understanding of Jesus when compared to the author of Mark. For Mark, Jesus is the strong son of God, a man called by God out of his people Israel to be the deliverer and savior of his people. There are few, if any, overtones of divinity associated with the person of Jesus in this gospel. This is no longer true for the authors of Matthew and Luke. Sometimes Jesus is a man; at other times he is invested with divinity in an anachronistic way that belongs rightfully to the resurrected Jesus, as Paul sets forth in Romans 1.3–4: “the gospel concerning his son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.” The experience of Jesus at his baptism therefore is perceived differently by these writers, for Jesus, being divine, cannot have had the kind of religious experience suggested by Mark.
The Dove as Symbol
The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus like a dove is symbolic and figurative. There is nothing visible, or audible, for anyone but Jesus. Yet there are profound religious implications in this reference. The author probably had in mind the passage from Genesis where the Spirit of God brooded over the waters in the beginning when the earth was without form and void. God’s Spirit is creative, bringing order out of chaos, not only the chaos and disorder of the earth, but also the chaos and disorder of human life. Man is not genuinely man until he is inbreathed by the Spirit of God and comes alive in a life that is oriented totally to the will and purpose of the Creator God. This was the experience of Jesus at his baptism. His life to this point could reflect many religious hopes and aspirations that were common to the people of Israel. But at this moment through a revelation from God, the call of God and his purpose become clear and decisive for Jesus. From this time on all his energies, his total life, were directed exclusively to the will of God. This, no doubt, is what Paul means when he writes, “he became obedient” (Philippians 2.8). Matthew and Luke are not as clear on this point, since in Matthew the Spirit alights on him and in Luke the Spirit descends upon him in bodily form. That is to say, the dove is no longer symbolic for these writers, since it is in some fashion visible even to others.
The Beloved Son
The clearest distinction is to be seen in the words uttered by the voice from heaven. In Mark the words are, “You are my beloved son, with you I am well pleased.” Luke agrees with Mark at this point, but Matthew alters them as follows, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased.” What is a personal and private experience for Jesus according to Mark, now becomes a public announcement in Matthew for the benefit of John or for anyone else who happened to be present and especially for the reader. Matthew has surely made the change here, since the words are a composite of two Old Testament passages, Psalm 2.7 and Isaiah 42.l It is important that we consider these passages in their original context, before we discuss them in the context of Jesus’ baptism.
Psalm 2 is identified by critics as an enthronement psalm; that is, a rubric used in the liturgy for the coronation of the king of Israel. God addresses the man to be enthroned at this occasion as his son. There are no implications of divinity in this address, since Israel had rejected the concept of divine kings common in Egypt and Mesopotamia at this period in history. A first rule of interpretation is that we understand New Testament usage according to the Old Testament meaning, unless we have clear indications of a basic change in intention by the writer. There is no valid reason to ascribe to Mark a difference in meaning for this passage. The only point of significance is the Christian interpolation of the word “beloved,” which, of course, gives the passage a Christological connotation. This should be viewed as an addition by Christian theologians and not part of the original citation. This was probably done during the period of oral transmission of the tradition and not an addition by Mark. The problem is why the entire passage was not quoted from the Psalm. The full address to the king in our Psalm is, “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” This may have been the original reading in all the gospels, as we actually find in the Western text (Codex Bezae fifth century) of Luke, but, if so, it was expunged by all scribes and the quotation from Isaiah 42.1 substituted. There arose a teaching among some in the early Christian community at an early date called “the adoption heresy” that Jesus was a man adopted by God to become his son. Since this point of view was declared to be heretical by the orthodox, it could have resulted in the expunging of that part of Psalm 2.7 that was offensive, namely, the phrase “today I have begotten you,” and the substitution of Isaiah 42.1 in this passage.
The citation of Isaiah 42.1 is an adaptation of that passage to make it appropriate Christian tradition. This is one of the “suffering servant” passages found in Second Isaiah, the best known of which is Isaiah 53. It is strange that Jesus did not use this concept as descriptive of his own understanding of his mission, since the early Christian community interpreted and applied the title to Jesus, as is amply demonstrated in a number of passages in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (compare Acts 3.13; 4.27; 8.30–35) and in numerous references by Paul to the death of Jesus as a vicarious and atoning sacrifice (Romans 4.25; 5.8; 1 Corinthians 15.3 et al.). Mark and the other gospel writers either borrowed this concept from the prophet and applied it to Jesus as the seal of God’s approval upon him at his baptism, or they are simply reporting an interpretation and application that was already widely used in the early Christian community; or, if our comments on Psalm 2.7 above are to the point, scribes expunged the offending portion of the passage from the Psalm that may have been the original text in gospel accounts of the baptism and replaced it with this citation from the prophet Isaiah. However the process by which this passage from Isaiah comes to be used in the baptism pericope, it is now interpreted and applied to Jesus as the one who is chosen and commissioned by God to be the Messiah.
Jesus’ Understanding of Messiahship
The concept of Messiah, according to Jesus’ understanding of his mission and the current view embraced by his contemporaries, was radically different. The current view was of an exalted figure modeled after the great King David and descending from the one who would bring victory to Israel over all her enemies and establish an earthly and worldwide kingdom. At the opposite pole from this secular and political view was Jesus’ self-understanding of his mission as a total commitment to God’s purpose and will, a life of humiliation and rejection ending in death. His contemporaries, even his disciples, were so conditioned by the former view of the Messiah as this exalted figure of power and majesty that they either rejected the person of Jesus and his message completely or totally misunderstood him until after his death and resurrection. It should be clear to us that there is a fundamental difference between the two images and that our own understanding or, more correctly, our misunderstanding of Jesus’ Messiahship is the result of our failure to make this distinction.
Matthew’s Radical Departure
Matthew has radically altered the baptismal account in his introductory remarks. Jesus came to John to be baptized; John protests, since it is more proper for Jesus to be the baptizer. However, Jesus encourages him to proceed, since it is proper that he fulfill all righteousness. It is evident that problems have surfaced about the baptism of Jesus in the early community and the author seeks to address them. A reconstruction of the background suggests that Jews, who were the objects of the community’s evangelism effort, had raised questions about the propriety of Jesus’ Messiahship. He could not be Messiah because he had been crucified and the scripture says, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged upon a tree” (Deuteronomy 21.22–23). Furthermore, they may have asked, “You say that Jesus was sinless. Why then was he baptized by John, since John’s baptism was for the remission of sins?” And again, “Why did Jesus accept baptism from John, since you say he was the greater, the Messiah?” There are similar indicators in non-canonical writings of this same difficulty that the author of Matthew addresses here. For example, in the Gospel to the Hebrews, cited by Jerome in his Against Pelagius, we find this testimony, “The mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, ‘John the Baptist baptizes for the forgiveness of sin; let us go and be baptized by him.’ But he said to them, ‘In what have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance’.” This effort on the part of the author of Matthew, suggesting that John recognized Jesus to be the Messiah when he came for baptism, is a kind of an apology, a defense of the community’s interpretation of Jesus’ baptism, and is in contradiction with another passage where John does not know Jesus to be the