A question about the theological implications of Jesus' baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mort_Alz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mort_Alz

Guest
Hello CAF!

I have been doing a lot of independent research on the historical accuracy of the Gospels and the Biblical canon and one of the “criteria” I find for determining historical accuracy is known as the “criteria of embarassment” meaning that a verse recorded by a Christian writer in one of the Gospels that has the potential to fudge up the theology of Christianity is likely to be valid instead of invented since they would not intentionally invent stories that would undermine their religion

One example of this was found to be Jesus’ baptism. The “criteria of embarassment” asserts that this would be a true event because Jesus’ baptism has to potential to let people say “perhaps Jesus WASN’T God, then?” Therefore, a Christian didn’t make it up and was, in fact, recording a real event.

One thing that I found some historians think about the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ baptism (particularly Matthew’s) was that they “left out” some details of his baptism that would be borderline contradictory with Christian theology.

For example, the Gospel of Hebrews (hear me out before you tell me it’s not canonical, I know that it is not) records Jesus’ baptism as follows:

“And behold the mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, “John the Baptist baptizes for the forgiveness of sins. Let us go and be baptized by him.” But Jesus said to them, “in what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance”.
After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, “You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.” And again, “Today I have begotten You. My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for You that You should come and I might rest in You. For You are My rest. You are My first begotten Son that prevails forever” Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to him, “Who are you, Lord?” And again a voice from Heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Then John, falling down before him, said, “I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!” But He forbade him saying, “Let it be so; for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.””

Now, this presents some theological difficulties. At face value, it appears to be affirming adoptionism via “Today I have begotten You.” And almost implies that Jesus had sin in him necessitating his baptism for forgiveness of sins via “in what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance”

Now, I know that the Gospel of the Hebrews is NOT canonical and that we don’t have any original copies of it, but we DO have quotes FROM it BY early CHURCH FATHERS. And that is my difficulty I present today.

In my studies, I’ve found that Jerome had an intense interest in the Gospel of the Hebrews and had himself tranlsated it into two different languages. Furthermore, the style of its writing is very similar to the synoptic gospels and doesn’t differ very much from them. Its writing style matches other eyewitness material from that time period, and some people hypothesize that it’s very possible that Matthew could have been its author.

So, regardless of canonization, does this passage present theological difficulty? is there perhaps an explanation as to what is meant by “Today, I have begotten you.?” What about the area where it appears that Jesus had sinned? Do you think he meant something different?

I KNOW this is not canon, but it has the potential to be historically true. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks in advance 🙂
 
But do you know which parts of the Hebrews gospel he quoted and in what context? The fact that he quotes it doesn’t really mean anything. It is how he quotes it. Is he quoting it to prove something is true, or that something is false? Without knowing what he quoted and how, it is difficult to make a case for a particular point of view.
 
, “Today I have begotten You.”

This really means nothing either way. I believe in Psalms God says the same thing to David.

IMO, the whole scene at the the baptism of Jesus had two purposes:

#1- Jesus being an example to the people gathered there, if the Son of God, perfectly sinless is baptisted, then everyone should be willing to be baptised.

#2- I believe that the whole scene (the dove/holy spirit comming down on Jesus…ect) was just a visible and clear proclamation by God to the people there that this is the Son of God.

However, you will not find anything more clear than what you already have on hand. That one simple phrase is very inconclusive, particularly because it was also said to David. It may have simply been a reference back to Psalms by the author.
 
Keep in mind that the baptism of John was NOT Christian baptism. It was Jewish tevilah (mikvah), the ritual bathing which was performed for removing ritual uncleanness but also as a sign of repentence, for conversion, and as consecration for sacred duty, Jesus did not have sins of which to repent, but He was being consecrated for His role as High Priest and as Sacrifice (the sacrificial lambs were also bathed in preparation).

That the baptism of John was not the same as Christian baptism is clear from the several times in Acts when people who are already believers but who have only received John’s baptism are baptised by/at the direction of the Apostles.

That doesn’t speak directly to whether this is evidence of the phrase in question having been “left out” of the canonical text. I wonder, incidentally, if the Gospel of Hebrews actually said “baptizes for the forgiveness of sins”? That would be quite different from the text of the canonicals. And the second paragraph of your quote is, I believe, from Epiphanius’ condemnation of the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites, rather than from Jerome’s citation of the Gospel of the Hebrews.
 
Mort_Alz said:
Hello CAF!

I have been doing a lot of independent research on the historical accuracy of the Gospels and the Biblical canon and one of the “criteria” I find for determining historical accuracy is known as the “criteria of embarassment” meaning that a verse recorded by a Christian writer in one of the Gospels that has the potential to fudge up the theology of Christianity is likely to be valid instead of invented since they would not intentionally invent stories that would undermine their religion

One example of this was found to be Jesus’ baptism. The “criteria of embarassment” asserts that this would be a true event because Jesus’ baptism has to potential to let people say “perhaps Jesus WASN’T God, then?” Therefore, a Christian didn’t make it up and was, in fact, recording a real event.

One thing that I found some historians think about the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ baptism (particularly Matthew’s) was that they “left out” some details of his baptism that would be borderline contradictory with Christian theology.

For example, the Gospel of Hebrews (hear me out before you tell me it’s not canonical, I know that it is not) records Jesus’ baptism as follows:

“And behold the mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, “John the Baptist baptizes for the forgiveness of sins. Let us go and be baptized by him.” But Jesus said to them, “in what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance”.
After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, “You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.” And again, “Today I have begotten You. My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for You that You should come and I might rest in You. For You are My rest. You are My first begotten Son that prevails forever” Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to him, “Who are you, Lord?” And again a voice from Heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Then John, falling down before him, said, “I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!” But He forbade him saying, “Let it be so; for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.””

Now, this presents some theological difficulties. At face value, it appears to be affirming adoptionism via “Today I have begotten You.” And almost implies that Jesus had sin in him necessitating his baptism for forgiveness of sins via “in what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance”

Now, I know that the Gospel of the Hebrews is NOT canonical and that we don’t have any original copies of it, but we DO have quotes FROM it BY early CHURCH FATHERS. And that is my difficulty I present today.

In my studies, I’ve found that Jerome had an intense interest in the Gospel of the Hebrews and had himself tranlsated it into two different languages. Furthermore, the style of its writing is very similar to the synoptic gospels and doesn’t differ very much from them. Its writing style matches other eyewitness material from that time period, and some people hypothesize that it’s very possible that Matthew could have been its author.

So, regardless of canonization, does this passage present theological difficulty? is there perhaps an explanation as to what is meant by “Today, I have begotten you.?” What about the area where it appears that Jesus had sinned? Do you think he meant something different?

I KNOW this is not canon, but it has the potential to be historically true. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks in advance 🙂
Click to expand...
We also have quotes such as by Epiphanius stating that the Gospel of the Hebrews was edited by the ebionites according to their doctrine. There is scholarly debate about whether it even refers to one gospel or if there are actually 3 different ones. I would suggest that pontificating on the validity of dogma in light of a gospel that we don’t have, canononical or not, is self-defeating. One may as well debate the papacy from Q.

I appreciate your concerns, but we can only go with what we know, not what we don’t. God Bless.
 
Hi, I’m not as educated or “read” as you are, so I am approaching this subject with some naivete, and perhaps some fundamentalism thrown in.

But I understand the baptism (as an enormously significant event, in the first place) as placing the sign of condemnation (the water symbolizing death, as in the flood account) on Jesus.

And, there’s a clear parallelism to the high priest imputing the sins of the people on the scapegoat, which is lead into the desert.

And, after the “anointing” with the Holy Spirit in the blessing, Jesus goes out into the wilderness to be tempted.

so, now, I agree that there is a theological difficulty in stretching the canonical account over the non-canonical account (or vice versa) and imputing personal sins to Jesus. That assumes, as they say, facts not in evidence.

And, the fact that Jesus rises immediately out of the water rather than lingering and bathing, as it were, indicates that the washing points to a different spiritual purpose, as I mentioned. And, it is to that purpose that Jesus addresses John and says that it must be so.

And, that is reinforced by the difference in the direction that Jesus travels. The other baptized or washed are being ritually washed in preparation for their ascent to the Temple. But, Jesus is not going to the Temple. There is a different trajectory involved. And, we are seing the first glimpse of Jesus’ willingness and mission to die, perhaps even in the desert, if that had been the will of the Father.

etc.
 
let’s address this comment from the original post:

One example of this was found to be Jesus’ baptism. The “criteria of embarassment” asserts that this would be a true event because Jesus’ baptism has to potential to let people say “perhaps Jesus WASN’T God, then?” Therefore, a Christian didn’t make it up and was, in fact, recording a real event.

This is intermingling two different ideas, isn’t it?

Whether Jesus is God and whether this incident (dis)proves it.

We stand downstream in history and read the account from the standpoint of faith, and from the standpoint of the entirety of scripture. On both accounts, together, we believe that Jesus is God (Catholics).

I think John’s declaration that here is the Lamb of God points to a fulfillment of scripture, starting with Abraham’s binding of Isaac – that whole incident.

So, Catholics can’t or shouldn’t buy into the premise that Jesus is not God, to prove that the incident was not made up.

There’s lots said in this website and in many threads about the historicity of the Gospels, otherwise.

The “embarrassment” is asking such a question. The question assumes the possibility of a different explanation.
 
One last detail about the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan.

If you look at the account of the nativity of John, you will recall that he was the son of a Temple priest. So, by birth, he, too, was a priest. So, the imputing of sins to Jesus has a stronger parallel to the ceremony of the scapegoat at the Temple. Jesus is the innocent “lamb” upon whom sins are imputed.

Elsewhere, Jesus refers to Himself as the Temple.

So, Jesus is the complete fulfillment of the OT ritual of the scapegoat and the lamb of sacrifice. Both are fulfilled in Jesus.
 
The original post says, in part:

“So, regardless of canonization, does this passage present theological difficulty? is there perhaps an explanation as to what is meant by “Today, I have begotten you.?” What about the area where it appears that Jesus had sinned? Do you think he meant something different?”

The Ignatius Study Bible comments on this “begotten” phrase as either a declaration of Jesus’ divinity by His Sonship or of His uniqueness (which points to the same thing).

Begotten is based on the verb beget which is used in various of its irregular forms to indicate fatherhood. The word in this context has to reflect the intimacy of the Father and the Son. It was on that “today” that the Father declared His direct Fatherhood of Jesus.

The occasion of Jesus’ baptism is the occasion of a theophany, a direct revelation of God.
 
And the Gospel of Peter says that eventually all souls will get to Heaven. The non-cannonical books are interesting and possibly informative but there is a reason why they are non-cannonical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top