Skip to main content

Let’s Get Started: Mark 1

Opening Note: I’m going to work on alternating between Old Testament and New Testament. I’m not sure if it will alternate every day or part of the time, but we’ll bounce back and forth to break some of the monotony as we work through the Law and still go through the whole Bible.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at Mark 1 (link). Generally speaking, it appears that Mark is likely the earliest written of the Gospels, though that’s debatable. A good New Testament survey or quality study Bible will give you some of the different arguments.

Mark does not start as Matthew or Luke does in addressing the birth of Jesus or the announcement of His coming. Rather, Mark jumps straight in by bringing out the coming of John the Baptist and his role as the forerunner of Jesus.

John is one of those strange characters in Scripture. Other Gospel accounts give more of his heritage, but for Mark he just pops up in the wilderness, preaching repentance. Preaching repentance and pointing ahead toward Jesus, that is. Mark then gives us that Jesus comes to John and is baptized in the Jordan River. As this happens, the voice of God speaks from the heavens and commends not simply the message or methods of Jesus, but the person Himself. Mark records it as direct address: “You are my beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

While there is plenty of other material in the first chapter of Mark, camp out there in Mark 1:11. Consider what is being said here by God Almighty, that here is One who is actually pleasing to God. Without getting over-Greeky here, the phrasing shows that the “well-pleased” is a completed action. It doesn’t really refer to one specific action, but is a summary statement about all that has happened until this point in time. It does not, though, preclude the idea that it is possible for God to be more pleased with Jesus later—and that is actually what we see going through to the Cross.

God expresses that He takes pleasure in Christ. Contrast this by looking all the way back at Genesis 6:5 where the only thoughts of man are evil at all times, or by looking forward to Romans 3:23 where we see that all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Jesus is the exception that proves the rule here: only the Begotten Son of God can actually live life that is pleasing to God.

That’s without the miracles, without the parables, even without the Cross and the Resurrection. In His very being, Jesus was pleasing to God. Fundamentally, this is something that is not true of us as descendants of Adam. We are born with a depravity that is inescapable apart from the work of grace from the hand of God.

This is the beginning that Mark gives us here: not just a beginning of miracles or teaching, but a beginning that declares from the start the very nature of this Jesus he will write about. The only One capable of pleasing God.

Today’s Nerd Note: Mark is one of three Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from the Greek words that mean “see” and “together” or “with.”  The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called this because they see the life of Jesus through very similar lenses.

That leads to some speculation that the three authors used common sources, or a common source, to develop their writings. It is entirely possible that this is the case. This does not, however, practically affect our response to these texts or our understanding of the inspiration of Scripture.

The inspiration of Scripture is the belief that the words of the Bible are not just the words of the human authors, but actually are the words of God Himself. As a conservative evangelical, I think this extends to the actual words of the original texts themselves, as penned by the authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This is how source theory comes into the question: if Mark used a source, is the source inspired and Mark copied it or are only the words Mark used inspired? My response would be that the words that Mark used, wherever drawn from, would be the inspired words. Finding documents that help us undercover any of the potential source documents would be educational, but it would not shake any key doctrine: Mark’s use of the source is inspired, not the source itself.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…