2. Baptism of John. It was the principal ob ject of John the Baptist to combat the prevailing opinion that the performance of externalcere monies was sufficient to secure participation in the kingdom of God and his promises; he required repentance, therefore ()3chrriaga Acravolat), baptism of repentance, as a preparation for the approach ing kingdom of the Messiah. That he may pos sibly have baptized heathens also seems to follow from his censuring the Pharisees for confiding in their descent from Abraham, while they had no share in his spirit ; yet it should not be overlooked that this remark was drawn from him by the course of the argument (Matt. iii :8, 9; Luke iii :7, 8).
We must, on the whole, assume that John con sidered the existing Judaism as a stepping-stone by which the Gentiles were to arrive at the king dom of God in its Messianic form.
The general point of view from which John contemplated the Messiah and his kingdom was that of the Old Testament, though closely bor dering on Christianity. He regards, it is true, an alteration in the mind and spirit as an indis pensable condition for partaking in the kingdom of the Messiah ; still he looked for its establish ment by means of conflict and external force, with which the Messiah was to be endowed, and he ex pected in him a judge and avenger, who was to set up outward and visible distinctions. It is, therefore, by no means a matter of indifference whether baptism be administered in the name of that Christ who floated before the mind of John, or of the suffering and glorified One, such as the apostles knew him, and whether it was considered a preparation for a political or a consecration into a spiritual theocracy. John was so far from this latter view, so far from contemplating a purely spiritual development of the kingdom of God, that lie even began subsequently to entertain doubts concerning Christ (Matt. xi:2). Tertul lian distinguishes the essential characteristics of the two baptisms in their spirit and nature. To that of John he ascribes the negative character of repentance, and to the Christian the positive impartation of new life (De Bapt. x:11) ; a dis tinction which arises out of the relation of law and gospel, and is given in the words of the Bap tist himself—that he baptizes with water and unto repentance, while the greater One who was to come after him would baptize with the Holy Ghost (Matt. iii ; Luke iii :16; John i:26).
John's baptism had not the character of an im mediate, but merely of a preparatory consecra tion for the glorified theocracy (John :30. The apostles, therefore, found it necessary to re-baptize the disciples of John, who had still adhered to the notions of their master on that head (Acts xix). To this aoostolic judgment Tertullian ap peals, and in his opinion coincided the most emi nent teachers of the ancient church, both of the East and the West.
3. Baptism of Jesus by John. (Matt. iii: 13, sq.; Mark i:9, sq.; Luke iii:21, sq.; comp. John i :to, sq.; the latter passage refers to a time after the baptism, and describes, ver. 32, the inci dental facts attending it). The baptism of Jesus, as the first act of his public career, is one of the most important events recorded in evangelical his tory; great difficulty is also involved in reconciling the various accounts given by the evangelists of that transaction, and the several points connected with it. To question the fact itself, not even the negative criticism of Dr. Strauss has dared. This is, however, all that has been conceded by that criticism, viz.: the mere and bare fact 'that Christ was baptized by John.' while all the circumstances of the event are placed in the region of mythology or fiction.
(1) Critical Questions. Critical inquiry sug gests the following questions: I. In what relation did Jesus stand to John before the baptism? 2. What object did Jesus intend to obtain by that baptism? 3. In what sense are we to take the miracu lous incidents attending that act? \Vith regard to the first point, we might be apt to infer, from Luke and Matthew, that there had been an acquaintance between Christ and John even prior to the baptism; and that hence John declines (Matt. iii:14) to baptize Jesus, arguing that he needed to be baptized by him. This, how ever, seems to he at variance with John i:31. 33. Lucke (Commend. i. p. -lid, sq., 3d edit.) takes the words 'I knew him not' in their strict and ex clusive sense. John, he says, could not have spoken in this manner if he had at all known Jesus; and had he known him, he could not, as a prophet, have failed to discover, even at an earlier period, the but too-evident 'glory' of the Messiah. In fact, the narrative of the first three Gospels presupposes the same, since, as the herald of the Messiah, he could give that refusal (Matt. iii:14) to the Messiah alone.