehovah is salvation, and that Jesus saves, that Israel (Jehovah's people) are Jesus' people. On the other hand, the name Emmanuel in vs. 23 could be His merely on account of His being exponential of God's being with His people; moreover the words in this verse are not words of the angel, but words of Matthew who is quoting Isaiah.
(g) There are certain intimations of the universalism (destiny to include other nations) of the Gospel in these disclosures. Simeon speaks of the salvation prepared by God as a light to lighten the Gentiles, side by side with its being a glory for the people of Israel [Lk. 2:32], and announces to Mary, that the child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken against [vs. 34]; yea, intimates that a painful experience described as a sword piercing Mary's heart will contribute somehow to these effects [vs. 35]. An illumination of the Gentiles seems to be foretold, which will have for its foil the darkness of the unbelief of Israel. Not as if this were in any sense the first disclosure of universalism in Scripture, far less of the propaganda of missions. But the Judaistic proselytizing implied that whosoever was adopted from among the Gentiles could attain to a share in the privileges of Israel only through becoming a Jew. Here the idea is that through the unbelief of the Jew the Gentiles will be brought in [compare Rom. 11:11ff.].
(h) As a last element lending distinctive character to these revelations, we must mention the supernatural birth of the Messiah
to be brought about without human paternity. We do not here discuss the objections raised against this event on historical grounds. That belongs to the department of Gospel History, as does likewise the critique upon the trends of thought and belief that, denying the fact as fact, are supposed to have produced the idea of the fact as a distinct phase in early Christology. All we propose here to deal with is what idea or ideas in the mind of God shaped the occurrence of the event, assuming it to have been an event in the way in which it is described as having come to pass.
Three elements offering an explanation have been thought of. The first concerns the sinlessness of the child through the estoppage of the transmission of sin. Reference to this may be found in Lk. 1:35, 'that which is begotten of thee shall be called holy', or 'that holy thing which is begotten', etc., provided 'holy' be taken in the ethical sense. It may, however, be taken in the sense of 'consecrated', in which case there would be no direct reference to the sinlessness of the child, although the 'consecration' would seem to presuppose the sinlessness. In so far we may assume that the action of the Holy Spirit spoken of had for one of its purposes the prevention of the transmission of the pollution of sin. But this does not yield an exhaustive explanation of the factors present, because the end could have been secured through some specific operation of the Spirit, not going to the extent of the elimination of the human paternity, unless the ground be taken (as it has been by some) that the paternal factor in the act of generation bears a special relation to the transmission of sin, not borne by the maternal factor. Discounting this, the fact that Joseph has nothing to do with the birth is too strongly stressed not to require some additional reason besides the motive just indicated.
We are thus led in the second place to think of the fitness which this mode of birth possessed for introducing into human nature One who was already antecedently in more than one sense 'the Son of God'. It was eminently appropriate that the human paternity of Joseph should give way to the paternity of God. In Matthew there is no reference to the divine Sonship of the child. In 1:21, 23, it is simply 'a
son', that is a son of Mary. But in Luke, while 'a son' likewise occurs in 1:31, the other side of the child's derivation is specified in vss. 32, 35; 'the Son of the Highest', 'the Son of God'. And this is plainly brought into connection with the operation of the Spirit, represented more particularly as the transmitter of the power of the Highest overshadowing her, so that no doubt is left as to the specific paternity of God being involved to the exclusion of that of man.
The third point of view from which the event is regarded is that of carrying back the supernaturalism of the whole Person and work of Christ into the very origin of His human nature, as directly derived from God. If even in Old Testament history this principle finds expression as regards the typical work of redemption, how much more we may expect it here! Illustrated in the birth of Isaac after a symbolical manner, it certainly is eminently applicable, where He is introduced into human nature of whom Isaac was but the type. If it be objected that on this principle the supernaturalism of origin ought to have been made absolute through eliminating the maternity of Mary, as well as the paternity of Joseph, the answer is that the former could not be dispensed with, if the real connection of Jesus with our human nature was to be preserved and Docetism to be avoided. That this third point of view is not stressed in the narrative may be due to the prominence it later receives in the account of the baptism of Jesus.
THREE:
REVELATION CONNECTED WITH JOHN
THE BAPTIST
It is customary to designate John the Baptist 'the fore-runner' of Christ. The word occurs in Heb. 6:20, although without reference to John, and in a sense in which it could not apply to him. Apart from the word, the idea that John, through his historic activity, prepared the way for the work of Jesus finds clear expression in Lk. 1:17, 76, even though here by 'the Lord' proximately Jehovah were to be understood.
This whole idea of a divinely-arranged connection is spurned by many modern writers. It is attempted to separate John as much as possible from Jesus. Contrary to the Gospel representation, it is assumed that the two represented separate religious movements, which continued to run parallel for a considerable time. The testimony of the Gospels excluding this is exscinded as follows. The Fourth Gospel, which even more strongly than the others, and with a degree of pointedness, affirms the subserviency of John to Jesus, is declared unhistorical in this respect as in most others. The view has been formulated by Baldensperger (The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel, 1898) that the large space devoted to John in John chapters 1–3 is due to the apologetic purpose of convincing the Baptist-sect of the writer's day out of the mouth of their own master, that their place was within the Christian Church, even as John had said: 'I am not the Christ.' The stories of the Nativity in Luke which bring Jesus and John together from the earliest possible point through the relationship and intercourse of their families are held to be of a legendary character, and hence untrustworthy in the matter at issue. The pericope extract exclusive to Matthew [3:13–15], according to which John recognized in Jesus, as soon as the latter came to him,
the Greater One, which, if not implying momentary revelation, would have to rest on previous acquaintance and recognition, is refused credence, partly because not found in Luke, partly because believed to be, within the first Gospel itself, irreconcilable with the doubting enquiry sent by John to Jesus whether He was 'the One to Come', or were they to wait for another? [11:1–3]. Mark, it is claimed, has in all these respects the older and correct tradition, which understood the first contact between Jesus and John to have taken place, when the latter had begun his preaching, and Jesus came to him as one among the many desiring to be baptized.
Others go even farther than this in eliminating from the record of the earliest preaching of John the reference to the Greater One as a reference to a Christ in general, interpreting it on the basis of the Christ-less eschatological programme, wherein Jehovah Himself appears in a supreme theophany. This would cut the connection not only between John and Jesus personally, but doctrinally between John and the Messianic hope. On such a supposition the impulse which, according to many writers, Jesus is believed to have at least received from the solemn occasion leading subsequently to His regarding Himself as the Messiah, is the only personal contact remaining.
The extreme step in this process of detaching John from Jesus is taken, where the spirit and content of the preaching of both are made of a conflicting nature. What John expected, it is held, bore strongly political features, and was for its coming dependent on the use of force. If this were according to facts, one might confidently say that John, instead of being the fore-runner, was in reality the foreantagonist of the Saviour.
MATTHEW 11:2–19
The only apparent basis for these constructions being found in the passage Matt. 11:2–19, it seems best to define John's position relative to Jesus' work from the statements of Jesus' discourse contained in
this passage. This is all the safer, since the unfavourable light in which John's enquiry makes him appear would not be in keeping with the Baptist's reputation in the early Church, and consequently must have had a solid ground in the tradition. The situation and the content of the enquiry are well known. Our interest attaches to Jesus' discourse to the multitude after the messengers had returned to their sender, from vs. 7 onward. In the thrice-repeated question, 'What went ye out to see?', Jesus corrects, first, two erroneous, next an inadequate opinion about John, evidently formed in part under the influence of John's inquiry. The first error is stated and rectified in vs. 7: the Baptist's apparent doubt was not caused by fickleness on his part: he was not a reed shaken with the wind. The second misconception is stated and corrected in vs. 8: the vacillation was not due to the discomfort of John's prison-life: he was not accustomed to the soft raiment worn in King's houses. The third answer to the question recognizes that there was basal truth, only not full truth, in the people's classification of the Baptist as a prophet. He was a prophet, only more than one.
Then Jesus proceeds to define in what this 'more than a prophet' consists. First of all he is a way-preparing messenger sent before the face of the Lord, something that only in a metaphorical sense could be said of the previous prophets: they wrote of Jesus, John is one of whom it was written of old. So far as this is the case he belongs halfway to the fulfilment-era. The culmination of Old Testament prophecy is in him, and this position entitles him to be called 'greatest of them born of women'. As a messenger he comes immediately before the reality: all the prophets and the law prophesied (dealt with something future); John is Elias who was to come shortly before the coming of the day of Jehovah [Mal. 4:5]. Beginning with his days the Kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. Whatever the precise meaning of these figures in vs. 12 may be, it is clear, at any rate, that they imply the nearness, or even the presence of the Kingdom through the Baptist's own work. Through him the Kingdom had passed out of the sphere of pure futurity belonging to it under the Old Testament; it had become
something actual engaging the thoughts and swaying the emotions of men. To have effected this was the great act of John, that which made him 'more than a prophet'.
And yet our Lord intimates that there is a qualification to this: John himself could not be classified with the new dispensation come in through the work of Jesus: 'He that is lesser (or least) in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he' [vs. 11]. This statement does not mean that John was not what we call 'saved', nor could it possibly mean that John would be excluded from the eschatological kingdom, against which compare Matthew 8:11. The true interpretation is that the Baptist would not partake of the privileges of the already coming Kingdom of which others partook through their association with Jesus. He continued to lead his life apart, on the basis of the Old Testament.
This also affords the explanation of John's somewhat impatient enquiry in regard to the Messianic authentication of Jesus. In it the Old Testament once more, as it were, voices its impatience about the tarrying of the Messiah. But as there, so here, the impatience centred on one particular point, the slowness of God's procedure in destroying the wicked. John had been specifically appointed to proclaim the judgment-aspect of the coming crisis. Hence a certain disappointment at the procedure of Jesus. Thus interpreted the enquiry not only does not imply previous non-acquaintance between the two; on the contrary it proves that John had taken note of Jesus, and that there had been intercommunication; else such a message could not have been sent. Vs. 6 also proves previous recognition and appraisal up to a point, only with a certain continuance of the Old Testament perspective. Thus the peculiarity of the answer returned to John, with its exclusive emphasis on the beneficent aspects of Jesus' work, is explained. These are not named merely as credentials, but equally much as characterizations. It was not Jesus' task for the present to judge, at least not in that way. The judgment would come at a subsequent stage. After all, Jesus had not lost sight of John's question. He answered it in the most delicate, yet forceful, way. As
the subsequent discourse reveals, His heart was full of appreciation of the greatness of John, and, as the Fourth Gospel proves, full of love for his person on account of the generosity of John's selfeffacement in the service of the Messiah [3:30; 5:35].
John's appurtenance to the Old Testament is further borne out by Jesus' parable in regard to the question of fasting [Mk. 2:18–22]. It is appropriate for John's disciples to fast, because they have not arrived at that wedding feast of joy at which Jesus' disciples are guests.
JOHN THE BAPTIST AND ELIJAH
Perhaps John's entire external mode of appearance and life are connected with his place within the Old Testament. He was a lifelong Nazarite. His desert-surroundings were significant, as of old connected with the preparation for repentance [Hos. 2:14, 15; Isa. 40:1–4]. He was a reproduction of Elijah, that great prophet of repentance [Matt. 11:14; 17:10–13]. In the first passage the words 'if ye will receive it' indicate that some doubted the character of John as fore-runner Elijah, and also that Jesus accepted it. But there was a difference, perhaps, between the conception that Jesus attached to the reappearance of Elijah and that of the Jews. The latter seem to have expected a literal resurrection of Elijah. Thus we can explain the statement of John about his not being Elijah [John 1:21]. He disclaimed being Elijah in that realistic Jewish sense, but would not have denied being so in the symbolic sense affirmed by Jesus, as little as he would have disclaimed that the prophecies of Isaiah and Malachi were being fulfilled in him.
Perhaps the text of the Septuagint furnishes evidence for the antiquity of the Jewish belief concerning the actual return of the prophet, for in Mal. 4:5 it renders 'Elijah the Tishbite', whereas the original has 'Elijah the prophet'. The origin of the belief lay in the manner of Elijah's ascent to heaven. The Evangelist Luke seems to recognize the symbolic significance of these externals about John, when he speaks of 'the day of his showing unto Israel' [1:80].
We thus see that John's fore-running of Jesus was to all intents a fore-running of the entire Old Testament with reference to the Christ. And this applied not by any means to externals only; the real substance of the Old Testament was recapitulated in John. If we distinguish the two elements of law and prophecy, both were plainly summed up in the message: 'Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.' But the connection between the two is not that of the mere addition of two unrelated things; the conjunction 'for' indicates that the motive for repentance lies in the near approach of the Kingdom, because the latter means to John, first of all, judgment. Compare the fan in the hand, the axe at the root.
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY TO JESUS
In the testimony of the Baptist to Jesus as the Messiah we must distinguish two stages, the one recorded chiefly by the Synoptics, the other by the Fourth Gospel. Between the two lies the baptism of Jesus by John. The characteristic features of the first stage are the emphasis on the judgment and on the judging function of the Coming One who, however, is not explicitly named the Messiah. The figures used to describe his superiority are such, that no one less than God, and yet some one different from Jehovah pure and simple, must be thought of [Matt. 3:3, 11, 12; Mk. 1:3, 7; Lk. 3:4, 16, 17]. The 'fire' specified as the one of the two elements in which the Coming One will baptize is undoubtedly the fire of judgment, not, therefore, a synonym, but the opposite of the Holy Spirit [cp. Matt. 3:10–12; Lk. 3:16, 17]; Mark omits reference to the 'fire', and names only the Holy Spirit [1:8]. If the Holy Spirit stands for the salvation-element, the fact results that John speaks of the judging and saving aspects of the advent as coinciding, a feature in which likewise he reproduces the Old Testament standpoint. The phraseology of this earlier stage of the preaching is largely derived from Mal. 4, that in which the Evangelists speak of it from Isa. 40.
JOHN'S BAPTISM
The baptism of John in general and the baptism of Jesus by John in particular should not be separated. At that time and later there were many circles in which baptismal rites were practised, but these were all subject to repetition, whereas John's baptism was once for all [cp. Matt. 28:19; Acts 19:3; Heb. 6:2]. Its precedents and analogies will have to be sought in the Old Testament, not so much in the ceremonial lustrations of the Law, for these also required repetition, but rather, on the one hand in the washings preparatory to the making of the Old Covenant [Ex. 19:10, 14] and on the other in the great outpouring of water which the prophets announce will precede the eschatological era [Isa. 1:16; 4:4; Mic. 7:19; Ezek. 36:25–33; Zech. 13:1]. It ought to be noticed, that water appears in prophecy as a quickening, fructifying element, besides being the instrument of cleansing [Isa. 35:7; 41:18; 44:3ff.; Zech. 14:8]. It has been attempted to explain John's baptism from these Old Testament antecedents, but these were in part prophetic, in part typical, so that for fulfilment or repetition specific supernatural injunction was required. John could not simply proceed on the basis of the Old Testament in such a matter, and this is recognized on all sides [John 1:25, 33; Matt. 21:25].
Least of all can we consider John's baptism as a simple imitation of the so-called proselyte-baptism of Judaism. This was not at first a particularly outstanding rite, such as would have invited imitation on the part of John. It meant simply the application of the general Levitical law of cleansing to a proselyte, who, after having been circumcised, was still, owing to his previous contact with Gentiles, unclean, and so needed washing. And John scarcely went so far as to declare all those coming to him unclean pagans, to whom the principle of proselytism ought to be applied. Between Christian baptism and John's there did actually exist a close connection, as will be presently shown.
The true import of John's baptism must be inferred, partly from the descriptions given in the Gospels, partly from the general situation. Mark and Luke tell us that it was a 'baptism of repentance unto
forgiveness of sins'. Matthew says that he baptized 'unto repentance', and that the people were baptized of him 'confessing their sins'. According to the one statement (Matthew) confession of sin was the accompaniment of the act, according to the other (Mark and Luke) forgiveness of sin was the goal, but in this no real contradiction exists. It might appear contradictory, when Matthew makes the confession precede and the repentance follow the baptism; here the solution will lie in distinguishing between a more external acknowledgment of sin and a deepened, intensified repentance [Matt. 3:6, 11]. It is somewhat uncertain how the Marcan and Lucan phrase 'baptism of repentance' is to be understood. The construction allows of its being a general characterization of the baptism as something having to do with repentance in one way or another. A better view is to take the genitive as a genitive of purpose: baptism intended to produce repentance, which makes it agree with Matt. 3:11. If repentance was the expected result of the act, it is clear that the rite cannot have been a mere piece of symbolism, but must have constituted a true sacrament, intended to convey some form of grace. And with this also agrees John's urging the people 'to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance'.
Weiss has suggested that the 'unto forgiveness' of Mark and Luke must be prospective: with a view to future forgiveness, that is, in the judgment. Grammatically the phrase 'unto forgiveness' might, no doubt, mean this, but it yields an over-pregnant sense. The Old Testament already is full of the forgiveness of sin, and John's work as the summing up of the Old Testament in itself could not have been entirely without it. The objection is made, however, that John pointedly contrasts what his baptism conveys, as 'water', with the reality of grace to be bestowed by the Spirit-baptism of the Coming One. But the Spirit covers more than forgiveness and, although the Baptist might, for the purpose of comparison, and, hyperbolically speaking, have put all the emptiness on the one side and all the fulness on the other side, this should not be literally understood, any more than when Paul and Hebrews seem to void the Old Testament of all grace. What John means is simply: compared with what the
Christ brings, my work is as water compared to the Spirit; it does not follow from this that in the sphere of types itself it had no other function than typifying.
Another question arising is of an opposite nature, namely, how, if John's baptism be accorded real forgiveness of sin, it can be further distinguished from Christian baptism. On this question the postReformation Church has been divided. The Romanists, tending in their doctrine of the sacrament toward making the entire Old Dispensation purely typical, included in this opinion the baptism of John; the Protestant theology, both Lutheran and Reformed, with few exceptions, in reaction to the Romanist standpoint went to the opposite extreme and maintained that the baptism of John was fully identical with the Christian sacrament. Both positions are untenable: we shall have to say that John's baptism, together with all the Old Testament rites, had real grace connected with it, but only the Old Testament measure and quality of grace. What it had not was the Spirit in the specific Christian conception; for the bestowal of that, and its connection with baptism, are dependent on the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit. Consequently the baptism administered in the time between by the disciples of Jesus must be classified with the baptism of John, as a continuation thereof, and not as an anticipation of Christian baptism.
How did John's baptism symbolize? Some take the view that the symbolism lay in the immersion signifying the doing away with the old life of sin and the emersion as the entrance upon a new state of righteousness. But, if this were correct, it would separate John's baptism entirely from all Old Testament precedents, for in the Old Testament symbolism of immersion is unknown. Even the washings of the entire body in certain instances of the ritual still remain washings; the immersion from a symbolic point of view is purely incidental. And on the other hand the spiritual things named, repentance and forgiveness of sin, point in the direction of cleansing. To this must be added that, through the medium of the water, there
is a symbolic reference to the quickening by the Spirit (cp. John 3:5, 'born of water and the Spirit'].
Finally, for an adequate conception of John's baptism it ought to be viewed against the eschatological background of the prevailing expectation of his time. The atmosphere was surcharged with the thought of the end. John's baptism was specifically prospective to the fast-coming judgment and a seal of preparation for acquittal in this. The idea of baptism as a seal in this eschatological sense is something that has passed over to Christian baptism [cp. Eph. 1:13; 1 Pet. 3:21].
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS BY JOHN
Now, coming to the consideration of Jesus' baptism by John in particular, the main thing to remember is that we may not arbitrarily cut this loose from the import of the baptism in general. It were foolish to say that John administered two baptisms, one for the people and one for Jesus alone, and that these two had nothing in common with each other. Still, it is possible to go so far in the opposite direction as to deny the sinlessness of Jesus. And that is forbidden not on doctrinal grounds merely; the dialogue between John and Jesus recorded in Matt. 3:13–15 historically excludes it. Besides, the revelation connected with the baptism proves that the latter was something quite unique by which it differed in principle from the rite performed on the average Israelite. The suggestion of Weiss that this unique element be sought in the symbolism of Jesus' emerging from the life of privacy and entering upon a life of public service cannot be accepted, because it rests on the idea of submersion, and moreover would cut the bond between Jesus' baptism and that of the others, to whom such an entrance on public service did not apply.
The passage Matt. 3:13–15, when carefully scanned, gives us the solution of this problem, as to how Jesus' baptism could fit into the general scheme of John's ministry, and yet remain free of those
elements in the latter relating to sinfulness and repentance. The dialogue with John brings out the following facts:
(a) John recognizes the rank and character of Jesus as putting Him beyond the need of his baptism; 'John forbade Him', vs. 14;
(b) this conviction of John is based on the Messianic position of Jesus; the words 'I have need to be baptized of Thee' cannot mean that Jesus should apply to John a water-baptism, thus merely reversing the roles; after John had just announced that the Greater One would baptize with the Holy Spirit, his confession of need of baptism by Jesus can refer to nothing else but that, and this involves the sinlessness of Jesus personally considered;
(c) John's protest, as well as the ground on which he bases it, are endorsed by Jesus when He insists, saying, 'Suffer it to be so now'; the term 'suffer' implies the absence of such subjective necessity as John had denied; it must be allowed for objective reasons;
(d) this objective necessity is something that operates, not for ever and under all circumstances, but just for the present situation, with a prospect half-opened, of future removal of the necessity;
(e) the reason for the present necessity consists, according to Jesus, in this, that 'thus it behoves us to fulfil all righteousness'; 'to fulfil all righteousness' is not here identical with the stereotyped formula in which the doctrine of vicarious atonement has so aptly expressed the principle of Christ's substitution for us in the keeping of the law. It should be taken in a less technical, popular sense; 'righteousness' is that which at any time, through the law or otherwise, is from Jehovah asked of Israel; in the present case this consisted in submission to the baptism of John, for this was not a matter of individual choice, but a national duty; both on Jesus and John ('us') this piece of righteousness had been imposed, and Jesus declares it a matter of duty to observe it;
(f) if, then, what is not incumbent on Jesus Himself in a personal capacity none the less appears a divinely imposed duty for Him because of his appurtenance to the people of Israel, there is no better formula for expressing this, than that He undergoes the baptism in virtue of his identification with Israel.
Adding to this that it is a temporary experience, we find ourselves as near as could be expected under the circumstances to an expression of the vicarious relation of Jesus to the people of God. And it is but one step beyond this, if, taking into account the general scope of John's baptism, we should say that Jesus' identification with the people in their baptism had the proximate end of securing for them vicariously what the sacrament aimed at, the forgiveness of sin. Even with regard to repentance we may reason analogously; for if Jesus bore sin vicariously, and received forgiveness vicariously, then there can be no objection on principle to saying that He repented for the people vicariously. All these things are, however, hinted at here in a more or less enigmatic statement. The full exposition, which will at the same time furnish a full confirmation of the correctness of our exegesis, can be obtained only in the later discussion of John 1:29, 36.
THE DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT ON JESUS
The baptism of Jesus was accompanied by two events of supreme importance—the descent of the Spirit and the announcement from heaven concerning Jesus' Sonship and Messiahship. Since the latter has been more fully discussed elsewhere, we here confine ourselves to the observation, that the record does not lend itself to the theory of the baptism having been the occasion for the awakening of Jesus' Messianic consciousness. In Matthew the statement is purely objective: 'This is my beloved Son', which indicates that at least according to this Evangelist the assurance in the voice was not for Jesus alone. Nor can the varying forms of description used ('Lo, a voice from heaven' … 'there came a voice from heaven' … 'a voice came from heaven') prove that the writers think of something
perceptible to Jesus only, the less so, since the coming up out of the water, and the opening of heaven, to which the hearing of the voice is parallel, do not give in any way the impression of a visionary setting. Matthew's 'He saw' is certainly not meant of visionary perception, and Luke's 'in bodily shape like a dove' speaks against the subjectivity of the optical phenomenon. From John 1:34 we learn that the occurrence had to be perceptible to John, as well as to Jesus, since the former had to bear record concerning it. We may also compare the terms in which Peter speaks about the analogous phenomena at the transfiguration [2 Pet. 1:17, 18]. Evidently the voice had a sacramental significance for Jesus, and, if for no other than this reason alone, had to be objective.
In a sacrament, however, as a rule something real is conveyed, besides the assurance given. And so here the voice was followed by the descent of the Spirit. There are according to the New Testament three epochal occasions when an operation of the Spirit in connection with Jesus took place. The first of these has already been touched upon in connection with the virgin-birth. The second is this event at the baptism. The third happened in the resurrection of our Lord, and falls under the head of apostolic teaching. Here we are concerned with defining as closely as possible the necessity and nature of the second impartation. From the time of its occurrence may be inferred that it has its specific bearing upon the public ministry of Jesus, just as the first had upon the origin and constitution of His human nature and the third endowment is related to the heavenly ministry of the Lord. It made Him 'spiritual' [Rom. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:45].
Jesus did not, of course, receive the Spirit as the agent of sanctification, for that would presuppose sinfulness, nor is there anywhere a trace of such function in the Gospels. But He could and did receive the Spirit as a pledge of the Father's approval of His mind and purpose expressed in submitting to the baptism, and of the effect God would give to it, when accomplished. In this there is an analogy
to what the sealing with the Spirit means in baptism to every Christian; only in Jesus' case it was prospective.
Furthermore our Lord needed the Spirit as a real equipment of His human nature for the execution of His Messianic task. Jesus ascribed all His power and grace, the gracious words, the saving acts, to the possession of the Spirit [Matt. 12:28; Lk. 4:18; Acts 10:36–38]. And, through qualifying Him in this manner for achieving His Messianic task, the Spirit laid the foundation for the great Pentecostal bestowal of the Spirit afterwards, for this gift was dependent on the finished work. This explains the statement of the Baptist in John 1:33: '(God) said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.' It is perhaps due to this thought, that the preposition here used is epi with the accusative, an unusual construction with a verb of rest; it seems to denote the intent of the Spirit permanently to remain directed to and identified with the Saviour. Matthew, Mark and Luke have eis, which may either mean the approach of the Spirit towards Jesus or the entrance of the Spirit into Him.
The difference between this spiritual endowment of Jesus and that received by the prophets of old ought to be carefully noted. In the Fourth Gospel it is explicitly stated that God gave the Spirit to Jesus, and that, because it was a case of giving, no measure could be applied to the gift [3:34]; likewise it is emphasized that the Spirit descending abode upon Him [1:33]. The same thought, that of the totality and undividedness of the gift may be found in the description of Luke to the effect, that 'the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove upon Him' [3:22]. Whilst in Matthew and Mark the phrase 'like a dove' may be understood as an adverbial qualification of the verb 'descending', serving to denote the slow deliberate movement of the Spirit in His coming upon Jesus, the version of Luke leaves no doubt as to the objective form of appearance assumed by the Spirit on this occasion. The Spirit resembled a dove, not merely was His motion like that of a dove. But even the other construction, if followed in
Matthew and Mark, would not be without its own significance, for what descends deliberately intends to come to rest and abide.
In this, no less than in the totality of what descended, there was a difference from the ordinary prophetic bestowal of the Spirit. The prophets had visitations of the Spirit; the Spirit's impact upon them was abrupt, not continuous; in the case of Jesus His entire life was equably in every word and act directed by the Spirit. For the rest, why the figure of a dove should have been chosen for the Spirit's appearance, rather than that of some manifestation of light cannot be determined with certainty. The Old Testament nowhere compares the Spirit to a dove. It does represent the Spirit as hovering, brooding over the waters of chaos, in order to produce life out of the primeval matter. This might be found suggestive of the thought, that the work of the Messiah constituted a second creation, bound together with the first through this function of the Spirit in connection with it.
THE POST-BAPTISMAL TESTIMONY OF THE BAPTIST TO JESUS
There still remains to be discussed the post-baptismal testimony of John to Jesus. This is found in the Fourth Gospel. All the discourse of the Baptist here recorded revolves around Jesus and culminates in a triad of supreme declarations concerning Him. Foregoing to exegete all the statements, we confine ourselves to these outstanding deliverances, only adding the passage, disputed as to spokesmanship, at the close of chapter 3.
[1] John 1:15, 30
The first of the three declarations occurs in John 1:15, 30. It distinguishes in the Messiah's career two stages: the stage in which He comes after the Baptist, that is to say, succeeds the latter in his public ministry; the stage in which He nevertheless preceded John in the latter's appearance upon the scene; this can refer only to the Messiah's activity under the Old Testament. The A.V. renders here 'is preferred before me', understanding it of rank, but between the two
clauses of chronological import this seems unnatural. Perhaps what has led to this rendering was the feeling that, in case the second clause applied to time, no proper distinction could be maintained between it and the third clause, 'for He was before me', because this likewise again speaks in terms of time. It had been overlooked, however, that though the second and third clauses sound very much alike in English, there is an important difference between them in the Greek: the middle clause reads, emprosthen mou gegonen, the final clause reads, hoti protos mou en. Both the prepositions and the verbs are different: emprosthen with the perfect of the verb expresses precedence in the sphere of becoming or appearing upon the scene, protos with the imperfect of the verb signifies absolute anteriority as to mode of existence; it relates to the eternal existence of the Lord, usually called his pre-existence [cp. John 1:1, 18]. On this view the conjunction hoti linking together clauses two and three is naturally explained: in Christ's eternal existence before time lies the possibility of His appearance and activity under the Old Testament. There is, therefore, no repetition between clauses two and three.
It has been observed that, even in this statement that marks the farthest advance in the Baptist's Christology, there is no loss of touch with the Old Testament. In Malachi, a prophetic book from which, as we have seen, so much of John's imagery is taken, we find in chapter 3 vs. 1 the distinction of the three stages in the eschatological advent, as it were, in preformation: first we have 'I send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me'; this messenger was (in the fulfilment) John the Baptist; it covers, therefore, the public ministry of Jesus preceded by John's; in regard to it John could say: 'after me comes a man.' But in the same passage of Malachi, the Lord, before whom the messenger goes to prepare His way, is in the immediate sequel called 'the Messenger of the Berith, whom ye desire'; this refers to the figure otherwise called 'the Angel of Jehovah'. Of the Angel of ehovah it was known that at various points He had appeared and interposed in Old Testament history; this contains, therefore, in principle the second affirmation of John, 'came [or "became"] before me'. But in the prophet there is also an intimation of the third clause:
'He was before me', because 'the Lord whom ye seek', and who is come to His temple, is through apposition identified with the Angel of the Berith, at least, if 'even the Angel of the Berith', and not 'and the Angel of the Berith' be the correct rendering. In the latter case the epiphany of two persons would be foretold as occurring simultaneously, that of 'the Lord' and that of 'the Angel of the Berith'. Still, even so, one would be justified in finding here an intimation of the close relationship between Jehovah's advent and Jesus' advent, something fitting well into the general tenor of the Baptist's preaching from the beginning. The Old Testament already had made the Angel and Jehovah almost indistinguishable on certain occasions. If the one coming after John as to time of ministry was actually like both Jehovah and the Angel, then John could truly declare 'He was before me', in the most absolute sense.
[2] John 1:29, 36
The second outstanding piece of testimony from the Baptist's mouth is that found in John 1:29, 36: 'Behold the Lamb of God which takes away [or "takes upon Himself"] the sin [sing.] of the world', or in the abbreviated form of the second quotation: 'Behold the Lamb of God.' This enunciates a doctrine not made particularly prominent in the Fourth Gospel, viz. that of the vicarious sin-bearing of Christ. There is on this account all the more ground for trusting its authenticity. To explain the utterance as faithfully reflecting the historic occasion on which it was made, we need only place it in the light of the great event with its accompaniments that had immediately preceded, the baptism of Jesus, provided always that there had actually occurred at the baptism what Matt. 3:14, 15 relates, discussed by us above. If that meant a vicarious interpretation of Jesus' baptism, formulated in a dialogue between John and Jesus Himself, then certainly John, with the event that had just occurred vividly before his eyes, could hardly have spoken of it otherwise than is here done. It is the Baptist's commentary on his own and also on Jesus' act. Still John did not write this piece of commentary freely out of his own mind; he had
here, no less than in the case of the second utterance, the guidance of the Old Testament to rely upon.
Two precedents for the figure of the lamb have been found: that of the sacrificial lamb, and the representation as a lamb of the Servant of Jehovah in Isa. 53. Some writers posit an alternative, thinking that John must have had in mind either the one or the other. But, perhaps, even for Isaiah the combination already existed; far more easily could it enter the mind of John, who must have been familiar with both the prophecy and the ritual. It must be admitted, however, that in the prophecy the lamb does not at the outset appear with ritual associations. Its primary use is to depict the innocence, meekness, and willingness to render vicarious service for the people through suffering and death. The features of innocence and meekness are inherent in the character of the lamb generically, but they are with special emphasis suggested here, because, the people having been described as a wayward, wandering flock, the very quality of a lamb sets the servant in contrast with this sinful condition.
But it immediately appears that these traits of innocence and meekness are not intended for the general purpose of idealizing the character of the Servant, but for the specific purpose of showing Him both fitted and willing to bear the sin for others. This is the transition between vs. 6 and vs. 7 in the prophecy: because innocent He can bear sin of others, because meek He is willing to do so. And also his appurtenance (with a distinction) to the flock serves its purpose here: being of the flock He can suffer for the flock. The vicariousness of His suffering unto death is described in the most explicit of terms in vss. 5 and 6. So far, however, there is no need of thinking of sacrifice, for vicariousness is not ipso facto sacrificial. In vs. 10 it becomes different; here the word asham, 'trespass-offering', is explicitly named as summing up in itself the entire preceding statement: 'when thou shalt make [or: He shall make] his soul a trespass-offering for sin', etc. That the trespass-offering is chosen from among the various kinds of sacrifice is probably not accidental;
it was that kind of sacrifice in which the ideas of debt and restitution were inherent, so that the thought emerges of the Servant not merely atoning for the offences but also making good the obligation which, positively considered, was owed to God.
Now we must remember how in Isaiah the figure of the Servant only gradually detaches itself from the people of Israel, taken collectively, so that the exegetical dispute has arisen, whether He is meant for a separate person, or merely for an idealization of the people. This situation John must have found strikingly reproduced in the event of the baptism of Jesus. Jesus had come to him, acknowledging that personally He had nothing to confess. He had implied that it was different with His people, for whom a baptism of repentance unto forgiveness of sin had been ordained by God. He had further expressed the necessity of taking this baptism upon Himself on account of identification with the people. All this, dramatically enacted in the baptism itself, rose up for John as the precise fulfilment of the situation envisioned by the prophet Isaiah. How entirely the two concepts of 'the lamb' and that of 'removing sin' had grown together for John may be seen from the fact, that in the second utterance of the statement, vs. 36, the participial clause is omitted; it stood in no need of repetition; 'the Lamb' is ipso facto 'the sin-bearer'. The relative clause is simply epexegetical.
As to the meaning of the participle airon there is a dispute, some giving it the sense of 'removing', others that of 'taking upon oneself', both of which senses it may express in the Greek. The English Versions choose the former, 'which takes away' (R.V. in the margin: 'bears the sin'). But, if the words really express the situation John had just been witnessing, then the other rendering will have to be preferred. What Jesus had done in the baptism was not yet the actual removal of sin, but only as yet the taking of the sin upon Himself. To the other task his whole life was to be devoted. In Isaiah also we partly see the Servant depicted in assuming the sin of Israel, although here much of the real bearing enters into the description. The phrase 'Lamb of God' is the exact duplicate of the phrase
'Servant of Jehovah'. It means the lamb performing this task of sinbearing as belonging to and in the service of Jehovah.
Finally, the difference ought to be noted between the range covered by the act according to the Prophet and according to the Baptist. In Isaiah it is the sin of Israel, here it is the sin of the world. There is some doubt, however, here as in other passages of the Gospel, whether 'world' may not have to be taken qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Still, in Isaiah already the note of universalism is not entirely absent [cp. 52:15].
[3] John 1:34
The third great post-baptismal declaration of John recorded in the Fourth Gospel is found in 1:34; 'And I myself have seen and have borne witness, that this is the Son of God.' In this the Baptist reflects upon his fidelity in observing and answering by witness the signal set for him by God in the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus. The close junction of 'seen' and 'borne witness' describes the immediacy of the carrying out of the command: I no sooner saw than I witnessed. The pronoun of the subject is expressed, 'I myself', to indicate, on the one hand, that this was eye-witness testimony, on the other, that it was official testimony. The range of the title 'Son of God' has been considered elsewhere. That it cannot be lower in its import than the same title throughout the Gospel follows from the position that it has as the culminating piece of this first stage of witnessing, when compared with the statement of the author of the Gospel [20:31]. According to this statement the things recorded of Jesus were written to create belief in the divine Sonship of the Saviour. With this in view a series of episodes and discourses had been put in order. Obviously the John-the-Baptist section forms the first in this series, and therein lies the reason why it issues into the testimony about the Sonship under discussion. That it carried high meaning also appears from the first of the three declarations, in which nothing less than the pre-existence of the Messiah had been affirmed already.
John 3:27–36
In addition to these three supreme utterances there remains still the section 3:27–36 to be considered. This pericope falls into two pieces [vss. 27–30 and 31–36]. As to the former, here John the Baptist is by common consent represented by the Evangelist as the speaker. The occasion was the report brought to the Baptist by his disciples of the greater popularity of Jesus than that enjoyed by their Master. They do not take exception to Jesus' higher status as such, but only to His becoming the rival of John in the latter's own field through baptizing. This was correct as to the statement of fact, at least partially so [cp. 4:2]. Jesus exposes the absurdity of supposing the possibility of rivalry between Himself and John, thus vindicating the latter. Jesus stands so incomparably higher than all messengers of God that it could occur to John as little to conceive jealousy against Him, as the friend of the bridegroom (the presider at the wedding festivities) could do so with regard to the bridegroom. His work is to efface himself, and therein to find his supreme joy; cp. 'my joy' [vs. 29]. Notice that this figure of 'the bridegroom' reminds of Jehovah's relation to Israel.
From John 3:31 onward it is uncertain whether the Baptist remains the speaker, or the Evangelist here takes occasion to insert some reflections of his own on the theme touched upon by the Baptist. Something may be said in favour of each of these views. There seem to enter into the discourse certain characteristic thoughts of Jesus and the Evangelist, who would, of course, in writing the Gospel remember what Jesus had said on various occasions. Such elements are: the descent of Christ from the supernal world, the experiential character of His knowledge of the things of heaven, His identification with God, so that to hear Him is to seal the veracity of God, His allcomprehensive authority in the sphere of revelation, the function of faith as mediating eternal life. Especially with the preceding Nicodemus-discourse there are striking points of contact in regard to some of these matters.
Over against this must be set the weighty consideration, that vss. 31– 36 are really needed to round off the argument of the Baptist on the absurdity of endeavouring to rival Jesus. The official impossibility of this had been shown in the preceding, but therein did not yet lie the highest reason for excluding such a state of mind. Of course, it remains possible that the Evangelist, perceiving the preliminariness and one-sidedness of the Baptist's argumentation, proceeded out of his own fuller knowledge to round it off with this discourse upon the transcendent nature and origin (not merely office) of Jesus. If he has actually done so, he has done so with consummate skill, seizing upon several important points of contact in the foregoing with what he wished to say. But these same points of contact can just as well be made to prove that we are here still in the circle of thought of the Baptist. Hence the choice is difficult. It will be noticed that after vs. 30 no pronoun of the first person, which might help us to identify the speaker occurs, and this slightly favours attribution of the words to the Evangelist.
We here content ourselves with briefly enumerating these points of contact with the historical situation that gave rise to the entire discourse. 'He that comes from above' [vs. 31] reminds of vs. 27; the contrast to this is worked out in three statements: 'he that is of the earth' (earthly origin of John), 'is earthly' (earthly mode of existence of John),' and he speaks of the earth' (earthly mode of revelationspeech). Over against these three must be placed the reiterated 'is above all' which therefore requires to be unfolded for its full understanding in the three directions of the opposite; the absoluteness of Christ's revelation is guaranteed by its experiential character, 'what He has seen and heard' [vs. 32, first half]; the tragical element of the situation is brought out in the remainder of this verse, 'no man receives his witness'; this is the tragedy-note in John's peculiar self-effacing attitude, which makes Jesus' loving appreciation of his work all the more touching; at the same time the statement 'no man receives' involves a correction of the plaint of the disciples of John, 'all come to Him' [vs. 26].
It might seem an exaggeration, in view of the facts recorded in the Gospel itself in chapter 1, to say 'no man receives his witness'; but how the latter is meant, vs. 33 explains: no one has received his testimony in that absolute, comprehensive sense that belongs to receiving the testimony of God; 'for He whom God has sent speaks the words of God' [vs. 34]; in this and the explanation of motive that is added to it the speaker seems to return to the reasoning from the official point of view observed in vss. 27–30; 'for God gives not the Spirit by measure'; the correct interpretation of this has been above explained; it means, 'when there is a giving of the Spirit in the literal sense of giving the entire Spirit involved, there can be no measure to this' (notice the joining of the negation to the verb and the omission of the indirect object, making of it a general proposition); vs. 35, 'the Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hands' reminds most vividly of the voice from heaven at the baptism and the declaration of the election of Jesus to the Messianic office, which, as such, includes the committal of all things to the Son; finally vs. 36 draws from the foregoing objective characterization of Jesus and His office the practical consequence, that faith in Him is followed by eternal life, whilst unbelief with reference to Him results in exclusion from life and permanent abiding under the wrath of God. Here we seem to come closest to the teaching of Jesus and of the Evangelist in the Fourth Gospel. Notice how eternal life is placed in the present, and so is the wrath of God, for the wrath abides; both 'shall not see life' and 'abides on him' are to be understood eschatologically: the vision of life belonging to that final point, and the removal of the wrath at that point are denied.
FOUR:
REVELATION IN THE PROBATION OF
JESUS
THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS
What we usually call 'the temptation of Jesus' at first seems to lie like an erratic block in the forefield of his public ministry. On closer examination we discover it to be indispensably connected with both what precedes and what follows. Because this connection is not truly appreciated, doubt has arisen in regard to the historicity and objectivity of what offers itself as a real event. On the mythological principle of interpreting the Gospel history it has been declared an embodiment in story form of the idea, that a personal encounter between the Messiah and Satan is essential to the eschatological drama. Because this had to happen, according to theory, it must have happened to Jesus, if so be He was the real Messiah.
On this view Jesus Himself had nothing whatever to do with the conception or shaping of the account; mythology furnished the framework, whilst the concrete features were borrowed from Old Testament history. Not so far goes the parabolic theory in detaching the story from the actualities of the life of Jesus. Jesus according to this theory told the account to the disciples, not meaning it to be taken by them in a factual sense, but simply as a parable through which He endeavoured to convey to them an impression of the many tempting solicitations that beset Him during his career. The disciples misunderstood this intent and changed it into the account of a fact of single concrete occurrence. On this view Jesus had at least something to do with the production of the story.
Over against both these views we may, in order to uphold the historicity of the event as a single definite occurrence, place the testimony of Matt. 12:29. Here Jesus distinguishes between the entering into the strong man's house and binding him, on the one hand, and the spoiling of the strong man's goods, on the other. The
former is something that secures the possibility of doing something, the latter is the following up of that possibility in acts. The context makes clear what the spoiling of goods consists in: it refers to the casting out of demons. Consequently the binding of the strong man, as something lying back of this, must be understood of something done to him whose property the demons are. According to uniform New Testament teaching the demons are subjects of Satan. Now Jesus here uses parabolic language but this cannot in the least alter the fact that behind the parable thus framed there must lie a concrete situation. Although our Lord does not say in so many words, 'I had to pass through a temptation before I could cast out demons', nevertheless something quite definite must be referred to by Him, something that we can even, up to a certain point, locate in time, because it must have fallen before the first casting out of demons, and these acts marked the very beginning of His ministry.
Moreover a diluted interpretation of the parable such as in modern expositions is often met with, to the effect that a man must first conquer evil within himself, before venturing to attack it on the outside, does not fit well into the terms of the figure. The entering into the house of a strong man does not naturally describe the falling into temptation; it depicts something more active and deliberate. Those who refuse, on account of the parabolic nature of the speech, to bring it into connection with the very realistic, though mysterious, narrative of the temptation, are bound by their refusal to attempt some other explanation, if possible less modern-sounding than the one referred to above. And especially the parabolic view constitutes a serious danger to belief in the sinlessness of Jesus, because it implies that on repeated occasions He had to fight a moral battle out within Himself, before He could proceed to reap the fruits of the victory.
The same parable, however, which vouches for the historicity of the event, likewise vouches for its objectivity. Much confusion of thought is created here by a failure to distinguish between the objectivity and corporealness of such a transaction. The second involves the first, but this cannot be reversed: an encounter between persons,
especially in the supersensual world, can be perfectly objective without necessarily entering into the sphere of the corporeally perceptible. To what extent there was corporeal perceptibility in the event can only be inferred from the terms of its description, and not a priori decided from this parable. But objectivity is doubtless involved, because of the consequences; the casting out of demons appearing objective, the cause is naturally supposed to lie within the same sphere. And, all modern tortuous constructions notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that Jesus regarded the demons as actually existing supernatural beings, who could be spoken to and give answer, and exercised a wide sphere of baneful power. The reduction of all this to the rubric of superstition or psychological derangement is certainly not in accordance with the mind of the Evangelists. Any one who desires to dissociate Jesus from all these and other supernatural phenomena, must do so on the basis of a priori theological or philosophical premises, or because of the assumed identity of the recorded facts with phenomena in the sphere of paganism.
The passage in Matt. 12 yields still another item of information concerning the temptation of Jesus. His claim in the dispute with the Pharisees is that the casting out of demons is accomplished by the Spirit of God. The mention of the Spirit is here induced by the mention of Beelzebub, that is, Satan, in the charge of the Pharisees. But there is still another reason for the introduction of the Spirit here. In the accounts of the temptation we find the Spirit of God prominently referred to. Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil (Matthew): the Spirit drives Him into the wilderness, apparently for the same purpose (Mark); Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit, was led of the Spirit into the wilderness, being forty days tempted of the Devil (Luke).
From these statements we learn two things: first, that the Spirit leading Him into the temptation was the Holy Spirit in His Messianic aspect. The close sequence between the accounts of the baptism and that of the temptation puts this beyond all doubt. No sooner has
Jesus received the Messianic Spirit than the latter begins to function in that capacity by leading or driving Him into the temptation. The same Spirit who did this at the beginning afterwards enabled Him to cast out the demons. It was the execution of a definite programme in its very first beginning.
In the second place, something like this, done under the auspices of the Spirit, was a transaction behind which stood God Himself. For this reason it is useful to remind ourselves by our terminology, that, while this was on the one hand an act of Satan, it was on the other hand likewise the carrying out of a positive Messianic purpose of God. We can express this best by naming it from the point of view of Satan a 'temptation', from the point of view of the higher purpose of God a 'probation' of Jesus. And as regards Jesus, this eliminates every idea of the sole purpose of the event being a demonstration of His sinlessness. What had behind it a divine purpose cannot have been a mere experience to Jesus, something into which He was drawn unconsciously to Himself and through which He went unaware of its design. Of such an operation of the Spirit upon the Saviour, which would have made of Him a mere unwilling, unresponsive object of propulsion, there is nowhere any trace in the Gospels, and certainly Mark's 'drives Him into the wilderness' is not meant by the Evangelist so to be understood, but only stresses the powerful action of the Spirit, to which Jesus responded with equal energy.
THE LORD'S TEMPTATION AND OUR OWN
Our failure to gauge correctly the significance of the event springs to no small extent from the inclination and habit of finding in it an analogy primarily to our own temptations. This being so we take it too negatively, and do not sufficiently place it in a class by itself. In our case temptation chiefly raises the question of how we shall pass through it and issue from it without loss. In Jesus' case, while this consideration was not, of course, absent, the higher concern was not avoidance of loss, but the procuring of positive gain. And in order to
see this we must compare it to the one previous occasion in Biblical history, when a procedure with an equally double-sided purpose had taken place, namely, the temptation of Adam related in Genesis, chapter 3.
Nor is this purely a theological construction on our part; Luke at least seems to have something of this kind in mind, when first carrying back the genealogy (in distinction from Matthew) to Adam, and then immediately subjoining to it this account of the probation of the Second Adam. It should be remembered, however, that with the analogy there existed a difference between the two cases. Adam began with a clean slate, as it were; nothing had to be undone, whilst in the case of Jesus all the record of intervening sin had to be wiped out, before the positive action for the procuring of eternal life could set in.
The clearest philosophy of this difference is given us by Paul in Rom. 5 [cp. especially vs. 15]. This connection of the probation of Jesus with the atoning removal of pre-existing sin will likewise make plain to us that the temptation had to carry in itself for Jesus an element of suffering and humiliation on our behalf, and not merely the exertion of a strenuous will for obedience. Here again there is a difference between Jesus' temptation and ours. To be tempted involves no special humiliation for us, because we are antecedently humiliated by the presence of sin in our hearts to which the solicitation merely has to address itself, which was quite different in the case of Jesus.
All that has been said does not take away the fact that there is an analogy between our temptations and that of Jesus. As is well known the Epistle to the Hebrews lays stress on this in the New Testament. 'Tempted alike, [but] without sin', that is to say, without sin resulting from the temptation in His case, which but too infrequently can be said of us. Still, the author of Hebrews has not particularly in mind the temptation at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, but rather that connected with the passion at the close [Heb. 5:7–9].