Post-Baptismal Transformation?

As I read Luke's account of the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:15-17, 21-22), it occurs to me that Luke may have something quite different in mind. I've always thought of the three synoptic gospel accounts detailing the baptismal event as it unfolded, but Luke's version seems closer to that of John--to a retrospective. Notice how Luke describes it: "Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.'" The heavens opened and the spirit descended and a voice came, but does Luke intend for us to imagine that happening as Jesus came out of the water? Or might it have occurred in another place and time, perhaps even a few weeks later?

For comparison, note how Matthew recalls Jesus' baptism: "And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'" Although it's not clear whether anyone else saw the Spirit descending on him, it is clear that it came down right as Jesus emerged from the water. Also, read Mark's version: "And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.'" Again, there's a clear connection between the water-bath and the Spirit's descent. Luke doesn't seem interested in that, and I wonder why.

Perhaps, of course, Luke meant the same thing that the other gospel writers conveyed, and I'm asking a question that doesn't have a good foundation, but the Greek doesn't bear that out. The word Luke uses suggests that he had already moved past the baptismal event. The word he uses to describe Jesus' baptism is "βαπτισθέντος." It's a participle. It's the aorist passive genitive singular masculine version of the verb that means "to baptize," and it literally means, "having been baptized." In other words, Luke wants us to know that Jesus, having been baptized, receives the Spirit in a bodily form like a dove. Verbs matter. They matter more than participles. Luke, it seems, wants us to focus on the heavens opening and the Holy Spirit descending and the voice coming. Baptism may be a prerequisite for all of that, but Luke is ready to move on to the consequences of what happened in the water.

Maybe that's a good reminder for a church that struggles with baptismal theology. What happens when we pour water on the head of an infant in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Is it merely a symbol of adoption? Is there a clear change? If the taint of original sin is washed away, what happens if the child is never brought up to know the saving power of God's love in Jesus Christ? Is baptism "fire insurance?" Does the validity of that insurance policy depend on the promises made by the sponsors? Should we refocus on confirmation as a necessary rite for full participation in the life of the church, sending our theology back several decades?

Luke's telling of the baptismal event suggests to me that, although the water-bath is essential, there's more to it. There's prayer. While Jesus was praying, the heavens opened, and the Holy Spirit descended, and the voice from heaven made its proclamation. Having been baptized, Jesus prayed, and God manifested God's self to God's Son in a visible way. In lectionary Years A & B, the preacher may be able to focus on the transformation enacted by the baptism itself, but in this Year C the focus seems to be on what happens afterward. I'm not sure how that makes its way into a sermon, but, as the church struggles to make disciples for Jesus Christ beyond splashing them with water and hoping it all works out, it's an issue worth wrestling with.