2. The meaning of the rite, in supposed connection with John’s ministry, is as inexplicable as its origin. Neither the law nor the Old Testament Scriptures anywhere give a clue to it. John in his ministry is equally silent. Or, rather, his statements are altogether incongruous to the supposed form.—“He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”—Matt. iii, 11, 12. Thus, John, announced the Lord Jesus, not in his character of humiliation and death; but in his exaltation and royalty, as he appeared at Sinai, the covenant King of Israel,—as he is now, the enthroned Baptizer, dispensing his Spirit and grace to his people, and pouring out the fire of his justice on his and his Father’s enemies. In such circumstances, and in connection with such a preaching, what meaning could the disciples of John have discovered in the rite of immersion? Respecting it, they ask no questions, and John makes no explanation. If it be supposed to have meant the burial of Christ, this much at least is certain, that the resemblance was not so close as to have been self-evident to the people. And even though understood by them in that sense, it would have been so far aside from the immediate intent and end of John’s ministry, and so defective in its testimony, since it knows nothing of the resurrection, that it would have been calculated to distract and perplex his hearers, rather than to serve the object of his preaching. But John was explicit as to the meaning of his baptism. Whatever its form, it meant—not the burial of the Lord Jesus, but the baptism of the Spirit by him dispensed. “I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.”
3. The great discomfort, and the gross indecency which are inevitably involved in the supposition that John immersed his followers are decisive against it. Neither had John a water-proof suit in which to officiate, nor were his auditors supplied with “immersion robes,” nor change of garments, so needful, now, to obviate the discomfort and danger of the dripping attire. But this, even, is a less consideration than the indecent exposure which the supposed rite would have involved. The garments of the Jews were of two patterns. That next the person was in the form of a sleeveless shirt, descending to the knees. A second garment was of the same shape, but usually of more costly materials, which reached to the ankles. Over all were thrown one or two shawls or blankets, large enough to enwrap the entire person. Beside sandals, which were not ordinarily worn, except by those in easy circumstances,—these were the only articles of apparel. Those of the women were of nearly the same shape; the distinction of sex appearing mainly in the materials and ornaments. When at rest, the garments were left free. But in preparing for labor or for travel, they were drawn up to the knees, and fastened with a girdle at the loins, thus leaving the lower limbs unencumbered. That, with such clothing indecent exposure must have been a constant incident to the extemporaneous and hasty immersions which the Baptist theory requires, is manifest; and the weight of the consideration needs no enforcing.
4. The number resorting to John was such as to preclude the possibility of their having been immersed. When Israel came out of Egypt, they were “about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, beside children; and a mixed multitude went up also with them.”—Ex. xii, 37, 38. When about to enter the promised land, the census was six hundred and one thousand, seven hundred and thirty men, from twenty years old and upward, beside the Levites, who numbered twenty-three thousand males from a month old. (Num. xxvi, 51, 62.) Upon this basis, the whole number of the people was between three and four millions. In the days of David, in the enumeration from which the tribes of Levi and Benjamin were omitted, the number of fighting men was one million five hundred and seventy thousand. If we make a proportional addition for the omitted tribes, it gives a total of one million, eight hundred and fifty-five thousand seven hundred and fifty-four. These would represent a population of seven or eight millions. From two independent statements occurring in Josephus, it appears that the population, just before the destruction of the nation, was at least as much as four million souls.[71] If we suppose John to have stood in the water three hours a day, during the six months of his ministry, and to have administered the rite at the rate of one per minute, during the entire time, the total results of such miraculous labors and endurance, would have been about thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty persons baptized, that is, one in every one hundred and twenty-two of the people. Without the intervention of miracle—and John did no miracle—even this was utterly impossible. And yet, how entirely it falls short of the statements of the evangelists, upon any candid interpretation of them, is evident.
That the theory of immersion is encumbered with difficulties of the most serious nature must be evident to every candid reader.
We are now to consider an important feature in the history of this rite, which has not yet been brought into distinct notice. It has appeared how thoroughly the sprinkled baptisms of the Levitical system are identified in their meaning and office with the prophecies concerning the sprinkling of Israel and the nations, and the outpouring of the Spirit, in the days of the Messiah. The point of present interest concerning those prophecies is, that in all the expressions referred to, the figure is that of water alone,—the sacrificial elements never being alluded to in that connection. A coincident fact appears, with relation to John’s ministry. In his own announcement he uses language which seems to be emphatic and exclusive,—“I indeed baptize you with water.”—Matt. iii, 11; Mark i, 8; Luke iii, 16; John i, 26. So, Jesus says,—“John truly baptized with water.”—Acts i, 5. And Peter refers to it in the same terms. (Ib. xi, 16.) This form of expression constantly used, and the antithesis always stated, between his baptism and that of the Holy Spirit, to be administered by the Lord Jesus, render it certain that John baptized with water alone, without any sacrificial elements. A careful examination of the prophecies above referred to and a consideration of the subject matter of John’s preaching, may furnish the explanation of these facts. The Mosaic ritual was constructed with a view to a very full and systematic exposition of the gospel, in the symmetry of its parts and proportions. In the baptisms of that ritual, therefore, provision was made for showing forth, not only the power and grace of the Lord Jesus in the bestowal of the Spirit, but, also, the virtue of his blood, which was the procuring cause of the Spirit’s grace. But that blood is the token of humiliation and sufferings. On the contrary, the theme of the prophecies here referred to is, the exaltation and glory of Christ’s throne, and the conquests of his saving scepter, after the days of humiliation and sorrow shall have been forever ended. This was the distinctive meaning of the water of the Sinai baptisms, and by the figure of the sprinkling or pouring of bare water, the prophets represent the same thing.
So, when John came in the spirit and power of Elias, he did not, indeed, ignore the office of Christ as the atoning Lamb of God. But his distinctive commission, and the controlling function of his ministry was to herald the coming of their covenant King, in his exaltation and power to an apostate and rebellious nation—to warn them of the office which he would fill, and the judgment which he would execute, who should baptize them, not with the Holy Ghost only, but with fire also. As appropriate, therefore, to this, his office and message, he dispensed a baptism of water alone, which spake of authority, power, and royal grace, and omitted that element which signified humiliation and death.
Whilst the rite was thus modified—its nature and significance remained the same. As already indicated, the quantity of ashes used in dispensing the Levitical baptism was so small as to be wholly inappreciable to the senses. The instruction therein conveyed was dependent upon the association of ideas, and not upon the quantity of the elements used. The bestowal of the Spirit by the Lord Jesus, of necessity, presupposes the sacrifice of himself as the condition and price of his exaltation and power, by which the Spirit is sent and salvation bestowed. What the Levitical blood and ashes of sprinkling expressed the baptism of John implied. The two rites thus conveyed the same instruction, and filled the same office. They were essentially one and the same baptism. The latter form anticipated the immediate sending forth of the gospel to the Gentiles, divested of the sacrificial system and the burdens of the ritual law. That they were the same in mode will not be questioned by any who have candidly traced the foregoing line of investigation. With an enumeration of some of the points therein involved, we will close this branch of our subject.
1. Hitherto the Baptist argument has been entrenched in the definition of baptizo. After the same example we now plant ourselves on the ascertained meaning and use of the word, as illustrated in the foregoing pages. We have found it to be the accepted designation for the administered rites of Levitical purifying, which, in all their circumstantial variations, were performed always by sprinkling. The rite dispensed by John was an administered baptism. It was, therefore, administered after the example of the Levitical system, by sprinkling.
2. John was the herald and champion of the covenant, and the messenger of the Lord Jesus as its surety and king. His commission, as announced by Malachi, was, in God’s name, to admonish Israel to “Remember the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments;”—Mal. iv, 4.—“The law of Moses,”—that covenant law by the acceptance of which Israel became the people of God. His ministry derived all its significance from the terms of that covenant, and from the office of its Surety, in purging his floor with the baptisms of the Holy Ghost and of fire. This was the whole theme of his ministry, as it was the whole substance of the prophetic terms of his commission. To seal such a testimony, no rite could have been so appropriate as the perpetuated and familiar form of the Sinai baptism, the original seal of the same covenant, by which its scope and intent were so luminously set forth.
3. John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, in the name of Him whom God was about to exalt “to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”—Acts v, 31. In the Levitical baptism the administrator represented the Lord Jesus in this very function of his grace, and the sprinkled water represented the Holy Spirit shed by him upon his people, by whom that repentance is wrought, and remission conveyed. It was the “purification for sin,” the symbol of remission. It was thus a visible representation to his hearers of the very things which John was commissioned to utter in their ears.
4. At the time of John’s coming, all the thoughts and conceptions of Israel on the subjects involved in his ministry, except as perverted by the traditions of the scribes, had been molded by the Mosaic ritual respecting the purifying of the unclean, and by the testimonies of the prophets, uttered in the language of that ritual. John was sent, not to ignore or obliterate the impress thus made by the instructions and discipline of fifteen centuries, but to confirm and build upon it, to reiterate and seal the same testimonies. To this end, no other rite was appropriate or congruous, but the old familiar baptism by sprinkling, the interpretation of which was so abundant in the prophets, and the meaning of which was known to all Israel.
5. The baptism administered by the Lord Jesus is never known nor alluded to in the Scriptures under any other form than that of affusion. It is the antitype of the ritual sprinklings of the Old Testament, the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the sprinkling of Israel and the nations, the outpouring of the Spirit upon them; and its fulfillment is in the New Testament invariably spoken of in the same style. To symbolize this, John’s baptism must have been by affusion.
6. In the use of this rite, all the difficulties which embarrass the hypothesis of immersion disappear. As, at Sinai, all Israel were baptized at once, so, under John’s preaching the number to be baptized would involve no embarrassment, exposure, or exhaustion. As many as were assembled at one time could be baptized in one group, with the hyssop bush. Thus, no excessive fatigue was involved; no time was consumed in mere manual labor; no danger to the health, nor liability to indecent exposure was incurred. The meaning of the rite was familiar to all, and in its use congruity and symmetry were maintained in every part and relation of John’s ministry.
The view thus presented is not inconsistent with the supposition that many of John’s disciples may have received the rite while standing in the waters of the Jordan. The law requiring the use of running water, the propriety of the one river of Palestine as a type of the river of the heavenly Canaan, and the necessities of the multitudes who waited on his ministry, united in bringing him to the river. And the rite would be performed by the baptist dipping a hyssop-bush into the stream, and therewith sprinkling those who presented themselves around him. That, in these circumstances many of the people would enter the water is beyond question. The suggestion is to be considered in the light of eastern habits and modes of dress. The people were clothed in loose garments, with no covering to the feet except sandals worn by a few. Coming, the most of them, from a distance on the rocky roads of that country,—the feet sore and lacerated, and the climate hot,—no impulse would have been more natural or more congruous to custom, than to step into the water, for the sake of its refreshing coolness. A curious illustration of this occurs in the Phædrus of Plato. He describes Socrates walking in the environs of Athens accompanied by Phædrus:—
Socrates. “Here; let us turn aside to the Illyssus, and, where you prefer, we can recline in quiet.”
Phædrus. “For the occasion, as it seems, I happen to be barefoot, while you are always so. Thus it will be quite convenient for us, wetting our feet in the shallow stream, to walk not without enjoyment, especially at this season of the year and of the day.”[72]
It is altogether supposable that Philip and the eunuch stepped thus into the water, as the most convenient way of access to it; and it is equally possible that such may have been the case with many of John’s disciples, and that Jesus himself may have been thus baptized. Nor is this a mere fanciful conjecture. Among the remains of Christian art which have been transmitted to us from the third and fourth centuries of our era, there are several representations of the baptism of our Savior, some of them in bronze bas-relief, and some in Mosaic. In them all, John pours water on the head of Jesus. In several, Jesus stands in the Jordan, and John from the bank administers the rite. In others, both are on dry ground. In no instance does John appear in the water. At the date of these representations, immersion is supposed to have been almost universally prevalent in the church. They, therefore, the more forcibly demonstrate the strength and prevalence of the tradition which still survived, representing John to have baptized in the Jordan, by affusion. In them the idea of immersion is doubly excluded,—by the direct representation of the water poured upon the head of Jesus; and by the fact that the invariable position of John, out of the water, renders immersion physically impossible, as administered by him.
“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee; and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.”—Matt. iii, 13-15.
Several theories have been advanced, and much discussion had as to the nature and intent of the baptism of Jesus by John. Archbishop Thomson,[73] supposes it to have been, (1.) That the sacrament by which all were hereafter to be admitted into His kingdom might not want his example to justify its use. (2.) That John might have an assurance that his course as the herald of Christ was now completed by his appearance. (3.) That some token might be given that he was indeed the anointed of God. Dr. Dale thinks that it was a public and official announcement of his entrance upon the work of fulfilling all righteousness. He strenuously denies that Jesus was baptized with the baptism of John. “It is one thing to be baptized by John and quite another to receive the ‘baptism of John.’ The ‘baptism of John’ was for sinners, demanding ‘repentance,’ ‘fruits meet for repentance,’ and promising ‘the remission of sins.’ But the Lord Jesus Christ was not a sinner, could not repent of sin, could not bring forth fruit meet for repentance on account of sin, could not receive the remission of sin. Therefore, the reception of the ‘baptism of John’ by Jesus is impossible, untrue, and absurd.” But this baptism was his inauguration into the office of fulfilling all righteousness. “No one could share in such an inauguration with a fitness comparable with that of the great Forerunner. And to this fitness of relationship, reference is had in the words—‘Thus it becometh us.’ ‘Thus,’ by baptism, ‘us,’ administered by thee, my Forerunner, to me the Coming One proclaimed by thee; ‘now,’ entering upon my covenant work, which I now declare and am ready to begin,—‘to fulfill all righteousness.’ Can there be, in view of the persons, the time, and the circumstances, any other satisfactory interpretation of these great words?”[74]
According to another theory, it is held that as the consecration of Aaron was by baptism, anointing, and sacrifice, so all these were realized in the priestly consecration of Jesus. First, He was baptized by John. Then, the heavens were opened unto Him, and the Spirit of God descended upon Him, and He was thus “anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power.” The sacrifice was not till the end of His earthly ministry, when he offered up Himself.
This latter is perhaps the most commonly received theory on the subject. And yet, a more perplexing and unsatisfactory exposition could hardly be devised. According to it Christ’s consecration to the priesthood was a confused imitation of that of Aaron, was partly ritual without meaning, and partly real, and took place, part of it in the beginning of his public ministry, and part at its close, so that until his very death his priesthood was inchoate and incomplete. Upon this explanation, the baptism of Jesus was a mere unmeaning form, in supposed imitation of something in the consecration of Aaron. But Aaron and his consecration and priesthood were, in every part and aspect of them, figures of the true,—of the realities which are in Christ. Aaron’s anointing is admitted to have been a symbol of the real anointing of the Holy Spirit, shed upon Jesus. The sacrifices offered at the consecration of Aaron, although by this theory misconceived, are so far correctly spoken of as that their fulfillment was had in Christ’s one offering of himself. What then could be meant by Aaron’s so called baptism, if its antitype is to be found in the ritual baptism of the Lord Jesus? One rite representing and setting forth another, which is nothing but a defective imitation of the first!
In fact, the washing of Aaron by Moses was not a sacramental baptism at all—a rite, that is, by which blessings of grace are represented and sealed to the recipient. It was as we have already explained a symbolical act setting forth the endowment of the Lord Jesus by the Father with a sinless humanity.
It is not, however, to this washing of Aaron, that reference is usually made by the exponents of this theory. It is said that the priests entered upon their official duties at thirty years of age, and were then set apart by baptism, and that hence Jesus, when “he began to be about thirty years of age,” came to be baptized, and enter upon his official work; and reference is made to Num. iv, 3; viii, 7. But the places thus referred to are directions respecting the Levites, the priest’s servants, and not concerning the priests at all. Moreover, twenty-five years was the ordinary age of entrance upon the Levitical service. (Num. viii, 24.) The age of thirty seems to have been prescribed with reference to the special labor and responsibility incident to the carrying of the tabernacle and its furniture from place to place, during the sojourn in the wilderness. (See the whole of Num. iv.) Upon such slender foundations are theories built. The law set no limitation to the ages of the priests. The rabbins say that they could not enter on the office until twenty years old. But Aristobulus the son of Alexander was high priest when less than seventeen years old.[75] On the other hand, while the definition as to the Levites was, “from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old,”—Eli was high priest when he died at ninety-eight. (1 Sam. iv, 15.)
Christ’s baptism was not his inauguration to the priesthood. His priesthood was neither Aaronic nor earthly. For “if he were on earth, He should not be a priest; seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.”—Heb. viii, 4, 5. If any part of the ceremonial of Aaron’s investiture was a rule of conformity to Jesus, the whole of it was equally so. But he was made a priest, “not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.”—Heb. vii, 16, 17. Christ’s consecration to the priesthood and exercise of its functions belong to that “true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man.”—Heb. viii, 2. He was not installed by human hands. “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity. But the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forevermore.”—Heb. vii, 28.
Dr. Dale understands the Lord Jesus in the above place to mean,—Thus it becomes us, by a united and public act, to announce “my entering upon my covenant work which I now declare, and am ready to begin, ‘to fulfill all righteousness.’” But, in the first place, that was not the time of Jesus’ entering on the work of fulfilling righteousness. Had it been so, it was too late. He was “made of a woman, made under the law.”—Gal. iv, 4, 5. From the hour of his birth, he was fulfilling righteousness,—in the obedience of his childhood, as truly as in the sufferings of the cross. The work on which he entered, after his baptism and anointing by the Spirit, was his prophetic office, in which he announced and offered himself to Israel as her promised King and Savior. So he himself testified in the synagogue in Nazareth. (Luke iv, 18-20.) But this office will not fit into the above exposition. Moreover, it would seem that if any words can express the idea of a thing done as a duty of righteousness those of Jesus do so. Dr. Dale says,—“It can not be claimed that the Lord Jesus was under obligation to undergo this baptism as a part of ‘all righteousness;’ (1) Because there is no righteousness in it; (2) Because what there is in it is just what he did not come to do. He did not come to repent for sinners, nor to exercise faith for sinners.” The latter argument has the fatal fault that it proves too much. Upon the same ground the Lord Jesus should not have been circumcised or purified with his mother. He should not have kept the passover, nor any of the Levitical feasts and ordinances. All these implied and required in others a state of heart and mind and exercises of repentance and faith which were foreign to the holy nature of the Lord Jesus.
But is it so that there was no righteousness to be accomplished by Jesus in complying with John’s baptism? The answer depends wholly upon the response to be made to the question which Jesus proposed to the Pharisees,—“The baptism of John, was it from heaven; or, of men?” If from heaven, it came with the sanction of the first clause of the Sinai covenant,—“If ye will obey;” and was entitled to obedience from every soul. John’s baptism,—Is it necessary to say it?—washed away no sin. Like all ritual baptisms, of the Old Testament and the New, alike, it affected the ritual and outward status, alone, of the party, as toward the church, and the ordinances. Moreover, his ministry was not addressed to the ungodly only. But, if there were any of the people still looking and praying for the Consolation of Israel, they, as much as others, were called upon, as being defiled by the contact of the unclean nation, to receive this baptismal seal of the covenant renewed, and their acceptance in it with God. Pre-eminently was it true of the Lord Jesus, that he was defiled by contact with the sinful nation. To ritual uncleanness, he was as liable as any man, and became thereby subject to the same obligation of ritual purifying, by which others were bound. Jesus, therefore, as a true Israelite, came to John’s baptism, as being an ordinance of divine authority; and in his answer to John indicates the fact that his omission of the duty thus resting on him as “made under the law,” would have derogated from his perfect righteousness.
Nor is this all. John was the herald of Jesus in his distinctive character as “the Angel of the covenant,”—the Mediator of that “better covenant” which was enclosed in the outward form of that of Sinai. (2 Cor. iii, 3-6.) In that better covenant, and Christ as its Surety, all the transactions relating to the Sinai covenant had their significance and end; as they were also the end of John’s ministry. The repentance which he preached was a call to apostate Israel to return from transgression to the obedience required by the covenant, and his baptism was a seal to its promises, upon that indispensable condition of obedience. In coming to John’s baptism, therefore, Jesus formally and publicly came under the bond of the covenant for obedience, and thus presented himself to Israel as her Surety therein. The baptism which he received from John sealed to him its promises on condition of his obedience, and the descending Spirit and the voice from heaven announced the Father’s approval and acceptance of him as Surety for his people, the true Israel of God. It was with a view to this office of Christ as the Messenger and Surety of the covenant, and to his own relation as the herald of Christ in that capacity, that John says, “That he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water;”—John i, 31—that he should be made manifest to Israel, as her covenant Surety and King; as the Lamb of God and King of Israel.
The distinction drawn between “the baptism of John” and “baptism by John,” overlooks the profounder aspects of the subject here indicated. It is true that John’s baptism addressed to sinners a call to repentance, and announced remission, on that condition. But this special form of its message, is no more than the call to obedience, in terms adapted to the particular case of transgressors. And the significance and propriety of the baptism depended upon its own essential meaning as heretofore unfolded. In the Levitical institutions, the ordinary form of the rite had its primary relation, as we have seen, to a ritual uncleanness by contact with the dead, which symbolized the judicial defilement of the Lord Jesus by contact, through birth of a woman, with our dead nature, and his consequent death under the curse. The baptism symbolized the resurrection of Christ, and of his people with him, in the renewing of their souls, and the final quickening and rising of their bodies. Both of these are identified by Paul with the resurrection of Christ. (Eph. ii, 5; and i, 19-ii, 10; Rom. vi, 2-5; viii, 11, etc.) It is by virtue of union with him, by the baptism of his Spirit, bestowed upon and dwelling in us, that we are enabled to “know the power of his resurrection” (Phil. iii, 10), by our own death to sin and life to holiness. This was the signification of John’s baptism. To the Lord Jesus it was a symbol and pledge of his own triumph over the exhausted power of the curse, in his resurrection; and of the deliverance of his people, in him, from the bondage of sin and death, by his Spirit bestowed and dwelling in them. Through this they receive repentance and remission of sins. The same meaning precisely was signified and sealed to the people by their believing reception of the same rite.
Thus, on the one hand, Jesus, as being the Son of man, one of the family of Israel, was as much bound to come to the baptism which, by the authority of God, John dispensed, as he was to obey or observe any part of the law, ritual or moral; as much as was any true son of Israel. On the other hand, by coming and receiving that baptism, he announced himself, the Surety of the covenant which it sealed, and was so certified and accepted by John, by the descending Spirit and by the Father’s voice.
The Scriptures inform us of three distinct bestowals of the Spirit, upon the Lord Jesus, by the Father. The first, was that whereby he was begotten through the Holy Ghost, and his humanity so invested with the Spirits influences, as to be born and live in perfect holiness, so that he was designated by the angel, “that holy thing.”—Luke i, 35. The second was the anointing bestowed at the time of his baptism by John. And the third was that endowment of the Spirit, which was conferred on him, at his ascension to the throne. The intimate relation of his anointing to his baptism by John, and the close analogy which is traceable between baptism and anointing, bring the latter within the purview of the present inquiry.
Immediately after his baptism, as he was praying, “the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son: in thee I am well pleased.”—Luke iii, 21, 22. The Baptist adds some facts:—“I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not. But he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.”—John i, 32-34. This anointing of the Lord Jesus with the Holy Spirit fulfilled a three-fold purpose.
1. It was a manifestation to Israel of the long-expected Messiah,—a confirmation from heaven of John’s testimonies respecting him, and a designation of him, the coming One, as being Jesus of Nazareth. From the whole account given in the first chapter of John, it seems evident that the Baptist and his disciples had distinctly in mind the language of the second Psalm, which determined the form of their conclusions, deduced from the scene at the baptizing. “Why do the heathen rage ... against the Lord, and against his Anointed?... Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” The glorious personage here announced is, thus designated by three titles,—as the Lord’s Anointed, his King, and his Son. It was as herald of this King that John came preaching, the kingdom of heaven. And when, with his own eyes he saw the anointing Spirit descend upon Jesus, he identified the Anointed with the Son. He saw and bare record “that this is the Son of God.” So, John’s disciple Andrew says to his brother Peter, “We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ,”—the Anointed. Not only so, but, at the same time and by the same token, John recognized in Jesus “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world!” Thus fully, by this anointing, was Jesus certified to Israel; and therein the chief intent of John’s ministry was accomplished.
2. The anointing was an attestation and seal to him of the Father’s favor, in view of the spotless righteousness of his character as already proved in the life which he had lived, as a private person, the carpenter of Nazareth. Of his earlier youth, it is said that he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.”—Luke ii, 52. And now, in the fulness of his manhood, in connection with his anointing, a voice from heaven testifies, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”—Matt. iii, 17. To this, the Psalmist refers his anointing. “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”—Psa. xlv, 6, 7. “The joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh. viii, 10), said Nehemiah to Israel; and in the joy of his Father’s favor, testified in the anointing, Jesus fulfilled his ministry to the close.
3. It was his endowment for the prophetic office, as he himself testified in the synagogue of Nazareth. “He found the place where it was written, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and the recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.... And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.”—Luke iv, 18-21. From the same source he derived the miraculous powers, which attested his word. (Matt. xii, 28.) “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.”—Acts x, 38. Of the relation of his anointing to the fulfillment of his priestly office, in view of which John called him “the Lamb of God,” Paul says that he “through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.”—Heb. ix, 14. His anointing was not his consecration to the priesthood, but his endowment with grace, by which he was qualified to perform that priesthood, to prepare and offer an unspotted, sufficient and acceptable sacrifice on the altar of justice. And, having completed that work, by the same Spirit was he raised from the dead. (1 Pet. iii, 18; Rom. viii, 11.)
Such and so signal was the meaning and intent of that fact from which Jesus derived the name of, the Christ. Its close relation in many respects to the doctrine of baptism, is apparent. As to the question of mode, a few points may here be noted.
1. In it the Holy Spirit was given to the Lord Jesus, as an indwelling fountain of all gifts for his ministry.
2. It came by a descent from the opened heavens.
3. It was in the form of a dove,—beautiful symbol of the kindness of God, and the “meekness and gentleness,” the “grace and truth” of the Lord Jesus!
4. It abode on him.
5. As the result, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke iv, 1), brought under his active control and guidance, and endowed with his extraordinary gifts, for the fulfillment of his ministry.
6. The symbol which by divine appointment represented it was the pouring of oil upon the head and person. (Lev. viii, 12, 30; 1 Sam. x, 1; xvi, 1, 13; 1 Kings i, 34, 39; xix, 16; 2 Kings ix, 6.)
It was his resurrection from the dead. We have seen that the Mosaic baptism was a symbol and seal of the imparting of life to the dead. We have seen it so referred to by Paul in his argument in proof of the resurrection. The fact has been pointed out that the Lord Jesus in receiving the baptism of John, not only fulfilled the law of righteousness as a faithful Israelite, but received, therein, a symbol and seal of his own resurrection and triumph over death and the curse, under which he was already held. Twice, in the course of his ministry as reported by the evangelists, did Jesus refer to his resurrection under this figure of baptism. Matthew thus records one of these occasions, “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him.... And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give (all’ hois ētoimastai), save to those for whom it is prepared of my Father.”—Matt. xx, 20-23. Luke records a similar expression. “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, nay; but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”—Luke xii, 49-53. Of these expressions, expositors have proposed two interpretations. According to one, the cup and the baptism are equivalent figures meaning the sufferings and death of the Lord Jesus. Hence, Baptist expositors would explain it as an immersion in sorrow; but they do not show by what example or argument the word “baptism” can be made, thus, of itself, to signify such an immersion. A conclusive objection lies against this interpretation. In both the gospels the distinction between the cup and the baptism is carefully preserved, in Christ’s original question, and in his rejoinder. “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” “Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.” It can not be admitted that a second clause, so particular and detailed in statement, and so carefully repeated in the rejoinder, is a mere blank, adding nothing to the meaning already expressed. But it is agreed that the figure of the cup indicates all that suffering by which the Lord Jesus made atonement for our sins.
The other interpretation proposed is but a modified form of that here given. It discriminates between the cup and the baptism, by interpreting the latter of Christ’s sufferings viewed as “consecrating sufferings—sufferings by which he was to be separated unto God’s service as a royal priest.” “That the reader may understand how Christ could use such language in the sense which we give it, let him consider such passages of Scripture as these: ‘Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen.’—Rev. i, 5, 6. ‘And Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’”—Matt. xix, 28.[76]
The Scriptures cited by this respected author do certainly prove that the royalty and priesthood of the saints in heaven are the purchase of Christ’s blood and the gifts of his love. But they do not even hint at the idea, much less prove it, in support of which they seem to be cited; to wit, that the sufferings and death of Christ were his consecration to the priesthood. On the contrary, they are in harmony with all the Scriptures, which testify that those sufferings were an offering for our sins, made by a priest already consecrated. “For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.”—Heb. viii, 3. Here, it appears that, inasmuch as he was a priest, he must have an offering; the very reverse of the theory that his offering was in order to his consecration to the priesthood. This man who by the word of the oath, was consecrated a priest forevermore, needed not, like those priests to enter often into the holy place with blood. “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world,” the original date of his priesthood. “But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”—Heb. ix, 26. Of Christ’s sufferings, in their atoning character, the Scriptures are full and explicit. And, of them, the cup is the undoubted symbol. But of “consecrating sufferings,” and especially, of such contradistinguished from the others, as here supposed, we fail to find a trace. Is it asserted that although they are the same sufferings, yet are they viewed in a different light? Still the distinction is without warrant in the Scriptures. But, even conceding that point, can it be imagined that the Lord Jesus, in the circumstances of the case as relating to James and John, would pause upon and emphasize that distinction, by separate definitions, requiring distinct consideration and answer, by them, when at last the sufferings in question were one and the same? Nothing but an absolute necessity could justify such an interpretation.
In order to a right solution of the question here considered, let us ascertain what were the facts and conditions necessarily present in the mind of the Lord Jesus, in making his answer to James and John.
1. Their application immediately followed, and was no doubt suggested by a statement made by our Lord, in reply to a question from Peter. Upon occasion of the sorrowful turning away of the young ruler, Peter said to Jesus, “Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”—Matt. xix, 27, 28. Here are several indications of the time of enthronement. (1.) It is the time “when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory.” This phrase, “the throne of his glory,” is not used in the Scriptures to designate the invisible throne of majesty and power in the heavens, now occupied by the Son of man; but that revelation to men of his glory, of which he said to his disciples, “the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels.”—Matt. xvi, 27. To this time he expressly refers that throne. “When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.”—Matt. xxv, 31. So Paul declares that the Lord Jesus “shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;” and in view of his own finished course, exults in the fact that, “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”—2 Tim. iv, 1, 8. (2.) It is the time of the judgment. The apostles shall sit with him, judging the tribes of Israel. (3.) It is the period of “the regeneration.” Some expositors, indeed, refer this word to the preceding clause, which they read, “Ye which, in the regeneration, have followed me.” According to this reading, the regeneration means, the introduction of the gospel, as being the beginning of a new life to the world. But others understand, by it, the resurrection of the saints which precedes the final judgment of the world. According to this, which I take to be the true interpretation, the resurrection is called the regeneration, because, in it, the quickening power of the Holy Spirit, first experienced, in the renewing of the souls of believers, and in making their bodies his temples, will then take full possession of the whole man, quickening and transforming our vile bodies into the likeness of Christ’s glorious body, and reuniting soul and body in glory. In like manner, and at the same time, the work of “restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts iii, 21), will be accomplished. Beginning, as it does in the spiritual world, in the preaching and triumphs of the gospel, it will be consummate in the regeneration of the physical system, in the new creation, the new heavens and the new earth. That the thrones promised to the apostles could only be possessed after the resurrection, is evident from the fact that, physical death being an element of the curse, the blessedness of the saints may, indeed, be unspeakable, even in a disembodied state; but there can be no properly royal triumph, so long as the bodies are in the bonds of corruption and the grave.
2. While the time of the kingdom of the saints is thus clearly defined, there are also certain conditions precedent, revealed with equal clearness and emphasis. “Ye which have followed me,” says Jesus. Elsewhere he explains more fully. “He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”—Matt. x, 38, 39. The following must be a bearing of the cross, with the life in the hand. A pertinent illustration appears in the life of the apostle Paul. He thus states the motives and policy which governed his course.—“I have suffered the loss of all things, ... that I may win Christ, and be found in him; ... that I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death, if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”—Phil. iii, 8-11. Paul’s meaning in the phrase to “know the power of his resurrection,” elsewhere appears. He prays for his readers, that they “may know,”—that is, may realize by a blessed experience,—“what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.... And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, ... together with Christ, ... and hath raised us up together.”—Eph. i, 16-20; ii, 1, 5, 6. In another place, Paul, in view of his finished course and assured reward raises the triumphant shout,—“I have fought a good fight! I have finished my course! I have kept the faith!faith! Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous judge, shall give me at that day;”—the day, to wit, of “his appearing and kingdom.”—2 Tim. iv, 1, 7, 8.
It thus appears that the time of the kingdom is the resurrection;—and that the condition of its possession is not physical sufferings and death, which are common to all men; but a conformity to Christ’s sufferings and death, by being, in him, crucified and dead to the world. With this condition is inseparably identified the possession of a part in the resurrection and life of Christ. “If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.”—Rom. vi, 8. “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”—Gal. ii, 20. We can be dead with Christ, dead to sin and the world, only by being alive to God.
Not only is the resurrection of the saints the time of their kingdom, but worthiness of part in the resurrection is stated with emphasis, as the final and conclusive condition precedent to the throne. “They,” says Jesus, “which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead.”—Luke xx, 35. “If, by any means,” says Paul, “I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” Herein is the propriety of the form of the question put by Jesus to the two brethren:—“Can ye ... be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” That is, “Are ye ready to endure and to do all that will be required of those who would be counted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection of the dead?”
3. The same word (palingenesia) regeneration, which Jesus employs, is used by Paul, who describes God’s mercy as saving us, “by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior.”—Titus iii, 5, 6. It is the very grace, therefore, of which, under the Old Testament as well as the New, baptism with water was the appointed symbol and seal. And particularly was it true of the sprinkling of the water of separation, that it symbolized the resurrection of the Lord Jesus on the third day, and of his people on the seventh, the day of the Lord. Add to these considerations the fact that from the time of his tour in the region of Cæsarea Philippi, where he was transfigured, Jesus had been earnestly endeavoring to impress on the reluctant minds of the apostles the fact that “he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed and be raised again the third day.”—Matt. xvi, 21. We have already seen that Jesus and the apostles distinctly recognized and referred to the third day’s baptism with the sprinkled water of separation as being a prophecy the fulfillment of which required his rising from the dead on the third day. “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me.... Thus it is written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.”—Luke xxiv, 44-46. In the law of Moses, concerning the water of separation, and there only is the third day thus defined.[77]
The points suggested in these considerations are intimately and inseparably related to the matter involved in the petition of James and John. They are constantly so treated by the Lord Jesus himself, in his personal teachings, and by his Spirit in the writers of the New Testament. And yet, we are to suppose that, in his response to the brethren, Jesus absolutely ignored all this, which he had, just before, emphasized in his reply to Peter; and that he directed their attention solely to the sufferings which he was to endure, and in which they were to share! The alternative is, that on the contrary he referred to baptism, in the meaning in which unquestionably it was used throughout the Old Testament, as a type and figure of the resurrection, and thus, by that single word, suggested all that was involved in the vastly important considerations above mentioned, as connected with the subject.—“Ye know not what ye ask. Ye neither appreciate the true nature of the honors which ye seek, nor the time and circumstances of their enjoyment, nor consider the conditions precedent. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of,—the cup of the crucifixion of the flesh and the world; and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, doing and enduring all that is involved in attaining to the resurrection of the dead? For it is not till the resurrection that the thrones which you seek can be possessed; and only by those who are found worthy of that world and of the resurrection.”
That such was the meaning of our Savior would seem to be certain. This is confirmed by the words already cited from Luke xii, 49-53. “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.” The matter present to the mind of Jesus, as the occasion of this utterance, was that discrimination which he was to exercise and separation which he was to make, in purging his floor and dividing between the wheat and the chaff, bringing division into families and dissolving the closest and tenderest ties. It is of this that he says, “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I if it be already kindled?” That is, Why should I wish to restrain it? “But I have a baptism; ... and how am I straitened!” He thus indicates a straitening of the full exercise of that function which he has just described. The cause of it is an unaccomplished baptism. What then were the facts out of which this language is to be explained? (1.) Christ was under judicial condemnation for us from his birth, under the curse and sentence of death. (2.) While in that condition, a servant to the law and the curse, he could not fully exercise the prerogatives proper to his royalty. (3.) Especially must his office as personally the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost and with fire,—as the dispenser of grace to his people and wrath to his enemies,—be in abeyance, till his resurrection and assumption of the throne. Thus, he was from the beginning straitened and looking forward to his resurrection as the time and means of his enlargement. And, hence his saying,—“I have a baptism.” That baptism was the bestowal upon him, by the Father, of the Spirit of life, raising him from the dead to the throne, whence he now dispenses grace and judgment to the world.