12. Considerable probability attaches to the tradition of the Basilideans, that our Lord's
Baptism took place on the 6th or 10th of January. (See Bp. Ellicott's Histor. Lect. on the
Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, p. 105, note 2.
13. St. John i. 33.
14. The superficial objection on the supposed discrepancy between St. Matthew iii. 14
and St. John i. 33 has been well put aside by Bp. Ellicott (u. s. p. 107, note).
But Jesus, as He had not made haste, so was He not capable of misunderstanding. To
Him it was 'the fulfilling of all righteousness.' From earliest ages it has been a question
why Jesus went to be baptized. The heretical Gospels put into the mouth of the Virgin-
Mother an invitation to go to that baptism, to which Jesus is supposed to have replied by
pointing to His own sinlessness, except it might be on the score of ignorance, in regard to
a limitation of knowledge.15 Objections lie to most of the explanations offered by modern
writers. They include a bold denial of the fact of Jesus' Baptism; the profane suggestion
of collusion between John and Jesus; or such suppositions, as that of His personal
sinfulness, of His coming as the Representative of a guilty race, or as the bearer of the
sins of others, or of acting in solidarity with His people - or else to separate Himself from
the sins of Israel; of His surrendering Himself thereby unto death for man; of His purpose
to do honour to the baptism of John; or thus to elicit a token of His Messiahship; or to
bind Himself to the observance of the Law; or in this manner to commence His Messianic
Work; or to consecrate Himself solemnly to it; or, lastly, to receive the spiritual
qualification for it.16 To these and similar views must be added the latest conceit of
Renan,17 who arranges a scene between Jesus, who comes with some disciples, and John,
when Jesus is content for a time to grow in the shadow of John, and to submit to a rite
which was evidently so generally acknowledged. But the most reverent of these
explanations involve a twofold mistake. They represent the Baptism of John as one of
repentance, and they imply an ulterior motive in the coming of Christ to the banks of
Jordan. But, as already shown, the Baptism of John was in itself only a consecration to,
and preparatory initiation for, the new Covenant of the Kingdom. As applied to sinful
men it was indeed necessarily a 'baptism of repe ntance;' but not as applied to the sinless
Jesus. Had it primarily and always been a 'baptism of repentance,' He could not have
submitted to it.
15. Comp. Nicholson, Gospel according to the Hebrews, pp. 38, 92, 93.
16. It would occupy too much space to g ive the names of the authors of these theories.
The views of Godet come nearest to what we regard as the true explanation.
17. I must here, once for all, express my astonishment that a book so frivolous and
fantastic in its treatment of the Life of Jesus, and so superficial and often inaccurate,
should have excited so much public attention.
Again, and most important of all, we must not seek for any ulterior motive in the coming
of Jesus to this Baptism. He had no ulterior motive of any kind: it was an act of simple
submissive obedience on the part of the Perfect One - and submissive obedience has no
motive beyond itself. It asks no reasons; it cherishes no ulterior purpose. And thus it was