Exploring the pericope of Matthew 3:13-17 - The Baptism of Jesus
Aaron S. Robertson
March 2024
An outline of “The Baptism of Jesus” in Matthew’s Gospel
I. Jesus comes to John the Baptist (Matthew 3:13)
- A. Comes from Galilee.
II. John and Jesus have a conversation (Matthew 3:14-15)
- A. John attempts to prevent Jesus from being baptized by John, saying it should be the other way around.
- B. Jesus tells John to allow it, explaining the act fulfills prophecy in submission to God’s salvific plan for humanity.
- C. John signals his understanding and baptizes Jesus.
III. God’s voice comes down from Heaven (Matthew 3:16-17)
- A. After Jesus is baptized and comes up from the water, the heavens opened.
- B. Jesus sees the Spirit of God coming down upon Him like a dove.
- C. The voice from the heavens declares, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Literary context and boundaries
This pericope appears to fall within clean boundaries that make sense relative to its immediately surrounding passages; that is to say, it has a nice flow about it, it is not placed where it is in a nonsensical, haphazard way. The first 12 verses of Chapter 3 introduce the reader to “The Preaching of John the Baptist,” which spell out great insight into John’s mission, zeal, and popularity in offering a baptism of repentance in the Jordan River. There are also some personal details about John, such as those found in verse 4: “John wore clothing made of camel’s hair and had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey.” These first 12 verses set the scene for the reader to understand what is coming next in “The Baptism of Jesus,” the final five verses of this chapter. Chapter 4, immediately following “The Baptism of Jesus,” has the Holy Spirit leading Jesus into the desert to be tempted by Satan, in further preparation for His mission. After His time in the desert, Jesus is ready to begin His ministry in Galilee and call upon his first disciples.
Literary form
Matthew’s account of the Gospel presents as a third-person narrative as its main literary form, with biography as a subgenre. Matthew’s book chronicles events in the lives of Jesus, John the Baptist, and others. Knowing the literary form of the passage assists in comparing it to writings of a similar nature in the search for verification and accuracy of details; in other words, for triangulation, to use a social science term frequently employed in modern-day qualitative research. Such a comparison and search, in this case, would involve the other Gospel accounts, other relevant biblical books, and certainly any available outside historical sources. Knowing this account is a third-person narrative/biography also helps researchers in their understanding that biographies do not follow a universal set of guidelines, per se – they may include or exclude certain details and events; they may be written, rewritten, organized, and assembled based on chronology, theme, audience, the personal agendas and biases of their authors, and so on. This is why, for the researcher, triangulation is important for creating as complete and accurate as possible a picture of the person, event, or phenomena under study.
Literary devices and stylistic features
In the pericope itself, there is a noteworthy simile used, that of describing the Holy Spirit as a dove. The entire verse reads, “After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him” (Matthew 3:16). Additionally, the use of foreshadowing can be found in John the Baptist’s own statements about who Jesus is (Matthew 3:11-12) in the previous pericope, “The Preaching of John the Baptist.” Additional foreshadowing can be found in the three magi inquiring about Jesus in Matthew 2:2, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage.”
Finally, on the point of literary devices and stylistic features in the “The Baptism of Jesus” pericope, there is dialogue between Jesus and John the Baptist (3:14-15) that is exclusive to Matthew’s account of this event. About this interesting development, France (2007) writes:
This exchange, recorded only by Matthew, reflects the consistent NT conviction that John’s role was subordinate to that of Jesus, and therefore perhaps some apologetic embarrassment over the acknowledged fact that Jesus’ public ministry derived from his initial enrollment as a ‘disciple’ of John and a recipient of his baptism. No indication is given of how John recognized Jesus as the ‘stronger’ one whose coming he had predicted in v. 11 … His words perhaps imply, ‘I need your Spirit-and-fire baptism, not you my water baptism.’ (119)
France’s (2007) observations here seem to suggest that Matthew’s dialogue between Jesus and John the Baptist may be some sort of literary device itself, an apologetic designed to reinforce that Jesus is superior to John, not the other way around. John was so immensely popular, that many people may have been under the idea that he was elevated compared to Jesus.
Key terms/themes/images
Continuing with the dialogue between Jesus and John the Baptist unique to Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism, one noteworthy term used by Jesus is “righteousness.” The full context is, “John tried to prevent him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?’” (3:14), and, “Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he allowed him” (3:15). What is meant by “righteousness” here? There appears to be little to go on. Reumann (1992) notes that the term is found within all of Matthew only seven times (C. Jesus, 3. Sayings of Jesus, b. Matthean Emphasis?). In fact, he notes,
Statistically…one cannot assert that ‘righteousness’ was a major theme for the historical Jesus, if such an assertion is based on the canonical gospels (and the noncanonical gospels do not change this picture)…‘righteousness’ is a term sparsely used in the gospels. It is difficult to force the few references that may come from Jesus’ own statements into a ‘forensic/ethical’ pattern. (Reumann 1992, C. Jesus, 1. Overview)
Within Matthew’s account of the Gospel, Reumann homes in on an instance of the word “righteousness” spoken by Jesus two chapters later, in 5:20, and this may offer some clue to its meaning in the Jesus-John dialogue in 3:15. He writes,
The thematic verse at 5:20 – that the righteousness of Jesus’ followers must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees in order for them to enter the kingdom of heaven – could also fit an OT emphasis, continued in Judaism, on dikaiosynē as ethical response to God in terms of God’s will for what is right. (Reumann 1992, C. Jesus, 3. Sayings of Jesus, b. Matthean Emphasis?)
Sources and redaction
There are many differences among Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the Baptism account of Jesus. Among these three synoptic gospels, most strikingly, Matthew’s account is the only one to include direct dialogue between Jesus and John the Baptist. In this conversation, John tells Jesus that the baptism should be the other way around – that it should be Jesus baptizing John. But Jesus allows it, letting John baptize Him (Matthew 3:14-15). Perhaps the second most notable difference here is that, in Matthew’s account, God the Father is speaking about Jesus in the third person, as if He is addressing John the Baptist and/or the crowd being baptized and/or the Heavenly realm. Matthew records the Father as saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (3:17). By contrast, Mark’s and Luke’s accounts have God the Father speaking directly to Jesus when He says, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22; Mark 1:11). Beyond these major differences, several miscellaneous nuances include Luke not mentioning John the Baptist by name, nor the Jordan River – the place where the Baptism of Jesus took place – nor where Jesus came from (the Galilee region); Mark is a little more specific by including the town of Nazareth in his account, whereas Matthew just mentions Galilee; and Luke’s account has Jesus praying when Heaven opened, whereas Matthew and Mark have Heaven opening immediately upon Jesus rising from the water.
Assuming Markan Priority here, Matthew’s account of the Gospel, broadly speaking, contains more details and insights than Mark’s. Whereas Mark contains 678 verses in 16 chapters, Matthew has 1,071 verses spread out over 28 chapters. Some 90 percent of Mark’s verses are found in Matthew. This begs the question, then, why would Mark redact so many verses from Matthew in writing his own account? It is far more plausible that Matthew added on to Mark’s account. As it relates to the Baptism of Jesus narrative here, as previously noted, the dialogue between Jesus and John the Baptist in Matthew’s account is exclusive to Matthew. Therefore, it does not make logical sense that Mark would redact this dialogue from his own account if he had a copy of Matthew in hand when writing it. It makes more sense if the opposite were true, and that Matthew added to Mark’s account with perhaps his own direct observations/memory of how events unfolded, the recollections of his own unique sources, his own theological understandings, maybe even the use of his own literary devices, and so on. Staying on this line for another moment, it would not make much sense for Mark to switch God the Father’s language from third person (Matthew) to first person (Mark). What would be the point of this? Why not retain the same language?
First-century contexts
While their exploration is not in the scope of this paper, implications for further research may include these questions relevant to this passage: What is the significance of the dove (where does this imagery come from?) What are the origins of baptism and cleansing rituals? What is the significance of the Jordan River? How was the role of the Holy Spirit perceived in first century Judaism? And, specifically as it relates to the Jesus-John dialogue in Matthew’s account, what is meant by “righteousness” as Jesus states it (Matthew 3:15)? For purposes of this paper, John the Baptist will be explored further.
John the Baptist is mentioned in all four gospels of the New Testament, as well as in the Acts of the Apostles. The only known non-biblical mention of John is found in a brief but insightful passage among the works of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Hollenbach 1992, 888). The passage describes the relationship between John and Herod and the fact that Herod had John executed. Differing from the biblical account that Herod had John executed at the insistence of his wife’s daughter (prodded, of course, by his wife), however, Josephus explains that Herod executed John merely out of fear for John’s growing movement (Hollenbach 1992, 888). So scared was Herod by John’s influence, that Josephus notes:
When others too joined the crowds about him, because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did. Herod decided therefore that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and see his mistake. (Josephus quoted in Hollenbach 1992, 888).
According to Josephus, because Herod executed such a righteous man, many Jews at the time postulated that Herod’s military defeat soon after by Aretas, the king of Petra, was a blow to Herod directly delivered by God as His vengeance (Hollenbach 1992, 888).
Taking into consideration Josephus’s account about John’s immense popularity with the masses and the resulting fear this caused for the authorities may aid in shedding some deeper light on Matthew’s telling of Jesus’s baptism. The author of Matthew, in line with Josephus’s account, may have had more direct knowledge and more accurate secondary insights at his disposal than Mark would have had regarding John and his popularity. Thus, the exclusive dialogue Matthew has between Jesus and John may be some sort of literary device designed to assert, or reinforce, that Jesus is superior to John, and not the other way around. In the dialogue, Jesus allows John to proceed with the baptism, though John humbly acknowledges that it should be Jesus who baptizes him (3:14-15). This dialogue, then, is meant to, “…indicate[s] that John knew Jesus, and implies that he knew Jesus to be the sinless Messiah. This episode has two Matthean emphases: how close John and Jesus are, and how wrong John’s followers are when they do not turn to follow Jesus after Jesus’ baptism by John” (Hollenbach 1992, 891).
Canonical context
In Matthew’s account of The Baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3:16, which reads, “After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him,” cross-references to Isaiah 42:1, which in turn cross-references to Isaiah 45:6 and 49:6. Matthew 3:17, which reads, “And a voice came from the heavens, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’” cross-references to Genesis 22:2, Psalm 2:7, and Isaiah 42:1. Out of these cross references, perhaps the strongest, arguably, because it points to both Matthew 3:16 and 3:17 with its nearly identical language, is Isaiah 42:1, which reads, “Here is my servant – whom I uphold, my chosen one with whom I am pleased. Upon him I have put my spirit; he shall bring forth justice to the nations.” After Isaiah 42:1, perhaps the next strongest connection is Psalm 2:7, which alludes to Matthew 3:17 and reads, “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, he said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.’”
However, Gibbs (2002), writing for The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, while taking no issue with the Isaiah 42:1 reference, argues that there really is no connection between the Baptism narrative and Psalm 2:7, which he calls a “common conclusion” (Gibbs 2002, 511). This typical viewpoint, he says, holds that the “son” mentioned in Psalm 2:7 provides reference for Davidic-line Christology; in other words, that the “son” is Jesus as the son of God. However, Gibbs makes a compelling argument that the “son” mentioned in Psalm 2:7 refers to Israel, in line with an Old Testament theme that Israel is God’s son, and that it is this theme that serves as, “…the background for the Father’s words from heaven” (Gibbs 2002, 512). Therefore, “…Matthew is not in this text portraying Jesus as Servant and King. Rather, Jesus at his baptism is Servant and Israel” (Gibbs 2002, 512).
Theological interpretation and reception history
Great insight into the Triune God and what it means to be God’s people can be found in the pericope. It is in Matthew 3:16-17 that we see interaction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In 3:16, immediately upon being baptized and coming up from the water, the heavens opened, and Jesus (the Son) sees the Holy Spirit coming down upon Him in the form of a dove. In 3:17, the voice of the Father proclaims from Heaven, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” By these words from the Father, Jesus demonstrates for us what radical humility looks like. While John the Baptist accurately states that he is not worthy to carry Jesus’ sandals, Jesus, nonetheless, submits to John, allowing John to baptize Him. And in so doing, Jesus also demonstrates obedience to the Father, carrying out God’s salvific plan for all humanity. Jesus is modeling the eternal importance of baptism for us and, therefore, what it means to be God’s people.
St. John Chrysostom (347–407), in his “Homily 12 on Matthew,” reminds us that we should not be flabbergasted that Jesus chose to be baptized if He truly took upon Himself our human form. Why should this surprise us? For God is God, and He can do all things. Nothing is above nor beneath Him, and there is nothing He cannot do. If He allowed Himself to be beaten and executed in the most humiliating, painful, and torturous way for our sake, then why can it not be believed that He would also submit to baptism for our sake? This makes sense, as baptism is for sinners, and even though He is without sin, He will soon take on the punishment for all the sins of the world through His Passion. It goes without saying, then, that God loves us, wills the best for us, and there is not anything He will not do to see His children saved. Additionally, in Chapter 3, para. 2 of his work, Chrysostom explains that the heavens were opened for Jesus (Matthew 3:16) to teach us that the same occurs for us at our own baptisms, and that we are given these outward visible signs that we may be led to faith. We are called to new life as adopted sons and daughters of God.
Reference
Chrysostom, St. John. “Homily 12 on Matthew.” Knight, Kevin, ed. New Advent. Accessed March 12, 2024. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200112.htm.
France, R. T. 2007. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Israel Standing with Israel: The Baptism of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 3:13-17).” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64, no. 3 (2002): 511–526.
Hollenbach, Paul W. “John The Baptist.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: H-J. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1992. 887–899. Theology and Religion Online. Accessed January 27, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9780300261899-0818.
Reumann, J. “Righteousness – New Testament” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: O-Sh, edited by David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, John David Pleins, & Astrid B. Beck, 724–736. Doubleday: Yale University Press, 1992. Accessed March 11, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9780300261912-0643.
