Theology Thursday: About Jesus’ Baptism
First off, thanks to JonV for the topic suggestion. And to clarify, under discussion today is the fact that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (as opposed to a post about the baptizing that Jesus’ disciples did).
It’s a puzzling question, really. Why was Jesus baptized by John? Recall that John’s was a baptism of repentance, and that when Jesus came to him to be baptized, John objected:
Matthew 3:13-17 (ESV)
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
It’s tempting to attempt to shove a bunch of doctrine into Jesus’ reply that it was “to fulfill all righteousness” that he was baptized. Does Jesus mean he needed to be baptized for some reason? Or was he just setting an example for Christians?
This latter theory is pretty popular, but I doubt anyone who espouses it thinks all Christians should be baptized into John’s baptism. Neither do they think that Jesus needed a baptism of repentance.
The long and the short of it is that we’re never really told why Jesus needed to be baptized or how it was righteous for him to do it. But John does give us a hint at a larger purpose behind the event:
John 1:33-34 (ESV)
32 And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."
So basically, the events of Jesus’ baptism were used as a sign to John so he could know who the Lord was. What’s really interesting to me is that John (in prison) later sends his disciples to Jesus asking if he’s really the one he’s been waiting for.
Feel free to chime in if you’ve got a better answer. Or any answer at all, actually.
Theology Thursday Lite: In All Points
I have to say that I’m enjoying my less rigorous read-through this year. I’m finding I’m enjoying the reading more, going at a slower pace. I’ve even got a few Theology Thursday topics rolling around between my ears.
So, it’s my first New Testament post of the year!
Matthew 4 details Christ’s temptation in the wilderness. The three temptations are:
- To change stones to bread, to fill his hunger
- To jump off the Temple, counting on God’s protection
- To worship Satan, in exchange for the kingdoms of the world
You can find any number of creative interpretations of the three temptations and what they represent. But the thing I’ve been pondering is this:
Could Jesus have sinned?
Grand Theological Term Alert! The doctrine of The Impeccability of Christ says that Jesus was incapable of sin. I do not hold to this doctrine, and the reason is simple: I don’t think it’s Biblical.
Hebrews 4:15 (ESV, my emphasis):
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Okay, yes, I’ve strayed a bit from Matthew, but in my defense, I did once do a read-through where I read Matthew and then went straight to Hebrews (whoa, and my first Bible-Blog post was about it.)
I think the verse pretty much says it all, but I’ll admit that my thoughts on this are more logical than anything. And in that respect, I’m willing to have my logic adjusted.
I guess my objection is also a bit emotional, because if Jesus couldn’t sin, I’m not sure what was admirable or meritorious about His resisting temptation. How is it even remarkable in any way? And why would the writer of Hebrews think to mention it?
After all, how could Christ sympathize with us if the temptation He experienced was anything but just like ours?
For instance, I can’t really sympathize with an alcoholic, because I have no particular temptation to drink. (In fact, I’m putting it somewhat mildly. I think beer and wine taste alarmingly like vomit. And that’s when trying what others call “the good stuff.”)
Maybe I’m way off base here, but I think I’m making sense. Comments?
Theology Thursday Lite: Synoptic Parallel Goodness
I've called this a Lite post, and it really is. But it's a touch wordy. Nothing too deep, though, I promise.
As I've mentioned before, I'm planning to write a book on a few specific topics in theology, hoping to give average pew-dwellers a few things to think about. One of the things I'd bring to such a work is the fact that I'm not a scholar. But I'm also not really an average pew-dweller. I have had some small amount of Bible training, and I'm a good self-teacher and self-feeder. So I've got a few tips and tidbits I've learned that I like to pass along.
So this week is a tidbit I picked up in college and have been reminded of over and over: the Synoptic Gospels. For those not in the know, Matthew, Mark and Luke are sometimes referred to by this nickname because 1.) they all cover about a year in Jesus' ministry, and 2.) they all share quite a bit of material. John isn't included under this umbrella because much of his material is unique to his gospel.
One of the cool things about the Synoptics is that if you find a passage confusing in one, you can often turn to a parallel passage in another one and get some clarity. This is particularly true of looking up Matthew/Mark passages in Luke. Why is this? Well, to be blunt, Luke wasn't Jewish. Matthew and Mark were, and so some of the language they used was sculpted to that audience. Luke did a bit of translation here and there for his Gentile audience.
I thought I'd give a couple of examples of using Synoptic Parallels to gain insight into a passage of scripture. First, clarifying Matthew by looking at Mark or Luke.
This is an easy way to illustrate that Matthew's use of "Kingdom of Heaven" exactly parallels Mark and Luke's use of "Kingdom of God." (Just to be clear, "Kingdom of Heaven" shouldn't be confused with "Heaven.") So either Matthew was changing his terminology to avoid offending his audience (who didn't use the word "God"), or Mark and Luke were translating. The former seems more likely.
One more, making a very confusing passage much more readable:
What? Abomination of Desolation? Let the reader understand? What's Matthew getting at? Let's let Luke translate it for us poor Gentiles:
So, whereas Matthew is requiring his reader to be familiar with Daniel's writings, Luke just fills in the gaps. Watch for Jerusalem to be threatened by a military force. Incidentally, this happened in A.D. 70 when the Romans sacked Jerusalem. Christians in Jerusalem fled the city beforehand, perhaps warned by this prediction.
This does bring up an interesting quibble with the Gospels. Jesus almost certainly didn't say both "abomination of desolation" and "Jerusalem surrounded by armies." So in one Gospel, we've apparently got Jesus' actual words, and in the other we have his meaning. And I think we like to think we always have his exact words. Just thought I'd throw that monkey wrench in.
One more thing. Many Bibles have extensive cross-references listed for most passages in the Gospels. But if you don't want to trouble with them, there's a cool tool online. It's called Harmony of the Gospels, and it's sortable, so you can find the exact cross-refs for any passage in any of the Gospels. You can also get print copies of Harmonies, but they're not sortable.
Theology Thursday: David, Bathsheba, and Remarriage
To me, one of the biggest scandals in today's Church is that it is too lax on divorce. We just seem to blithely watch families split and reform without asking any questions. Why is this? We're really big on keeping marriages as "one man, one woman," but we don't seem to mind when one man or one woman is switched out for another.
If Jesus taught that remarriage after divorce is sometimes adultery, shouldn't we be taking a harder look at this? And what should someone do who finds him/herself in that situation?
First, did Jesus say that remarriage after divorce is sometimes adultery? Without question. In fact, some people dispute whether Jesus gave any grounds for remarriage. (The Catholic Church doesn't allow remarriage even in a case of infidelity.) Why? Note the difference between these two passages (my emphasis):
Some readers of the Bible want to throw out the Matthew reading, since the parallel passages in Luke and Mark don't have the "unfaithful" exception. They even say that they're being Biblical while rejecting the exception. After all, aren't we told to only accept testimony from two witnesses? Good luck with basically the entire Gospel of John, then.
Besides, Matthew itself contains a second reference with the exception (19:9).
Anyway, let's assume that Matthew is right, and Jesus allows divorce and remarriage if there's an issue of infidelity (and let's be clear that he didn't say divorce was good in that case, either).
The bottom line is that there are many people in the Church today who divorced for non-Biblical reasons and remarried. When, exactly, does their new marriage cease to be adultery? I think chapters eleven and twelve of Second Samuel shed some light on this.
I'm referring, of course, to the whole David and Bathsheba incident. For those not in the know, here's a recap (or go read it on NETBible): David sends his men out to war, then finds himself bored, so he sleeps with another man's wife. She gets pregnant. David tries to cover the whole thing up by getting her husband to come home from the front lines and sleep with her so nobody'll know what happened. However, Uriah (the husband) is more righteous than David and won't go home and sleep with his wife while his troops are in battle.
So David has him killed! Then he marries his widow. So basically, you've got David, "man after God's heart," committing both murder and adultery. Both punishable by death under the Law. Nathan the Prophet comes and rebukes David for his sin, and David repents. God forgives him and doesn't have him put to death. The child of the illegitimate union dies, however.
But God also doesn't demand that David divorce Bathsheba. In fact, her next child with David ends up being David's successor and being greatly blessed by God.
So, how was it okay for David to stay married to Bathsheba? My guess? Repentance. And now my bit of speculation about how this could apply today. Don't be too quick to think that people in invalid marriages today can just tell God they're sorry and be okay. Repentance means turning the other way. If Uriah had still been living, does anyone truly believe David could've married Bathsheba? Didn't think so. In order for David to repent in that case, Uriah would've had to get his wife back.
(I'm implying that repentance necessitates action here. For instance, if I stole your car, I couldn't repent without giving it back.)
So how would repentance look for someone who left his wife and married another? He'd have to go back, or at least offer to go back. Now if, after he left, she remarried (and had every right to given that he committed adultery by leaving and marrying another), I think his repentance would involve asking her forgiveness for the wrong he committed. But if she remained unmarried, I think he'd have to go back, no matter how messy that could be. (I recognize this seems a bit cold, but obedience Christ's commands can be uncomfortable sometimes.)
Of course, she wouldn't have to take him back. And if she decided to forgive him, I think he could stay in his new marriage. But I just don't see how it could be called repentance if he wasn't willing to go back to the wife he sinned against.
I was actually going to write this whole post about the fact that David and Bathsheba's son died. Funny how the topic shifts unexpectedly once one gets to the actual writing. I'm actually reluctant to even post this for fear of offending someone who's in a divorced/remarried situation. But I don't feel I've written anything really controversial, so I'm going to post it. Let me know if I've posted amiss.
Theology Thursday: The Three Joshuas
I've noticed an intriguing symmetry in the Bible, running through the Old Testament and right into the New. It's all about Joshua.
The first time we encounter a biblical character by that name, he's the right-hand-man to Moses. But he was to go on to bigger things. And what did Joshua go on to do? Well, he took over for Moses and led the Children of Israel into the Promised Land. So he was a big deal.
The next Joshua I want to bring up is a man usually referred to as "Jeshua," but the Hebrew name is the same as Joshua. What was his role? He was the high priest in the time of the return of the exiles to the land of Israel after the Babylonian Captivity (he figures prominently in Nehemiah and Haggai). He was a key figure in the post-exilic reformation that led to the Jews actually keeping the covenant in the centuries leading up to our final Joshua.
You might guess that Jesus is the final Joshua. Many people are unaware that Jesus is simply the Greek rending of the Hebrew name Yeshua, which is the same as Joshua. How do I know this? Well, because I've read it and heard it taught by several Bible teachers. But if you want a purely Biblical reason, check this out:
There's no connection given between the name Jesus and the "save his people" thing. But if you look up the name Joshua, you find that it means "Yahweh saves." Here's the footnote from the NET Bible:
The Greek form of the name Ihsous, which was translated into Latin as Jesus, is the same as the Hebrew Yeshua (Joshua), which means “Yahweh saves” (Yahweh is typically rendered as “Lord” in the OT). It was a fairly common name among Jews in 1st century Palestine, as references to a number of people by this name in the LXX and Josephus indicate.
So, "Joshua" = "Jesus."
I'm not going to really pontificate about this. I just found it interesting that there are three critical periods in the history of Israel (inheriting the Promise, returning from Exile, and the New Covenant), and all three were ushered in by Jesus.
This is another reason that reading the OT is so interesting.
Jesus and the God of the OT
It's not at all uncommon these days to hear people, even ostensibly Bible-believing Christian people, claim that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are somehow different. Not so.
Yesterday I came across (again) this passage:
How often do we hear that the God of the OT is anything but "compassionate and gracious"? All. The. Time.
The Good Stuff about Jacob’s Sneakiness
Am I the only one who sometimes thinks it's strange that Jacob even *got* a blessing? I mean, he plays his brother out of his birthright (totally Esau's fault, of course), then goes along with Dear Old Mum about wrangling Esau's blessing out of Old Blind Zeke? And yet, in Genesis 28, we have this message to him from God:
As my son would say, "That's instirring."
The Language of Judgment
One of the problems in the church today, and one of the reasons it's so easy to be seduced by "newspaper eschatology" is that we've allowed ourselves to become ignorant of the language of Scripture. In particular, the language of prophecy. And of judgment.
Thus, when we read a passage like the famous Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, it's easy to see what we're commonly told to see. Namely, the Rapture/Second Coming/Tribulation. But it's not always really there.
Look at the passage with me:
The Virgin Shall Conceive?
So, loyal reader (if you exist), tell me what this prophecy refers to:
Obviously, anybody reading this from the traditional Christian perspective will instantly recognize this as a prophecy of Jesus' birth to the Virgin Mary. It's even quoted as such in the Gospel of Matthew (1:23).
But have you ever read it in context, forgetting about what Matthew wrote? Cuz it's interesting.
The Father Turns His Face Away?
Ever heard this?
"When Jesus was nailed to the cross, God laid on him all the sins of the world. Past, present, and future. When He had done this, the Father, who cannot look on sin, turned His face away from His Beloved Son. When Jesus felt his Father's gaze leave him, he cried out in anguish, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"
Sound familiar? I didn't get it verbatim from any particular pastor, but it's an idea that's been passed down from generation to generation. But why, exactly? What's the Biblical support for it?
My thought is, there isn't really any support for it.