Theophany By St. John Chrysostom

We shall now say something about the present feast. Many people celebrate feast days and know what they’re called, but don’t know why they were established. So everyone knows that the feast today is called Theophany, but don’t know what Theophany is, and whether it is one thing or another. And this is shameful celebrating an annual feast day and not knowing the reason for its existence.

First of all, therefore, it’s necessary to say that there’s not one Theophany, but two: the actual one, which has already occurred; and the second, in the future, which will happen with glory at the end of the world. You’ll hear about both today from Paul, who, in his letter to Titus, speaks thus about today’s feast: “The grace of God has revealed itself, having saved all mankind, decreeing that we reject iniquity and worldly desires, and dwell in the present age in prudence and in righteousness and piety”; and about the future one: “awaiting the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2, 11-13).

Meanwhile, a prophet had this to say about this second of the two: “the sun will turn to darkness, and the moon to blood at first, before the great and illuminating Day of the Lord comes” (Joel 2, 31). Why isn’t the day on which the Lord was born considered Theophany, but rather this day, on which He was baptized? It was on this very day that He was baptized and sanctified the nature of water. Because on this day everyone takes some of the water and carries it home and keeps it all year. Because today the waters are sanctified. And an obvious phenomenon occurs: this water which was drawn today, in its essence doesn’t spoil with the passage of time, but, for a whole year and often for two or three, remains as unaltered and fresh as that newly drawn from a spring.

So why is this day called Theophany? Because Christ made Himself known not when He was born, but when He was baptized. Until that time people knew little of Him. This is clear from what John the Baptist has to say on the matter: “Among you stands He, Whom you do not know” (John 1, 26). And it is hardly surprising that others didn’t know Him, when even the Baptist wasn’t aware of Him until that day: “I myself didn’t know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’” (John 1, 33).

Thus it is evident that there are two Theophanies. But we also need to explain why Christ comes to be baptized and what kind of baptism it is, so I have to speak to you about both the one and the other, for through the one we shall learn about the other. There was the Jewish baptism, which cleansed bodily impurities, but didn’t remove sins. Thus, if somebody committed adultery, or was bent on stealing, or performed some other kind of misdeed, this baptism didn’t free them from guilt. But if they touched the bones of the dead, tasted food forbidden by the law, were contaminated through contact with certain other people, or consorted with lepers, then they washed, were impure until the evening, but then were cleansed.

“Let people wash their body in pure water”, it says in the Scriptures, “and they will be unclean until evening, and then they will be clean” (Leviticus 15, 5; 22, 4). These were not really sins or impurities, but since the Jews lacked perfection, God made them more observant by such means, and, from the first moment prepared them for an understanding of more important things.

So, Jewish cleansing did not free from sins, but only from bodily impurities. This is not so with ours: it is far more sublime and it manifests a great grace, by which it sets us free from sin, cleanses the spirit and bestows the gifts of the Spirit. The baptism of John, too, was far more sublime than the ordinary Jewish one, but still less so than ours; it was like a bridge between both baptisms, leading across from the former to the latter. For this reason, John didn’t give guidance for observing bodily purifications, but exhorted and advised that, as well as performing these, people should be converted from vice to good deeds and should trust in the hope of salvation and the accomplishment of good deeds, rather than in different washings and purifications by water.

John didn’t say: “Wash your clothes, wash your body, and you’ll be pure”, but “Bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matthew 3, 8). Since it was more than that of the Jews, but less than ours, the baptism of John didn’t impart the Holy Spirit and didn’t grant forgiveness by grace. It gave the commandment to repent, but was powerless to remit sins. Which is why John also said: “I baptize you with water…He, however, will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3, 11). Obviously, then, he didn’t baptize with the Spirit. But what does this mean: “with the Holy Spirit and with fire?”

Recall the day on which, for the Apostles, “tongues as of fire appeared to them, distributed among them, and rested on each one of them” (Acts 2, 3). That the baptism of John didn’t impart the Spirit and remission of sins is evident from the following: Paul “found certain disciples, and said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ And they said, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit’. And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They said, ‘Into John’s baptism’. And Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus’.

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them” (Acts 19, 1-6). Do you see how incomplete the baptism of John was? Had it not been incomplete, Paul wouldn’t have baptized them again, and placed his hands on them. After he had performed the second baptism he demonstrated the superiority of the apostolic Baptism and that the baptism of John was far inferior to it. From this, then, we recognize the difference between the baptisms.

Now it’s necessary to say why Christ was baptized and into which baptism? Neither the former, the Jewish, nor the latter, ours. Why would He have needed remission of sins, how is this possible, when He has no sin? “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2, 22); and further, “who among you convicts me of sin?” (John 8, 46). And His flesh was not deprived of the Holy Spirit; how could it be when it was fashioned by the Holy Spirit in the first place? And so, if His flesh was not deprived of the Holy Spirit, and He was not subject to sin, then why was He baptized? But first of all it’s necessary to recognize by which baptism He was baptized, and then it will become clear.

Which baptism was performed, in His case? Not that of the Jews, nor ours, nor John’s. Why? You yourselves, from your own view of baptism, can see that He wasn’t baptized for any sins, nor because He needed the Holy Spirit; therefore, as we’ve shown, this baptism was alien both to the one and to the other.

It’s clear, then, that He came to the Jordan, not for forgiveness of sins and nor to receive the gifts of the Spirit. But, just in case some of those present thought that He came for repentance, as others did, John specifically precluded this. When he spoke to the others he said: “Bear fruits worthy of repentance”; but listen to what he said to Him: “I have need to be baptized of You, yet You have come to me?” (Matthew 3, 8:14).

With these words he demonstrated that Christ had come to him not through the need for which other people came, and also that He was beyond any such need, that He was much more sublime and perfectly pure than Baptism itself. Why was He baptized, then, if this was done not for repentance, nor for the remission of sins, nor for the gifts of the Spirit? For two other reasons, of which one is mentioned by a disciple, and another about which He Himself spoke to John. What did John the Baptist himself see as the reason for this baptism?

That Christ should become known to people, as Paul also mentions: “John therefore baptized with the baptism of repentance, so that through him they should believe in Him Who was coming” (Acts 19, 4); this was the achievement of the baptism. Had John gone to the home of each person and, standing at the door, had spoken about Christ and said: “He is the Son of God,” such testimony would have been suspicious, and the action would have made for difficulties. Equally, had he gone into the synagogues to champion Christ and witness to Him, this testimony of his might have sounded suspiciously fabricated.

But when so many people thronged from all the cities to the Jordan and were staying on the banks of the river, and when He Himself came to be baptized and received the testimony of the Father through a voice from above and by the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove, then John’s witness to Him was beyond all dispute. And since he said: “and I didn’t know Him” (John 1, 31), his testimony is trustworthy. They were related after the flesh, “therefore Elizabeth, your kinswoman, has also conceived a son”, said the Angel to Mary about the mother of John (Luke 1, 36); if the mothers were kin, then, obviously, so were the children, too.

Since they were related, and so that it shouldn’t seem that John was testifying to Christ because of kinship, the grace of the Spirit arranged for John to spend all his early years in the wilderness, to avoid the appearance that John had declared his testimony out of friendship or some similar reason. But, as instructed by God, John also announced: “and I didn’t know Him”. So how did he find out? “He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’. And “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on Him” (John 1, 32-33). Do you see that the Holy Spirit did not descend as if it were the first time, in order to indicate that He was the One Who had been foretold through the inspiration of the Spirit? As though by a finger, He was pointed out to everyone, and this is why He came to baptism.

There’s also a second reason, about which He Himself spoke? When John said: “I have need to be baptized of You, yet You have come to me?” Christ answered: “Let it be so now, for it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matthew 3, 14-15). Do you see the meekness of the servant? Do you see the humility of the Master? What does He mean when He says: “to fulfill all righteousness?” “Righteousness” means fulfilling all the commandments, as in: “both were righteous, walking faultlessly in the commandments of the Lord” (Luke 1, 6). Since fulfilling this righteousness was necessary for everyone, but no one had done so properly, Christ came and put the fulfillment of the commandments into practice.

Now you might ask where the righteousness is in being baptized. For a prophet, obedience was righteous. Just as Christ was circumcised, offered sacrifice, kept the Sabbath and observed the Jewish feasts, so He also added this remaining thing: that He consented to be baptized by a prophet. It was the will of God that all should be baptized, as John says: “He having sent me to baptize with water” (John 1, 33). And Luke later relates: “When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (Luke 7, 29-30). So if obedience to God constitutes righteousness, and God sent John to baptize the nation, then Christ also fulfilled this, along with all the other commandments.

Suppose that the commandments of the law are two hundred denarii. This was a debt due to be paid by the human race, but we didn’t do so. We were in the power of death, because we were under accusation. Christ came, and finding us afflicted by death, He paid the debt and freed those who had been unable to meet their obligations. This is why He doesn’t say: “It is necessary for you to do this or that,” but rather “to fulfill every righteousness”, “It is proper for Me, being the Master”, He says, “to make payment for the needy”. These were the reasons for His baptism: that people should see that He had fulfilled the Law; and the other one we mentioned before.

This is also why the Spirit descended as a dove: because wherever there is reconciliation with God, there is the dove, too. Just as happened with Noah’s ark, the dove brought an olive branch, a sign of God’s love of mankind and of the cessation of the flood. Now, in the form of a dove, and not in a body, this is particularly worthy of note, the Spirit descended, announcing the mercy of God to the whole world and showing thereby that spiritual people should be gentle, simple and innocent, as Christ also says: “Unless you repent and become like children, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 18, 3). But after the cessation of the flood, the ark of Noah remained on the earth; this ark, after the cessation of wrath, is taken to heaven, and now this immaculate and imperishable Body sits at the right hand of the Father.