Mark's was the first description of the baptism of Jesus written. It is the simplest, and it offers no explanation of the BIG question that Biblical Theologians like to debate endlessly: “If, as the Bible says, and the Church confirms, Jesus was without sin, why was he baptized by John?” Mark doesn't answer that question, content to let God be God and accept the divine mystery. Mark was never burdened when he didn't understand everything about God. He didn’t expect to, and neither should we.
However, writing several years later, Matthew worries about it, and includes a sentence explaining that John was not happy being put in a position to have to baptize Jesus, to which Jesus replies, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness." According to Matthew, that answer is good enough for John, and so he baptizes Jesus.
In any case, Jesus decided to be baptized by John, even though John was baptizing "for the forgiveness of sins" and not “to fulfill all righteousness,” whatever that means. And the Bible tells us that Jesus was without sin. So Matthew doesn’t solve the question of why, but only adds another one: “What does “to fulfill all righteousness” mean? And there are dozens of ideas about that, and I am not going there in this sermon.
Rather, let’s stick to the question of why Jesus would want to be baptized by John. Now, it is possible, but just barely possible, that at that point in time, BEFORE he began his ministry he may not have known that he was sinless! God had not spoken directly to him as far as we know, and he was likely pretty hard on himself in terms of trying to be as good a person as he could be. So, that is a possible reason. But it raises a lot of questions about when Jesus was aware of who he was, his relationship to God before his baptism, and what his mission in life was to be. In other words, that answer, even more than Matthew’s answer, raises far more questions than it solves.
But, I believe, after many, many hours studying this issue, that Jesus may well have had another agenda than to wash away his sins. And that is that he was determined to set a proper example for all those who, like us, would come to be his disciples and would do our best to emulate him in our own lives. And I will discuss why I think that is the correct answer in a bit. But, the bottom line is that no one knows for certain why he let John baptize him, and probably never will. It is a mystery.
In any case, three of the four Gospel writers tell us that Jesus was, in fact, baptized by John, the Baptizer, and one Gospel writer, St. John the Evangelist, avoids the issue. So, I think it is safe to say at the very least that John did, in fact, baptize Jesus; that the heavens were, in fact, torn open, that the Spirit did, in fact, descend on Jesus, and that He did, in fact, hear a voice saying that He was God's Son, in whom God was well pleased.
BUT, there is no indication that anyone else heard God’s voice; though, conceivably, they might have. If they did there is no indication that they ran around telling others about it who were not there. And since it would have been a startlingly miraculous event, I doubt that anyone but Jesus heard it, or we would have read more about what a fantastic revelation this was. So, the tearing of the heavens apart, the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the voice speaking to Jesus immediately after the baptism are all things that three of the Gospels say only Jesus saw and heard. To everyone else who was there that day maybe nothing all that special appeared to be going on. Incidentally, this partially explains why Jesus’ disciples seem so dense for such a long time and unable to comprehend who Jesus is until well into his ministry.
Clearly, we now all have all this testimony as to what actually happened; because the Spirit obviously told Mark, Matthew and Luke to share this revelation with us in the Bible. But, at the time it happened, it was a very private statement of the manifestation of God in the person of Jesus. It was very much a private epiphany. Now, it is not. We all know what happened, even if we are a bit shaky on the details, and a lot shaky as to "why was Jesus baptized at all?"
So, let's look at Mark's text again. It's the one that strips the scene to the bare essentials.
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. 11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."
That may look like a pretty innocent paragraph, but, believe me, folks, there is a lot of stuff going on there, in these so called "bare essentials" that give us information about this Epiphany: the manifestation of God in Jesus, the Christ.
Note, first, that the heavens are "torn apart." In the Greek the word for "torn apart" is not a gentle word, and does not convey a gentle image such as we always see in the paintings of the sweet dove descending on Jesus. The word itself is violent: tearing, ripping, shredding -- powerful: the very heavens ripped open! God sends the Spirit upon Jesus in power and glory! Which, if you recall, was Isaiah's prayer, uttered 700 years before as he stood frustrated by the sin of the people, begging God: "Oh! That you would tear open the heavens and come down!" Come down in power and glory and with justice and judgment. In Christ, that prayer is finally fulfilled.
Interestingly, the very word for "torn apart" used here is used only one other time in the New Testament: at the time of Jesus' death. Then, Matthew tells us, at His death, "the curtain of the temple was torn apart, from top to bottom."
That massive curtain, which is said to have been a foot thick and 40 feet tall, was ripped to shreds. That curtain was the very thing that Jews believed separated them from God, from the inner sanctum, the "Holy of Holies," a place where only a handful of priests were allowed to enter. Now all of that is gone; and God is to be confined there no more; but is to be found only in Jesus: the One who will be raised in three days.
And yet, in the midst of the massive display of power at the ripping open of the heavens at Jesus' baptism, we see a paradox as the Spirit gently, with total love, alights on Jesus, even as the voice heralds the great epiphany, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”
And today, we here are privileged read about and to witness to this great event; this great epiphany as the Father notifies Jesus that He, He alone, is his Son, the beloved Son, with whom the Father is well pleased.
Is it any wonder that I get frustrated sometimes with scholars who get so consumed worrying about what they can and cannot understand? Clearly God tells Jesus that he is well pleased, delighted, with him. And this is the same Jesus who was just baptized for the repentance of sins which He did not commit.
And so now we come back to my idea that the reason for his baptism could well be to set an example for us. Why should that surprise us? Is not this the same Son, the same man, who will, within three years, will go to the Cross to die for sins which He did not commit, sins that WE committed against the Father and the Spirit, and yes, against Him? Can we not see the symmetry in that? Can we not see that at his baptism, even before His mission began, He was identifying with us, probably knowing that He was, Himself, without sin, but willing to show us, by His example, the steps we need to take in obedience to God's will?
He offered Himself to a baptism He had no need to do. I believe that He did this because He wanted to be obedient to God. Perhaps He knew why God wanted this; perhaps not. But what He did know is that God wanted it. And so He did it. Just as, as he waited in Gestheme, He wished that the cup of death might pass Him by; but knowing it was God's will that he die for us, He said, "But not my will, but thine be done."
This was no ordinary man. Yet at the cross He allowed Himself to be crucified as an ordinary man, an ordinary sinner, even though He was without sin. In both cases He did what He did because He knew it was the will of the Father. And it was Jesus’ will to set an example for us.
Why, to this day, do so many not experience the epiphany of seeing who this man really is: The beloved Son of God? Even with the testimony of the Bible, I run across people who think of themselves as Christians who say, "I admire Jesus. I really admire him; he was a great man.” Which is, of course, true. He was a great man. The question, however, is not whether he was a great man. The question, which requires a personal epiphany on every Christian’s part to answer correctly, is "Who IS Jesus?"
By reading the Bible accounts of His baptism we are given strong, undeniable clues as to his identity; clues which many who should know better constantly ignore. They would rather argue over whether or not He should have been baptized by John, or whether He was baptized at all; and argue over who did or did not hear or see what; and over countless trivial things that we can't explain and never will be able to explain. But “Who is Jesus?” is the only question about his baptism that really matters.
We've got to be more like Mark. There are some things we can't explain; that we never will be able to explain; and that we probably were never meant to know. If our God is so small that we can figure out everything about him that we want to know; then that God is not the God who is the Father of Jesus. This Season of Epiphany we have to get beyond all the trivial detail and answer for ourselves the real question of the Epiphany: "Who is Jesus?"
Many of you know that C. S. Lewis was probably the greatest Christian apologist of the last century. He was a crusty, sarcastic and delightfully blunt man; a brilliant man; a man who came to Christ reluctantly, as an adult. And he was a man who fell head over heels in love with his Savior. He puts the issue of the Epiphany about as clearly as I can imagine it can be put.
Listen to this statement from his classic book, "Mere Christianity."
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher; but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. he has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Lewis, previously an avowed atheist, decided that Jesus was his Lord and God. He did this fairly late in life, when he was already famous, and at a time when coming to faith in Jesus Christ could do his career no good, and possibly do it harm.
We each one of us need to remember that when we lift all the facts we can from all the books and all the scholars, and sift carefully through them, when we listen to all the voices who claim to know what is and isn’t true in the Bible, all of that pales in the face of the great question Jesus asks each one of us, “But you, who do you say I am?”
It is a great Epiphany, and a great blessing, if we can answer, “You, Lord, are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
God bless you all.
Posts
