Jesus' Ministry Begins

After Luke relates the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus confounding the teachers in the Temple, eighteen years pass with nothing more said about Him other than, “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). Though many have speculated about His activities during that period, it is impossible to know anything for certain about them. It is most probable that He remained in Nazareth, assisting Joseph in the building trade. Though Nazareth was a small, rural town, it sat not far from a well-populated, cosmopolitan, trading center, and He would have had many opportunities to speak with and interact with people from all over the Roman Empire.

As firstborn son, He may have had to take on the mantle of business owner and head of household when Joseph died, as it is assumed, since there is no mention of His stepfather once His ministry begins. Being given these serious responsibilities at a young age would have provided Him valuable experience in leadership, decision-making, and dealing with various people and situations. By the time His ministry commences at the age of thirty (Luke 3:23), He is no novice, but a fully mature, sober-minded, qualified leader.

Half a year earlier, another thirty-year-old man had suddenly appeared out of the wilderness of Judea in the area of the Jordan River, preaching a fiery message of repentance and baptizing “for the remission of sins” (Luke 3:3). This young man is John, son of Zacharias the priest, and Jesus’ cousin through their mothers. He is, he says, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Make straight the way of the Lord'" (John 1:23), fulfilling the prophecies of Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. He is the forerunner, the herald, announcing the coming of the Messiah.

Hardened by years in the desert, wearing a rough-spun garment of camel’s hair bound by a leather belt and eating locusts and wild honey (Mark 1:6), John fears nothing, especially the hypocritical religious leaders of the time. As the last of the Old Testament prophets, he thoroughly castigates the Pharisees and Sadducees, calling them a “brood of vipers” and instructing them to begin bearing fruits to demonstrate their repentance (Matthew 3:7-8). He sternly warns them to show their quality right away, for a Mighty One is coming, a great Judge who will separate the wheat from the chaff (verses 11-12).

It is probably in the fall of that year that Jesus journeys from Nazareth to the Jordan to be baptized by John. At first, John argues that He, being sinless, did not need to be baptized—in fact, “I need to be baptized by You” (Matthew 3:14). Jesus, however, tells John to baptize Him “to fulfill all righteousness” (verse 15). Righteousness is doing what is good and proper. Though He did not need to be baptized, it is fitting that Jesus set the example of the proper method of baptism—by immersion—and of the ritual that demonstrates a person’s rejection of his old life and his dedication to his new life and relationship with God. All new converts should go through the same ceremony to begin their Christian lives (see Acts 2:38-39).

As Jesus emerges out of the water, God the Father performs a miraculous, visible sign to show His approval: “[B]ehold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16-17). Upon witnessing this, John says, “He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:33-34).

The very next day, John sees Jesus again, and he tells two of his disciples, one of whom was Andrew (and the other was probably John son of Zebedee), “Behold the Lamb of God!” (John 1:35-36). It is an obvious reference to His sacrificial redemption of men from their sins (see verse 29). The two disciples leave John and follow Him, and soon Andrew introduces Him to Simon Peter (verse 42). One day later, Jesus calls Phillip and Nathanael to follow Him too (verse 43). Already He has a small group of disciples around Him. The next day, the third after His baptism, He attends a wedding in Cana, accompanied by His handful of disciples (John 2:1-12). John writes that the miracle He did there, turning water into wine, was the “beginning of signs Jesus did,” providing evidence of His glorious identity and work (verse 11).

However, “the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness” (Mark 1:12) soon thereafter, and He spends forty days there, severely tempted and tested by Satan the Devil. Matthew 4 and Luke 4 recount Satan’s attempts to make Jesus sin, to wear Him down to the point He would put His own life and desires ahead of God’s purpose. Yet, Jesus, having fasted for forty days and nights, is spiritually strong and resists even Satan’s offer to give Him full rulership of all the kingdoms of the earth without having to preach, suffer, and die, if He will simply worship him (Matthew 4:8-9; Luke 4:5-7). Christ will not be bought. He rounds on Satan and commands him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve’” (Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8). It is no contest. Jesus Christ will not be turned from the work God had given Him to do.

From there, Jesus returns to Galilee with great spiritual power (Luke 4:14), teaching in the synagogues of the various towns and villages of the area. He waits, however, until John the Baptist had been imprisoned by Herod Antipas, the ruler of the regions of Perea and Galilee, to begin preaching more publicly. It appears that He inaugurated His public ministry at Nazareth on a Sabbath day, reading aloud the portion of Isaiah 61:1-2, a well-known Messianic prophecy of His work to Israel. Upon finishing the passage, “He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, ‘Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing’” (Luke 4:20-21).

Jesus Christ had taken the first steps down the road to Calvary—and glory.

Apologizing for the Dead

On a regular basis, the church receives a question from a subscriber or a visitor to one of its websites about the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead. The Latter-Day Saints base their doctrine on I Corinthians 15:29, in which the apostle Paul seems to mention that it was being practiced in his day: "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?" The Mormons interpret these two questions to mean that Paul approved of the practice, using the fact of the resurrection from the dead to reason, "What good is baptizing for the dead if there is no such thing as a resurrection?"

The Bible, however, asserts in many passages that, before a person can be baptized, he must first repent (Acts 2:38) and believe (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31, 33), but the dead, of course, cannot repent or believe because "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5). Baptism is for the living; it is a ritual by which a living person acknowledge his sins, figuratively dies with Christ in a watery grave, and rises out of it to live a new, righteous life through Jesus Christ and the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit (Romans 6:4; 8:9; Galatians 2:20). Besides, there is no scriptural support for reconciling with God by proxy!

There is also a translation problem with I Corinthians 15:29. Paul is not talking about being baptized "on behalf of" or "for" the dead. The Greek word translated "for" is huper (often transliterated hyper), and it has several meanings: "above," "over," "instead of," "for the realization of," or "for the hope of," depending upon the context. Here, it is best translated as "for the hope of": "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

What is the hope of the dead? The resurrection, and baptism illustrates this when a person rises out of the water, just as the saints will rise from the grave in the resurrection. Paul is thus saying, "What good is it to be baptized if we do not rise in a resurrection from the dead? Why then should one be baptized for a hope that would never be realized?" The apostle affirms in verses 17-22 that, because Christ died and rose again, we indeed have this hope to look forward to.

Now, however, the modern culture of victimization has put its own twist on this false doctrine. Today, minority groups are demanding apologies for historical wrongs perpetrated on their ancestors. For instance, a small but vocal segment of the American black population is demanding not only that an apology be given for their forebears' bondage, but also that reparations be paid to them for their ancestors' work, pain, and suffering. Sons and daughters of Americans of Japanese descent have asked for—and received—similar words and payments for their parents' internment during WWII. Not to be left out, descendants of American Indians desire an admission of national guilt and restitution as well.

This concept has reached out to embroil industry as well:

A Chicago ordinance required Wachovia [a North Carolina-based financial holding company] to look through its history for any relationship to slavery. Because the bank was established in 1781, an investigation showed that it had connections to hundreds of now defunct banks, including two that were involved with the slave trade before the Civil War.

Ken Thompson, Wachovia chairman and chief executive officer, expressed his regret in a press release, stating that he was "deeply saddened" by the discovery and apologized "especially to African-Americans and people of African descent." . . .

Wachovia is not the first bank to apologize for connections to slavery. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. admitted to past slavery connections earlier this year. The bank offered to create a $5 million scholarship program for African-American youth, but reparation activists dismissed the offer as insignificant.

WCNC.com, the website of a Charlotte, N.C., television station, has reported that black leaders in that region plan to take steps toward seeking financial damages for the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries. (Alexa Moutevelis, "Wachovia Apology Renews Reparations Debate," CNSNews.com, June 03, 2005)

Most people realize that the reparations movement is nothing more than an organized shakedown of the government and wealthy corporations. Cherchez l'argent, as the French say: "Follow the money." If the movement were really about principle, a statement of regret would be enough.

Is this any different in principle from baptism for the dead? America is 140 years removed from slavery, and obviously, none of the original players in that drama is still alive. Not one slave owner can apologize for his slaving ways, and not one former slave is still living to receive it. While the dim repercussions of slavery are still felt—predominantly in the form of racism, a different subject altogether—slavery itself and any apologies or reparations are literally a dead issue! As God puts it, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20). Guilt and recompense are not legally transferable to subsequent generations.

Besides, America paid the price of slavery. Over half a million men gave their lives in a war that settled the question of involuntary servitude in the United States, not to mention the destruction to America's economy and infrastructure due to that war, especially in the South, where the institution of slavery flourished for centuries. In the meantime, the descendants of slaves have won legal equality with whites and the same access to the American dream as any other citizen.

Perhaps the saddest part of this fiasco is realizing how many people are wasting their time, resources, and energy on fighting the squabbles of the past, when they could be working to make their and their children's futures brighter.