After visiting the Church of the Transfiguration, we ventured south to the place along the Jordan River bank that is traditionally considered the site of the Baptism of Jesus. Some have since identified a site not far from the river on the other side of the river (in the nation of Jordan) that may have been the site. Also, this is the general vicinity where the Israelites crossed the Jordan River to enter the Promised Land. I believe the official site is a little bit upstream.
This is day 5 of the trip, part 2.
Today's readings included the passage in the Book of Acts where 3,000 joined the faith. This was a reversal of the 3,000 that were slain for wanting to turn back to slavery in Egypt. The baptismal theme is present, which aligns nicely with this site, even though that large-scale baptism was in Jerusalem, likely ending at the Temple that had enough pools and space for so many people. Especially since the Israelites who remained faithful would enter the land near this location.
 |
| The Jordan River |
We left Mount Tabor and started to head south toward what had been called the land of Judah. The kingdom that bore that name was the combination of the lands of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, plus the Levites that lived within each community. Jericho is in the eastern part of the land of Benjamin, which was very narrow from north to south. Along the drive, we continued to see much more green land than I expected.
With very little notice, there was a rapid transition of the amount of vegetation. We still saw lots of green lands, and then 2-5 minutes of a mix of arid tan with some green.
But then we had entered the desert. It was one of the few places that really lacked green vegetation. Most of the other photos I have of the desert/wilderness of Judah have notable amounts of green in them, which is rare.
It was nice to see some actual desert land. The real desert still seemed to exist in the area near the Mount of Temptation, which we would visit very briefly later in the day. We approached the Jordan River, with many of the buildings already in sight.
The entry is marked in Hebrew, Arabic, and English.
At the site, there was the standard informational sign.
There was a gift shop (not pictured) and a place to change for the people who chose to get baptized at this location. But we were here to see the site and merely renew our baptismal promises, since we had all been baptized before. So we continued to walk on the relatively flat area. I kept waiting for the natural drop that happens near rivers.
We finally stepped down a little bit.
And we finally saw the River Jordan. The country of Jordan is across the river. Just like Lebanon, I would get to see Jordan, but I never stepped foot there. Armed soldiers are on both river banks to deter and prevent illegal border crossings. The river is muddy.
The water was abnormally high. If you click the photo, you will see a larger version. There are some yellow gates to keep people from wandering into the deeper waters. If you look beyond the line of palm trees, there's a handrail for people to go down a set of steps that normally lead to the river, with a few yards between that and the floating boundary that everyone must avoid crossing. The area where the yellow gates are is usually a flatter, low-lying space for people to gather before going to the river. But the floods that are so common wherever I go made it dangerous to go out. With cloudy water, the distractions people tend to have at such a site, and spots where it will drop down with each step, they had to put up the barrier. It was a bit disappointing that we didn't see the lower area and have more simplistic and broader access to the river. If we had come with the Noah's Ark, perhaps we could have floated on the river. Or if we came with the Ark of the Covenant, perhaps the Jordan would have turned back on its course again.
At each site, we have some site-specific prayer. This site included the renewal of our baptismal promises.
After that, we could go down the steps to the river if we wished.
I chose to step foot in the water. I took off my socks and shoes, and then rolled up my pants a bit. Then I headed down the steps.
The river not only flooded the lower tier, but the last step or two was flooded. So the access to the river was no wider than the staircase.
I wanted to get a photo of me at the site. The buildings in the background are on the Jordan (nation) side. We spent so much time seeing a river and those buildings that I recognize the site more based on seeing those buildings than whatever was on the Israeli side.
The Jordan side of the Jordan River looks like this.
The buildings in the area look like this.
I aligned a structure on our side with the nearest building on the other side.
I know someone who took a bottle and filled it with water from the river, thinking it would be a nice souvenir. I figured it would just be another thing to have in the house that I wouldn't want to part with if I had it, and that it's just muddy river water. So I chose not to do that. As it turns out, he forgot to put it in his checked luggage. If anyone else attempts this, make sure to have a Zip-Lock bag that seals really well, or the pressure changes on the flights could cause the bottle to leak onto everything in your luggage, and it's muddy water. He ended up having it in his carry-on, and managed to get out of the country that way. But when we went through security in Paris, France, they forced him to dump it. If it had been a smaller bottle, it might have remained within the limits allowed on aircraft. And even if they hadn't forced him to dump it, we may have had to do so in Atlanta, Georga when we returned to the US. I'll admit that the people at the airport really felt for the guy when he explained what it was. But they stuck to the rules.
Digression about Baptism
The Jordan River baptismal site brought forth various thoughts about baptism.I remember a friend who had been baptized Catholic and like too many Catholics, he didn't seem to attend Mass much after confirmation. After many years, he went to get baptized in another Christian church. This left me with a torn feeling. It was great to see him take his faith seriously and want to make some movement toward the faith again. In that way, I was thrilled. But as the Bible tells us, there is ONE baptism. Yes, baptism was the entry into the Church, which leads to the baptismal fount being near the entry of churches, either just inside or just outside of the worship space. But baptism unites us with God in dying in Christ so we will rise with Christ.
Baptism is considered valid if the God one is baptized in is the same as we believe in. So there are religions that believe in only the part of the trinity that is God the Father. That would not count. Some see Jesus as a human who became a god, just as they believe each of us could do the same. That's also not the same concept of a god, and thus it is a baptism in some other god. But most Christian denominations share the same view of who God is, and thus it's the same baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
When one doesn't know if one has been baptized, one can have a conditional baptism. In that case, a condition is stated up front that makes it clear this is only a baptism if baptism has not occurred. If one has, then this is not new baptism, but perhaps a renewal of the baptismal vows.
Many denominations consider baptism to be something they do for anyone joining their denomination without consideration of WHO that baptism is in (the same God many others believe in). Some are just picky about what constitutes a valid baptism. They might recognize that it's the same God, but that the method of baptism might not be considered valid.
Some recognize that the word baptism means "immersion". We are immersed in the Holy Spirit of God. Some denominations demand that the outward sign is a full-body immersion in water. But even the Prophet Ezekiel wrote about the time when the Holy Spirit would come in Ezekiel 36, which states, "I will sprinkle clean water over you to make you clean; from all your impurities and from all your idols I will cleanse you." If you look around that passage, it's clear this is about the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and sprinkling (or non-full-body immersion) suffices. Even in the Didache that was written around the latter times of the Apostles and included details about how the Church operated in its early days around the year 100 AD lays out baptism and how it should be done. It has a preferred method, but steps through various alternatives in case certain conditions aren't available. Face it, if you are nowhere near large amounts of water, there has to be some way to be baptized.
Some are concerned about infant baptism, since it lacks the will of the child. The Bible records that entire households were baptized. Households tended to include people of all ages, from the elderly down through infants. The Bible also refers to baptism as being the new circumcision. Circumcision was the way in which male children entered the faith for the Israelites, and this was done on the 8th day following birth. God has always welcomed children into His Kingdom, allowing the faith of parents to suffice until the child reached the age of reason and could decide. That's where confirmation comes into play. The Bible refers to the laying on of hands in a few spots. It's there in ordination and in healing. But it's also there in some cases that don't fit for being either of those, and this appears to be the Biblical case for confirmation.
Since my friend was both baptized and confirmed in what I'm sure is the same God as this other denomination, I just had to ask the question about whether there was something that was thought to be invalid about his baptism. The response made it clear the subject wasn't one they cared to discuss. I don't believe it was my friend that responded, though. I doubt there was anything invalid about the original baptism and confirmation. With that, as I led off with, I'm glad he is taking the faith more seriously. The unfortunate part is that if a person really looks at what attempts at re-baptism ends up doing, it's not as nice. It implies that one rejects the one true baptism they received, and are now doing something that goes against the "one baptism" concept, and thus is not a sacrament, and that ends up being what they cling to. This is why I'm torn about it. I like to see moving back toward God, but I don't like rejections of sacraments and false sacraments attempting to take their place. Even if the movement had been in the other direction, from the other faith to the one I hold, I would hope they would recognize that no "new" baptism was needed, and that it would be worse if they went through it in an unconditional way.
Entering the Promised Land
Regardless of all of this that ran through my mind, I really enjoyed being so close to the site of the Baptism of Jesus and the Israeli crossing into the Promised Land. I also thought about how the parting of the Red Sea was a foreshadowing of baptism. And the Exodus was bookended with this passage through the parting waters.With the New Exodus being led by Jesus into the Promised Land of Heaven, and Egypt representing the slavery of sin, we see baptism as that initial freeing and cleansing from sin. Then the Israelites spent about 40 years in the wilderness. A few of them went more directly to the Promised Land and spied it out. Only two of them had faith that they could successfully enter. The lack of faith of the rest led to the 40 years, one year for each day the spies were in the land. The Israelites had to learn to depend on God and to purge their wicked ways, which included the worship of the false gods of Egypt.
When people say they don't see purgatory in the Bible, some Catholics point to the books that Martin Luther removed from the Bible canon he followed. But that doesn't do much good for the people who don't believe in those books. Jesus tended to teach people using what they do believe in. If he spoke to Jews who only considered the Torah as canon, then he would teach from that. When I think about the concept of purgatory, I think most people agree that something has to be there between this world and Heaven, but they get hung up on preconceived notions of what purgatory is.
If we die with some sin on our souls, and we know that sin cannot be in God's presence, we know that sin must be washed away before entering Heaven. This is the concept of purgatory, as it's the purgation of that sin. Some people think of it as a place, and thus say there's no mention of that in their Bible. But no one says it has to be a place. It is the act of purgation of sin, whether it's as brief as the prophet who had a piece of burning coal touched to lips and that was sufficient, or whether it takes some longer duration isn't the concern.
I see the purgation of the Israelites in the wilderness as a form of purgatory. They had to get Egypt's ways out of them and learn to trust in God. Only after that could they enter the Promised Land. The crossing of the Jordan River is the final sign of cleansing before they entered. We know they sinned plenty along the way with the golden calf, grumblings, etc. If we view the duration of the Exodus as purgatory, then the vast majority of the Torah is purgatory! So everyone should have that in their Bible, and it's no small part of it.
Comments
Post a Comment