|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was baptized at an unfitting
time. For Christ was baptized in order that He might lead others to
baptism by His example. But it is commendable that the faithful of
Christ should be baptized, not merely before their thirtieth year,
but even in infancy. Therefore it seems that Christ should not have
been baptized at the age of thirty.
Objection 2: Further, we do not read that Christ taught or worked
miracles before being baptized. But it would have been more profitable
to the world if He had taught for a longer time, beginning at the age
of twenty, or even before. Therefore it seems that Christ, who came
for man's profit, should have been baptized before His thirtieth
year.
Objection 3: Further, the sign of wisdom infused by God should
have been especially manifest in Christ. But in the case of Daniel
this was manifested at the time of his boyhood; according to Dan.
13:45: "The Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy,
whose name was Daniel." Much more, therefore, should Christ have
been baptized or have taught in His boyhood.
Objection 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 (Lk. 3:21): "It came to
pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being
baptized, and praying;" and further on (Lk. 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
(Gn. 41:46) that "Joseph was thirty" years old when he
undertook the government of Egypt. In like manner we read (2 Kgs.
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 pass 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 God, 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 to Objection 1: As Gregory Nazianzen 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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
Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), 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 to Objection 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. [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 passage: "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 shining: so Christ did not wait till John had run his course,
but appeared while he was yet teaching and baptizing."
|
|