Three things to note for the Commemoration of the Baptism of Our Lord (Jan. 13- EF/ Jan. 11- OF):
(1) First, a theological mystery lies hidden behind a sinless Man's decision to be baptized:
Baptism is a sacrament (an outward, visible, material sign that confers or ratifies invisible grace). Now, the distinction on Sacramental Theology in the History of Western Christianity largely pivots on the exclusive usage of these two concepts (conferring vs. ratifying of grace). But that ambiguity is not what I wish to interrogate.
Rather, I am most interested in what the two views have in common--- the outward symbolism and materiality of what is in question.
Now, every Christian believes in some sense that without these *waters* of Baptism, one cannot be saved (Mark 16:16). This is why Early Protestant Reformers (including the most radical, Zwingli) kept the language of sacramentality as Spirit-wrought instruments even if they tried to sidestep the efficacy/causality question of these specific and necessary means of salvation.
The Protestant Reformers as a whole did not dispense with the sacramental entirely; and if you think about this common accord that united the likes of Luther and Calvin, etc. (despite all of their many disagreements on the whole), this commonality is interesting. It is so central to the Christian's identity as such that even non-denominationals still baptize. It may be the least common denominator of a fragmented beyond recognition Christianity.
What I wish to state here is that when something is necessary for salvation in some sense (and thus not contingent or optional), it implies a link or logical entailment in getting from A to B to C, etc. This means that any necessary condition is certainly not ancillary but causal in some way, shape, or fashion, which explains why baptism when considered as a physical action cannot be optional in principle [of course, this does not suggest that God is bound to the Sacraments-- only that men subject to its institution (the focus of this post) as a rule are].
One can easily source the Gospels for Christ's explicit mention of the literal physicality of water in John 3:5: "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'" What this blog poses is this QUESTION: why is there mention of "water" at all if it is meant to suggest something else spiritually by way of symbolism? Why not just say "of Repentance?" or "of the Spirit" and leave it at that? Why is water always there when baptism is invoked in the New Testament? Indeed, the Jews before Jesus' time understood metaphor (see the trope "circumcission of the heart" in the Mosaic Books)--- so why did Jesus have to mention "water"? The simple answer? Because the Greek verb βαπτίζω ("baptizo") literally means "to plunge, immerse, soak, wash, etc." It is so semantically tied up with water as the English verb "to wash" is tied to water (or at least a liquid solution) that the image of water is already there even by way of metaphor.
This explanation--- namely, that metaphors themselves are signs from something more concrete--- foregrounds the physicality of water as an integral component to the whatness of the sacramental. In Salvation History, the materiality of the Sacrament also speaks back to Creation (where the matter of the material ultimately derives).
But for our intents and purposes in this post, it is the omnipresence of the material that intrigues us. Whatever they teach about the act, all baptized Christians abide by this general understanding as far as the physical requisites of baptism are concerned. It may surprise many that this spiritual Faith that transcends the things of both the "law" and the "flesh" relies so heavily upon the material to make sense of the spiritual. Looking at the verb "to baptize" and its etymology, this semantic debt to the physical is inescapable. It is part of God's plan and always has been.
So, even when the theory is largely redirected towards mere symbolism, Christians of all stripes still find themselves litigating the technicalities of Baptism (say, full immersion vs. sprinkling) and that tendency to litigate regarding the technicalities despite the prospect of “legalism” says something of the historical origins of their “Reform” (and why the Puritans fought in vain to rid themselves entirely of the Catholic inheritance). This is because the outlines of the Sacraments as instituted by Christ are inscribed in Scripture itself which is a reference point of doctrinal authority for all Christians. The Catholic tradition largely pinpoints the institutionality of the Sacraments accordingly: (1) Baptism (); (2) The Eucharist (); (3) Marriage (); (4) Holy Orders (); (5) Penance/Reconciliation (); (6) Anointing of the Sick / Extreme Unction (); (7) Confirmation ().
Of course, not all Protestants accept the 7 Sacraments. Lutherans (of the first generation) hold there are only four sacraments. Anglicans believe in only two proper Sacraments, being baptism and Communion, whereas there are five other "rites" (and by virtue of their descent from the Church of England, Methodists hold only two (Communion and Baptism) which I believe is fairly common in others of a more Calvinist origin, etc.).
All apparently hold Baptism in common as properly Sacramental (in fact, their being discernably Christian is tied to their physical baptism by invocation of the Trinity, see Matthew 28:19). All maintain the presence of water as necessary as far as the "outward sign" is concerned.
So yes, by the light of Scripture, the materiality and the significance of the materiality are still there, buried beneath everything. They may disagree on the number of Sacraments, but not the notion of sacramentality. And this affirmation is crucially insightful as far as the institutionality of the visible Church is concerned. For just as the sacraments are outward, material, and thus visible, so is the Church that abides by the institution of the Sacraments themselves. The Church by virtue of Baptism must be visible, institutional, and canonical.
This point brings me to the heart of the matter: A visible ecclesiology is implied by the institution of Baptism itself.
The Church Father St. John Chrysostom explains quite eloquently how the mystery of Christ's Baptism correlates to the Sacramentality of the Institution of Baptism as an act of institution:
[For a full translation of the Sermon, see this link:
Source: Sermon on the Baptism of Christ by St John Chrysostom ]
An analysis:
Scripturally, what Chrysostom is arguing regarding the Baptism of Christ is that the conundrum raised by John the Baptist (namely, his surprise that Christ asked him to be baptized vs. Christ baptizing John) can only be resolved if you realize that Christ being sinless doesn’t need to be Baptized (as we do), but that He is doing something else entirely distinct as deemed necessary and good— i.e. “righteous”.
Chrysostom cites that this was an obligation on par with keeping the Sabbath that Jesus also submitted to. That may or may not be relevant: But I would say baptism is different from the Sabbath rest in that Baptism has no Mosaic precedent (Baptism is not in Leviticus for instance nor was it codified in ways that say the rite of Purification was), and so when Christ replies to John and says “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” what He is saying should take us aback: What is the basis of such a righteous act if Christ again had nothing to atone for (unlike the everyone else that John baptized?) Why is it needed to fulfill all righteousness once you realize that righteousness is another term for justice [or, giving another what is due?]. What exactly is due here?
Christ by emphasizing His exceptionality to the rule and admitting John is correct about the fittingness of the role reversal is *now* making an exception to the rule (as only the Son of God could do) and can thus only be looking FORWARD to His Church and not BACKWARDS towards a Mosaic precedent or precept (in a much rarer move) by instituting the Sacrament of His New Covenant vs. John’s ordinary baptism of penance by letting his Body touch the waters so as to sanctify those waters [once again, reinforcing the observation above referring to John 3:5. Even so, there is enough continuity here vs. total rupture: Christ is the one who is said to “make all things new” but He also comes to “fulfill the law not replace it.” A lot to ponder on there.]. But I am risking yet another tangent...
So how do we know Christ is instituting something new given that He appears to be observing a righteous formality just as the BVM had no need for “cleansing” at Candlemas (as celebrated on Feb. 2)?:
Chrysostom answers by shifting attention to the next immediate line: ““And Jesus, when He was baptised, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him.”
Chrysostom here elaborates his point about the mystery by addressing his audience: “Why were the heavens opened? That thou mightest learn that this was for thee also. For when thou art baptised, the heavens are opened, and thou receivest the Spirit. This was not for Him who needed nothing, but for thee” (emphasis mine).
A sacramental formula is elaborated:
One first believes in Christ. Then one is baptized in the waters. Then, the heavens are opened up for you [meaning a doorway that crosses to and from]. Finally, one receives the Spirit.
That is a very specific linear process of steps... 1, 2, 3, 4...
And as the Church Father here explains, that is what is being conveyed doctrinally within Scripture itself regarding the Sacrament of Baptism (and by extension the concept of sacramentality writ large by way of the "First Sacrament").
A voice then said “This is my Beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.” As the golden mouthed preacher reminds us, this was not said for Christ’s sake or edification as He already knew such things (see His replies to His parents when discovered in the Temple in Luke 2:49) but rather for all present at the scene.
Everything about the mystery of Christ's Baptism as the Son of God and the Trinitarian cooperation in this mystery is at root for others (namely, fallen Mankind). And as such, because it sets a precedent to be repeated, Christian Baptism is properly said to be an institution with its own formula of ratification.**
This then is indeed something new that takes John’s movement as a starting basis materially and morally (i.e. by individual call to penance) but goes beyond the Old and confers salvic grace upon the act on behalf of Mankind by the seal of the Trinity (which is why disciples of Christ are later instructed specifically to baptize in the name of all three divine persons, Matthew 28:19). In the revelation of this mystery— again, Jesus speaks cryptically in the first-person plural (maybe prosaically inclusive of John and all present, but as it is grammatically a command maybe more fitting to describe mystically as inclusive of the Father and the Spirit?)— without question, we encounter something new. Again, there is nothing in the Old Covenant that takes the ceremonial cleansing to this height of significance and weight of meaning. Purification and the cleansings in the Old Testament do serve as a typology for the Sacrament but they servered very different purpsoes than what the Sacrament of Baptism would one day confer.
Chrysostom himself has no doubts about what is being instituted here (and institutionality is itself the right term as it buttresses the need for an institutional, material, and visible Church to administer these necessary sacraments (as demonstrated above) beginning with Baptism): “And observe how the Trinity is revealed. The Son is baptised; the Spirit descends; the Father speaks from heaven. Do you see the full manifestation of the Trinity? Do you see how Christ begins His work by revealing this mystery?”
He goes on “Thus He sanctified the waters, not by being purified Himself, but by purifying them. He descended into the Jordan, not to wash away His sins (for He had none), but to wash away ours. **From that time forth**, the waters have received the power of sanctification.” [the emphasis is mine to indicate the institutional implications of Chrysostom's deliberate word choices.].
This is how scripturally the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted. By Chrysostom’s account (speaking in the late 4th century), Baptism by Tradition is already widely recognized not merely as a practice but as an “institution” of religion provided with a clear doctrinal significance (otherwise, it would not make immediate sense to his audience at the time). (This is why Scripture and Tradition mutually self-reinforce as part of the same deposit of faith but that is another topic for another time...)
A lot more can be said, but I will tapper this commentary off. It suffices to say that this was neither an unrepeatable, isolated act (speaking to its sacrament as a formulation), nor a Mosaic ceremonial custom (speaking to its specifically Christian relation to the New Covenant), nor something needed by Christ to do for Himself (speaking to its Divine origin as an institution both for and by His Church).
And because it is an institution that helps to constitute the body of Christians, it is something more than the sum of those parts (i.e. individual believers). Baptism itself has an ecclesiological basis that speaks just as much to the role of St. John the Baptist (i.e. the one baptizing) as it does to Jesus Christ (i.e. the one being baptized). This active vs. passive role is largely overlooked in its ecclesial significance.
(2) Second, a minor and less related point: Chrysostom’s sermon points out that John the Forerunner himself raised a theological question within Scripture by asking something fairly straightforward and necessary according to his conscience: “Lord, is it not I who should be baptized by You?”
Thus, Scripture invites us too to ask questions and interrogate the mysteries therein*— and they are aptly termed “mysteries” for they are not accessible in way that ordinary earthly things are. Quite the contrary, the contents are often baffling (as the case with John and the teachings on the Eucharist which scandalized the Pharisees as suggestive of eating flesh and drinking blood, see John 6:52 and Luke 22:17-20). This baffling aspect of the mysteries of the Faith are such that true exegesis must begin and end in wonder for we are probing the mysteries of God’s revelation to Man. That is, we are not doing archaeology when we read the Bible... And we lose something spiritual when we approach it so profanely by flattening everything to its literal, historical sense, and simply staying there. Thus, the same attitude of mere symbolism when approaching the Sacramental life is repeated yet again in a flat uncaptivating approach to the Word of God.
Christianity is an immensely mystery-inclined religion (e.g. Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension, Pentecost, Grace vs. Nature, etc). To approach such a perplexing situation on your own without the insight of theologians and millennia of commentary and to throw out that domain of knowledge that emerged from that encounter 2000 years ago is not only short-sided but unscriptural.
That is my second point here. John’s words within the Gospel itself reveal a questioning spirit not for its own sake (as that would be vanity) but for the sake of understanding God’s ordinarily ineffable will. We should do the same and utilize every source at our disposal that has touched the legacy of God's time on Earth, especially those who have raised similar questions among the disciples of His disciples, i.e. the Church Fathers!
Yes, the saints matter to us. If we are called to adhere to the "teaching moments" of the saints like John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, Mary Magdalene, and the like, so as to imitate their discipleship and Christian morals and to meditate upon their words and deeds, then why not emulate their intellectual virtues as well as teaching aids on the meaning of Scripture? John feared doing an injustice to his superior and so he spoke out of his concern to the Lord who in turn accepted John’s pious hesitation to assert himself over Jesus. Can you see how diligence in spiritual knowledge is itself a virtue that Christ acknowledges? Or how deference to Tradition could itself be a pious act?
I don't expect many people outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy to appreciate this point--- as they would prefer just to jump as close to Christ as possible--- but can they not stumble as John would have if he had not merely objected but even refused to baptize Christ because of his own notions of justice? Do people who proceed too quickly in spiritual matters not realize that others long before them have in fact read the Bible too while being far more proximate to Him in various senses (i.e. linguistically, culturally, lifestyle, background, connections to a privilege lineage of discipleship, etc.)? Does that not count for anything before putting your own notions forward as a modern man or woman who lacks such connections to the Lord?
By bringing up John's deference and questioning attitude (only done out of piety), I am raising a question about the epistemic piety that is Tradition itself.
Please, be cautious and judicious in treading the holy grounds of Scripture just as John was cautious and judicious in approaching Christ in person! If this is the inspired word of God, then wouldn't you expect a depth that surpasses that of anything humanly authored? And wouldn't you rather learn from those ancient scholars who understood Scripture as such?
This sense of caution as exhibited by John the Baptist is itself holy and scripturally accepted by Christ, and the Forerunner's desire to get things right to please the Lord in his understanding and actions is precisely why theological interpretive teaching has emerged over the millennia! You simply cannot approach Holy Writ without such a compass. Moreover, such a guide of the Holy Church and Sacred Tradition is not improvised by you as an individual but handed down by a flesh and blood lineage of disciples who when taken together are guided by the Holy Spirit just as the Evangelists and Prophets were (see John 14:17). What we are not prioritizing here is the voice of this or that man, but the harmony of voices through the history of the Church itself. This harmony is not inexplicable but attests to the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church as promised by our Lord (John 14).
Again, material and institutional linkages matter. This overview of the Baptism of Our Lord hopefully sheds light on that connection!
(3) There is a point here about OT precedent that I will revisit just after Easter Vigil in 80 or so days when many catechumens follow Christ into the cleansing waters.
For now, be well!
And don’t be so naive that all of that talk of “sacraments” and “mysteries” is crypto-paganism or a continuation of some Eleusinian cult. Such things are Christian because they always have been there.
Pax Christi!
*John asked questions of the Son just as Abraham asked questions of God the Father. Should we not also if He is our Father and Maker? Thus, theology— even and perhaps most especially speculative theology— has not only a basis but a sanction in Scripture, e.g. Psalms 1:2, 143:5, in addition many places in Psalm 119, etc. to say nothing of the New Testament! Speculative theology is in some sense the formal continuation of prophecy under the Old Covenant which was the pastime of the Hebrews always on the lookout for signs and their interpretation. We are invited by God to know Him (1 Timothy 2: 3-4) — however challenging and inexhaustible that source of knowledge is (Romans 11:33-34). The solution behind this conundrum--- first, that we are somehow called to know God in so far as it pleases Him; and second, that He is fundamentally "incomprehensible" as expressed by St. Paul--- is resolved (to the extent "resolvable" makes sense) only when we embrace the mystery. Ecclesiastically, this is encompassed by the life of the Sacraments.
**This is why the technicalities or legalism, as some say, still matters even to the low Churched (or, more aptly expressed in our own day, the Unchurched). Different Protestant denominations will have different requirements for what constitutes Baptism. Some will say that a believer's Baptism is required. Others will emphasize the need for a river (just like the Jordan: but while we're out it, why not the Jordan only? Why make the inference that any river will do?), or perhaps they will be satisfied with a mere sprinkling of water or a dunking of the head, etc. Who knows? The point is that there are endless interpretations to be had. So why not one more?: why even bother with a physical baptism at all. Can't you just have a baptism "in your heart"? Yes? No? Maybe? I guess? Yeah, do you see where this all leads? Flash forward to 2026: the question that is more often asked: Who cares?
Add comment
Comments