Introduction
It is said that a new age in the purpose of God began with Jesus Christ. This age has been called various things, for instance, “The Christian Dispensation”. People have identified various starting points for this new age including, in chronological order, the birth of John the Baptist, the birth of Jesus (or both); the baptism of Jesus (and/or the beginning of his ministry); Jesus’ death and/or his resurrection; Pentecost; and finally, the end of the Jewish Commonwealth in AD70. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to think about what it means to say that a new age began; and secondly, to show that if there is such an age, it did not begin with the baptism of Jesus.
Baptism of Jesus
What begins a new age in God’s purpose? Is the “baptism” of Jesus by the Spirit just such a beginning? If there was such a beginning, is the new age properly called “the messianic age”? What arguments could be made for there being such an age and for it beginning with the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus?
Anointing with the Spirit
The characterization of a period of time as an “age” could be based upon the reign of a king, although a messiah is not necessarily a king. The work of deliverance that a messiah executes could constitute the beginning of a new age. This analogy could be the basis for identifying the coming of Jesus to Jordan as the beginning of a new age that is defined by him—the messianic age—the age of the Anointed One.[1]
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Luke 3:16 (KJV)
On this interpretation, the old age ended with John the Baptist, and the new age is defined by Jesus, who would baptize with the Spirit and with fire. Jesus was “anointed” as messiah by the Spirit (Luke 4:18). This messianic age is characterized as one of spirit and fire.
This argument is fair enough, but it is inconclusive. Whether an age began in the purpose of God with the baptism of Jesus depends on what subsequently happened. The argument begs the question if the bestowal of the Spirit ceased at some point and/or Jesus ceased to baptize with the Spirit after his resurrection. The declaration that Jesus was coming and that he would baptize with the holy Spirit and fire does not of itself show that a new age was now beginning.
Instead, we should consider the work of a messiah: his first work is that of deliverance of the people from the enemy; subsequent to his victory, there is the beginning of a new age for the people. The proposal that the baptism of Jesus begins the messianic age overlooks this structure in the concept of “messiah”: properly speaking, the messianic age does not begin until the victory has been won and the people thus delivered can enjoy the peace and security of the new age.
The Law and the Prophets were until John
It is said that John belongs to the age of the Law and the Prophets:
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Luke 16:16 (KJV)
This would characterize the new age is one of “the kingdom”, one in which the Law of Moses was no longer operative. The text has been taken as saying that a new age began after John and with the ministry of Jesus; thus, it is said that the baptism of Jesus began the new age.
There are problems with this proposal: first, the text excludes John from the old age—the putative new age begins with him because the Law and the Prophets were until John; secondly, the argument begs the question as to what then happened—an age has a beginning if, retrospectively, we can identify an age. The “preaching of the kingdom” happened in the ministry of both John and Jesus, but did it continue in the decades and centuries that followed?
If the new age began with John, it didn’t begin with the baptism of Jesus. We could say that the new age began with the birth of John and Jesus. This would be a more plausible interpretation if we saw continuity between John and Jesus in their respective ministries. However, does the “end” of the Law and the Prophets mean that there is now a new age in the preaching of John and Jesus?
Since Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (Matt 5:17) but to fulfil their terms, the meaning of the saying ‘the Law and the Prophets were until John’ must be consistent with this idea of fulfillment. Thus, we can say that what Jesus means is that the teaching of the Law and the prophets in the synagogues were until John, but now there was the work of preaching the kingdom of God. He is drawing a contrast between the daily teaching of the Law and the Prophets and the preaching of the kingdom. We could make this difference the marker for a new age, but the new age so defined is then limited by this characterization: it is the age of the preaching of John, Jesus and their disciples. We do not have in this idea of a new age, a description of the messianic age, or the age of the kingdom, or the age of a restored Israel, or even “the age of the church”.
The Kingdom of God is at Hand
Since the concept of an “age” is one to do with time, any reference to “the times” is critical evidence.
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mark 1:15 (KJV)
This declaration takes place as Jesus returns to Galilee after his wilderness temptations. The kingdom is said to be “at hand” which implies that a new age had not yet begun: it was being preached. The reference to the “time is fulfilled” is therefore prospective and means a new age is about to begin. This line of interpretation suggests that the baptism of Jesus does not represent the beginning of the new age and it also excludes the birth of John and Jesus as the beginning of the new age if we take “the kingdom” to be the characterization of the new age.
This observation is important: if we take the new age to be the age of the kingdom, we would say that it did not begin with John or Jesus. If we take the new age to be instead the proclamation of the kingdom, we might say that it began with the births of John and/or Jesus or even the announcements to Zacharias and Mary. In this case, the baptism of Jesus does not look the obvious candidate for the beginning of a new age of preaching.
The Kingdom of God is in your Midst
John preached that the kingdom of God was “at hand” (Matt 3:2), but this message changed to some extent with Jesus because he says that the kingdom of God is in some sense present:
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Matt 12:28 (KJV)
Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Luke 17:20-21 (NASB)
If we are going to date the beginning of the kingdom age, we should do so to the ministry of Jesus and this began with his baptism. Jesus’ baptism by the Spirit is as good a starting point as any for the new age.
This argument is ambiguous at just the crucial point: it relies on the premise that the kingdom of God is in some sense present. But is this sense the relevant sense that allows us to say that a new kingdom age has begun with the baptism of Jesus (or even the beginning of the gospel story)?
The kingdom of God was present in the sense that the powers associated with the kingdom age were being shown in the ministry of Jesus, but the kingdom age itself had not yet begun; it was still at hand. Hence, we cannot say that the new age had begun with the baptism of Jesus. This line of interpretation is clear from the link Jesus makes between his exorcisms and the kingdom of God:
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Matt 12:28 (KJV)
But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. Luke 11:20 (KJV)
Insofar as Jesus cast out demons, the kingdom of God had “come upon” them, but it was not present as an “age” unless we define the “new age” to include the ministry of Jesus. Jesus’ anointing with the Spirit at his baptism was an empowerment for his ministry but it was not the beginning of the new age which was still “at hand”.
Battling the Kingdom of Satan
In Luke’s account, Jesus is empowered by the Spirit (Luke 4:14) and he engages and resists Satan in the wilderness. His exorcisms throughout his ministry were an extension of this initial engagement, and in them he was continually defeating Satan (Mark 3:22-30). Although Jesus had possessed the Spirit since his childhood (Luke 2:40), it was only after his baptism by the Spirit that the clash between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan began. The beginning of the new kingdom age is, therefore, his baptism.
This argument does not work for the reason that it begs the question as to whether Jesus’ ministry is the new kingdom age in the purpose of God. The counter-argument is that his ministry was in the last days of a dying age and that the new age was at hand. In this case, Jesus’ baptism does not have the significance of inaugurating a new age. In typological terms, a cosmic battle with Satan is a figure for the defeat of an enemy before the restoration of Israel and the beginning of new age. (It is beyond the scope of this article to explore the meaning of this narrative parable of the cosmic battle.)
The Descent of the Dove
The mention of the dove at Jesus’ baptism may allude to the account of the Flood and the dove/homing pigeon sent out by Noah. The connection of the Spirit with a dove may also allude to the Genesis creation and the Spirit hovering as a bird over the waters. In either case, the symbology is of a new beginning at the baptism of Jesus and we could characterize this as the beginning of a new age.
The problem with this argument is that the two allusions are “new creation” types rather than types that signal a new age; they relate to creation rather than the structure of God’s purpose in the working out of the history of Israel. We can accept the symbology of a new creation in the baptism of Jesus as that relates to him, but this does not make his baptism the beginning of a new age. The concept of a new kingdom age relates to God’s dealings with Israel.
Messianic Anointing
Jesus’ quotation of Isa 61:1-2a in his Nazareth address links his baptism by the Spirit at Jordan with the “anointing” of Isaiah’s anonymous conqueror. This is a messianic anointing rather than an anointing associated with the Davidic dynasty. We could say therefore that the messianic age began with the baptism of Jesus (Acts 10:38).
This argument does not work. The anointing of an individual and the beginning of an age associated with that individual do not necessarily coincide. For example, the anointing of Saul or David did not coincide with the beginnings of their reigns; similarly with the dynasty of Jehu. The question is whether we take the beginning of the messianic age to coincide with Jesus’ Davidic enthronement or his anointing at Jordan.
Given the conflict that Jesus engages upon and prophesies in his ministry, it is better to place the beginning of the messianic age after this conflict and tribulation—and place it at the beginning of the era of peace and good governance. We might want to speak of a new stage in God’s dealings with Israel with the ministry of John and Jesus, but this is not the beginning of a new age, a kingdom age, or a Christian dispensation.
Beloved Son
The words spoken to Jesus at his baptism were,
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. Luke 3:22 (KJV)
The words quote elements of Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1,
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ps 2:7 (KJV)
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. Isa 42:1 (KJV)
The elements being quoted are ‘Thou art my…son’, ‘delight/well-pleased’, ‘with thee/in whom’ and ‘I/my soul’. The question is whether these OT texts indicate the beginning of a new age.
The Isaiah source refers to God’s Servant, Hezekiah in its primary application. The catalyst for the oracle is Hezekiah’s return from the east of Jordan and a victory over Ammon and/or Moab;[2] he has liberated Judahites recently deported to this region during Sennacherib’s invasion in 701. It is this action of which God is well pleased, but there are yet further enemies around Judah for Hezekiah to subdue. The quotation of these words by the divine voice identifies Jesus as God’s servant.
The psalm source shares thematic elements with Isaiah and it is an appropriate text with which Isaiah can be combined in a quotation. The declaration in the psalm is in favour of David and Zion; God announces that he will subdue his enemies. The use of the quotation at the baptism of Jesus is an announcement of Jesus’ rights as the Davidic king.
The two OT contexts do not lend a typological basis for seeing the beginning of a new age in the baptism of Jesus. We are in the middle of Hezekiah’s reign in Isaiah 42; furthermore, while there is a new beginning in his reign after 701, and the times can be characterized as a time of restoration, this does not allow us to say that it was a new age. What happened in just over a hundred years was the dissolution of Judah as an independent kingdom and exile for the upper and middle classes. Moreover, God was shortly to announce the deportation of the royal house to Babylon (Isa 39:6) which is a prophecy that would be fulfilled in the Babylonian Exile.
Similarly, the Psalm is not from the beginning of David’s reign, but from some time during his reign at a time when Israel are dominant in the region (Ps 2:3). The declaration that God had begotten David is a metaphor for his renewal of the choice of David as his king upon Zion. The use of the quotation in the divine voice at Jesus’ baptism is for the same purpose: it is a metaphorical avowal of Jesus as God’s anointed.[3] The metaphor is used again by Paul in Acts 13:33 in relation to Jesus’ resurrection: Jesus is raised from the dead and declared again to be the Son of God with power in this act (Rom 1:4).
The Last Adam
The sequence of events at the start of the synoptic gospels suggests that Jesus is being presented as an antitype to Adam:
- the Spirit descended into Jesus (eivj auvto,n, Mark 1:10)/God breathed into Adam the breath of life
- Jesus is tested by Satan/Adam is tempted through the Serpent
Luke’s gospel confirms this comparison because he includes the genealogy of Jesus between the account of his baptism and his temptations in the wilderness. Jesus is presented as the descendent of Adam, the son of God (Luke 3:38) and declared to be a beloved son. The typology here is one of new creation—the creation of the “second man” and the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45, 47), but it is not a typology of a new age, unless we insist that a new creation is by definition a new age.
We could compare Jesus’ conception by the holy Spirit to God breathing the breath of life into Adam. If we do so, we might then try and find a typical analogue to Jesus’ receiving the holy Spirit at his baptism and construct a typological pattern with three elements:
- Jesus is born of the holy Spirit/Adam received the breath of life
- the Spirit descended into Jesus/compared to ??
- Jesus is tested by Satan/Adam is tempted through the Serpent
This would work if we paralleled the command to Adam in the garden (a spirit-word to not eat of the tree of knowledge) with the Spirit coming upon Jesus at his baptism. This would make the new creation type begin with Jesus’ birth and any new age would be seen to have begun at that time.
Once again, the argument here turns upon how we think of the concept of an age. Is this a concept that just describes the history of Israel; or is it a concept that also embraces creation as a whole?
Israel
There are typological links between Jesus and Israel’s experience in the Book of Exodus. Since the exodus from Egypt and all that ensued at Sinai represents a new beginning in God’s purpose, it is argued that the Gospel writers are presenting Jesus’ baptism and wilderness experience as a new beginning, the beginning of a new age:
- Israel crossed the Red Sea/Jesus was The crossing of the Red Sea is a type of baptism (1 Cor 10:2).
- Jesus was led by the Spirit in the wilderness just as Israel/Moses were led through the wilderness (Luke 4:1, NASB; Exod 13:21; Isa 63:14).
- Israel was in the wilderness 40 years; Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days.
- Israel was tested in the wilderness (Deut 8:2-5); Jesus was tested in the wilderness and cited texts from Deuteronomy 6-8.
Israel was God’s son (Hos 11:1) and this pattern reinforces the identity of Jesus as God’s son. However, there are other types in the account:
1) The heavens were “rent” (sci,zw, Mark 1:10), which fulfils the hope expressed in Isa 64:1, ‘Oh that thou wouldst rend the heavens’. This hope follows on from the remembrance of the exodus story (Isa 63:7-19) and it reflects that story: God had come down and delivered his people in their exodus from Egypt, and the prophet urges Yahweh to come down and deliver his people once again. This echo to the exodus through Isaiah configures the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus as a theophany and a type of deliverance.
2) The Spirit descended into Jesus (eivj auvto,n, Mark 1:10); the holy Spirit likewise was put within Moses (Isa 63:11). Jesus is a “new Moses” for the people—he will deliver them. This type should not be misconstrued as an analogue to Sinai; the giving of the Spirit cannot parallel the giving of the Law because there is no corresponding element for the new covenant. The new covenant sacrifice still lay in the future with the death of Jesus (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). The covenant transaction had not yet been effected.
3) Jesus came up out of Jordan and after a wilderness period entered Galilee (cf. Josh 4:14). This typical comparison sees Jesus “coming up” out of Jordan, which echoes the crossing of Jordan under Joshua, even though Jesus does not then immediately enter Galilee. The prominence of the verb “to come up” in the Joshua account, particularly in relation to the ark, makes this echo likely (Josh 4:16-19, 5x), and the point being made is that after baptism, or in baptism, a person should then “enter” the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Jesus’ own example is an enacted demonstration of the message he was preaching.
These various types in the baptism of Jesus are not designed to signal a change in the ages but the nature of deliverance through water and the spirit.
New Covenant
Jeremiah prophesied,
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah… Jer 31:31 (KJV)
This is picked up in Hebrews,
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13 (KJV)
For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Heb 9:15 (KJV)
Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant insofar as he is its high priest and its sacrificial death. Individuals enter this covenant through water baptism since they are baptized into the death of Christ (Rom 6:3). Such individuals are then in the position of waiting for the Abrahamic promise of inheritance, an inheritance that would last forever, to be fulfilled. Jesus’ baptism is different to the baptism of his followers because they are baptized into him and into his death.
We cannot say therefore that the new covenant began at Jesus’ baptism or that he entered the new covenant when he was baptized of John or the Spirit. The old covenant was passing away and did so finally in the destruction of the temple in AD70. The new covenant was and is mediated by Christ and the critical event for that covenant is the death of Christ. The structure of the concept of “covenant-making” is: God-mediator-covenant-people; in this structure, Jesus is the mediator and not the people; it is a mistake to have Jesus entering a new covenant in his baptism.
We can exclude the baptism of Jesus as the beginning of a new age, but we could say that a new age began with the death of Christ, because this is the one sacrifice that did away with the Mosaic system. However, this raises the question as to what an age is from God’s point of view. It is possible to mix up different “beginning and ending” motifs and get into a muddle. Thus, while we might say there is no evidence that the messianic age or the kingdom age began, because there is no evidence that Israel were restored, but the reverse—they were scattered among the nations in AD70, we could say that the mosaic order did come to end and a new covenant age began. Is this the correct analysis?
Conclusion
This has been a discursive essay. We haven’t successfully argued that any new age began in the first century; we haven’t shown that a Christian dispensation began. This is because while the Mosaic Age ended, we haven’t shown that a new age based on the new covenant has continued since the first century; it may be that the introduction of the new covenant does not signal a new age from God’s point of view. The subject is large and complicated, involving as it does, the interpretation of Revelation as well as Daniel and the Prophets. However, the subject is not just an arcane matter of prophetic interpretation; the doctrine of the Spirit is bound up with the correct understanding of the structure of the ages.[4]
[1] The bestowal of the Spirit upon Jesus at Jordan is not an anointing as a king. Jesus was the Davidic king by dint of his birth; he did not need to be anointed as a king—such anointings take place in the purpose of God when there is a change of dynasty. The birth narratives identify the basis of Jesus’ claims to the dynastic succession.
[2] See A. Perry, Isaiah 40-48 (Sunderland: Willow Publications, 2010).
[3] The declaration is not an “adoption” of Jesus as God’s son at this time, but a characterization of his “anointing” as God’s messiah of deliverance. There is only one literal sense in which Jesus is God’s son, and this is described in the birth narratives.
[4] Although there is no scholarship cited in this article, it does engage a popular scholarly view of the last forty years in Lucan scholarship. Not citing scholars allows the textual reasoning to stand by itself (or not), and as such it is not tied to the passing and fading of scholars.
The Solution