The Baptism of the Lord: Yeah, we're going to get you wet

Responsibilities this past week kept me from posting a meditation last Tuesday, the date of the Epiphany. I'm sure no one is finding these things the only source of spiritual nourishment, so I am not too worried.

Genesis 1:1-5; Psalm 29; Acts 19:1-7; Mark 1:4-11

Seeing Psalm 29 in the readings for today reminds me of a conversation I had Friday night at the birthday party we threw for the Asia-Pacific regional director, in town for the district assembly yesterday. A friend asked me what was going on with Gen 6:1-4 and the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of humanity" and creating the giant race called the Nephilim. I suggested it was probably some kind of strange holdover from ancient pagan mythology left in the Bible because it was in the found in the traditional teachings about the old ancient world before even the peoples of antiquity showed up, or something. She said, "Well, if it's old pagan mythology I don't think it belongs in the Bible," or something similar. I said, "Well, yeah, you're probably right. But the biblical writers didn't agree, and so now it is what it is." This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.

Something similar is going on, undoubtedly, with Psalm 29. For when you compare Psalm 29:1-2 to Psalm 96:7-8, you see a definite shift in emphasis. The language of the two Psalms is almost identical, except for the "persons" to whom the summons is addressed. In Ps 29, the summons is to "divine beings," unfortunately but understandably translated as "mighty ones" by the NIV. Ps 29 surely represents something of the older polytheistic context in which ancient Israel came to be. While monotheism was insisted upon with varying degrees of strenuousness throught the history of ancient Israel, it did not finally win the day over polytheistic or henotheistic understandings until the Maccabean Revolt in the middle of the second century BCE (reflected in the apocalyptic book of Daniel).

For that matter, the polytheistic environoment may perhaps lie behind the presentation of the (first) creation story in Gen 1. Since this probably came into being in contrast to polytheistic Babylonia's creation myths, the Gen 1 creation myth (and YES, it is a myth, for myth does not equal falsehood) depersonalizes the stuff upon which God acts in creation as opposed to the battle between the gods that goes on in the Babylonian stuff. But later on down in the Gen 1 creation myth, God says "Let us make humanity in our own image..." This is not (NOT!) a hint of Trinitarian theology, but probably some kind of leftover from polytheism. This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.

The Acts 19 and Mk 1 passages both discuss the baptism of John the Baptist, which was a baptism for repentance. When I was preparing my lecture on NT backgrounds for the doctrine of holiness, delivered Friday, the discussion between Paul and the Ephesian converts caused me to stop short. Paul asks the converts how they were baptized, and they say it was into John's baptism. BUT THEN PAUL BAPTIZED THEM AGAIN. This seems to go against everything I have come to understand about the unrepeatability of baptism. There surely has to be an explanation in New Testament scholarship or in theology for this one. I haven't investigated it. But then again, perhaps I need to take my own advice and let it be. This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.

When I was young, the little sister of one of my friends absolutely hated it when we sprayed her with the hose, which is probably why we continued to do it. "My mom told me I'm not supposed to get wet!" she would scream, which never made any sense to me. It's hot out today, you'll be dry in a few minutes, I thought, so why even tell your mom that you got wet? Jesus submitted to baptism in order to fulfill all righteousness. So following the example of our Lord, and his institution of baptism by offering himself as a participant in it (just like he participated in the Eucharist at Calvary), we baptize in the name of the Trinity, even if we cannot find a hint of it in the plural pronouns ascribed to God in Gen 1.

Is baptism necessary for salvation? Yes. Not in the sense that this is some kind of magical rite that convinces God to save you; this is part of the old polytheistic environment that we should, and have, cast aside. But it is necessary for salvation in that it is the rite of entry into the Church, into Christian fellowship, into Christian maturity. And there is no salvation outside the Church; so says St. Chrysostom. So, yeah, sorry, we're going to get you wet. Not with a hose, probably--unless there is no other water available--but with the water of repentance, to signify your desire to live a life free from sin. For, in the words of Paul's great baptismal meditation, we "should consider yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). Amen.