Over a month ago, I wrote a post answering the question “Why was Jesus Baptized?” where I argued that no answer has been truly satisfying, there were two paradigms that are very helpful to me. The first paradigm, argued for in the first post, was the “tri-perspectival” paradigm where I said that the entire baptism event (baptism, Spirit descending, and the voice of God) should be held as a unity integrating ideas such as identification, anointing, and pronouncement. Please see the first post for an actual treatment of this view. In this post, I’m going to look at the Biblical-Theological view. I also want to restate that I don’t think this is an either/or issue, but that both paradigms shed led on the baptism event. Nor do I think these are the only valid paradigms. Jesus’ baptism can be found in Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, and Luke 3:21-22.

II. The Biblical-Theological Paradigm
It is obvious to all that the New Testament authors saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. What is not so clear is just how he did so. Without getting into that debate (which would make this post quite larger, with a lot more tangents), I will say that I agree with N. T. Wright and others that Jesus was “The Israelite,” or to say it another way, Jesus stepped into the role of Israel to succeed where they failed in terms of redemptive history. Jesus’ life recapitulates the story of Israel. It’s not a 1 to 1 correspondence however, because at decisive times where Israel sinned, Jesus succeeded perfectly.

I think this view is supported throughout the NT, including Matthews enigmatic quote of Hosea 11:1 (cf. Matthew 2:15), the use of the title “Son of God” (though it means much more than just this of course), Paul’s discussion on Jesus as the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:7-8), and the various usages of the term “unique” (μονογενης, “only,” “unique”) and “first-born” (πρωτοτοκος, cf. Exodus 4:22). We can even look to the Old Testament prophecies themselves, where the title “Son of Man” in Daniel 7 has both an individual and corporate aspect to it, as does the “Servant” in the Servant Songs of Isaiah.

It also seems that the baptism event and the wilderness event also portray Jesus as the representative Israelite. In other words, Jesus’ baptism is part of the recapitulation of Israel, particularly when paired with the wilderness temptation which follows the his baptism in all three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). But in what way, or maybe specifically which scene in redemptive history, does this recapitulate? I think that it is, to use a favorite term of theologians, the anti-type of the period between the slavery in Egypt, and the entrance into the promised land—the Exodus.

The story of the Exodus is, generally speaking, that God redeems Israel from slavery in Egypt by bringing them through the Red/Reed Sea and into the deserts of Sinai. Eventually, they come to the edge of the Promised Land, where they are encamped in the wilderness to east of the Jordan. Moses sends 12 spies into the land to scope it out; all but two bring back bad reports. The people refuse to go into the land, so they are forced to spend 40 years out in the desert as that generation dies off. When this happens, Joshua leads the second generation into the Promised Land, where they fight off the Canaanites and slowly take control of the land.

So what does this have to do with Jesus’ baptism? Everything.

a. Baptism. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:1-3 that the Exodus Israelites were “baptized into Moses” as they passed through the water on dry ground, speaking of the Red Sea. What’s really interesting about this connection between the Red Sea crossing and baptism, is that Paul is putting it forward as a negative example (see vv. 5-6), a warning to not desire evil as they did. Paul is highlighting their failure, in light of their “baptism.” The connection, I think, is obvious. Jesus’ was baptized as the Israelites (corporately) were, yet he did not fail. Now, if this was the only connection between the two, then I wouldn’t think twice about it. As it is, I’m not convinced that I am Israel, even though I, too, have been baptized. There needs to be more of a connection than just baptism in general.

b. Wilderness. Where was it that Israel went after being baptized? Where do we see the failures (which are legion) that Paul talked about? They were all throughout the “wilderness” (=desert). From the grumbling to the golden calf and more, the Exodus is a depressing scene. However, there is one particular failure that we need to look at—the spies at Canaan. Moses sent 12 spies into Canaan to spy out the land and the inhabitants in order to come up with a strategy of getting the land. The spies come back and ten of them convince the people that they can’t win the land. The people refuse to go end, and an entire generation is doomed to the wilderness for 40 years. The first connection we need to see here is that the part of the wilderness that the Israelites were in is east of the Jordan, precisely in the same spot where Jesus is immediately sent after his own baptism. The connection is clear it seems: baptism>wilderness. This is especially so in light of the fact that both accounts are based around the number 40.

At this point, Robert Stein in his commentary on Mark in the BECNT series rejects the idea of a connection, with one of the reasons being the discrepancy between 40 years and 40 days. What Stein seems to miss, however, is that the reason the Israelites spent 40 years in the desert is because God gave them one year of punishment for each of the 40 days the spies were in the land. Had the spies brought back a good report, there would have been no years, just the 40 day waiting period for the spies. It seems, then, that since the Biblical-Theological view that I’m arguing for says that Jesus succeeds in Israel’s story where they fail, then there is no discrepancy. Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness as Israel spent forty days there waiting for the report. Israel sinned in not going into the Land, but Jesus succeeds, rejecting the temptation of Satan and not sinning.

c. The Land. The New Testament is pretty clear that the Promised Land was not the end goal, but a picture of the Kingdom of God and the New Creation. The narrative movement, then, seems to have been baptism>wilderness>Promised Land. In the Gospels, we see the same narrative movement. After his baptism, Jesus goes into the wilderness for 40 days and is successful where Israel failed, and then after the wilderness, he crosses back over the Jordan—and into the Promised Land. Though, the connection can be made here, I think we can even take it a little further. Both Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus’ first act after the wilderness experience was to preach that “the time [was] fulfilled, the Kingdom of God/Heaven [was] at hand.” It wasn’t merely entering the Promised Land, but ushering in the very thing that the Promised Land pointed to—the Kingdom of God.

The baptism and wilderness experience is a recapitulation in that Jesus is walking in the narrative of Israel. It is also an anti-type because there is some discontinuity, just like when Paul talks about Adam being a type, and Jesus the anti-type. Where Israel’s “baptism” in the Red Sea is a negative example, Jesus’ baptism is a positive one of obedience. Where Israel sinned in not trusting God to deliver the Promised Land as he promised, Jesus trusted in the word and promises of God to fight off temptation in the very same place in the wilderness. Where the Promised Land was only a shadow of what was to come, Jesus ushered in the reality in the Kingdom of God.