The baptism of Christ

Matthew 3:13-17

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptised by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptised by you, and do you come to me?" Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfil all righteousness." Then John consented.
As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

I love the account of Jesus's baptism. Remarkably similar in all four Gospels, it's a wonderful example of how the Gospel writers combine the eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life with profound theological truth (Clayboy has a good post giving the more scholarly take on this).

It's an Epiphany reading because it's a moment of revelation - when we see who Jesus really is. In the Gospels it acts as a sneak preview for the reader: as we go through the rest of the story and people keep asking "who is this?", we already know the answer, because God has told us; "this is my Son". For Jesus, it was certainly a moment of understanding about his mission, but it also confirms his relationship with his Father: not just for him, but for us too, as we see, for the first time, Father, Son and Holy Spirit working together.

At the Jordan we see that Jesus really is who he claims to be. The voice of God speaks to us as we worship today. The Father trusts the Son to be the saviour of the world and calls us to trust him too.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delia Knox - Miracles and healing, cynicism or wonder?

Today the story of Delia Knox has jumped out of Christian subculture into the mainstream UK media, with this story on the Daily Mail website. Knox is filmed leaving her wheelchair after being prayed for at the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival in Mobile, Alabama. Watch the 13 minute video embedded there, if you can. Most people will have one of two reactions to this: either you will be deeply moved, or you will find yourself overwhelmingly cynical about the whole thing. The second of the two seems to be the reaction of choice for Mail Online readers, who queue in droves in the comments section to pour scorn on the whole thing. Why are people sceptical about spiritual and miraculous healing? Mostly because they simply don't believe it. The prevailing secular atheist worldview has no slot available for this kind of thing - it simply doesn't happen (although a more thoughtful and informed atheist might allow for some kind of psychosomatic factor in healing). But even among those w...
Read more

let the vicar have a day off

I began writing this on Tuesday, my usual day off. Not normally a day when I would be hunched over the keyboard, but this week I had the time because I'm luxuriating in a whole week off. A perfectly usual experience, except in the case of vicars, when the idea of a "week off" becomes quite complex and problematic. Last week on Twitter I intercepted someone's tweet who had spotted a clergy friend who was enjoying an entertaining day out. His reply was along the lines of "blimey, what it is to be a vicar and live the life of Riley" etc. I have no complaint against this person, who is a good guy and obviously meant no harm. It was just a variant on the age-old witticism that every parish priest hears on a more or less weekly basis, "of course you only work on Sundays, don't you?" There are a few versions of this, my personal favourite being "not another holiday?" if one takes leave at any time within about a year of having previously d...
Read more

lessons from the Cornwall B&B case

Comment is called for on the judgement in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull , because it is a significant one, and because of the Cornish connection. While some of the responses have been predictable and stereotyped, most commentators have recognised that Judge Andrew Rutherford has treated the Bulls with respect, even though he has found against them. The case turned on the principle that Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, as civil partners, were entitled to the same rights under law as a married couple. This meant that the Bull's argument that they would equally discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple was not accepted, because Hall and Preddy were, for the purposes of this case, married. This is a tricky one. The Bulls didn't really have a strong case, but it's difficult not to have sympathy for them. They come across in the media as a harmless couple just doing what seems right to them. It's also hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that they have be...
Read more