Every year I get a little uncomfortable listening to others talk about the Circumcision of Jesus and the his Baptism. Among my peers, the major theological import of these events is often stated as follows:
- Jesus’ circumcision is salvific in the sense that it is his first shedding of blood. It is the first saving act of the bleeding Savior.
- His baptism is salvific in the sense that he washed off his holiness into the water and therefore “sanctified and instituted all waters to be a blessed flood and a lavish washing away of sin. (LSB 269)â€
I understand that there is some support for these positions in the church fathers. But the reason I get uncomfortable is that these events are never spoken of this way in the scriptures themselves. Never does scripture refer to Jesus’ first blood shedding after it happens and certainly never in specific reference to humanity’s salvation (apart from his perfect obedience). And even though it seems that baptismal certificate makers always seem to draw the connection between Jesus undergoing John’s baptism and others undergoing Christ’s baptism, the scriptures never draw the line between those two dots. It seems to me scripturally the main points of these events are as follows:
- Jesus undergoes circumcision and John’s baptism in accordance with the Law, even though he does not by nature need the purging of sin offered by either act.
- Jesus’ circumcision is about the Babe of Bethlehem getting a name that speaks perfectly of what he has come to do.
- Jesus’ baptism is about his identification of as God’s only begotten Son, the Son’s perfect obedience, and the sending of the Spirit upon the Son in preparation for his public ministry.
I understand no one would argue against these last three points, but my concern is that the are often overlooked because they are not as systematically savvy as the first two ideas. But to say the first two things is to speculate greatly into theses events’ significance. It is to say more than the scriptures say. And I believe scriptures given us enough to say already.
I am open to correction particularly if you can show me that these interpretations are constant in the early Fathers. I look forward to a dialogue.
As Jan. 9 approaches I was wondering about your thoughts on the Epiphany…
I agree with you Phil. I’ve never felt comfortable with the idea that Christ’s circumcision was His first shedding of blood for us or that His baptism means salvation for us. I like your point about Christ not needing these things, but as part of His saving work for us (in the broad sense) He does them. When preaching about the Baptism of Christ, I usually talk about Christ taking His place alongside us sinners, a place where He doesn’t have to go but chooses to go as our substitute. However, it’s hard not to draw the connection between Christ’s baptism and our baptism when preaching a sermon. Kinda like John 6 – was Jesus talking specifically about the Lord’s Supper? Even if He wasn’t, that text gives a preacher a very good opportunity to preach about that Sacrament!
Phil,
You complain that the Scriptures don’t comment on the feasts of Circumcision and Theophany in the way that the church fathers do. First, I would invite you to read Colossians 2 which was the Epistle for the Feast of the Circumcision for those churches who use the Eastern Rite. Second of all, Scripture and the Church Fathers are both consistent with proclaiming these feasts reveal that Christ is (for lack of a better word) consubstantial with us. We use the term “consubstantial” to refer to the sameness of Christ’s essence with that of the Father, but Scripture uses it far more to refer to Christ’s sameness of essence with us, His creation. That is the pivotal theme of both feasts, proclaiming Christ as consubstantial with both Man and the Godhead. It is a continuation of the truths revealed from His Nativity–God becoming man that man may become [as] God.
The Eastern Rite apolytikion (dismissal hymn) for Theophany is “When Thou, O Lord, was baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest. For the voice of the FAther bore witness unto Thee, calling Thee His beloved Son. And the Spirit in the likness of a dove, confirmed the truth of this word. O Christ, our God, who hast revealed thyself and hast enlightened the world, glory to Thee.” The consubstantiality of Christ with man and God is boldly proclaimed here.
The Baptism of our Lord is about the joining of creation, of what is created to that which is uncreated and the creator. It’s not about fulfilling the law since there was no law with regards to baptism, even though there was a long standing practice of it (in diverse mannners, says the author of Hebrews in chp 9, I think). We must remember that it was not only man who fell with the ancestral sin, but all of creation. Christ did not come to save man but the world (o kosmos).
With regards to the circumcision and your aversion to think of it as the first shedding of blood as salvific, let us also remember that in the same chapter of Hebrews (9), the author says that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of transgressions.
Let us also remember that it is the TOTALITY of Christ’s work that is salvific. It is not to be found in one miracle here and one teaching there and another event over there. As many as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, says St. Paul. That means we put on the whole of Him and His life, which is our joy, as St. Paul says again. No one is claiming that the Circumcision and His Baptism alone that gave salvation. Nor was it the Cross alone that did so (hold your gasps). It was Christ that gave salvation, at His beginning, His middle, His end, His Resurrection, His Ascension and His Second Coming. Stop trying to parse up Christ’s life and I think you will enter into a deeper communion with Him.