No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Baptism of Our Lord—A Study of St. Mark 1.9–11
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Extract
Both the construction 
('And it came to pass… that Jesus came’) and the expression ‘in those days’ have a distinctly OT flavour (cf. e.g. Exod. 2.11). As neither is frequent in Mark, we might perhaps venture the suggestion that either consciously or unconsciously he is giving to his narrative a special touch of solemnity at the point at which he introduces Jesus for the first time.
That Jesus was baptised by John1 can scarcely be doubted. The fact that the submission of Jesus to a baptism of repentance caused the early Church embarrassment, as may be seen in Matt. 3.14 f and in the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see Huck, Synopsis, 9th edit., p. 12), makes it extremely unlikely that the Church would ever have invented the incident.2
To the question why He submitted to baptism various answers have been given. Some have suggested that it was because He was conscious of sin and felt the need to repent3; but this seems to be ruled out by what Dr Taylor has called ‘the entire absence of the consciousness of sin in His personality, as it is revealed in the Gospels’.4 Others have suggested that Jesus was simply availing Himself of John's baptism ‘as a means of expressing the will to live a pure life’5 or that He submitted to it merely in order to show His personal approval of the Baptist's movement.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1955
References
page 53 note 1 The passive 
and the words 
imply that John actually administered the baptism, whereas in Jewish proselyte baptism it seems that the proselyte baptised himself in the presence of witnesses. Cf. W. F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, p. 16.
page 53 note 2 Cf. Flemington, op. cit., p. 28.
page 53 note 3 e.g. Bethune-Baker, J. F. quoted in Rawlinson, A. E. J., The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 252.Google Scholar
page 53 note 4 The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 618.
page 53 note 5 A. Loisy quoted in Rawlinson, op. cit., p. 252.
page 54 note 1 Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (translated by W. Pringle), vol. i, pp. 201–2.
page 54 note 2 Baptism in the New Testament, pp. 16–22.
page 54 note 3 op. cit., p. 618.
page 54 note 4 The Teaching of the Church regarding Baptism (trans. E. A. Payne), p. 18.
page 54 note 5 op. cit., p. 19.
page 54 note 6 op. cit., p. 31 f.
page 54 note 7 The Seal of the Spirit, pp. 38–40.
page 55 note 1 op. cit., pp. 17 f. For the second sentence of this quotation I have used my own translation.
page 55 note 2 Cf. Cullmann, op. cit., p. 15 f.
page 55 note 3 Cf. Lampe, op. cit., p. 42 f.
page 56 note 1 Cf. Flemington, op. cit., p. 29.
page 57 note 1 e.g. in the Mithraic liturgy. See TWzNT, I, 519.
page 57 note 2 The Gospel Message of St. Mark, p. 56. Cf. Swete, H. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 9.Google Scholar
page 57 note 3 Lampe, op. cit., p. 30.
page 57 note 4 See Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
page 57 note 5 For the relevant passages see Strack and Billerbeck, I, 123–5, and Barrett, op. cit., p. 38 f.
page 58 note 1 See Strack and Billerbeck, I, 125–34.
page 58 note 2 op. cit., p. 40.
page 59 note 1 So for example by J. M. Creed and K. H. Rengstorf ad loc, Bieneck, J., Sohn Gottes als Christusbezeichnung der Synoptiker, p. 59Google Scholar, Taylor, op. cit., p. 162, Barrett, op. cit., p. 40, n. 4, J. Jeremias in TWzNT, V, 699, n. 349.
page 59 note 2 In TWzUT, V, 699.
page 59 note 3 In Mark 1.11 
can, of course, be taken with 
we should then translate either ‘my beloved son’ or, since 
can signify ‘only’ (e.g. LXX Gen. 22.2, 12, 16), ‘my only son’. But in view of Matt. 12.18 it is perhaps better here to take 
as a separate designation, an echo of b ehiri in Isa. 42.1, and so to translate ‘my son, my beloved’ or ‘my son, the beloved’. See further the note in J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 229–33, and C. H. Turner in JTS, 27, 113–29.
page 60 note 1 Cf. Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus, p. 101 f.Google Scholar
page 60 note 2 Bieneck, op. cit., pp. 37, 63 f.
page 60 note 3 For a survey of the passages, see Bieneck, op. cit., pp. 35–69; Manson, W., Jesus the Messiah, pp. 103–109.Google Scholar
page 61 note 1 p. 41.
page 61 note 2 p. 44.
page 61 note 3 On Ps. 2.7 and on the use of ‘son of God’ with reference to the king in Israel see Bieneck, pp. cit., pp. 19–24.
page 61 note 4 Str.-B., III, 21 f.
page 61 note 5 ibid., p. 20.
page 62 note 1 Str.-B., p. 17., Bieneck, op. cit., p. 24 f.
page 62 note 2 Str.-B., III, 20.
page 62 note 3 There is the possibility that the Rabbis' avoidance of the title was due to anti-Christian polemical motives (see Str.-B., Ill, 20). There are also a few NT passages which might seem to presuppose that ‘son of God’ was a current messianic title (e.g. Mark 14.61).
page 62 note 4 op. cit., p. 46.
page 63 note 1 Cf. Bieneck, op. cit., pp. 70 ff.
page 63 note 2 Cf. W. Manson, op. cit., p; 106.