An Exegetical Study on the Baptism of Christ (Matt 3:13–17)

An Example of How to Exegete a Text

During my time at Princeton Theological, I took a PhD seminar with Dr. Allison on the Gospel of Matthew. Our final project was to exegete a text based on a number of criteria—the subject heads of each section.

This is a good example of how biblical exegetes and scholars traditionally approach a text—a historical-critical and narrative analysis (except for the final section, which I kept anyway). This is the amount of work and time that goes into each pericope for creating a commentary, or at least it should be.

Structural, Grammatical, and Text Critical Analysis of Matt 3:13–17

Nota Bene: My translation is based on the Greek text of the NA28.

I. Introduction to the Pericope

|13| Then, Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John*1* in order to*2* be baptized by him.

II. The Refusal

|14| And John would have prevented*3* him saying, “I need to be baptized by you, but you come to me?”*4* |15| But when Jesus answered,*5* he said to him, “Consent now, for in this way is it suitable for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.*6*

III. The Baptism of Christ

|16| And after Jesus was baptized, immediately he ascended from the water;

IV. The Descent of the Spirit

and behold, the heavens were opened [to him],*7* and he saw [the] Spirit of God descending as a dove [and]*8* it came upon him.

V. The Voice from the Heavens

|17| And behold, a voice from the heavens (appeared)*9* saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

Text Critical and Translation Notes:

*1* I am unable to reflect the word variation in my translation. The Greek contains two different prepositions, ἐπί and πρός.

*2* Articular infinitive: purpose

*3* The imperfect has conative force; see BDF §326.

*4* Two Latin mss (it^a vg^ms) contain, Et cum baptizaretur Iesus (om. Iesus it^a), lumen magnum fulgebat (lumen ingens circumfulsit it^a) de aqua, ita ut timerant omnes qui congregati erant (advenerant it^a).

Translation: “And when Jesus was baptized, a great light shone down from the water, so that all who were congregating were afraid.”

Tatian’s Diatessaron may have also contained the characteristic that light was present at the baptism, as reported by Isho'dad of Merv (9c.) and Dionysius Barsalibi (12c.). St. Ephrem also mentions this detail. The tradition is also present in Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 88 and Epiphanius, Panarion haer. 30.13.7. Consult Bruce Metzger, Textual, 8–9.

*5* Circumstantial participle: temporal.

*6* αὐτόν has been left untranslated. See NRSV.

*7* א*, B, Old Syriac, and Irenaeus^lat lack αὐτῷ. A scribe could have deleted the word unnecessarily, too. The originality is uncertain. Metzger, Textual, 9.

*8* The omission of καὶ is well represented in both Alexandrian and Western text families. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:334 n. 7 posit that a decision cannot be made.

*9* A conjugated verb is lacking in the Greek, so I have supplied one for clarity.

Comments on Structure

The structure of Matt 3:13–17 is apparent. This pericope is a continuation and conclusion of the previous one, which expounded on John’s baptism. This is indicated by the Matthean redaction τότε—see next section.

Jesus has just arrived at the Jordan in order to be baptized by John. There is a confrontation in vv. 14–15 wherein John attempts to say that it is unfitting for him to baptize Jesus. Jesus rebuts that it is necessary so that all righteousness be fulfilled through this action, and so John consents.

Upon coming out of the water, the heavens open and the Spirit descends on Jesus as a dove. Then a voice¹ declares to those present² that this is God’s beloved son, “in whom [God] is well-pleased.”

Redactional Analysis of Matt 3:13–17

Nota Bene: The Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—are obviously all related to each other. Trying to determine which was written first and how the others are reliant on that Gospel is a complicated mess known as the Synoptic Problem.

My analysis presumes the following: Mark was written first, then Matthew, then Luke. I do not believe one specific “Q” source exists, which influenced Matthew and Luke (i.e., a rejection of the 2 source hypothesis).

Lastly, it will be easier to show this through screen shots because SubStack’s editor is limited.

Redaction Charts

The First Image is the Redactional Analysis; the Second Image Contains the Notes

Here is a critical synopsis of the account to see how the Gospels compare. I know most will not be able to read Greek, but translation can be misleading.

The Baptism of Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John | A Synoptic Parallel

English Translation

A Final Comparative Chart to show similarities and differences | Note 111: Luke's entire pericope is in indirect discourse. He seems to have borrowed Mark's ἐγένετο, but then rendered the rest of the telling indirectly. Any connections between Luke and Matthew are lexical, not morphological.

Sources & Redaction of the Passage

Matthew is the longest of the synoptic renderings of this account. There are a number of differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which reveals authorial emendations to a base narrative. Mark is certainly the underlying tradition, and it is difficult to ascertain if the divergences are due to invention or variances in other sources that the evangelists might possess. Davies and Allison claim that vv. 14–15 are “a redactional interpolation which tells us why Jesus has to be baptized.”³

Hagner postulates that the verses are from an independent source (M), or Matthew is possibly adding to the account in order to support a theological agenda.⁴ The saying in v. 15 specifically is probably an editorial addition.⁵ These two verses are the major Matthean divergence from the Marcan tradition.⁶

V. 16 may rely on Q—assuming it exists—since Matthew and Luke share ἀνοίγω over and against Mark's σχιζοµένους.⁷ If the reader compares the synoptics, Matthew is reliant on Mark with only minimal changes.⁸

Origins of the Passage

Nota Bene: This may be a slightly controversial aspect of analyzing a passage. Most—if not all—scholars do not consider the Gospels to be strict historical accounts. Rather, they are in the genre of (theological) Bios. The authors of these texts in antiquity took liberties to make theological statements. This would be similar to Plato and Socrates—no one believes that the these philosophical dialogues are just Socratic thought. A good example of this is in John 3 with Nicodemus. This is a created narrative where John is expressing his theology.

---

The passage is likely a recounting of an historical occurrence, for it is difficult to explain why the Church would fabricate a tale about Jesus being baptized by John. Each gospel contains the ac count with minor variations, so the core event is probable.⁹ Additions and deletions to a base text may signify editorial redaction. For instance, John's gospel fails to chronicle the actual baptism. The text never describes such an event; at best, the action is only implied.¹⁰

The editorial comments in Matt 3:14–15 imply that the baptismal account was difficult for the author’s community, so it is probable that the evangelist was attempting to make the scene more palatable.¹¹ This is evidenced in v. 14; Matthew is probably combating skeptics who doubted that Christ was baptized.

If we accept Davies and Allison’s proposition that vv. 14–15 are redactional, then their insertion is to clarify a disputed issue. If that is the case, then the dialogue is Matthean commentary, and is unlikely historical.¹²

Matthew’s gospel upholds the tradition, recounts the story, and provides a brief explanatory note on the event. Since each gospel writer retained the account despite the potential conflict it caused within communities, the pericope is not a post-Easter fabrication.

History of Interpretation

In order to trace properly the history of interpretation of a passage, one ought to search out side of what the theologians and commentators say about a particular pericope. Although this discussion will begin with their assessments, the liturgy and iconography of the Church will also be consulted.¹³ These aspects of worship bear witness to how Christians throughout the centuries have understood the events of Christ’s life in orienting Christian spiritual practices.

Early Church Comments

Christ’s baptism was predominately understood as a prefiguration of the sacramental practice that developed within the early Church.¹⁴ Hilary of Potiers explains,

In Jesus Christ we behold a complete man. Thus in obedience to the Holy Spirit the body he assumed fulfilled in him every sacrament of our salvation. He came therefore to John, born of a woman, bound to the law and made flesh through the Word. Therefore there was no need for him to be baptized, because it was said to him: “He committed no sin.” And where there is no sin, the remission of it is superfluous. It was not because Christ had a need that he took a body and a name from our creation. He had no need for baptism. Rather, through him the cleansing act was sanctified to become the waters of our immersion. (On Matthew 2.5)¹⁵

According to Hilary, every sacrament for salvation was prepared by Jesus’ incarnation. He assures the reader that Christ was without sin,¹⁶ so the baptism's purpose was not for absolution.¹⁷

Thus, we see that Christ’s action was interpreted as a preparatory endeavor for the sacrament.¹⁸ This is also made explicit by Jerome (Commentary on Matthew 1.3.13), who claimed that the Holy Spirit's descent¹⁹ sanc tified the waters in preparation for Christian baptism.²⁰

Patristic authors read vv. 14–15 as an explanation for why Jesus needed baptism.²¹ Origen wrote, “It is not always the case that the one who baptizes is greater than the one who is baptized. Ananias was not greater than Paul. And while Philip baptized, Peter gave the Spirit through the laying on of hands” (Fragment 52).²² Early interpreters strove to safeguard Christ’s authority and rank above John. Jerome also curbs the discussion by explaining that Jesus was baptized in order to confirm the necessity of John’s ministry (Commentary on Matthew 1.3.13).²³

The question concerning the necessity of Christ’s baptism was certainly an interest for the ancient church since Theodore of Mopsuestia states explicitly that many wonder why the event happened. He concludes that Christ was in no need of baptism, but,

This Jesus, I say, recapitulated in himself everything that pertains to our salvation. For just as he both died and rose again, we also shall do so, in the same way… He was baptized that he might hallow the waters and bestow upon us, through the basin, regeneration and adoption and remission of sins and all the other blessings that come to us through baptism, prefiguring them in himself (Fragment 14).²⁴

Liturgical Example: Coptic Orthodox Church

This same idea has been preserved in many liturgies of the Church, but our exploration will focus on the Coptic tradition of Epiphany. The Coptic Orthodox Church commemorates the manifestation of Christ’s divinity at his baptism in the Jordan starting on on the eve of 12 Ṭūbah.²⁵

There are four services that are held, but our analysis shall be on the laqqān²⁶ service, since it is the main liturgical observance for baptism.²⁷ The priest begins the liturgy and then the Lord’s prayer and the prayer of Thanksgiving are said. After these prayers, the Old Testament passages are read (Hab 3:2–19; Isa 35:1,2; 40:1–5; 9:1,2; Baruch 2:36–38; 4:1–4; Ezek 36:24–29; 47:1–9.). 1 Cor 10:1–13 is recited,²⁸ and the congregation sings the hymn of John the Baptist and the Trisagion.

Next comes the intercession of the Gospel, and Matt 3:1–17 is read.²⁹ A number of prayers and kyrie eleison are said, and then

The celebrant says the prayer for the sanctification of the waters, at the end of which he signs the water three times with the cross, saying, “Sanctify this water, impart it the grace of the River Jordan… Thou didst sanctify the streams of the Jordan, having drawn upon them Thy Holy Spirit from heaven… Do Thou now sanctify this water. May it become the fountain of blessing, a gift of purification, an absolver from sin, a purger of sickness, that is may be a purification of the soul, body and spirit, for all who shall draw from it or partake of it.”³⁰

The Lord’s Prayer is recited, the priest performs the three prayers of Absolution, and lastly a benediction is said. The service concludes with an assistant priest taking the shamlah (a white cloth), dips it into water, and signs the cross three times on the forehead of the chief priest, which symbolizes the baptism of Christ by the hand of the Baptist. From this the reader recognizes that the Coptic observance encompasses the patristic tradition that Christ prepared the waters for the sacrament.

Iconography

Lastly, we will focus on how iconographers from various times and regions have interpreted the account. This is a complicated matter since most icons encapsulate a harmonization of the event depicted. As such, there will be an emphasis on the Matthean characteristics.³¹

Galleries of Icons:

Below I will provide the regions as subhead. In the footnote on the headline will be the description and date of each icon. The numbering throughout my later text will be the order in which you see the icons, in brackets after the region subtitle.

Greek [1–4]

Description of each below in footnotes³²

Italian [5]

Date: Early 12c. | Comment: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus' head and he appears to be looking up at the hand from whence a dove is descending; Two angels on the bank; Personification of Jordan is fleeing (Ps 113:5); An axe rests beside a tree by John's foot (Matt 3:10); Wingless angel or Isaiah is holding a scroll, which reads, "Purify yourselves" (Isaiah 1:16; Greek); The Inscription reads: HIC SCELUS OM(N)E LAVAT REP(RO)B(US) QUO DECIDIT ADA[M] (“Here is washed away all the sin into which the repro bate Adam fell”). | Citation: San Marco, the Patriarchal Basilica in Venice, II (1991) , p. 234

Cappadocian [6–7]

Description of each below in footnotes³³

Armenian [8–9]

Description of each below in footnotes³⁴

Syrian [10]

Date: 586 | Comment: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus' head; ; a dove is descending from the hand. | Citation: Garrucci, R., Storia della arte cristiana, III (1876) , pl. 130 (2)

Ethiopian [11]

Date: Second half of 14c.–early 15c. | Comment: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus' head; a dove is descending but no hand is present; Two angels, one on both sides; All characters may be looking upwards, but it is uncertain. | Citation: Rock-Hewn Churches of Eastern Tigray: An Account of the Oxford University Expedition to Ethiopia, 1974 (1975) , p. 78; pl. 104

Coptic [12–13]

Description of each below in footnotes³⁵

Russian [14–16]

Description of each below in footnotes³⁶

---

Generally, the iconography depicts Jesus naked or with very little clothing. John the Baptist has his hand on Christ’s head and a dove is descending upon Jesus (except image 2). Commonly there is a personification of the Jordan River fleeing from Jesus, representing Ps 113:5 (icons 3–6, 8, 15–16).³⁷

The first Matthean detail to note concerns vv. 14–15; the Cappadocian icons (images 6 and 7) show a timeline that is based on these verses. They illustrate John the Baptist resisting Jesus’ request for baptism, and the first icon even quotes the Matthean text above the scene. This depiction is contingent on the Matthean text.

Secondly, a number of the icons have John the Baptist acknowledge the descent of the dove, which is based on Matt 3:16 or possibly John 1:32.³⁸ This could be reliant on Matt 3:17 since the voice appears to address John and the crowd (note icons 1, 3, 5–8, possibly 11, and 14). The final feature derives from Matt 3:10 and Luke 3:9, which speak of an axe at the base of a tree that will chop down any tree that does not produce fruit (4–5, 9, 13–14).³⁹ From these observations, we can conclude that Matthew influenced the interpretation of this event within the Church’s artwork.

Interpretation Within Matthew

The emphasis in this paper on Matthew’s interpretation of the baptismal account concerns the phrase, “This is my beloved Son,” for the phrase appears elsewhere in the gospel, the Transfiguration (Matt 17:1–13). Both of these accounts contain language that is reminiscent of the Akedah (Gen 22) and biblical narratives of Moses. As such, the interpretation within the gospel must pertain to patriarchs serving as “types” for Christ. This methodology is more developed in patristic literature, but these authors inherited this interpretive lens from the New Testament composers.

Matthew is assuredly alluding to Old Testament Scripture in 3:17, but it is contested what precisely the author intended. The possibilities include Gen 22:2;⁴⁰ Exod 4:22–23;⁴¹ Ps 2:7;⁴² and Isa 42:1. Nolland favors Isa 42:1 and Ps 2:7.⁴³ Hagner emphasizes Ps 2:7, whereas J. Jeremias holds that the text originally read παῖς and not υἱός, so the quip more closely resembles Isa 42:1.⁴⁴

In the case of Isa 42:1, Davies and Allison argue that the quotation of Isa 42:1 in 12:18 likely shows that the Isaiah text is referenced here.⁴⁵ France posits that “A combined allusion to Isa 42:1 and Gen 22:2 might thus account quite adequately for the OT background to the wording in its Matthean form.”⁴⁶ This paper will focus on Gen 22 as a potential allusion,⁴⁷ but Isa 42:1 and Ps 2:7 were probably in Matthew’s mind.⁴⁸ Since Isa 42:1 provides an allusion to the suffering servant and Ps 2:7 reveals a connection with an anointed king,⁴⁹ the close lexical associations, albeit only a few words from each, were intended.⁵⁰ Before developing this thesis further, the allusions to Moses must first be explicated.

Dale Allison remarks that “the passages in which Moses’ tacit presence is the strongest display an order which mirrors the Pentateuch”:⁵¹

Chart from Allison; fn 49 reads: Richardson (Introduction, 150) comments, “As Israel of old, the ‘son’ whom God called out of Egypt, was baptized in the Red Sea and tempted in the Wilderness, so also God’s Son, the Messiah, is baptized and tempted.”

The “crossing of water” and the “Transfiguration” are two important scenarios in which Moses is alluded. This can also be seen in our previous analysis wherein the iconography was already associating Christ’s baptism with Ps 113:5 where the waters were pushed back. It goes beyond the text to state that Matthew knowingly associated the account with the psalm and then to Moses, but its implementation certainly falls within the motif.⁵²

As for Isaac serving as a type for Christ,⁵³ Gen 22:2 must be mined for lexical associations:

καὶ εἶπεν Λαβὲ τὸν υἱόν σου τὸν ἀγαπητόν, ὃν ἠγάπησας, τὸν Ισαακ, καὶ πορεύθητι εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλὴν καὶ ἀνένεγκον αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν ἐφ᾽ ἓν τῶν ὀρέων, ὧν ἄν σοι εἴπω.

And (God) said, “Take your son, your beloved (ἀγαπητόν), whom you love, Isaak, and go to the high land (τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλήν), and carry him up for the whole burnt-offering (ὁλοκάρπωσιν) upon one of the mountains, whichever one I will say to you. (my translation; click here for a full translation of the account)

Contained within this verse are a number of lexical connections that arise in both Matt 3 and 17. The most prominent for both concerns the language of τὸν υἱόν σου τὸν ἀγαπητόν (your son, your beloved), since it is almost identical to how the voice addressed Christ in both accounts. These two passages are connected by the implementation of Isaac typology derived from Gen 22:2.⁵⁴

The associations gain momentum when considering how Gen 22 influenced the Transfiguration account. It is striking since Matthew parallels Christ and Abraham in 17:1. The text reads,

Καὶ µεθʼ ἡµέρας ἓξ παραλαµβάνει ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀναφέρει αὐτοὺς εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν κατʼ ἰδίαν.

And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. (RSV)

Jesus takes (παραλαµβάνει) Peter, James, and John and carries (ἀναφέρει) them to a high mountain (ὄρος ὑψηλὸν). This language is reminiscent of how Abraham took Isaac up to Moriah to be sacrificed.

It is beyond coincidence that all of these terms that occur in Gen 22 fall within one verse in Matthew in close proximity. However, the image is confused because Jesus is paralleled with Abraham in 17:1 and then Isaac in 17:5.

One could also postulate a possible link with 1 Kgdms 19:1–18 since Elijah arises (ἀνέστη)⁵⁵ and flees to a mountain (ὄρους Χωρηβ) and has a theophanic experience.

Alternatively you could argue a parallel with Exod 34:1 when Moses takes (ἔλαβεν) two tablets, ascends (ἀνέβη)⁵⁶ the mountain (εἰς τὸ ὄρος), and inscribes the Lord’s commandments on them (law giver). Both of these characters appear in the pericope, so the appeals may be present.⁵⁷

Patriarchal typology is common in the New Testament, so any or all of these could have been in Matthew’s mind on account of the numerous lexical and thematic similarities.

Now considering 17:5, the associations are complicated because of Exod 24:16 (LXX), which speaks of Moses conversing with the Lord in the cloud:

καὶ κατέβη ἡ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος τὸ Σινα, καὶ ἐκάλυψεν αὐτὸ ἡ νεφέλη ἓξ ἡµέρας· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν κύριος τὸν Μωυσῆν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόµῃ ἐκ µέσου τῆς νεφέλης.

And the glory of God descended upon Mount Sina, and the cloud covered it for six days; and the Lord called Moses on the seventh day from the middle of the cloud. (my translation)

In 17:5, the voice emerges from a radiant cloud (νεφέλη φωτεινὴ),⁵⁸ which at the very least provides a lexical tie.⁵⁹ Secondly, the pericope begins with a temporal marker, µεθʼ ἡµέρας ἓξ (after 6 days),⁶⁰ which further supports an allusion to Moses. The voice that pronounces a statement akin to Gen 22:2 disrupts the Moses imagery.⁶¹ As such, the transfiguration appears to be intertwined with Abraham, Isaac, Elijah, and Moses typology to speak of Christ.⁶² Matthew is quite possibly working with no single metaphor or image to speak about the identity of Christ; rather, he brings together multiple figures who he believed prefigured Jesus.

A final pericope that may assist in understanding how Matthew interpreted Christ as the “Beloved Son” arises in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:36–46). It is in this account that the reader may perceive more clearly an Isaac typology.⁶³

This thesis is promulgated by Leroy Huizenga, who argues that the thematic and lexical connections with Gen 22 are undeniable.⁶⁴ Thematically, Isaac and Christ both “would die willingly in obedience to his father at the season of Passover for beneficial purposes (variously conceived).”⁶⁵ There are three verbal parallels that Huizenga highlights:

1. The adverbial use of αὐτοῦ, which occurs only three other times in the New Testament, in Matt 26:36 and Gen 22:5⁶⁶

2. Matthew’s use of µετὰ µαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων in 26:47 and 55 is akin to Gen 22:6 and 10, the instruments used in Isaac’s near sacrifice

3. The use of hands (χεῖρας) for violent means in Matt 26:50 (Judas places his hands on Jesus) and 51 (the unnamed disciple draws his sword with his hand), which can also be seen in Gen 22:12 (Abraham lays his hands on Isaac) and 10 (the angel stays Abraham's hand).⁶⁷

These verbal correspondences are reminiscent of the Akedah, so the connection with Christ’s willing sacrifice is appealing, which could further add to the Isaac typology exhibited elsewhere in Matthew.

Ultimately, what is contained in 3:17 is a culmination of many strands of thought that persist throughout the gospel. Barclay wrote,

The voice which Jesus heard at the baptism is of supreme importance. “This is my beloved Son,” it said, “in whom I am well pleased.” That sentence is composed of two quotations. “This is my beloved Son,” is a quotation from Psalm 2:7. Every Jew accepted that Psalm as a description of the Messiah, the mighty King of God who was to come. “In whom I am well pleased” is a quotation from Isaiah 43:1, which is a description of the Suffering Servant, a description which culminates in Isaiah 53.⁶⁸

The streams of tradition eventually converged to reveal that Isaac and the Suffering Servant were one in the same character.⁶⁹ The appeal here to the Beloved Son is likely dependent on the psalm, for Christ is enthroned as king at the crucifixion.⁷⁰

The understanding of that sacrifice, though, is elucidated by an understanding that Christ is the fulfillment of Isaac’s near sacrifice.⁷¹ For Matthew, this phrase should be understood as an assent that Christ is Isaac and King.

Interpretation of the Passage Within the Canon

The interpretation of the baptismal account in the canon is limited since the event is only recorded in the gospel tradition. As such, we have already explored many Old Testament associations, so this explication will concern one passage in the New Testament. 1 Cor 10:1–5 will be analyzed since it mentions a number of themes that have already been examined in the paper: the cloud, baptism, Moses, and Christ.⁷²

|1| I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, |2| and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, |3| and all ate the same supernatural food |4| and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. |5| Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

In the early church, this passage was already associated with baptismal and eucharistic sacraments for the believer.⁷³ Maximus of Turin explicitly connects the two when he wrote,

What took place, as the apostle says, was the mystery of baptism. Clearly this was a kind of baptism, where the cloud covered the people and water carried them. But the same christ the Lord who did all these things now goes through baptism before the Christian people in the pillar of his body… (Sermons 100.3).⁷⁴

Much of the patristic literature associates the cloud and the sea together; the first represents the spirit and the second, baptism.⁷⁵

This passage is likely based on tradition or sacramental language, for it is unlikely that Paul invented this analogy from nothing.⁷⁶ As such, there was an early association with baptism and Christ, for he was the rock from whence water came, which is implied in 1 Cor 10.⁷⁷ This imagery similarly appears in John.⁷⁸ Christ was pierced and what issued forth was blood and water (19:34).⁷⁹ These elements have been understood in the church as sacramental, and these texts were foundational for this tradition.⁸⁰ The 1 Corinthians text is an early attestation of baptismal and eucharistic readings of Christ in the Old Testament;⁸¹ since it was common to see prefigurations of Christ in the Scriptures, it is probable that the New Testament authors did so as well for these important rituals.⁸²

Interpretation of the Passage Within the Modern World

John Meyendorff contended that

The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible), but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world.⁸³

In this section I discuss briefly humanity’s proper use of creation as participation with the divine through the perspective of Eastern theology. The basis of this argument is contingent on the connection between theosis and the Incarnation.

St. Kassia (The Birth of Christ 7) wrote,

Creation was enlightened by your birth on earth, Lord… and wearing swaddling clothes through which, merciful one, you broke all bands of sin uniting life with immortality for those who entreat you…

Since Christ became man so that we might taste divinity,⁸⁴ I hold that we now are able to divinize creation and help it reach its telos as συνεργοί (co-workers) of God (1 Cor 3:9, “For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”).⁸⁵

All Christians are called to be priests through their anointing at Baptism, which Christ prepared when he was baptized in the Jordan by John.⁸⁶ It is through God and for him that everything exists (Heb 2:8), and Christ participated in the divine act of creation (John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6). Since we are now co-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), humanity participates in that priestly role of sanctifying creation, which was made possible through our baptism.⁸⁷ As through Christ all things were created, so through us is it sanctified by our proper use and conservation of nature.

Everything God created was initially good (Gen 1), so it is now (1 Tim 4:4–5). According to St. Ephrem (Hymns on Paradise, 5.2),

In his book Moses described the creation of the natural world, so that both Nature and Scripture might bear witness to the creator: Nature, through man’s use of it, Scripture, through his reading it.

It is by our proper use of creation that this synergetic relationship between God and humanity can occur.⁸⁸

---

If you have enjoyed this analysis of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew’s Gospel, would you kindly share this post and subscribe?

1. Many commentators note the rabbinic bat qôl as an explanation for this voice such as Craig Keener, Matthew, 133–34.; W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew, 1:336 are skeptical. They show that a heavenly voice is common in the Old Testament and Christian literature.

2. In Mark and Luke it is more explicit that the voice is addressing Jesus. The shift from “you are…” to “This is…” in Matthew leads commentators to assume the voice is addressing those present. See R. T. France, Matthew, 122. France, Matthew, 116 records a textual tradition that states, “‘When Jesus was being baptized, a great light shone from the water so that all who were gathered there were afraid.’ This addition to the story, while clearly not original, testifies to a developing tendency to read Jesus’ experience at his baptism as a spectacular public event rather than a private revelation to him alone as in Mark.”

3. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:320. Davies and Allison state later, “Ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι. The vocabulary is consistent with a redactional origin. If John is not worthy to carry the Messiah's sandals, how can he baptize him?” (323–24). Nolland, Matthew, 151 contends that Matthew is responsible for vv. 14–15; see also Ulrich Luz, Matthew, 1:140. He denies a reliance on Q for this material, but v.15 comes from Matthew.

4. D. Hagner, Matthew, 1:54. F. Beare, Matthew, 98 argues that the verses were added to answer why Jesus was baptized. See also E. Schweizer, Matthew, 53.

5. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:324. Contra W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew.

6. C. Tresmontant, Matthew, 263 argues for Matthean priority and that Mark and Luke removed vv. 14–15 because they were difficult for their audiences.

7. Consult Hagner, Matthew, 1:57. Luz, Matthew, 1:143 conjectures a possible reliance on Q. J. Robinson, et al, eds., Q, 18 reconstruct Q as follows: .. Ἰησου.. βαπτισθε...νεῳχθη...ο... οὐρανο...,. Also, there may be a connection with Ezek 1:1 since ἀνοίγω is also used there to speak of the heavens opening. Jerome (Ezekiel 1.1.1–2) believed Ezekiel’s account to be a prefiguration of Christ's baptism. France, Matthew, 121 provides a discussion of the possible appeals to Ezek 1:1ff and Isa 63:19ff.

8. So Hagner, Matthew, 1:54. Hagner also believes that the non-Matthean vocabulary is evidence of dependance on oral tradition.

9. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:342–43; Noland, Matthew, 151. R. Bultmann, History, 247 claims that the account is legend.

10. See R. Brown, John, 55 who states that the baptism did occur, but it is just not recorded by John explicitly, so also B. F. Westcott, St. John, 17 and A. H. McNeile, St. John, 43. E. Haenchen, John, 152 wrote, “The Fourth Gospel avoids mentioning the baptism of Jesus by John. With this silence the difficulty disappears that the baptizer has a higher rank than the one baptized (cf. Matt 3:14f.). Whoever disdains this explanation of the silence of the Gospel of John has to explain why the baptismal day is presumed to be the starting point of a temporal period but remains unspecified.”

11. So, W. Barclay, Matthew, 1:52 who wrote, “The Gospel according to the Hebrews… has a passage like this: ‘Behold the mother of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, “John the Baptist baptizeth for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him.” But He said to them, “What sin have I committed, that I should go and be baptized by him? Except perchance this very thing that I have said is ignorance.”’” Albright and Mann, Matthew, 31 disagree; they state “It is not necessary to see in the dialogue of vss. 14–15 an attempt by an embarrassed evangelist, still less an embarrassed Church, to provide explanations for an awkward occurrence.” Nolland, Matthew, 152 argues that these verses are a Matthean explanation for why the historical Jesus was baptized; see also France, Matthew, 119.

12. Consult Davies and Allison, Matthew, 323.

13. Consider John of Damascus, Oratio Apologetica Prior 23.

14. Trinitarian formulae were proposed: Jerome, Ambrose, Ps. Augustine, Augustine (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Matthew 3:17), also M. Henry, Bible, 5:23.

15. From M. Simonetti, ed., Ancient, 1a:50.

16. See also John Chrysostom, The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 12.1.

17. Chromatius, Tractate on Matthew 13.2–3 explains this phenomenon similarly. He also contended that Jesus taught by example, so all should be baptized. See also John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels, 129–30 and J. Gill, New Testament, 5:21–22.

18. As for the fulfillment of “all righteousness,” there is a heavy emphasis on the Law. John Chrysostom, The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 12.1 explains that the baptism nullified the curse of the Law. Theodore of Heraclea, Fragment 21 has a similar understanding, as does Theodore of Mopsuestia.

19. The Spirit’s descent upon Christ has also been connected with Isa 11:1–2, which may reveal a Davidic Messiah motif. See Novatian, On the Trinity 29 and Faustus of Riez, Two Books on the Holy Spirit 1.7. See also Gill, Exposition, 23.

20. J. Maldonatus, Holy Gospels, 94 wrote, “That by touching the water He might sanctify it to baptism (S. Epiphanius, Anchor.),” so also Augustine (see Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Matthew 3:13–16)

21. Chromatius, Tractate on Matthew 12.1 composed an explanatory monologue by John the Baptist based upon vv. 14–15 to illustrate that Christ did not need baptism for the remission of sins. This is also seen in the Greek vigil service during the Great Compline; one of the initial prayers written by Anatolios exemplifies the same mentality.

22. Translation is from Simonetti, Commentary, 50–51.

23. This is similarly attested in M. Poole, Holy Bible, 15.

24. Translation from Simonetti, Commentary, 51.

25. This discussion is contingent on Archbishop Basilios, "Epiphany, Liturgy of the," The Coptic Encyclopedia 3:967.

26. This is a special tank that holds the water in the liturgy.

27. The first is the Evening Prayer and the psalmodia, the second is the laqqān service, the third is the Morning Offering of Incense, and the fourth is the Divine Liturgy. If this service is conducted in Jerusalem, the service occurs at the Jordan River and then the congregation concludes their prayers at the Monastery of St. John the Baptist, located on the river.

28. This epistle is also read on the Greek feast day commemorating Epiphany.

29. It is interesting that Matthew is read considering that “Coptic Theologians insist on the seniority and superiority of the Gospel according to Saint Mark the Evangelist, the founder of Egyptian Christianity and the first pope and patriarch of their Church.” Aziz S. Atiya, “Gospels, Synoptic,” The Coptic Encyclopedia 4:1157.

30. Translation from The Coptic Encyclopedia. The Greek tradition begins the sanctifying of the waters similarly. The congregants sing the following sticheron written by Sophronios, Patriarch of Jerusalem, “The waters saw Thee and were afraid (Ps 76:17); the Forerunner was seized with trembling and cried aloud, saying: How shall the lamp illuminate the Light? How shall the servant set his hand upon the Master? O Saviour who takest away the sin of the world, sanctify both me and the waters.” The translation is from Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware, The Festal Menaion.

31. As I have noted in other posts, many times the Matthean account is more influential than the Markan.

32. [1] Date: 9c.. | Description: Naked Jesus; John is looking upwards at a dove who is descending; Personification of Jordan is fleeing (Ps 113:5) | Citation: Mount Athos, Treasures, I (1974), p. 443; color fig. 253

[2] Date: Second half of the 10c. | Description: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus’ head while holding a cross; Four men are undressing to be baptized. | Citation: Mount Athos, Treasures, I (1974), p. 443; color fig. 253

[3] Date: 1290–1320 | Comment: Jesus is only partially naked; John has his hand on Jesus’ head looking upwards at the hand from whence a dove is descending; Four angels on the bank; Personification of Jordan and sea are fleeing (Ps 113:5). | Citation: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/01/a-theological-analysis-of-iconography.html

[4] Date: First half of 15c. | Comment: [Heavily Damaged] Jesus is only partially naked; John has his hand on Jesus' head; a dove is descending; Four angels on the bank; Personification of Jordan and sea are fleeing (Ps 113:5); An axe rests beside a tree by John's foot (Matt 3:10) | Citation: Athens, Byzantine Museum, Icons (1998) , cat. 24; p. 90; color fig. p. 91

33. [6] Date: Mid 10c. | Comment: Two images are here presented. On the left: Jesus (IC XC) comes to John who is kneeling. In the center: John has his hand on Jesus’ head and he appears to be looking up at the hand from whence a dove is descending; Three Angels; Personification of Jordan is fleeing (Ps 113:5); Inscription from Matt 3:14–15. | Citation: Epstein, A., Tokali Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art in Byzantine Cappadocia (1986) , p. 70; fig. 68

[7] Date: Mid 10c. | Comment: [Damaged] Two images are here presented. On the left: Jesus (IC XC) comes to John. In the center: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus' head and he appears to be looking up at the hand from whence a dove is descending; Two Angels. | Citation: Epstein, A., Tokali Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art in Byzantine Cappadocia (1986) , p. 70; fig. 68

34. [8] Date: 1262 | Comment: [Damaged] Jesus is only partially naked; John has his hand on Jesus' head looking upwards at the hand from whence a dove is descending; Four angels on the bank; Personification of Jordan is fleeing (Ps 113:5); Behind the rock is possibly Abraham (clearly a Saint from the halo) and a boy (Matt 3:9?). | Citation: Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, Armenian Manuscripts (1973) , fig. 64

[9] Date: 14–15c. | Comment: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus' head; The hand is behind John and no dove is present; One angel on the bank; One angel in the heavenly sphere; An axe rests beside a tree by John's foot (Matt 3:10). [Three other images: Triumphal Entry; Raising of Lazarus; Foot Washing] | Citation: Dublin: Library, Chester Beatty Library, Arm 555

35. [12] Date: 1178–1180 | Comment: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus' head; a dove is descending from the hand; Two an gels are flying with garments in hand. | Citation: Leroy, J., Manuscrits coptes et coptes-arabes illustrés (1974) , p. 118; pl. 46.1

[13] Date: n/a | Comment: Jesus is only partially naked; John has his hand on Jesus' head; a dove is descending; Four angels on the bank; An axe rests beside a tree by John's foot (Matt 3:10); A small animal (a sheep?) stands beside the tree; Inscription reads: ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲏⲥⲙⲁⲥ ⲛⲓⲏⲥ ⲟⲣϫⲁⲛⲏ (Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan). | Citation: http://iac.cgu.edu/tune/tcopbaptism.html

36. [14] Date: Second half of 12c. | Comment: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus' head looking upwards at a dove who is descending; Two angels on the bank; An axe rests beside a tree by John's foot (Matt 3:10). [Two other icons: Pentecost & the Dormition] | Citation: http://www.icon-art.info/masterpiece.php?lng=en&mst_id=1224

[15] Date: Second half of 12c. | Comment: Naked Jesus; John has his hand on Jesus' head; a dove is descending; Two angels on the bank; Personification of Jordan is fleeing (Ps 113:5). [Two other icons: Transfiguration & the Raising of Lazarus] | Citation: http://www.icon-art.info/masterpiece.php?lng=en&mst_id=3666

[16] Date: 1408 | Comment: Jesus is only partially naked; John has his hand on Jesus' head; a dove is descending; Four angels on the bank; Personification of Jordan and sea are fleeing (Ps 113:5). | Citation: http://www.icon-art.info/masterpiece.php?lng=en&mst_id=1299

37. See Maximus of Turin (Sermon 13B.2) who explicitly connects the psalm with Christ’s baptism, as does Ambrose (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Matthew 3:13–16).

38. It is hard to determine why the iconography depicts John looking upwards. It could be due to Matthew’s account, which depicts the voice addressing John and those present. John, though, tells of the Baptist witnessing the descent of the dove. Both may be in mind.

39. Icon 9 contains a saint depicted as an old man with a boy. It is believed that the saint is Abraham. This feature is also contingent on the verses contained in Matthew and Luke, who both mention Abraham.

40. See W. Stegner, “Baptism,” and “Baptism of Jesus,” 35–45.

41. P. Bretscher, “Exodus 4:22–23,” 301–11.

42. A. M’Neile, Matthew, 36 wrote that the Ebionite Gospel added “I have to-day begotten thee” to the proclamation, which shows a connection with this psalm. Luz, Matthew 2:396 claims that Ps 2:7 “is a psalm that comes from the enthronement ritual of the Jerusalem kings and that was a major influence on the New Testament Son of God Christology.” Review François Bovon, Luke, 1:129.

43. Nolland, Matthew, 158, so also T. Long, Matthew, 34 and C. Talbert, Matthew, 57. J. Lange, Matthew, 77 appeals to these verses since they use “son” to reference the Messiah. See also L. Morris, Matthew, 68 who states that these two texts “show us that right at the beginning of his ministry Jesus was identified with both the Messiah and the Suffering Servant…”

44. Hagner, Matthew, 58–59; J. Jeremias, Theology, 1:53–55.

45. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:337. As for Ps 2:7, Allison and Davies note that early Christianity associated this psalm with the baptism: Justin, Dial. 88; 103; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.6.25; Apost. Const. 2.32; Gosp. Eb. frag. 4.

46. France, Matthew, 123. For Gen 22:2, see A. Richardson, Theology, 180.

47. J. Marcus, Mark, 1:162 comments, “But ‘beloved son/daughter’ is biblical language, which is used in the LXX (e.g. Jdt 9:4; Tob 3:10S) and in postbiblical traditions (e.g. T. Isaac 2:7; T. Jacob 1:13; 4 Baruch 7:24), most importantly in the story of Abraham’s binding of his son Isaac for sacrifice (Gen 22:2, 12, 16). Isaac’s binding becomes an important focus of attention in rabbinic traditions, where his obedience to God's will, even unto death, is elaborated upon; in some forms of the story Isaac actually dies, thereby making atonement… Such conceptions may already have been extant in NT times, and if so, they could have influenced passages such as ours and Rom 8:32.” This is also supported by E. Boring, Mark, 45 and C. Black, Mark, 59. See also J. Levenson, Death, 200ff.

48. See I. Marshall, “Son of God or Servant of Yahweh?—A Reconsideration of Mark I.II," NTS 15 (1969): 326–336. He argues for the reliance on Gen 22, Ps 2:7, and Isa 42, but in the Marcan text.

49. The Passion Narrative likely draws on both of these ideas. Christ suffers as the servant of Isaiah and he is ironically enthroned on the cross at the end of the gospel. For the kingly motif, see Donald Senior, Passion, 122ff. This is certainly the case in Mark; see R. T. France, Mark; M. Hooker, Mark, 364. Bultmann (History, 249–50) claims the dove in Mark “signif[ies] nothing else than the πνεῦµα, the divine power which fills the (messianic) king.”

50. Beare (Matthew, 102) notes, “Such a combination of texts is often found in rabbinic teaching, especially in a triple grouping of one sentence from the Law, one from the Prophets, and one from the Writings.” Here I argue for Law (Gen 22:2), Prophets (Isa 42:1), and Writings (Ps 2:7).

51. D. Allison, The New Moses, 268.

52. James Ford, S. Matthew, 41–42 references the psalm.

53. See G. Vermes, Scripture and Levenson, Death.

54. France (Matthew, 124) notes, “Some interpreters take the possible echo of Gen 22:2 here as evidence that Matthew was relating Jesus’ mission to the Jewish Aqedah doctrine, which saw the binding (^'aqēdâ) and submission of Isaac as the vicarious basis for Israel’s redemption. See, e.g., the versions of Gen 22 in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (see J. Bowker, Targums, 224ff.); Josephus, Ant. 1.232; Pseudo-Philo 18:5; 32:2–4.” Davies and Allison (Matthew, 2:686–87) argue that the phrase is in reference to Isa 42:1 and then expounds on how Christ is then seen as an ethical teacher like Moses in the Transfiguration account. Both images can certainly be in mind for Matthew. France (Matthew, 650) also argues that Isa 42 “recalls again the figure of the suffering and dying servant of God and so reinforces Jesus’ declaration that he must suffer and be killed.” See also L. Huizenga, “Obedience,” 507–526.

55. See Gen 22:3, ἀναστὰς δὲ Αβρααµ τὸ πρωὶ ἐπέσαξεν τὴν ὄνον αὐτοῦ.

56. This has no lexical significance. I provide the Greek to show that it does not correspond with Gen 22.

57. For a concise overview of what scholars have said about these figures in this pericope, examine M. Pamment, “Moses,” 338–39.

58. One should note, as Luz (Matthew, 2:396) does, “According to a Jewish tradition the cloud [from Exod 24; 40; 1 Kgs 8:10–11] also lay over Mount Moriah when Abraham sacrificed his ‘beloved Son’ Isaac (Gen 22:2, 12, 16).” He cites Tg. Yer. I on Gen 22:4; Qoh. Rab. 9.7 §1 (= Freedman-Simon 8.231). Davies and Allison (Matthew, 689) believe any Akedah allusions are not probable. Hagner (Matthew, 494) comments, “This cloud symbolizes the Shekinah glory, the very presence of God (cf. Exod 40:35; Odes Sol. 35:1, where the same noun and verb ἐπισκιάζειν, “come upon, overshadow” [cf. Exod 19:19], are used to describe the presence of Yahweh in the tent-shrine).”

59. Davies and Allison (Matthew, 686) with reference to the radiant cloud ask, “Is it not to make it beyond doubt that the Shekinah is in mind, that presence of the Lord which used to fill the tabernacle in the wilderness, and which was often connected with depth of light ‘more intense than the midsummer sun’?” With respect to proclamation at the baptism, W. F. Slater (St. Matthew, 137) comments that the dove may be associated with Gen 1:2, and then remarks “The targum says that the twig of Noah’s dove was found on Messiah’s mountain. The emblematic dove appears at the head of Semitic gods, and it was venerated among the Samaritans as the image of the Shechinah.” Thus, there may be a further connection between the two accounts if Slater is correct. As for possible connections with tabernacles, review R. W. Roehrs, “God's Tabernacles,” 18–25. Nolland (Matthew, 702) connects Matthew’s use of σκηνή with Exod 25:9, since this is the word used for the wilderness tabernacle (see 2 Chron 24:6; 29:6; Ps 42:4; Tob 13:10 (LXX v. 11); Wis. 9:8; Heb 8:2, 5; 9:11; Rev 15:5; 21:3). Ultimately, though, he does not believe that is the image. He is also wary of Peter’s words since they are discredited in Mark 9:6 and Luke 9:33. Origen (Commentary on Matthew 12.42) references the tabernacle.

60. France (Matthew, 645) highlights “six days” in 17:1 since it could reference the six days when the cloud covered Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16). See also B. W. Bacon, “After Six Days,” 94–121.

61. See D. Flusser, Jesus, 95–97.

62. Review J. A. McGuckin, Transfiguration.

63. Davies and Allison (Matthew, 3:492) believe that Matthew “added an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of Isaac” to the Gethsemane account.

64. This discussion is dependent on Huizenga, “Obedience,” 507–526. Raymond Brown (Death, 2:1441–42.) makes a similar observation, but shows the parallels between Jesus and Abraham, not Isaac.

65. Huizenga, “Obedience,” 515–16. This theme is contingent on extra-biblical works such as Jub. 17:16–18:19; Josephus, Ant. 1.13.2; 4 Macc 7:13–14; 13:11–12. Also, there is a clear father-Son typology in both, for a Father is sacrificing his son.

66. Davies and Allison (Matthew, 3:494) ask “Is it due to the influence of LXX Gen 22:5?… Is Matthew suggesting a parallel between Abraham’s faith an Jesus’ faith? or between Isaac’s sacrifice and Jesus’ sacrifice?” Luz (Matthew, 3:395) responds with no since Jesus would be assuming Abraham’s role and not Isaac’s. Brown (Death, 1441–42) makes a similar observance; I contend that this is not as problematic as Luz claims. This confusion of imagery has already been witnessed in the Transfiguration account. Clearly Matthew does not see it as troublesome. Note, though, Thomas Aquinas (Lectura 2218) associates the narrative with Gen 22:5.

67. Davies and Allison (Matthew, 3:510) note that the laying of hands can signify hostility. See Gen 22:12; 2 Sam 18:12; Acts 4:3; Josephus, Bell. 2.491.

68. Barclay, Matthew, 1:53.

69. Consult R. Rosenberg, “Jesus,” 381-88. See also H. J. Schoeps, “Sacrifice,” 385–92. For a study on the development of Isa 53 within Judaism, review J. Rembaum, “Development,” 289–311. As for the soteriological development of the Akedah, see R. J. Daly, “Soteriological,” 45–75.

70. Esp. 27:27–31. See Talbert, Matthew, 302–303. He notes other ancient sources that mention dressing up a prisoner as a king: Philo, Flacc. 36 and Dio Chrysostom, Or. 67–70. Brown (Death, 569; also 862–77) notes in Matt 26:67–68 that “Some of these mockeries echo the abuse heaped on the Suffering Servant in Isa 50 and 53, and to an extent the treatment of the suffering just one in Ps. 22.” Beare (Matthew 100–101) contends that coronation language is present at the baptism. C. Erdman (Matthew, 35) entitles this pericope, “The Anointing of the King.” He wrote, “This was the true anointing of the King. As of old the chosen rulers of Israel were anointed with oil to suggest that the divine Spirit, thus symbolized, would grant them needed grace for the fulfillment of their tasks, so our Lord went forth from the scene of his baptism, anointed with the Holy Spirit, and fully equipped for his kingly ministry” (37).

71. See Levenson, Death. Also, Bovon (Luke, 1:130) states, “there could be an allusion to the הדיקע typology (cf. Rom 8:32); then the shadow of the passion would already be visible here.” He is skeptical, though.

72. Paul is making use of the Exodus account (Exod 13:21; 15:21; Ps 105:39).

73. Cyril of Jerusalem parallels Moses and Jesus to express the redemption of humanity (Mystagogical Lecture 1 1.3).

74. See also Theodore of Mopseustia (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, NTA 15:185) and Gennadius of Constantinople (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church; NTA 15:418). Ambrosiaster (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles) remarks that the death of the Egyptians in the Red Sea prefigured baptism, since ours also puts our enemies to death.

75. As for the spiritual food, Ambrose (The Mysteries 8.48) associates it with the bread from heaven (John 6:49–58). In §56, he even associates the food with Christ as the sacrament.

76. This could also be the case if the reader considers the beginning of the epistle when Paul speaks of baptism. Contra R. Horsley (1 Corinthians, 136–37) who argues that Paul downplays the baptism in chapter one. An early eucharistic formula also appears in 11:23ff. Wayne Meeks (“Rose Up,” 65) contends that vv. 1–13 is a unified unit that is “very carefully composed prior to its use in its present context.” Most agree that this is not a Pauline composition; for a fuller explanation consult John Lierman, Moses, 175ff. Gordon Fee (Corinthians, 442 no. 5) calls this into question.

77. Consult Ps. Philo, Biblical Antiquities 10.7 for an example of the rock journeying with the Israelites.

78. So also 1 Pt 3:18–20, which speaks of an Old Testament account (Noah) as a portent of baptism.

79. Ambrosian Hymn Writer, Easter Hymn, At the Lamb's High Feast 1–5; Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 23; Jacob of Sarug, Homily on Three Baptisms; John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John 85.3. Origen (Homilies on Exodus 11.2) connects this piercing to Moses striking the rock and water gushing forth along with the sacraments. Thus, there is a loose connection with the 1 Corinthians text. Consult Brown, John, 2:950ff.; C. K. Barrett, St. John, 556–57; Haenchen, John, 2:195.

80. John of Damascus, Oratio Apologetica Prior, 12. C. K. Barrett, Corinthians, 220–23; A. Thiselton, Corinthians, 724–727; Fee, Corinthians, 444.

81. Note Fee (Corinthians, 442) who posits, “The power of the type lies in the fact that they [Israel] also had their own form of ‘baptism’ and ‘Lord's Supper,’ the prefigurement of ours.”

82. Hans Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 166): “The combining of baptism and the Lord’s Supper shows that Paul has a comprehensive concept of ‘sacraments,’ even if he has not yet a word for it.”

83. J. Meyendorff, Byzantine, 133.

84. St. Ephrem, Hymns on Paradise 11.6; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation 1, 2.174; John of Damascus, Oratio Apologetica Prior 4.

85. A. Shmeman, Life, 1–46 and D. Stăniloae, Experience, 43–63.

86. Origen, Fragment 52; Hilary of Potiers, On Matthew 2.5; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 1.3.13; Chromatius, Tractate on Matthew 13.2–3. Ford (Matthew, 41) associates this with Christ: "then, when our saviour was of the ripe age of Priesthood, and had seen thirty years in the world…” He argues that Jesus’ baptism was preparation for our own and “that, as by His birth into the world He assumed our nature, so by means of regeneration He might lift us to heaven… He might appoint co-heirs with Himself in heavenly blessings. S. John x. 10; Rom. v. 12–21. Pet. Chrysologus. (Serm. 157.).”

87. See Catechism of the Catholic Church §873.

88. Bibliography: