Matthew/John & Jesus' Baptism

[sjsnjc]

Greetings all...I am not even sure if this is posted in the right place. The question is actually for Steve but all thoughts are welcome. Steve and I are studying the Gospel of Matthew at the moment (via his posted lectures) and I had a thought regarding the harmony between John and Matthew regarding a theory Steve put forth in reference to whether or not John knew who Jesus was. Is it possible that in Matthew's account in 3.13-14 that maybe a conversation took place before John stated that He had need to be baptized by Jesus that illuminated John's recognition along with the knowledge he had previously, be it divine revelation or scriptural knowledge? This information is in lecture #11 at about 13.46 and on. The thought just came to me that a conversation between them could have taken place not written in Matthew's account.

[steve]

I would consider this view, but I think the order of events in the two accounts may rule it out.

In John 1:29-34:

1. John didn't know who Jesus was (seemingly, until he saw the dove come down);
2. He baptized Jesus and saw the dove;
3. He then knew and testified that Jesus was the Son of God.

In Matthew 3:13-17:

1. John objected to baptizing Jesus, upon their initial meeting, because he recognized in Jesus his own Superior;
2. Jesus persuaded him to do it anyway;
3. He baptized Jesus and saw the dove come down.

The problem, obviously, is that, in John's gospel, it seems to be saying that the baptist didn't know Christ until he saw the dove come down on Him, whereas, Matthew has John exhibiting recognition of Jesus as his Superior before the baptism, and hence before the dove was seen.

Your suggestion, if I understand it correctly, would be:

1. John did not know who Jesus was (as per John, but omit my parenthesis above);
2. Jesus conversed with John (unrecorded by either writer, but not implausible);
3. John then knew who Jesus was, and raised his objection to baptizing Jesus;
4. Jesus persuaded John to baptize Him;
5. The dove was seen.

I suppose this scenario would work, but only if John's words in John 1:33 were not intended to mean that he did not know who Jesus was right up until the point when he saw the dove. I suppose he does not affirm this, in so many words, though it appears (to me, subjectively) to be implied.

My solution was that John knew immediately upon meeting Him that Jesus was the Messiah, and on this basis objected to baptizing him. However, John did not realize, any more than most Jews did, that the Messiah would be a divine figure, the Son of God. This is what John did not know until the dove came down and the voice was heard, "This is my beloved Son..." Thereafter, with this new insight, John was able to "testify" that Jesus was, not only the Messiah, but also "the Son of God" (see John 1:34).

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
My solution was that John knew immediately upon meeting Him that Jesus was the Messiah, and on this basis objected to baptizing him. However, John did not realize, any more than most Jews did, that the Messiah would be a divine figure, the Son of God. This is what John did not know until the dove came down and the voice was heard, "This is my beloved Son..." Thereafter, with this new insight, John was able to "testify" that Jesus was, not only the Messiah, but also "the Son of God" (see John 1:34).

Being the "son of G-d" was already a component of Jewish messianic tradition (see Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:27, II Samuel 7:14, I Chronicles 17:13 & 28:6). And given its usage in the OT, the language in no way required one to assume the divinity of the anointed king (anointed = "messiah") - else one might claim David and Solomon to have been divine.

The language of divine sonship was employed elsewhere in the Ancient Near East as well. Being the son of a god (whether taken literally by some, or as a matter of adoption by others) implied that the god was strongly behind a ruler.

John the Baptizer would not necessarily have needed to conclude from a declaration of divine sonship that Jesus was divine.

[steve]

I have no doubt that some rabbis already were familiar with the term "son of God" as an alternative title for the Messiah, because of the very references you cite. Whether the title was a familiar one with John and his listeners, and if so, how they understood it, are other questions. My understanding is that there was a wide range of opinions among the Jews as to whether the Messiah was to be human or divine.

While theologians and commentators often point out instances where ordinary kings (e.g. David and Solomon) were spoken of, each in his turn, as "my son" by God, the fact remains that the Jewish disciples, and even the rabbi Saul/Paul saw this term as signifying something beyond Christ's humanity (e.g., Romans 1:4). When Jesus spoke of God as "my Father," it induced the Jews to seek to kill Him as a blasphemer, because, as they understood it, the phrase implied a degree of equality with God entirely inappropriate for a mere man to claim for himself (John 5:18).

[sjsnjc]

Steve...many thanks for the input. It is not a firmly held belief, by any means, that any conversation took place. I do agree with your teaching on the harmony per the lecture. It dawned on me mainly because...well, I don't know. It just did because I was thinking that John must have had something to say or a question or two rather than have a sort of drive-through baptism procession going on(next, dunk, next, dunk). Your understanding also makes sense when one considers the possibility that John might have been a bit more sensitive to the facts regarding Jesus and his position(s).

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
I have no doubt that some rabbis already were familiar with the term "son of God" as an alternative title for the Messiah, because of the very references you cite. Whether the title was a familiar one with John and his listeners, and if so, how they understood it, are other questions.

Fair enough. Our information on the Baptizer is quite limited.

steve wrote:
My understanding is that there was a wide range of opinions among the Jews as to whether the Messiah was to be human or divine.

I would like to take a look at your evidence for Jews with the opinion that the Messiah was to be divine (other than Jewish Christians, please).

steve wrote:
While theologians and commentators often point out instances where ordinary kings (e.g. David and Solomon) were spoken of, each in his turn, as "my son" by God, the fact remains that the Jewish disciples, and even the rabbi Saul/Paul saw this term as signifying something beyond Christ's humanity (e.g., Romans 1:4).

(a) For what it's worth, Romans 1:4 could be construed in a fashion other than telegraphing the divinity of Jesus. Paul's point could be that the resurrection vindicates Jesus personally and messianically. Not every claimant of the seed of David was validated as a "son of G-d" - enjoying not only Davidic sonship, but also divine endorsement as a messiah. But I suppose you have other verses to make your point.

(b) That some Jewish Christians may have imagined Jesus to be divine (in some adjectival or ontological fashion) is not so significant a “fact” as some present-day Christians might imagine. Late Second Temple-era Jewish religion was diverse and – as anybody familiar with the surviving literature of the period will recognize – could be very creative and fanciful.

Should mainstream Christians be impressed that a number of aberrant religious groups in the modern era began with various Christians and their innovative ideas? Hardly.

steve wrote:
When Jesus spoke of God as "my Father," it induced the Jews to seek to kill Him as a blasphemer, because, as they understood it, the phrase implied a degree of equality with God entirely inappropriate for a mere man to claim for himself (John 5:18).

(a) There are parallels in Jewish literature to the conception of G-d as “Father” – most significantly, perhaps, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls: “And while all this happened, Joseph [was delivered] into the hand of foreigners…. And he became wear[y …] and he summoned the powerful God to save him from their hands. And he said: ‘My father and my God, do not abandon me in the hands of gentiles’” (4Q372 1.16; cf. also 4Q460 5.5).

Even so, it is possible that such language might have been contrary to the sensibilities of some Jewish persons at the time of Jesus.

(b) Clearly, controversy over Jesus’ identity as the son of G-d is important for John, who later makes it the premise for Jewish lobbying of Pilate (q.v., 19:7). How interesting, then, when we compare this to the other gospel writers:

(1) In Luke’s treatment, Jesus is questioned by Jewish leaders as to his being the “son of G-d,” but context easily affords Jews’ understanding this epithet as a messianic title (q.v., 22:66-71). The council begins by asking Jesus if he is the messiah, elicits confirmation that he is the “son of G-d,” and denounces him to Pilate as a troublemaker claiming to be messiah. There is no mention here of any pious objection to Jesus claiming to be the “son of G-d.” And later, when Jesus is being mocked on the cross, he is taunted as “the messiah of G-d, his chosen one” – which plainly affords an adoptive sense of sonship as in prior messianic imagery; furthermore, parallelism in the text affords understanding “son of G-d” and “king of the Jews” as interchangeable taunts (q.v., 23:35f.).

(2) Matthew’s treatment also affords Jews’ understanding the epithet as a messianic title. When the high priest questions Jesus, he asks if he is “the messiah, the son of G-d” (q.v.,, 26:63); in context, the most natural understanding is that two terms simply equate to one another. The Jewish premises when lobbying Pilate are not explicated, but Pilate’s attention is plainly upon whether Jesus claims to be king of the Jews (q.v., 27:1, 11f.). And later on, when Jesus’ identity as the son of G-d is being mocked, the account again affords understanding as a messianic title (note, once more, the parallelism between “son of G-d” and “king of Israel” in the taunts of 27:39-43).

What triggers the cry of “blasphemy” in Matthew is Jesus’ assertion that the son of man – not the son of G-d! – will be seated at the right hand of G-d and coming on the clouds of heaven. Now, “blasphemy” has acquired certain connotations in our time, but in the first century it simply meant speech that was demeaning and/or defamatory; one could blaspheme not only G-d, but also human beings (e.g., I Corinthians 10:30, Titus 3:2). We may wonder, then, who the presumed object of the “blasphemy” might have been. Perhaps it was the Jewish leadership; perhaps it was the Roman government which the vision of a new world order would have threatened. Either way, the challenge to their dignity would have been serious business, and could have been painted as treasonous.

(3) Mark’s treatment involves largely the same dynamics as we’ve discussed for Matthew (q.v., 14:61-64, 15:1ff.; cf. 15:29-32).

Now, perhaps we should not be terribly surprised by this survey. Jesus’ being divine (in whatever way) is a prominent feature of John, while the other canonical gospels can scarcely be held to allude to such a notion. A relevant question, then, might be: did the source(s) behind the synoptic gospels choose to neglect the matter of Jesus’ being divine; or did the source(s) behind John choose to interpose such a notion, even going so far as to shoehorn an imaginative theological controversy over Jesus’ “sonship” into its narrative? (Which is not to pose a false dilemma; there could be other possibilities.)

steve wrote:
My solution was that John knew immediately upon meeting Him that Jesus was the Messiah, and on this basis objected to baptizing him. However, John did not realize, any more than most Jews did, that the Messiah would be a divine figure, the Son of God. This is what John did not know until the dove came down and the voice was heard, "This is my beloved Son..." Thereafter, with this new insight, John was able to "testify" that Jesus was, not only the Messiah, but also "the Son of God" (see John 1:34).

Getting back to the matter of the Baptizer – shall we really imagine that this other John also thought Jesus to be divine? At the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry?

Interesting to note the Baptizer’s treatment in the synoptics:

(1) In Mark, John baptizes Jesus, and there is no detail about his experience of that event, or about his subsequent thoughts concerning Jesus.

(2) In Luke, the baptism situation is basically as in Mark.

Later, John sends disciples to bear his question: is Jesus the one who is coming, or do he and his disciples await another? This is, notably, a rather non-specific characterization. John expects a great person to be coming, according to chapter 3, but this person is not explicitly identified as messiah or son of G-d. And here John does not act like somebody who is sure of Jesus’ identity.

(3) In Matthew, John objects to performing the baptism, saying that it is he who needs to be baptized by Jesus. There is no detail on why exactly John felt this way, and it may not have involved his recognizing Jesus to be messiah or son of G-d.

Later, John sends disciples to bear his question, with the situation basically as in Luke.

Then we have John – where the Baptizer is a star witness from the outset, with numerous ideas about Jesus. But this gospel never actually has John baptize Jesus. And naturally, in this gospel, the star witness never does send a question to Jesus concerning his identity.