The baptism itself was immediately followed by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus, and by the Divine assurance con veyed to Him in words of Scripture which sealed His vocation to be Messiah, the Messianic Son of God. At what period of His life the possibility of such a vocation first dawned on Him we cannot say. Doubtless it grew on Him. When He came to His baptism He was willing to accept it. After His baptism He knew it to be God's will. And already the specific character of His Messiahship was grasped by Him, as is indicated by the combina tion with the Messianic text from Psalm ii. of familiar words from Isaiah xlii. referring to the Suffering Servant. Jesus devoted Himself to be a Messiah who should effect the redemption of God's people through suffering, and at His baptism He received the Divine confirmation of this self-dedication.
It is this Messianic self-consciousness which gives the clue to the meaning of the Temptations which foliowed. These were far removed from the temptations of ordinary men, so far indeed that only this Messianic consciousness can account for them. In soli tude and fasting Jesus faced and settled the problem of the Mes siahship, tested and rejected one after another of the policies which offered themselves for consideration. The Messianic en dowment of the Spirit was not to be employed in order to satisfy physical need or appetite. It had to do with that higher form of life which was nourished by the self-communication of God. Neither was it to he employed to produce supernatural evidence of His claim, even though Scripture could be quoted to confirm its validity. Even He had no right to put God to such a test for such a purpose. Finally, the possibility was suggested of accom plishing the Messianic task of making the kingdoms of this world "the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ," by forming an alli ance with evil, attempting, as a policy of compromise, to "serve God and Mammon." The subsequent course of His ministry shows how each of the "temptations" had been triumphantly overcome.
Characteristics of the Ministry.—The Synoptic Gospels agree in representing the public ministry of Jesus as commencing after John the Baptist had been thrown into prison by Herod. "Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of God, that the time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God has drawn near." The burden of the message was the same as that of the Baptist, but on the lips of Jesus it was great and glad news, a Gospel in the presence of which, or in the power of which, men could be called on to believe in God. From Capharnaum which appears to have served as a centre this message was carried by Jesus through the length and breadth of Galilee.
In the synagogues and in private houses, on the hill-slopes and by the lakeside He taught the crowds who flocked to hear Him.
He believed in teaching. Because He had compassion on the mul titude, "He began to teach them many things." To this pro clamation of the Kingdom and this teaching Jesus added a min istry of healing, largely described in terms of the casting out of demons. For, according to the ideas of the time, not only nervous diseases but many other forms of sickness and physical disability were believed to be due to possession by a demon or unclean spirit. This gave rise to a class of persons, "exorcists," who pro fessed, and not always in vain, to be able to cure disease by casting out the demon. And Jesus did not shrink from drawing attention to the parallel between Himself and them. But it is clear that His "mighty acts of healing" had a scope and were on a scale far beyond the reach of such men. The Evangelists report an extension of His power beyond cases of a psychical or psychophysical nature, to include the curing of fever, paralysis, leprosy, blindness, deaf-mutism and even the raising of the dead, as having characterized His ministry. Of a different class and yet falling under the head of "wonders" were the so-called "nature-miracles" of which the Evangelists relate several.
The Miracles.—There can be no doubt that the Evangelists believed that these things happened as they describe them. There is equally no doubt that many of them would be differently de scribed and differently accounted for by modern observers, who are as eager to find out the secondary causes as earlier observers were ready to do justice to the primary one. They "gave glory to God," and sometimes no doubt thought that they gave the greater glory by enhancing the supernatural character of the event. In general, it must be born in mind that "miracles" were far from being unexpected or rare. St. Paul" claimed to have worked "signs" in circumstances which put his sincerity beyond challenge, and he is witness to the fact that the Apostles wrought signs and wonders. Even the raising of the dead was not a thing so incredible as it is to us. Irenaeus believed that two cases oc curred in his own time. If this seems to reduce the "evidential value" of miracles, it must be replied that there is very little to indicate that specific evidential value attached to the miracles of Jesus. There are two instances but only two where anything like an appeal is made to miracle in order to prove anything, the healing of the paralytic and the answer to the messengers from the Baptist. In the one case it is an argument from the power of physical healing to the power of spiritual restoration. In the other it is not the miraculous character of the events which is empha sized but their quality; "to the poor the Gospel is preached" (Luke vii. 22).