John had probably been engaged in his ministry about six months Note: Jesus “began to be about thirty years of age” when he commenced his ministry, and as John was six months older, the interval is six months, if, as is likely, John also begun to be about thirty years of age when his ministry commenced. when Jesus took his departure from Galilee, and repaired to the Jordan to be baptized of him. To our first inconsiderate conceptions, this seems certainly a strange step; and we should suppose that, of all who lived in Israel, Jesus was the only one who did not need to be baptized of John. He was of the same opinion, for he repelled Him, exclaiming, “I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest thou to me?” This, however, raises the question, What did John then know of Jesus?—since he afterwards declared that he “knew Him not,” until he had received the appointed sign, which, as we know, was given after the baptism. It is clear, however, that he must have known something of Jesus, although He then appeared before him as an obscure and undistinguished youth of whom the world knew nothing. The old legends, followed by the painters in their pictures, intimate that Jesus and John were companions and associates in early life. Considering the distance at which they lived, this was altogether unlikely; but after they had become old enough to accompany their parents to Jerusalem at the feasts, it cannot but be supposed that they met each other there, and formed that degree of acquaintance which these periodical meetings, together with their relationship, were calculated to produce. Besides, they and their respective parents thus meeting together, it is simply incredible but that John must have been apprised of the circumstances attending the birth of Jesus. Still John knew from the terms of his commission, that the Messiah was to be specially designated to him by a remarkable sign, and, till He was thus made known to him officially, his private knowledge or suspicions went for nothing in his view, and gave him no authority in his public capacity to acknowledge Him as the Messiah. Still, he could not ignore the knowledge he actually possessed, and it could not but influence his conduct, and hence the language which this most unexpected application suddenly drew from him. Or it may be, as Neander conjectures, that these words were uttered not at the first application, but from convictions awakened at a later stage in the progress of the circumstances. “The Saviour prayed” at the baptism—(Luk_3:21). If we figure to ourselves his countenance, full of holy devotion and heavenly repose, as he stood in prayer, and its sudden association in the mind of the Baptist with all his recollections of the early history of Jesus, we cannot wonder that the humble man of God should have been overwhelmed in that hour so pregnant with mighty interests, with a sense of his comparative unworthiness, and cried—“I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?”
The answer of Jesus, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness;” was necessary to convey to John the assurance that this was altogether fit and proper—fit that He should receive baptism from John, and fit that John should baptize Him. Satisfied with this assurance, John withdrew his opposition, and going down into the water, Jesus received baptism at his hands.
Still it remains to ask, in what sense Jesus could properly receive baptism from John. The idea that He submitted himself to this rite with a view to purification, however the notion of purification be modified to meet the case, is altogether untenable, and even revolting. That the idea of purification was to some extent involved in John’s baptism of others, may be admitted; but even to them the leading and fundamental idea was that of preparation and consecration, first in its application to the members of the Messianic kingdom, announced as being at hand, and, secondly, to its Founder and Sovereign. The repentance and sense of sin which John required as essential preliminaries of the former, could in no way belong to Him, who, when the rite was administered, became revealed to the baptizer as the Messiah, the Deliverer from sin. But while the significance of the rite, thus varied with the subjects to whom it was administered, there was at bottom a substantial element which they shared in common. In both it marked the commencement of a new course of life; but while the baptism of the members prepared them to receive pardon and salvation, the baptism of Christ was his consecration to the work of bestowing those precious gifts. Upon that work He was now about to enter, and it was proper that He should be set apart by his forerunner, and that He should manifest his connection with him, and give His sanction to what he had done. Besides, it would be requisite that some public act should mark the commencement of his ministry, and afford occasion for God to declare by some manifest sign his approbation of Him, and his solemn appointment to the office of the Messiah.
This was done upon the instant of his coming out from the water. For, “Lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending in a bodily shape like a dove, and lighting upon Him; and, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” A question or two grows out of this. “He saw” it; who was it that saw it? If but one, it was certainly John; for he declared subsequently that this was the appointed sign by which he should know the Messiah, and when he saw it, he knew that Jesus was the Christ. Joh_1:32-34. Being thus intended as a sign to him individually, to enable him to bear witness to the person (as he had before done to the office) with no uncertain voice, the real object was accomplished when he had seen this appearance; and it must remain uncertain whether it was witnessed by others or not. We incline to think that it was beheld by others present; for its efficacy as a sign to him would not be in any degree impaired by its being seen by others also; and his precise statement, that he had seen it, was necessary, because, as this declaration was made several weeks later, it is not likely that in the audience he then addressed there were any who had been present when the manifestation took place. But whether the persons present did behold the descent of the Spirit or not, we make no question that they heard the voice. Indeed, the conjunction of the voice and the appearance seems to us to indicate that both were meant to be witnessed by all present. John individually needed not the voice, the visible appearance being to him a sufficient sign. The people needed both together—because, if they had seen the appearance only, they could not have known its signification without the accompanying words; and if they heard the voice only, they could not have known to whom it referred; but would have been likely to have supposed that it applied rather to John himself than to Jesus. Indeed, the “This is my beloved Son,” seems to bear a clear reference to the visible indication of the particular person which was then afforded. These remarks may perhaps sufficiently meet some insidious objections which have been founded on the admission, made too hastily by some, that the whole was a vision, which John alone witnessed.
There is one other question—Was “the bodily shape” in which the spirit descended that of a dove, or was the manner of the descent only dove-like? the shape being of some other kind, as when Milton renders the text which states that “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,” into
“
Dove-like sat’st brooding o’er the dark abyss.”
It is certain that the current translation favors the view that the form itself was that of a dove, and that it was such is a traditional belief, embodied in the ideas and monuments of all the churches. Yet we attach no value to these in themselves, apart from the testimony of Scripture, which is much less distinct on this point than is usually supposed. The “like a dove;” may be very correctly rendered by the word “as a dove;” and in “bodily shape,” the last word meaning appearance; and with these amendments, the text consists more with the idea that it was some visible appearance which descended upon Jesus with a motion like that of a dove. It has been well remarked, that if nothing had been seen but a dove lighting upon our Savior, though it might have been noticed as a remarkable circumstance, there would have been no proof that it was supernatural; for surely the mere fact of a dove descending from the clouds and lighting upon an individual, could not be considered as a direct or satisfactory proof of the Divine interference. Besides, we do not read in any part of the sacred volume of any similar manifestation. It was certainly, however, a visible appearance; and if it was not that of a dove, what was it? To form a mere conjecture without the support of Scripture might not be advisable; but we may still inquire what was the most usual symbol of the Divine presence? Now, we know with certainty that this was fire, or light, or “glory.” Such was the resplendent light which hovered over the Tabernacle in the wilderness, and which settled between the cherubim in Solomon’s temple. Such, too, was the symbol on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and disciples. We are expressly told that lambent flames of fire, or, what is the same thing, “cloven tongues as of fire,” came down from above, and lighted on them, and remained upon them. We are entitled, then, to conclude that after the baptism of Jesus, when it is said that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him, a flame of fire, or a bright shining light, was seen darting upon Him from heaven, or moving in the manner of a dove towards Him, and that it rested upon him, or perhaps surrounded him, and remained for some time encircling him. Note: See Dr. Thomson. Exposition of St. Luke, i. 123-5. Edinburgh: 1849.
