Monday, February 17, 2014

Chronicles of Jesus: Part 4 Confirmation of Identity


Yearly, Jews, both modern and ancient, tell the story of Passover. And yearly, they end that story describing how Yahweh divided the Red Sea allowing them to come through the water to their freedom. Through the waters to life, this is how the symbolism behind baptism has always been described to me.

It shouldn’t surprise us then to find John the Baptist standing in the Jordan River bringing people through the water into new life (Jn 1). That is, until Jesus shows up to be baptized. Immediately, like John, our response is why?

Why is Jesus requesting to be baptized?

Everyone else who entered the river that day was being baptized unto repentance, but did Jesus require this type of baptism? If so, this would have devastating implications for Christianity, for it would mean that Jesus wasn’t without sin. This idea, along with its connotations, has led the church for centuries to describe Jesus’ baptism as merely a symbolic event pointing the cross and his resurrection. But, is it just symbolism playing itself out as Jesus enters the water of the Jordan River to be baptized by John, or is there something more profound going on here?

I think it’s safe to say that Jesus was not baptized as an affirmation of his repentance, but rather his baptism was a confirmation of his identity. As Jesus entered the water of the Jordan River to be baptized by John, John admits he wouldn’t have known Jesus was “the Son of God,” if not for a dove descending and resting on him (Jn 1:32). John certainly knew who Jesus was because they were related (Luke 1:36). What is implied in his testimony is that Jesus had not revealed to him that he was the chosen One of God (Jn 1:31). This raises some interesting ideas.

If it took a special revelation to disclose that Jesus was the “Son of God”

What does this say about His humanity?
What does this say about His own realization that he was God’s chosen one?

What had Jesus done to provoke the Father's exclamation of pleasure in him at his baptism (Mt 3:17)?

And . . .

What are the implications of this particular proclamation?

In order to understand what is being affirmed in Jesus, and what the phrase, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” means; we must look at other places in scripture where the statement is found. The prophet Isaiah declares that the Lord has chosen a servant, with whom he is pleased who will establish justice for the whole earth (Is 42:1-4). These verses, written some 700 years before Jesus, point to a servant who will be cast as a restored Israel and capable of bringing truth and righteousness to the whole earth. This was YHWH intention for the nation of Israel, and Jesus, as representative of an ideally obedient community, has been given the Spirit of the Lord to bring Israel’s story to fruition. The Father confirms this at Jesus’ baptism with the declaration of Jesus as his “Son, in whom he is fully pleased,” and later, Jesus acknowledges the same with his application of Isaiah 61:1-2 to himself (Lk 4:16-21).

It is significant then that Jesus is said to have been “full of the Spirit” and “led by the Spirit” in the wilderness to be tempted (Mt 4:1). Whereas Israel was unable to overcome their testing and rebelled against God in the desert, Jesus resisted his temptation and declared himself completely dependent on the Father for everything in the wilderness (more detail about this coming in my next blog).

Psalm 2:7 may have also influenced the affirmation of Jesus that we find in Luke and Mark: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” This statement, typically spoken at the coronation of Davidic kings, marked a way of confirming their legitimacy and authority, but, following the fall of Jerusalem and proceeding exile of Israel in 587 BC, the declaration was given new meaning and directly pointed to a future king in the line of David who would reign and restore Israel. Jesus appears to have been confirmed and identified as that king at his baptism, but unlike those kings before him, he would not rule through power, but rather through frustration, suffering, rejection, and eventually his own death.

No comments:

Post a Comment