Fresh thinking about the baptism of Jesus

Today is the first Sunday after Epiphany. Epiphany happens on 6^th January each year at least it does in the western churches, including the Greek Orthodox, working on the Julian calendar. However, the Orthodox churches of Ethiopia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, and in the Republics of Macedonia and Moldova work to the Gregorian calendar where Christmas is celebrated on January 7 and Epiphany does not come until the 19^th January. Indeed, Christmas Day was yesterday!

 Epiphany means "to reveal" or "to make known" or "to make public." In the Common Lectionary used in our western churches Year A and Year C use the Matthew stories of the Magi visiting Jesus. In these stories God is revealed in the baby Jesus. The Magi proclaim the baby Jesus as the long awaited Lord and King of the world.

 But in Year B, the present year of the Common Lectionary, we adopt the eastern practice and consider the baptism of Jesus in Mark's Gospel. But it is still a story of epiphany. As Jesus is baptised by John the Baptist, God's glory is revealed, is made known and is made public in the adult Jesus of Nazareth. This Jesus baptism by John is another Epiphany.

 For me, the importance of Mark's story of the baptism of Jesus is not in its historic accuracy although I am convinced that John indeed baptised Jesus. From my research and in my understanding the importance of this story is that it shows the Presentness of the Spirit of God not only in Jesus but also within us at all times.

 But, as always, I come to the scriptures with questions!

 Why was it important that Jesus was baptised by John? Why is that that Mark 1:9-11 and Matthew 3:16-17 state that only Jesus saw the sky open, the Spirit descend like a dove, and, alone, heard the voice from heaven? So if Jesus alone experienced these things the only way that the rest of us can know about it is for Jesus to have said so - and that would hardly make it an independent statement!

 Perhaps the answer to that question is contained in the Gospel of Luke where on-lookers are said to have seen the sky open and the Spirit descend like a dove, and heard the voice from heaven [Luke 3:21-22].

 However, it must be remembered that Luke's version was the last of the three to have been written so probably is the least accurate of the three. Perhaps Luke has realised the flaw in the story told by both Mark and Matthew and makes sure that in his version, there are witnesses to this episode?

 And if we look in John's Gospel for the story of the baptism of Jesus we will look in vain. For something so important as this baptism, why is it that John's Gospel ignores it altogether?

 And why did the writer of Mark's Gospel simply record that John baptised Jesus?

 In the NIV version of Mark's account this story is told in only 60 words so why did Matthew's account develop the story into 108 words? The addition concerned the reluctance of his cousin, John the Baptist to baptise Jesus, but why was this an important addition for Matthew but ignored by both Mark and Luke?

 And I have yet another question: why, some 20 years after Mark's Gospel was written, did Matthew need to stretch the baptism story?

 Perhaps it was to meet the growing questions within his community of Jesus followers as to who had been the greater, the Jewish prophet John the Baptist or the Jewish prophet, Jesus of Nazareth?

 Matthew stated categorically that Jesus was greater than John the Baptist because John was merely the forerunner of Jesus. Perhaps this was the reason why Matthew added the part of the story concerning the reluctance of John the Baptist to baptise Jesus with the statement put into the mouth of John that he was not fit to undo the shoe laces of Jesus?

 As I understand Mark's account, this story concerning the baptism by John was simply a reflection of the hierarchy in which Jesus, at that stage, was a follower of John. It would have been natural for a follower of John the Baptist to identify with him through baptism.

 And yet another question: why did Luke also take Mark's story and tell of the baptism of Jesus in 10 words fewer than Mark's version, but then added a couple of hundred more words to detail the genealogy of Jesus, linking him right back to Adam, arguably the first 'son' of God?

 However, what is even more important is asking what the writer of Mark's Gospel was trying to say some 3 decades after the baptism of Jesus?

 As I said in my sermon at the beginning of Advent, John the Baptist was clearly an exceptional prophetic personality who stirred up opposition to Herod Antipas because he had privatised the fishing on the Lake of Galilee. This was a tax raising measure to help pay for Herod's construction of his new city, Tiberias. By taxing the fish caught Herod Antipas was attacking the birthright of every Jewish fisherman who worked the Lake of Galilee.

 I really do not think that John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas because he was complaining about Herod's marital situation. John's mission was both birthright political and birthright religious - a very potent weapon at any time!

 It was not until after the execution of John the Baptist that Jesus of Nazareth ceased to play second fiddle in this ministry by the lake.

 In all probability the Apostle Peter had been at the baptism of Jesus and it is his recollection of events that are recorded by Mark - a straightforward baptism in which John did not overly protest at all at Jesus coming to him for water baptism.

 This also may have been the purpose of Luke's unique story of the earlier visit of the pregnant Mary to her cousin, the pregnant Elizabeth [Luke 1:39-45], answering the questions in his own community as to who had been greater, John the Baptist or Jesus?

 And how did Luke demonstrate the pre-eminence of Jesus over John the Baptist?

 Luke alone says that the foetus of John the Baptiser leapt within Elizabeth, thereby recognising that the foetus of Jesus was more important than he was and that he would be second to Jesus!

 But, as stated elsewhere by Bishop John Shelby Spong, I doubt that babies in wombs ever leap in recognition of the greatness of another foetus. In fact, this is Luke retelling the Genesis 25 story of Rebecca being in great pain as the two sons within her womb, Jacob and Esau, fought against one another in an attempt to establish which one eventually would be the greater.

 It is Luke's use of rabbinic midrash [taking ancient stories and retelling them in the present] demonstrating that Jesus had become more important than John even though Jesus had originally been a follower of and baptised by John.

 So why are all these questions important for the Church and for the future of Christianity in our secular post-modern industrialised world?

 For the Church and its message to survive we must open our hearts and minds to the fresh thinking of contemporary Biblical scholarship that will allow us and the Church to grow again as we speak, believe and live the Kingdom in a way that becomes relevant once more to the world in which we live.

 We need to make the Good News of Immanuel, God with us - emotionally, spiritually and intellectually significant for today's well-educated public.

 Unless we do this I seriously doubt that there is a future for the institutional church in Britain and Europe. We cannot continue our faith pilgrimage into the future by believing and by doing what we have always done in the past.

 We have to start afresh and that will hurt. 

 We will need to die to much of the theology that has been precious to us up to now. 

 And then we will need to rise anew and to step out upon a new spirit-filled pathway.

 Isn't this the essence of the Christian message - to die that we may be born again? 

 Isn't this what the resurrection is all about?

 And the starting point as we journey into the future is in identifying the same Spirit of God, so obviously so recognisable in Jesus, indwelling all people.

 Without a doubt some people make it very difficult for any one to identify the God within them but I am convinced that the ever Presentness of the Spirit of God is within all people whom we meet. That is where the future of both the church and all humankind can be found - recognising that the same Spirit of God in Jesus is in all people regardless of the gender, political, religious or sexuality labels that we all wear.

 And that makes us all sisters and brothers of one another and all equal children of the One God of All people.

 That is the greatest Epiphany story ever told - that the Spirit of God is revealed, made known and made public in all people every where and every day. And such an approach to life and humanity is truly transformational! And that, surely, is what the world needs now and always!

 Copyright ©: 2012, Rev John Churcher. All rights reserved. Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION ® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.