Jesus, Baptism and The End is Not Near
One of the central tenets of American Christianity as it is professed by theological and political conservatives is that Jesus is fully God, that he existed at the creation of the world and that, as God, has a plan for His creation. If that is the case, why was Jesus wrong about his supposed return to earth after his death and resurrection? He said He would come in glory before this generation was gone. We're still waiting, and conservative Christians embarrass themselves with all sorts of childlike excuses and fantasy reasons to explain this away. Either God is wrong about the most central part of His program, or Jesus isn't God in that sense. Jesus himself, as a devout Jew, would have thought this equation of Jesus=YHWH to be the vilest blasphemy.
What did Jesus himself think? If he thought of himself as God and therefore without sin or blemish, why did he go to the Jordan River to be baptized by John for the redemption of sins?
Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian, describes John the Baptist this way.
"When others too joined the crowds about him because they were aroused to the highest degree by his speeches, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did. Herod decided, therefore, that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval."
Josephus goes on to explain that because of this reasoning Herod had John arrested and put to death. Maybe these words of John explain why Herod killed him.
"You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming fury? Change your ways if you have changed your mind." And later, "He will overwhelm you with holy spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and gather the wheat to his granary. The chaff he will burn with a fire that no one can put out."
To clearly understand what John meant we have to understand who and what he was speaking against. What was it that God was going to burn away? Virgil, the Fox News of the Romans, wrote a poem about the Empire.
"Roman, remember by your strength to rule Earth's peoples--for your arts are to be these:
To pacify, to impose rule of law, To spare the conquered, battle down the proud."
A Roman historian displayed a different view; that of the conquered whether in Britain, Gaul, or Judea. "To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a desolation and call it peace."
How can people respond to imperial occupation? We see can variants of these responses in our times. First, people can militarily fight and most likely be crushed, and then engage in insurgency often led by charismatic figures who call for holy war against the imperial force. Or they can let God do it, and announce that God's power will accomplish what they cannot and very soon wipe the imperial scourge off the face of the earth. The first response was the response of the Zealots in the 1st century, and a variety of terrorists in the 21st century; the second response that of John the Baptist and a whole succession of Jewish apocalyptic prophets all the way up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. This apocalyptic hope lives on in contemporary Rapture addicts, and various End-timers.
Jesus began his resistance to the Roman Empire as a follower of John. He was baptized for the forgiveness of sins by John, and Christian apologists from the very beginning have tried to explain this away. The Gospel of Mark, written first, simply says that John baptized Jesus "for the forgiveness of sins" and then proceeds to embellish that with a voice from heaven stating "you are my Son, the Beloved, with you I am well pleased." Matthew has the Baptist complain, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" And John, the last canonical Gospel written, changes the situation completely by having John call Jesus the Son of God and give no account of an actual baptism. The trend from the self-identification of Jesus as a follower of John and as someone needing baptism, to John calling Jesus the Son of God and not baptizing him at all reflects the progress of a battle to comes to grips with Jesus and divinity that wasn't settled until well into the fourth century CE.
What does baptism have to do with God's coming to wipe the Roman Empire off the face of the earth? Baptism for the forgiveness of sins was John's response to the imagined coming of God to separate the wheat (those baptized) from the chaff (imperial oppressors and their puppets). It was his way to prepare for the coming conflagration.
That Jesus was baptized indicates that he believed the same thing. However, that Jesus spoke of what the King James version calls the "Kingdom of God" indicates that he went beyond John's apocalyptic notions to something much more threatening to the Roman Empire. The translators of the Bible who gave us the King Jame's version called the greek term basileia kingdom in English. This expresses their provincialism and their obsequiousness. Basileia tou theou is better translated as God's imperial rule and was used by Jesus as the antidote to Roman imperial rule.
John called for people to be baptized and forgiven and then to wait for God in this new clean state.
Jesus called for people to become citizen's of God's imperial rule because God is waiting for us, here and now. And this requires that we act.
God is waiting for us to bring forth justice and righteousness. He won't come on a fiery chariot to do it for us. He expects us to do it ourselves. Jesus did not call for military action against Rome and its Judean and Gallilean puppets. He called for, and he and his followers actually put it place, a program more radical and seditious: to live as if already in God's empire, right now, right here, and act as if justice and righteousness are the only criteria for judgement and action. Not economics, not power politics to elevate one's clan above all others, not commerical dominance: justice and righteousness. Jesus was not interested in personal piety which is what American Christians want to reduce him to. He was calling for bringing forth justice and righteousness. Human beings had to do this, God was waiting. Those, like the Baptizer, who wanted to claim a personal piety through baptism and wait for God, and those, like Barabas who wanted to kill as many imperial occupiers and Judean collaborators as possible, are dead ends. The former will wait forever for a God who is not coming because God waits for us. The latter are lost because God demands that we bring forth justice and righteousness, not death and destruction.
No wonder Christians want to idolize Jesus. To follow him is simply too damn difficult. The road to hell isn't paved with good intentions, it's paved with Christians waiting for God to do what God demands they do themselves.
What did Jesus himself think? If he thought of himself as God and therefore without sin or blemish, why did he go to the Jordan River to be baptized by John for the redemption of sins?
Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian, describes John the Baptist this way.
"When others too joined the crowds about him because they were aroused to the highest degree by his speeches, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did. Herod decided, therefore, that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval."
Josephus goes on to explain that because of this reasoning Herod had John arrested and put to death. Maybe these words of John explain why Herod killed him.
"You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming fury? Change your ways if you have changed your mind." And later, "He will overwhelm you with holy spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and gather the wheat to his granary. The chaff he will burn with a fire that no one can put out."
To clearly understand what John meant we have to understand who and what he was speaking against. What was it that God was going to burn away? Virgil, the Fox News of the Romans, wrote a poem about the Empire.
"Roman, remember by your strength to rule Earth's peoples--for your arts are to be these:
To pacify, to impose rule of law, To spare the conquered, battle down the proud."
A Roman historian displayed a different view; that of the conquered whether in Britain, Gaul, or Judea. "To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a desolation and call it peace."
How can people respond to imperial occupation? We see can variants of these responses in our times. First, people can militarily fight and most likely be crushed, and then engage in insurgency often led by charismatic figures who call for holy war against the imperial force. Or they can let God do it, and announce that God's power will accomplish what they cannot and very soon wipe the imperial scourge off the face of the earth. The first response was the response of the Zealots in the 1st century, and a variety of terrorists in the 21st century; the second response that of John the Baptist and a whole succession of Jewish apocalyptic prophets all the way up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. This apocalyptic hope lives on in contemporary Rapture addicts, and various End-timers.
Jesus began his resistance to the Roman Empire as a follower of John. He was baptized for the forgiveness of sins by John, and Christian apologists from the very beginning have tried to explain this away. The Gospel of Mark, written first, simply says that John baptized Jesus "for the forgiveness of sins" and then proceeds to embellish that with a voice from heaven stating "you are my Son, the Beloved, with you I am well pleased." Matthew has the Baptist complain, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" And John, the last canonical Gospel written, changes the situation completely by having John call Jesus the Son of God and give no account of an actual baptism. The trend from the self-identification of Jesus as a follower of John and as someone needing baptism, to John calling Jesus the Son of God and not baptizing him at all reflects the progress of a battle to comes to grips with Jesus and divinity that wasn't settled until well into the fourth century CE.
What does baptism have to do with God's coming to wipe the Roman Empire off the face of the earth? Baptism for the forgiveness of sins was John's response to the imagined coming of God to separate the wheat (those baptized) from the chaff (imperial oppressors and their puppets). It was his way to prepare for the coming conflagration.
That Jesus was baptized indicates that he believed the same thing. However, that Jesus spoke of what the King James version calls the "Kingdom of God" indicates that he went beyond John's apocalyptic notions to something much more threatening to the Roman Empire. The translators of the Bible who gave us the King Jame's version called the greek term basileia kingdom in English. This expresses their provincialism and their obsequiousness. Basileia tou theou is better translated as God's imperial rule and was used by Jesus as the antidote to Roman imperial rule.
John called for people to be baptized and forgiven and then to wait for God in this new clean state.
Jesus called for people to become citizen's of God's imperial rule because God is waiting for us, here and now. And this requires that we act.
God is waiting for us to bring forth justice and righteousness. He won't come on a fiery chariot to do it for us. He expects us to do it ourselves. Jesus did not call for military action against Rome and its Judean and Gallilean puppets. He called for, and he and his followers actually put it place, a program more radical and seditious: to live as if already in God's empire, right now, right here, and act as if justice and righteousness are the only criteria for judgement and action. Not economics, not power politics to elevate one's clan above all others, not commerical dominance: justice and righteousness. Jesus was not interested in personal piety which is what American Christians want to reduce him to. He was calling for bringing forth justice and righteousness. Human beings had to do this, God was waiting. Those, like the Baptizer, who wanted to claim a personal piety through baptism and wait for God, and those, like Barabas who wanted to kill as many imperial occupiers and Judean collaborators as possible, are dead ends. The former will wait forever for a God who is not coming because God waits for us. The latter are lost because God demands that we bring forth justice and righteousness, not death and destruction.
No wonder Christians want to idolize Jesus. To follow him is simply too damn difficult. The road to hell isn't paved with good intentions, it's paved with Christians waiting for God to do what God demands they do themselves.
posted by Phronesis at 11:56 AM
0 comments
