Comments: Was Jesus faking it?

While reading this, I was caught betwixt enjoyment at the speculation, and the frustration of "You're overthinking it: it's a Mystery!"

Still, an interesting read. Thank you.

Posted by JCF at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 6:02am GMT

One hesitates to dialogue with the Head of a theological institute, especially one with St.Chad's provenance, but my theory of Jesus' Baptism by John in the Jordan is slightly different.

I know that the explanation given by Joe Cassidy is certainly affirming of the humanity of Jesus - perhaps needing conversion in order to undertake his divine mission. However, my personal understanding is that Jesus was already aware of his need to go along with John's Baptism ritual - in order to attest to his authenticity, as being Jewish. Otherwise, John, amongst others, might not have fully recognised Jesus as Messiah.

I also believe that Baptism by John, for other Jewish disciples, became their enabling ritual for the recognition of Jesus as the true Messiah.

There can be little doubt that Jesus'Baptism by John did have an effect upon his ministry. It gave him the experience of being affirmed by His Father - that he was on the right track - in humbling himself to a willing acceptance of John's unique and special ministry to the Jews.

I believe it was from this display of obedience to the Father, in submitting to John's Baptism, that was the key to all that Jesus was able to accomplish - truly his confirmation by the Holy Spirit, in the presence of the Father. This was the empowering beginning of his mission to ALL.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 8:53am GMT

I rather like this explanation - it does explain that why although we are TOLD Jesus starts preaching repentance, what we mainly overhear Jesus saying is that God's love is all-encompassing and extends to even those most unlikely recipients of it. Correspondingly, it is making the Kingdom inaccessible to others, and failing to forgive them, which is the sin he actually does call to repentance.

Posted by Rosemary Hannah at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 9:01am GMT

This post is totally tangential.

It is interesting to note that there is not a word from this blog over the killing of scores of Christians in Nigeria over the past few weeks. Yet when a little noise is made over the persecution of homosexuals in Nigeria, this blog tends to go ballistic.

Get me right, I don't support the persecution of homosexuals, but the silence from this blog is deafening.

Not a word, not a prayer. Innocent men, women and children were murdered by extremists on Christmas day, after service - not a word. A church was attacked in Gombe, North Eastern Nigeria - not a word. 20 Christians were killed at a town hall meeting in Mubi, North Eastern Nigeria - not a word. Women were killed at the local hairdressers for being Christians - not a word.

No wonder Nigerian Christians don't take you guys seriously.

Posted by Skilbo at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 12:38pm GMT

Surely Christ enters the waters of baptism not to confess sin but to bless those waters by his grace for all eternity. This sermon, like so much theology of the last half century, falls IMHO because it's gaze is fixed too much on man and not enough on God, miracle and mystery

Posted by Ed Tomlinson at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 12:42pm GMT

In a similar vein, St. Jerome's Dialogue Against the Pelagians quotes a passage from an early Syrian edition of Matthew's gospel, in which Jesus briefly talks us through the reasoning behind his decision to be baptised:

'The mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, "John the Baptist baptises for the forgiveness of sins; let us go and be baptised by him." But he said to them, "In what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptised by him? Unless, perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance."'

Posted by Feria at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 1:02pm GMT

If we take seriously the creedal statement that Jesus was fully human, then he was not God walking on earth in human disguise.
Would he have known that he would later be seen as having been without sin?

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 1:45pm GMT

This is wonderful. Thank you.

Posted by Maida at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 2:04pm GMT

In the American Prayerbook, the NT lesson at MP today is the account of the Baptism of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Interestingly, he claims to have seen the heavens opened and the Spirit descending. However, he says twice in the passage used at MP that he "did now know" Jesus prior to this episode. Which means--what? That he did not know who Jesus was (vocationally); or that he'd never met the dude (contrasting with Luke's making them approximately second cousins) or what?

As to being baptized as a sign of repentance, was that the Essene usage? I confess abysmal ignorance on this point and wonder if others have studied this story with an eye to what is known about the Qumran community.

Posted by Daniel Berry, NYC at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 3:25pm GMT

Good to see that Father Ed still finds time to keep up with the finest brains of contemporary Christianity. He is always welcome. He should know, however, that Jesus' baptism was earnestly discussed by early Christian Church Fathers, who did not find it unproblematic. Personally, I think the simplest and most useful explanation is that it's a gesture of solidarity with us.

Posted by John at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 3:36pm GMT

Well, there is an argument against the trinity, and at the very least Jesus unaware. Myth chews itself over.

But there's a simpler explanation. He gets baptised because he joins John the Baptist's group. John the Baptist is then lost to them, and Jesus takes up the ministry leadership. Both John and Jesus were expecting a God-created messianic end, and not of themselves as such (though later Jesus may have thought he would himself be transformed - this often happens with religious leaders, that they increasingly equate themselves with the mission undertaken with some urgency).

Posted by Pluralist at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 5:02pm GMT

Erika Baker- that's quite a comment really. So Jesus sinned did he? fascinating!

Posted by Mark Wharton at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 5:14pm GMT

Whether he did nor not - I didn't actually say that.

I said he might not have known that he was without sin.
As a human being - how could he? How could he have known that he never sinned as a child or young adult, that he would never sin for the rest of his life? That he would not need the grace of Baptism?

All I'm asking is if we're taking Jesus' 100% humanity seriously enough.

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 6:01pm GMT

Quite, John, this is an interesting re-visit of a perennial question.

We must remember that for many "orthodox" and "traditional" believers this baptism shouldn't have worked yet alone had any spiritual significance - as it was administered by someone who failed all the tests set for them by scripture and tradition.

I found that these few paragraphs (for me) introduces a new level of miracle and mystery - it's just not where you might expect it! That's God for you!

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 7:23pm GMT

What does it really mean to be fully human and fully divine at the same time?
Jesus is, according to orthodox Christian teaching, completely and fully human. Period. Full stop. No exclusions. At the same time that he is fully divine.
If he is fully human, he must have been subject to the frailties, insecurities, doubts, etc. that every other human suffers.
Now, as some Christians put it, "Jesus was tempted in every way, but did not sin." Now, they and most Christians like to emphasize the "did not sin" part, but, nonetheless, ... he was tempted in every way.
Couldn't he have felt that temptation keenly? And been baptized for that reason?

Pluralist on Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 5:02pm GMT, I also like your reasoning.

Posted by peterpi - Peter Gross at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 7:47pm GMT

Surely., in taking upon himself our human frailty, Jesus took upon himself our sins. This makes sense of his final dereliction statement: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Could that not have been his supreme moment of actually experiencing, for himself, the 'absence of God' - which is the fruit of sin?

This makes sense of his final cry: "Into They hands I commit my Spirit" - out of the darkness of sin.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 8:34pm GMT

I don't quite understand why anyone would be stuck on a "sinless" Jesus.

Whether you want to call it sinful or not, Jesus' calling that woman a "dog" when she wanted him to heal her kid was pretty unattractive. The good news was she bested him. Like everyone else, Jesus needed to learn.

Posted by Daniel Berry, NYC at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 10:06pm GMT

"Surely., in taking upon himself our human frailty, Jesus took upon himself our sins"

Well, actually, only God or the divine part of Jesus could do that. The whole point of the Incarnation is that humans couldn't do it on their own.

But while Jesus is fully human during his life on earth, if he is taking upon himself our sins, he cannot be aware of it. Any awareness of his divinity would immediately render him less than 100% human.

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 11:32pm GMT

"Would he have known that he would later be seen as having been without sin?"

Erika I like your question quite a lot. I'd guess that Jesus did not know, since he was fully human and came to knowledge gradually, like the rest of us.

As Fr Ron Smith reminds us, Jesus thought God abandoned him, so he seemed to have felt the weight sin, which, in his case, may have been our sins.

Posted by Grandmère Mimi at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 2:05am GMT

What I love about the baptism of Christ is precisely that its meaning isn't explained to us in Scripture. We are simply told that Jesus is baptised, that there is the voice from heaven, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, followed by the strange compulsion by the Holy Spirit of Jesus into the wilderness.

I think we can add to this the probable symbolism of Jesus doing in reverse what the Hebrews did at the end of the Exodus: he crosses through the waters of the Jordan into the Wilderness to be tempted rather than escaping from the temptation in the wilderness by crossing through the Jordan into the Promised Land. Of course, also unlike the Hebrews, Jesus successfully resists temptation. So, behind the baptism probably lies Jesus' vocation to be the true Israel.

Beyond all this, though, we are told nothing explicit about the reasons for Jesus' baptism, which means that we can't do much more than try to interpret the mystery. Guideposts help limit those interpretations, but in the end the act remains a mystery, full of richness, evocative imagery, and Trinitarian undertones. And I suspect that the lack of statements like 'as it was prophesied by..' or 'in fulfilment of the Scriptures' suggests that it is at the level of mystery that we are to ponder and enjoy the story.

...but that's just my interpretation!

Posted by Mark Clavier at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 7:04am GMT

Fundamentally it seems the author makes the mistake of conflating Jesus' humanity with the state of humanity's spiritual death apart from Christ. Jesus was never wandering aimlessly around, experiencing false guilt nor denying his perfect union with the father -- things we who are now alive in Christ continue to do because we remain such broken clay vessels this side of glory. I'm afraid the author's whole premise imposes a bit too much of his own spiritual condition upon Jesus, as if this is what is meant to be human! This leaves his speculations as rather less than helpful. Though I must say he certainly seems to delight in his ability to hypothesize creatively on matters that are rather well settled.

Posted by Rob at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 8:08am GMT

"Well, actually, only God or the divine part of Jesus could do that. The whole point of the Incarnation is that humans couldn't do it on their own." - Erika Baker -

Your point is taken, Erika, but we need to be careful not to bifurcate Jesus' divinity and his humanity - they come of-a-piece. As Mimi infers: Jesus felt the weight of our sin both as Son of God and Son of Man. His separation was from His Father. All very mysterious, I know, but needing some unwrapping - as far as is possible to us mere mortals.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 10:36am GMT

Daniel Berry: 'I don't quite understand why anyone would be stuck on a "sinless" Jesus.'

I think, inter alia, there's an important procedural reason for it. Part of Jesus' mission was to abolish large chunks of the Law of Moses: the "ceremonies" and "civil precepts", as they're retrospectively called in the Articles of Religion of the Church of England. However, if the Pharisees had been able to put together a convincing case that Jesus had committed any violation of the Law of Moses, then they could have made a strong argument that He had a self-interest, which would have undermined His legitimacy in achieving that abolition. Hence, it was vital for Jesus to be sinless, at least in the technical sense of having committed no violation of the Law of Moses.

Posted by Feria at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 12:28pm GMT

Are the powers of each nature expressed in distinct and separate ways, or is Christ a unique individuality expressing both deity and humanity in a manner that cannot be segregated? When did He speak as man, but not as God?
Our faith declares the incarnation to be foretold, (God is with us) and fulfilled. To be the second Adam of an eternal promise, Christ must have a nature that is distinct from mere mortals.

While we should not shy away from examining what it means to be fully human (as several have done here), who among us can presume to plumb the depths of what it also means to be fully divine? Yes, we can trot out a list of omnipotent attributes, but that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Even if God has provided us with minds of reasoning and enquiry, we cannot fathom the unfathomable. We must use inaccurate symbolic language, as mathematicians evaluating equations that involve infinity.

Even our best efforts here remind me of Paul's reference to even his own stupendous revelation of mankind's great destiny in the Kingdom of God: 'Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known' 1 Cor. 13:12.
None of Christ's contemporaries scrutinised His behaviour in enough detail to categorically assert his sinlessness. At best, his followers could maintain that he was blameless of all the accusations that his detractors levelled at Him.
Heb. 4:15 and Heb. 2:17 attest to Christ's sinlessness. Yet, Christ's sinless life is instead predicated upon the prophetic high priestly significance of belief in the resurrection and ascension. The Giver of Life has eternally restored the obediently surrendered life of the highest and purest offering of love, His own Son.

If we return to a high priest that makes intercession for his own sins as well as ours, we return to the redemptive inefficacy of the Old Testament sacrifices (cf. Heb, 10:5 – 7)

Posted by David Shepherd at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 4:35pm GMT

I have felt for some time that "Christ" represents not "Jesus' last name" (as someone has phrased it) but rather the potential of the ultimate consciousness of all humans. That "Christ" exists, not only in this one individual, but in all of us - and that the awareness it represents was, theoretically, more realized in this person than in anyone else. My informal slogan has become (from the baptismal service) "to seek and serve Christ in all persons" - and I do believe Christ exists in us all. At what point the man Jesus became fully aware of the complete potential of his human nature can, in my opinion, be interestingly discussed.

Posted by Uriel at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 5:14pm GMT

Perhaps the failure to undergo baptism would in itself have been the sin, so for the sake of maintaining His sinlessness He submitted Him self. I would suggest that He confessed no sin, as He had lead a sinless life under the law, and Our heavenly Father endorsed His son by speaking from the heavens and sending the Holy Spirit to anoint Jesus Christ.

Posted by David Wilson at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 9:06pm GMT

David Shepherd, thank you. I feel, at last, a sense of convergence with what you have stated above. Despite our differences on matters of gender and sexuality, I think we have reached agreement on the essence of what God was 'up to' in the mysterious reality of Jesus' incarnation: as both Son of God and Son of Man - uniquely, in our world. Agape!
Kalo Epiphania

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 9 January 2012 at 11:12pm GMT

Father Ron: Gracious words. Christ might say to both of us as we acknowledge His ineffable mystery: 'You are not far from the Kingdom of God'.

We both hunger and thirst to know more.

Posted by David Shepherd at Tuesday, 10 January 2012 at 10:50am GMT

If you can ~

DO go to visit The Baptism of Christ by Piero della Francesca at the National Gallery (London). It is so worth attending to and meditating on.

It is in a discrete chapel-like room of its own, along with his Nativity.

The mind and its discussions becomes silenced in the presence of something beyond language and dualities.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Tuesday, 10 January 2012 at 12:28pm GMT


Of course then again - it could very well be because it is true and that is how many of us have experienced and encountered God: as described in the New Testament. We witness His transforming power in the prisons, The healing and transforming power of His love with the broken. Which other God can we say has loved us? It actually makes sense of what we encounter on a global scale, that Jesus did indeed turn out to be the light to the gentiles as described in Isaiah and in the book of John.

Posted by david wilson at Tuesday, 10 January 2012 at 2:15pm GMT

The Joe Cassidy article explores the baptism of Jesus along the lines of the "messianic consciousness" theory. Cassidy's take is intriguing.

There is a terrific book by Donald Juel titled "A Master of surprise Mark interpreted." ( Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 1994.) Juel looks at the Markan Baptism account in his chapter "Transgressing Boundaries: Jesus Baptism in Mark". Among other insights, Juel notes " The terse account of Jesus' baptism introduces us to the truth that will generate a whole story: Jesus is confirmed as Messiah by a heavenly act and declaration--but outside the Holy city and sanctuary, among the impure who come for cleansing. His career will shatter expectations throughout...lines must be crossed, curtains torn, the heavens themselves rent asunder in the course of the career of one whose coming can be characterized as good news"

What a Fascinating theological problem!

Posted by Rod Gillis at Thursday, 12 January 2012 at 3:32am GMT

People starve.

Humans continue to buy one another and grind them under the heel of the marketplace.

Murder, war, abuse.

But, please, let's continue the pointless navel gazing. Look at Tomlinson - nonsense.

God came *for* humans. He came to redeem humans. He made humans in His image and placed a bit of Himself within them. How can you separate the two? Too much humanity? There's been none in Christianity, for most of its history.

All these "theological" points are merely a way of ignoring real problems and pretending your engaging.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Thursday, 12 January 2012 at 4:58am GMT

He's a Jewish rabbi, doing what he was doing according to time and place. No doubt as a child he thumped other kids or got thumped because he partly to blame, and grew up as a teenager as teenagers do. Was he an honest builder? No information. All this sinless stuff is nothing but doctrine after the absence of facts. The interest in him is the reversal ethics, but that is what they are. He is an evolved human like the rest of us, and, as they say, nothing special in that.

Posted by Pluralist at Thursday, 12 January 2012 at 5:53am GMT

Pluralist, one may take the stance that under all the New Testament witness Jesus was just a Jewish Rabbi ( itinerant outlander/ preacher more like it), and someone like the rest of us. One may also take the position that Bible stories are mere artifacts, with all this God talk being outdated.

It is worth remembering that the discussion is about the view of Jesus the Christ as presented by the Gospel of Mark-- a document with a slender eye witness account, disinterested in historical analysis as we understand it, but one which attempts to offer religious insight into the nature of Jesus the Christ. It is this we must wrestle from the text--even if one does so as an honest agnostic.

As for sinfulness being "a doctrine after the absence of facts", it is rather an offering developed upon reflection on human experience.

The notion of sin is an etiological myth from ancient Israel-- one used to make sense of the consequences of ruptured covenant relationships. Cassidy (and Juel )give us, and I'm speaking as Christian preacher here, somethings to think about in the task of proclaiming the good news that can only be explained with references to first century constitutive texts.

Posted by Rod Gillis at Thursday, 12 January 2012 at 2:17pm GMT

Pluralist, your words here sound remarkably like what a Muslim might have said about Jesus - that He was a Prophet, and not the Son of God. In the Quran, Jesus does not rate a chapter to Himself, whereas 'Maryama al-Adra' (Mary), the mother of Jesus gets a whole chapter! Perhaps you really are a closet Muslim.

No offence intended here - either to you, or to my Muslim friends. Just an observation.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 7:31am GMT

I'm not sure what is particularly Muslim in Pluralist's assertion that Jesus was "an evolved human, like the rest of us . . ." - is that not central to Christian soteriology?

He became Man. If He became Man, then He had the drives, desires, failings and faults of a man. I find it far more compelling to think of "without sin" as being an overcoming of sin, perhaps even atonement for sin, given the notable lack of information before His public ministry. It always seems to me to be a way to *avoid* our calling to ministry, to put Jesus on an unobtainable level of being in His human state. I can make the excuse that "I'm no Jesus," but I must be aware that Jesus confidently called me to do what He had done, and greater.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 7:59am GMT

Was overseas when this was published and was unable to comment on the comments. Key response is that Jesus' divinity is revealed through his humanity, not underneath it, beside it, or in spite of it.

For a detailed (sometimes rather technical) respsonse to many of the comments, see the following webpage on my college website:

Posted by Joe Cassidy at Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 8:33am GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.