Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 66 (1/2)
Obj. 4: Further, John's baptism was ordered to that of Christ as to its end. But ”the end is first in intention and last in execution.”
Therefore He should have been baptized by John either before all the others, or after them.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:21): ”It came to pa.s.s, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying;” and further on (Luke 3:23): ”And Jesus Himself was beginning about the age of thirty years.”
_I answer that,_ Christ was fittingly baptized in His thirtieth year.
First, because Christ was baptized as though for the reason that He was about forthwith to begin to teach and preach: for which purpose perfect age is required, such as is the age of thirty. Thus we read (Gen. 41:46) that ”Joseph was thirty” years old when he undertook the government of Egypt. In like manner we read (2 Kings 5:4) that ”David was thirty years old when he began to reign.” Again, Ezechiel began to prophesy in ”his thirtieth year,” as we read Ezech. 1:1.
Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. x in Matth.), ”the law was about to pa.s.s away after Christ's baptism: wherefore Christ came to be baptized at this age which admits of all sins; in order that by His observing the law, no one might say that because He Himself could not fulfil it, He did away with it.”
Thirdly, because by Christ's being baptized at the perfect age, we are given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men, according to Eph. 4:13: ”Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of G.o.d, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ.” Hence the very property of the number seems to point to this. For thirty is product of three and ten: and by the number three is implied faith in the Trinity, while ten signifies the fulfilment of the commandments of the Law: in which two things the perfection of Christian life consists.
Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory n.a.z.ianzen says (Orat. xl), Christ was baptized, not ”as though He needed to be cleansed, or as though some peril threatened Him if He delayed to be baptized. But no small danger besets any other man who departs from this life without being clothed with the garment of incorruptibility”--namely, grace. And though it be a good thing to remain clean after baptism, ”yet is it still better,” as he says, ”to be slightly sullied now and then than to be altogether deprived of grace.”
Reply Obj. 2: The profit which accrues to men from Christ is chiefly through faith and humility: to both of which He conduced by beginning to teach not in His boyhood or youth, but at the perfect age. To faith, because in this manner His human nature is shown to be real, by its making bodily progress with the advance of time; and lest this progress should be deemed imaginary, He did not wish to show His wisdom and power before His body had reached the perfect age: to humility, lest anyone should presume to govern or teach others before attaining to perfect age.
Reply Obj. 3: Christ was set before men as an example to all.
Wherefore it behooved that to be shown forth in Him, which is becoming to all according to the common law--namely, that He should teach after reaching the perfect age. But, as Gregory n.a.z.ianzen says (Orat.
x.x.xix), that which seldom occurs is not the law of the Church; as ”neither does one swallow make the spring.” For by special dispensation, in accordance with the ruling of Divine wisdom, it has been granted to some, contrary to the common law, to exercise the functions of governing or teaching, such as Solomon, Daniel, and Jeremias.
Reply Obj. 4: It was not fitting that Christ should be baptized by John either before or after all others. Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposit.i.tious Opus Imperfectum]), for this was Christ baptized, ”that He might confirm the preaching and the baptism of John, and that John might bear witness to Him.” Now, men would not have had faith in John's testimony except after many had been baptized by him. Consequently it was not fitting that John should baptize Him before baptizing anyone else. In like manner, neither was it fitting that he should baptize Him last. For as he (Chrysostom) says in the same pa.s.sage: ”As the light of the sun does not wait for the setting of the morning star, but comes forth while the latter is still above the horizon, and by its brilliance dims its s.h.i.+ning: so Christ did not wait till John had run his course, but appeared while he was yet teaching and baptizing.”
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Should Have Been Baptized in the Jordan?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been baptized in the Jordan. For the reality should correspond to the figure. But baptism was prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, where the Egyptians were drowned, just as our sins are blotted out in baptism.
Therefore it seems that Christ should rather have been baptized in the sea than in the river Jordan.
Obj. 2: Further, ”Jordan” is interpreted a ”going down.” But by baptism a man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written (Matt. 3:16) that ”Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up [Douay: 'out'] from the water.” Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
Obj. 3: Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the waters of the Jordan ”were turned back,” as it is related Jos. 4, and as it is written Ps. 113:3, 5. But those who are baptized go forward, not back. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 1:9) that ”Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan.”
_I answer that,_ It was through the river Jordan that the children of Israel entered into the land of promise. Now, this is the prerogative of Christ's baptism over all other baptisms: that it is the entrance to the kingdom of G.o.d, which is signified by the land of promise; wherefore it is said (John 3:5): ”Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of G.o.d.” To this also is to be referred the dividing of the water of the Jordan by Elias, who was to be s.n.a.t.c.hed up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as it is related 4 Kings 2: because, to wit, the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the Holy Ghost, to those who pa.s.s through the waters of baptism. Therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
Reply Obj. 1: The crossing of the Red Sea foreshadowed baptism in this--that baptism washes away sin: whereas the crossing of the Jordan foreshadows it in this--that it opens the gate to the heavenly kingdom: and this is the princ.i.p.al effect of baptism, and accomplished through Christ alone. And therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan rather than in the sea.
Reply Obj. 2: In baptism we ”go up” by advancing in grace: for which we need to ”go down” by humility, according to James 4:6: ”He giveth grace to the humble.” And to this ”going down” must the name of the Jordan be referred.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says in a sermon for the Epiphany (x): ”As of yore the waters of the Jordan were held back, so now, when Christ was baptized, the torrent of sin was held back.” Or else this may signify that against the downward flow of the waters the river of blessings flowed upwards.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 5]
Whether the Heavens Should Have Been Opened Unto Christ at His Baptism?