of the Baptist, may have been caused by some digest used by St Luke, wherein the further account of the fate of St John was most probably given. What happened at a much later period St Luke anticipated in this place. (These remarks thereon, comp. with those on Matth. xiv. 1 sqq.)

§ 2. BAPTISM OF CHRIST.

(Matth. iii. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11; Luke iii. 21-23; John i. 32-34.)

The fact of Christ being baptised by St John contains something striking, inasmuch as in the ordinary way, no doubt, the inferior is blessed by the superior (Heb. vii. 7), but here the case is entirely reversed. For, the distinguishing feature of baptism and mere lustrations, as has been mentioned already, consists in there being one who is the baptiser, and another who is the baptised, and in the fact of the baptiser's introducing, or, as it were, raising the baptised to his own element of life. How the weaker can raise the stronger to his own degree of life, cannot well be perceived. A feeling of the impropriety of the baptism of Christ, indeed, penetrated the mind of St John himself, and he even confessed that he himself had rather need of a higher baptism from Jesus. Considered from an objective point of view, this was quite correct; yet, according to the Divine disposition that limits all things by certain bounds or measures, which applies indeed to the development of life of every individual (without any detriment to the liberty that finds its development in the circle appointed for it), St John was not called for the New Testament, he only formed the key-stone of the old covenant, and like Simeon (Luke ii. 25 sqq.) he beheld the Messiah without himself experiencing his regenerating ministry, i.e. efficacy; he was saved in the same manner in which were the saints of the old covenant, viz. through faith in the Redeemer to come. For, although St John beheld Christ, yet the redemption was likewise for him one which would take place hereafter, inasmuch as the ministry of Christ was only fulfilled after the death of the Baptist. Hence it forms part of the humility of the Baptist that he, occupying his station, in a pure and plain manner baptised Jesus; a formal refusal to baptise him would have been a mock

humility, i.e. a want of obedience to the Divine will, which had instituted or ordained this relation between St John and Christ. In order to understand all this, we here find a key in the words. of Jesus, οὕτω πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην, “ thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" (Matth. iii. 15). For, the expression dixamov, "righteousness" (on the signification of which, in its connection, mention is made in Rom. iii. 21), here signifies=dízarov, "justice," that which the law demands, i.e. what is right. Hence these words contain the general principle upon which our Redeemer acted, and which St John too had to obey; namely, to regard all the ordinances of the law as Divine institutions. It is true that this was no internal necessity (whence, indeed, gérov iorí, literally, "it is becoming," is used, and not dɛ, "it needs," or zgɛíav xw, “to have need"), but only a propriety, yet it was a propriety in the highest and noblest sense of the word; the contrary would have been an interruption of the harmony of life. Hence, as Jesus was, in a general sense, a γενόμενος ὑπὸ νόμον, one born or made under the law" (Gal. iv. 4), hence declaring the baptism of St John as being a Divine institution, he was obliged to submit to it; according to the Divine will, it was to form the moment of his anointing with the Spirit, and of his solemn inauguration to the office of the Messianic king. Hence the baptism of Jesus forms a parallel with the ceremony of circumcision and purification (comp. Luke ii. 21, 22). The mediator himself took part as yet for some time in the sacrifices and other propitiatory offerings commanded by God for the temple worship, until he had rendered superfluous the repetition of all other sacrifices by the one made on the cross in his own person. With the water baptism of St John, to which Jesus submitted, was connected, according to a Divine promise, the baptism of the Spirit, which, by its nature, could not be imparted by St John; on the contrary, this baptism would form a sign, “i, onuaov," for the Baptist himself, by means of which he might infallibly recognise the promised Messiah. Through this spiritual anointing the height was attained of that

1 What De Wette says, namely, that "sin slumbered in him," destroys the character of Christ's impeccability. The possibility of sin must be distinguished from the germ of sin, such as is harboured in sinful man. Like in Adam and the angels, previous to their fall, so also existed in Christ the pure possibility of sin, yet without his possessing a shadow of disposition to it. The above-named assertion tends to make God the originator of sin.

human knowledge which had gradually developed itself in Jesus, and that fulness of power was imparted to him which was requisite for the performance of his ministry. Even the pure offspring of the Spirit required the anointment of the Spirit; it was only when his human nature (the 4, "soul") had grown strong enough for the support of the fulness of the Spirit that it remained stationary, and fully endowed with power from above. The baptism, therefore, was the exalted and solemn moment in which the character of the gorós (“anointed") which had slumbered in the gradually developing child and youth (as it were potentia, "in power"), now appeared for the first time (actu, "in deed"), and developed itself; the baptism was the inauguration of the Messiah, in his own presence, and that of St John.1

Ver. 13. According to the account of St Mark i. 9, our Redeemer seems to have remained in the town of Nazareth up to the moment of his appearance in public. The internal world, no doubt, developed itself in him in a quiet and invisible manner. But as soon as his hour was come, which the Spirit caused him to perceive from within with undoubting certainty, he then came to St John at the river Jordan (concerning the locality of the place, comp. on John i. 28, 29), in order to have himself introduced by this messenger of God.

Ver. 14, 15. The important conversation which took place between Jesus and St John previous to the baptism is related by

1 Comp. the remarkable words in Just. dial. cum Tryph. Jud. p. 226. Χριστὸς δὲ εἰ καὶ γεγέννηται καὶ ἔστι που, ἄγνωστός ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται, οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα, μέχρις ἂν ἐλθὼν Ηλίας χρίσῃ αὐτὸν nai pavegòv Tão Tonon. (Comp. to Matth. xvii. 10, sqq)." Now Christ, although he be born and be here, is unknown, and not as yet does he comprehend himself, nor has he any power, until Elias come and anoint him, and make him manifest to all men." At the end of the ministry of Christ (comp. John xii. 28,) there was a similar public confirmation through a voice from heaven, so that one and the same occurrence forms the beginning and the end of his public life.

2 Quite erroneous is the notion, which assumes that Jesus made his appearance in public, according to a plan which had been minutely calculated and carefully preconcerted. His internal life only obeyed the will of his heavenly Father; whatever he inspired him to do was immediately done by the Son. The clearest knowledge of what he did. was, it is true, connected with it; but every calculation, or speculation, and human plan-making, must here be considered as excluded, inasmuch as all this makes an inroad on the immediate unity of life in Christ and God.

N

St Matthew only. It is of the utmost importance for an insight into the relation which existed between the Baptist and our Redeemer; and even in this communication, which is peculiar to him, St Matthew bears testimony to the importance and originality of those narrations which consist more especially in conversations. Ver. 16, 17. The form of the baptism of St John is described no further; whether he uttered any, and what kind of, words. over Jesus during this rite, is not mentioned. Whatever is communicated occurs after the completion of the baptism, i.e. at Christ's coming up out of the water (dvißn dò ro daros, "[when] he went up out of the water.") That the outpouring of the Spirit did not take place before the immersion quite agrees with the symbolical character of the act (comp. Rom. vi. 1 sqq.), which in itself, it is true, cannot well be applied to the baptism of St John, but which the Redeemer, by his baptism, typically imparted to the act. The one part of the act (the immersion) represents all that is of a negative character, the removal of all that is old (Rom. vi. 4); and the other half (the coming up) indicating all that is of a positive character, the coming forth of all that is new; hence it was this part of the baptism which was joined with the communication of the Spirit. St Luke (iii. 21,) adds, that Jesus prayed when he was baptized, which means, of course, that he was mentally absorbed in adoration. The action continues even after the coming up, and is divided into three parts, viz. the opening of the heavens, the descent of the Spirit, and the utterance of the voice. But that all this did not form a kind of spectacle, as it were, which took place before the assembled multitude, but, on the contrary, that it was beheld only by Christ and St John, appears quite clear from Matth. iii. 16, (äve@xenoav airŷ oi oùgavoí, "the heavens were opened unto him",) and John i. 32. To perceive spiritual transactions or incidents, it is requisite to be possessed of spiritual eyes; he only who had them was enabled to perceive the acts of the Spirit. A presentiment not clearly understood, and produced by the mighty effects of the Spirit, may have penetrated the multitude for an instant at this sublime moment, when the blossom of heaven descended on earth; but the occurrence itself they did not witness. (For the analogy to the conversion of St Paul, see ix. 7 of the Acts of the Apostles). If we thus refer this occurrence to the spiritual world, we then shall require to have neither recourse to the historical mode of viewing it, (which calls to mind the Jewish notions,

of brazen vaults of heaven, and of birds who accidentally directed their course towards that spot where the baptism of Christ took place), nor to a mythical mode of explanation. The Spirit, the invisible cause of everything visible, contains in itself the ground of all things; the revelation and communication of himself is a predicate of his nature. The opening of the heaven, i.e. of the world of the spirit, hence, is nothing else than the revealing of the spiritual world to the spirit; every revelation of divine things is a tearing asunder of the heaven, or descent of the Spirit (Isa. lxiv. 1; Ezek. i. 1; Acts of the Ap. vii. 55). As little as the opening of the heaven is to be considered in a material sense, equally as little must it be considered as a mere imagination; it is a real effect produced by the Spirit upon the spirit. For the person of our Redeemer this opening of the heaven was one of a stationary or abiding character; the flow of his internal life into the everlasting abode of the Spirit, and from thence back upon him, never ceased again. The spiritual eyes of the disciples of our Lord were opened gradually for this purpose, in consequence of their intercourse with him, and henceforth they were enabled to behold the heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (John i. 52). The descent of the Spirit, therefore, is nothing but the communication of him, which is his nature itself. God, as love itself, descends, by means of his Spirit, into the hearts of those who love him. In like manner is the sound of the voice a necessary effect of the Spirit. The Spirit, the creator of language, speaks for the Spirit, his effect is the pure word; what he speaks is understood by the Spirit in a direct manner, not by means of the physical or external ear, but through the ear of the spirit, i.e. through the spiritual being which is open to spiritual effects.1

1 From what has been said, it must not be inferred, that no part of the whole occurrence should have been visible and audible to those who were present. In the Gospel of the Hebrews (comp. my Gesch. der Evang. p. 81,) was the addition, that fire was seen at the baptism of our Redeemer. Inasmuch as all revelations of the Deity manifest themselves in light and brightness, this idea is not incorrect, only it is conceived in a material sense. There may have been, in like manner, something audible in the voice to all present (comp. on John xii. 29 ) But the so-called “daughter of the voice," is here entirely out

of the question. The Rabbis assert, it is true, that it has been audible since the period of the second temple, or, what amounts to the same,