Inerrant Lie #45

Another 'lie' from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

My mother always said a partial truth is a lie altogether. By this barometer, the respective bureaucracies of every government under the sun are manned entirely by liars. Not only do bureaucrats never tell the whole truth: they rarely tell even a portion of the same. Same goes for news agencies; corporate boards; insurance adjusters; medical billers; truck drivers; school teachers; preachers; anyone who enters into 'non- disclosure agreements': just about anyone who makes a living is required to lie about something to obtain and to keep their job.

In his gospel, John the Divine writes a lie of a sort to make a bureaucrat (such as 'righteous' J. Edgar Hoover, for instance) envious. The reason this lie would be especially impressive to a government employee (not to mention 'the father of lies') is that it is at once true and false. This lie is written so: "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized [John 3:22];" the 'lie', here, being, "Jesus... baptized."

The next verse of John 3 indicates John Baptist's 'baptism' as the definitive model of the term "baptized," as used by John the Divine in verse 22. We know this to be so inasmuch as Jesus did indeed baptize: though John himself admits: "Jesus baptized not [John 4:2a]."

In fact, the latter [b] half of John 4:2 divulges it was Jesus' disciples-- not Jesus-- who 'baptized' (still do, for that matter) after John's 'baptism'. By this, we understand that, when John writes (in 3:22) that "Jesus... baptized," he's projecting the taint of the disciples' deeds onto Jesus: making him responsible for their works and Johnny B's. As children, we called this "pinning the tail on the donkey." Bureaucrats call it "passing the buck."

One refrain repeated in nearly every sermon preached by the late Pete Ruckman, is: "A text without a context is a pretext." Accordingly, both John 3:22 and John 4:2 are pretext, insofar as the only way to resolve one with the other (not to mention with the truth) is to take them both out of their given context-- John Baptist's 'baptism'-- which is the pretext.

Contrary to 3:22, Jesus did not baptize after John Baptist's 'baptism'; but contrary to 4:2, Jesus did baptize. In fact, "the Word of God [John 1, et. al.]" tangibly demonstrated the difference between his baptism and Johnny B's at the wedding in Cana. "This beginning of miracles [John 2:11a]" is likewise recorded by John the Divine.

To understand the figurative value of the water- turned- into- wine in Cana, one may consult with Paul's words about baptism to the Ephesians: "That [the Word of God] might sanctify and cleanse [the church] with the washing of water by the word [Ephesians 5:26]." Baptism is the operation by which the inner man is sanctified and cleansed, definitively: a thing Johnny B's 'baptism' can't pretend to do. True baptism is poured in, with Spirit [John 6:63]; not poured over, or immersed in.

While his disciples were/are rub- a- dubbing with Johnny B, Jesus was/is sanctifying and cleansing those who would/will receive his words with the hearing of the same. Thus the lie is really twofold: 1) that "Jesus baptized not [John 4:2a]."; and, 2) that John Baptist did [John 3:23, et. al.].