The story of Jesus’ baptism is a very important one. The fact that it’s in the Gospels at all, and all 4 Gospels at that, tells us just how important it is. Because, if we think about it, it would probably have been easier for the evangelists not to mention it at all. They were concerned with showing Jesus to be the Messiah, Immanuel, the Son of God, so it would have been much more convenient for them to have been able to ignore a story which shows Jesus submitting to John’s authority by going to be baptised by him. But the fact that the evangelists did include it in the Gospels tells us two things. One is that Jesus was baptised by John and that this was so well-known that they couldn’t ignore it. And the other is that it must have been too important an event to be left out of the story of Jesus’ life and ministry.

And it is a very important part of the story. It’s important because it marks the public revelation of Jesus as God’s Son, and it marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, or at least the beginning of Jesus’ final preparation for his public ministry because after his baptism there was only his 40 days in the wilderness to go through before he began to proclaim the kingdom and choose his disciples. But having said how important the story of Jesus’ baptism is, we also have to say that it’s a very problematic story, and not just because it shows Jesus submitting to John.

The real problem with the story of Jesus’ baptism is why? Why was Jesus baptised? John himself didn’t understand this and asked what amounts to the same question, as we read this morning:

John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 

And really, Jesus’ answer simply compounds the difficulty in answering this question:

 “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” 

Righteousness is doing what’s right and good in God’s eyes and so Jesus’ answer tells us that baptism by John was something that was good and right in God’s eyes. But John’s baptism was a baptism for repentance in preparation for the coming of the Messiah, and repentance implies sin. Repentance is about turning over a new leaf. It’s about feeling sorrow for sin, doing something to make amends for sin, and then making a determined effort not to sin again. But Jesus wasn’t a sinner, he was, quite literally, righteousness personified, so why did he need to be baptised in repentance for sin? In what sense did the baptism of the sinless Son of God fulfil all righteousness?

Some people have tried to answer this by using a passage from 2 Corinthians where St Paul says,

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

But it was on the Cross that Jesus became sin, where he took on to himself the sins of the world, not at his baptism, so this still doesn’t really answer the question of why Jesus submitted to a baptism of repentance for sin in order to fulfil all righteousness. In fact, no one has ever been able to find a completely satisfactory answer to this question but perhaps as good a way as any to answer it, or at least to approach it, is to view it in the way we tend to look at infant baptism today. 

In the Creeds of the Church we say that we believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sin, and in the baptism service itself, we speak about the baptised being cleansed from sin. That makes perfectly good sense if we’re baptising older children or adults but, as we know, the custom of most Churches is to baptise infants, babies; but what sin does a baby need to be cleansed from? What sins has a baby committed?

Traditionally, the answer to this question is that they need to be cleansed from the stain of original sin, that sin which all human beings inherit at their conception as a result of the original sin which Adam committed in Eden. In fact this is why infant baptism has become the norm in most Churches because it was long believed that all human beings share the guilt of Adam’s original sin and that, should they die before being baptised, they would die in sin and couldn’t enter heaven. So, in days gone by when infant mortality was so high, people wanted their children baptised as soon as possible after they were born. And so infant baptism became the norm of the Church; I was less than 2 months old when I was baptised and I’m sure something similar could be said for many of you too. But this understanding of original sin is based on a mistranslation of Scripture.

When it was first translated into Latin, Romans 5:12 was translated so that it referred to Adam ‘in whom all sinned’, implying that all people are sinners simply because they’re of Adam’s race, because they’re human beings. In other words, all people, simply by virtue of their conception as human beings, share the guilt of Adam’s original sin and need to be baptised to be cleansed of this sin, even if they’re too young to have sinned personally. But a more accurate translation of Romans 5:12 reads that sin and death entered the world through Adam, and so to all people, in so much as, or because, all sinned. In other words, people suffer the consequences of Adam’s original sin because it’s through him that sin entered the world, but they don’t share the guilt of Adam’s sin. Human beings are sinners, not because they’re Adam’s descendants, but because they all sin, personally.

This takes away the necessity of infant baptism. That doesn’t mean to say it’s wrong to baptise infants, just that we have to look at infant baptism in a different way. Instead of seeing it as necessary to remove the stain and guilt of original sin, we can look at it as a washing away of an old way of life; the washing away of a way of life in which children are condemned to repeat the mistakes, and sins, of their forebears, so that they can embark on a new way of life; one that’s lived according to the teaching and example of Christ. And this is reflected in the baptism service we use for today. Whilst the service for adults and older children, those old enough to answer for themselves, still speaks about repentance and forgiveness, the service for infants speaks less about these things and much more about dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ.

Baptism is a liminal moment in a person’s life. It’s a moment, a point in a person’s life when they change, when they move from one state of being to another. It’s a time when they leave behind the way of the world and begin a new life following the way of Christ. That’s true of everyone who’s baptised, regardless of their age. The older people are when they’re baptised, the more they have to leave behind because they’ve been following the way of the world, the sinful way of the world, for longer than someone who’s younger. When a baby, someone who’s too young to know the way of the world, is baptised, they have nothing to leave behind so, hopefully and ideally, their whole life will be lived in the way of Christ. We know that doesn’t happen but that’s our fault because who do children learn the sinful ways of the world from if it’s not us? So the intention of baptism is that it is this liminal moment, the point in a person’s life when the old ways are washed away and left behind so that they can move on to a new way, Christ’s way. And this is how we can look at the baptism of Jesus and make sense of it.

John was sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah. He did that through a baptism of repentance for sin. The intention behind John’s baptism is that, before baptism, people weren’t ready for the coming of the Messiah, after baptism, they were ready for his coming. It was a liminal moment, a point in people’s lives when they moved from being of what we call the Old Covenant to being prepared for the coming of the New Covenant. As God had sent John to do this, it was all part of God’s plan for the salvation of the world. And so being baptised by John was the righteous thing to do, it was what God required of people. Jesus, being sinless, may not have needed a baptism of repentance because he had nothing to repent for, but he was of the Old Covenant, he was born a Jew.

In the Letter to the Hebrews we read the Jesus,

…had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 

So what could be more fitting for him to do than fulfil all righteousness under the Old Covenant by doing what God required his brothers to do in preparation for the coming of the New Covenant? What could be more fitting than for Jesus to go through this liminal moment himself, a point in time when he became ready, not for the Messiah, but to be the Messiah? A point in time when he moved from being a private person, living under the Old Covenant, to being a public figure ready to proclaim and usher in a new age under the New Covenant?

If we look at the story of Jesus’ baptism in this way, we can see why, in spite of its difficulties, the evangelists felt it was a story they had to tell. It’s a story that confirms the divine providence of John’s baptism. It’s a story that teaches us something about baptism as a liminal moment in our lives, a point in our lives when we leave behind an old way of life to begin a new way of life. And perhaps above all, it teaches us something about Jesus himself because it’s a story that  shows him both in his humanity and his divinity. It’s a story that shows Jesus’ humanity because it shows him to be completely like everyone else, as someone required to do what God required all people to do. And it shows Jesus divinity too as he is revealed to be God’s own beloved Son, openly declared by the voice of his heavenly Father.

Amen. 

---

The Propers for The Baptism of the Lord can be viewed here.

I’m sure that during the run up to Christmas, some of you at least will have come across the controversy and argument about the revised lyrics to the Christmas carol, God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen. For those who didn’t come across this story, a new version of the carol has been written by an American minister which retains only the first two lines of the original and replaces the rest of the words with what have been described as ‘woke’ lyrics. And this has caused controversy and argument in this country because an Anglican parish  church in Leicestershire, used the new version of God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen at a Christmas Carol service this year.

The new version of the carol omits any reference to Christ as Saviour, it contains no direct reference to his birth at Christmas but instead speaks about Christ bringing ‘love’s light’ at Christmas. It contains no reference to Christ saving us from Satan’s power and replaces the traditional words about the angels and shepherds, Bethlehem, Mary and the manger with lyrics about the oppression of women by men, and lyrics about LBGT people. The controversy and argument has been caused because many people in the Church are angry that a Christmas Carol has been used to push the woke agenda of a few people in the Church, at the expense of and to the exclusion of the Christmas story.

But can anyone really be so surprised that something like this has happened? We don’t have to look too hard to see that the story of our Lord, as revealed in Scripture, has been and is always being distorted and changed by those with their own agenda to push.

For example, I remember very well once hearing a world-famous American Evangelist preaching that Jesus believed in the ‘American Way’. He said that Jesus was a Capitalist, that he believed in free enterprise and private property. I don’t recall ever reading any such thing in Scripture, but I have read that we should love others as much as we love ourselves. I’ve read that we should give freely to those in need, without hope, expectation or even desire to be repaid. I’ve also read that Jesus’ own disciples, those who were with him during his ministry and who knew him best interpreted Jesus’ teaching very differently than this modern day American. In the Acts of the Apostles we read that they, and their early coverts to the new Christian faith,

‘…were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.’

But then, an American ordinand whom I studied with at Mirfield did once say that we should be very wary of what American theologians say because, on the whole, they don’t preach Christianity. They preach American values and pass them off as Christianity. 

And speaking of Mirfield reminds me of another instance of people corrupting the Christian faith in order to push their own agenda. On one occasion, another student there asked my opinion on a subject he’d been asked to write an essay on, which was, whether Jesus, a male Messiah, could be a Saviour for women. Because apparently, some feminist theologians were arguing that he couldn’t, and that only a female Messiah, could be a Saviour for women.

It would perhaps be very easy to respond to things like this by asking where these people are coming from but unfortunately, I think I know exactly where these people are coming from. I think people who do and say things like this are people who do have an understanding of the Christian faith and of Jesus’ teachings, probably a good understanding of these things, and because of that they know that Jesus didn’t say what they wished he had said. That might be because they want to live in a way that Jesus said they shouldn’t, or simply that Jesus said nothing at all about a  particular subject that’s close to their hearts. And so they try to change Jesus’ teaching. They put words into Jesus’ mouth by distorting the things he said so that they can be interpreted in the way they want them to be interpreted. Or, and what’s even worse, they simply disregard Jesus completely and invent their own teachings because they can’t make Jesus say what they want him to say or make Jesus himself what they want him to be.

But when people do things like this what is it they’re really doing? They claim to be Christians, but they distort the teachings of the Christian faith. They claim to be Christians, but they invent teachings which Christ himself never taught. They claim to be Christians, but they say that Christ doesn’t speak for them. But to be a Christian means to be a follower of Christ. To be a Christian means to amend your life so that it conforms to Christ’s teaching and example. So, when people distort Christ’s teaching, when they put their own teaching into Christ’s mouth, and when they say that Christ doesn’t speak for them, far from being the Christians they claim to be, what they really are, are followers of their own religion. They’re followers of a religion they’ve invented themselves who then try to claim that their own, personal religion is a valid expression of the Christian faith.

And so, even though they don’t agree with all Christ’s teachings and won’t follow those of his teachings they disagree with, and perhaps don’t even believe that Christ is their Saviour, they still claim to be Christians.

Today, although the readings are the same in both lectionaries, we celebrate two different aspects of the story of our salvation. According to the Roman Catholic calendar, today is the Feast Day of Mary, Mother of God whilst according to the Church of England, today is the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Jesus. And as we think about these two aspects of the story, they should remind us that no one is excluded from God’s plan for our salvation. God’s plan for our salvation includes women, just like Mary. Mary was chosen by God to play her part in the story, and so is every other woman chosen to play their own part in the ongoing story of salvation. All sort of women were chosen, poor women, wealthy women, sick women, widows, prostitutes, Jewish women, Gentile women. Read the Gospel, you’ll find them all there. All sorts of men were chosen to play their part in the story of salvation, and still are being chosen. Ordinary working men like Joseph, rough characters like the shepherds, tax-collectors too, the kind of men who wouldn’t be welcomed in polite society. Rich men and poor men were chosen, wise men and fools, rulers and slaves were chosen, the crippled, the blind, the mentally ill, drunkards, Jewish men and Gentile men. Again, read the Gospel, you’ll find them all there. And children too. The evidence of Scripture is that no one is excluded from God’s plan, so how can people say that they are excluded? The world may exclude people from many things, but God doesn’t. How can he? He loves us so much he sent his Son to us to save us and grant us eternal life.

God’s plan is to bring salvation to the world, to all people through the Incarnation, ministry, teaching and example, and death and Resurrection of his Son. So how can people say that they’re not included in this plan? To say that is to say that God’s plan is flawed and incomplete. To change God’s plan by distorting Christ’s teaching or adding our own amendments to his teaching is to say that we know better than God. It must be because if we change or add to Christ’s words to suit our own agenda what are we saying other than God’s plan would be better if he’d have done things this way, our way?

And God’s plan has a name, the most Holy Name of Jesus. But God’s plan requires that we put the name of Jesus above all other names. It requires that we live, not as we might want to live or as we think or wish that Jesus should have taught us to live, but as he did teach us to live and as he himself did live.

In his Letter to the Philippians, St Paul puts it this way;

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place,

and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

St Paul speaks against selfish ambition and vain conceit, but how much selfish ambition and vain conceit is there in those who distort the Gospel for their own ends, who put their own words in Christ’s mouth to push their own agenda? St Paul urges Christians to follow Christ’s own example and show humility, but what lack of humility is shown by those who would, to all intents and purposes, usurp Christ’s Lordship over the Church by claiming to speak in his name whilst, in reality, speaking for themselves? St Paul exhorts us to kneel before Christ and acknowledge him as our Lord, but what dishonesty and disloyalty is shown by those who call Jesus, Lord, whilst they refuse to bend their knee to him in obedience to his words? And St Pauls says we should do all this to the glory of God the Father. But what glory do people really think they’re giving to the Father when they act in ways which show that they think they know better than him?

Amen.

---

Propers for Sunday in the Octave of Christmas, Mary Mother of God/The Holy Name of Jesus can be viewed here.