The ministry of John the Baptist: Part 1 (Mark 1:2-4)

If verse one is a title to the ministry of John the Baptist, it follows that subsequent verses will be about John the Baptist.

Verse 2

Mark reaches back into the Hebrew Scriptures to show that John the Baptist is the fulfillment of certain prophecies. He starts with a standard introduction formula (i.e. "as it is written") that was used when writers wanted to refer back to the Hebrew Scriptures. The word "written" is from the verb meaning to "write." It is a 3rd person singular in the perfect passive indicative. Wallace tells us that the verb is used 67 times in the New Testament (p576). It is often used to highlight the continuance of the written word (ibid). The perfect tense can carry the added dimensions of 

1. still being in effect for today, 
2. commands that are still being commanded, or
3. a fulfillment of prophecy (ibid). 

Mark is seemingly using it as a fulfillment of prophecy. He even tries to quote his source or authority. If you have ever had to learn a modern citing system you realize how incredibly difficult this is. I am still trying to figure out how to cite my sources on what I write online (e.g. this blog). Nonetheless, Mark may not actually have been looking at the scroll from which he was quoting and was simply quoting from memory. There are two passages that he references. The first is actually from Malachi 3:1, and the second portion is from Isaiah 40:3. Because of the textual variants, it seems that early scribes tried to gloss over the glaring "misquote." But the best manuscripts do favor the reading, "in Isaiah the prophet". Nonetheless, are we really going to throw out the entire book of Mark because he was probably quoting from memory and not directly from the scroll? That seems a little harsh. I do not see any evidence to suggest that the book of Mark is unreliable. 

I do not have any evidence of this, but maybe the scroll that had the Isaiah passage also contained the Malachi passage. Mark maybe only quoting the major source, the one the people would know best. Isaiah may have been serving as his authority especially if people may not have known Malachi (see Plumptre p1-2). If the audience was Gentile, they may not be as familiar with the so-called Minor Prophets. Whatever his reason (lapse of memory, no direct access to the scrolls, felt he only needed Isaiah as the authority, audience's unfamiliarity with lesser known prophets), Mark's style is to keep the narrative moving. He is simply stating the authority, Isaiah, from which John the Baptist fulfills prophecy. Plumptre (The Commentary for Schools, St. Mark) states that Mark does not often quote the prophets like some of the other gospel writers (p1).

The other interesting aspect of Mark's "quote" is that it is not quoted verbatim from the Septuagint (LXX). Plumptre suggest that Mark is actually using a free translation of the Hebrew and interprets the passage in light of John the Baptist. In Malachi God is the one sending His messenger, who will clear the way for His own coming. 

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me - Mal 3:1 (NASB)

Mark applies the "I" and "My" to God and the "messenger" to John the Baptist. The "You" and "Your" would then refer to the Christ (p1-2). 

Behold I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way; - Mark 1:2 (NASB)

It has been established that kings would often send someone into an area to announce their coming. This would give the the people time to prepare.

Verse 3

Mark continues quoting from the prophets. His quote makes clear that he indeed equates Jesus with God from verse one (the Son of God). In speaking of the ministry of John the Baptist, where John is the messenger, Mark tells us plainly that John is clearing the way for "the Lord." Of course, in the Hebrew Scripture, "the Lord" refers to God. Here, "the Lord" is referring back to Jesus Christ. So, if God is the Lord and the Lord is Jesus, then God is equated to Jesus.

Verse 4

Josephus tells us about John "that was called the Baptist..." (or the Baptizer). His message to the Jews was for them "to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God." (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 5, Verse 2) John urged the people "to come to baptism; for the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away , [or the remission] of some sins [only,] but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." (ibid)

John was preparing the way of the Lord by "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

Wallace views βάπτισμα μετανοίας (baptism of repentance) as a descriptive genitive with 3 possible understandings. He does not take an exclusive view but rather sees baptism in a general sense related to repentance.

1. causal - the baptism is then based on repentance
2. purpose or production - the baptism produces repentance
3. the baptism symbolizes repentance (p225)

Cranfield tells us that "repentance" is a changing of one's mind accompanied by a sense of regret and remorse for the sin of which he is repenting. It is linked to two Hebrew terms where there is a complete return to God with the person's entire being. There is turning from foreign alliances and turning towards God alone (p46).

APPLICATION FOR LIFE:

• Believe prophesy. If God said it will happen, then it will.
• Turn from God-substitutes. This is the giving up of sin.
• Turn to God alone. This is putting God first more and more. It's the process of giving up God-substitutes for God himself. We may already pray, but we pray more often, putting God ahead of this thing, then ahead of that one. We may already read our Bible. Now, we start reading it ahead of other books. We meditate on its words more today than yesterday. We may love our neighbor, but now we push ourselves to love our neighbor more. There are always things in our life upon which we can improve, even good things, even spiritual disciplines.
• Walk in the way. The way has already been prepared. "Come to Jesus for the cleansing power and be washed in the blood of the Lamb"

The beginning of the gospel

When we read a biography, we expect the starting point to be at a point near the birth of the person. Often, the person's parents are introduced, and soon after we get the birth event. Even though the gospels are not true biographies, in the modern sense, we are interested in reading about the birth of Jesus. However, only two gospels give us a birth account. The other two gospels, John and Mark, actually have their own versions of a "beginning." But the "beginnings" could not be more different than in these two gospel accounts.

In contrast to John, who literally starts with an allusion to the creation of the universe, Mark starts with the "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." There is no definite article (the) in Mark's Greek and apparently no textual variant for the definite article. It simple starts with Ἀρχὴ (beginning), but in English the definite article must be supplied to make sense. Wallace, (in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p50) indicates that this type of construction is a nominative absolute which indicates a title. Cranfield (The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of According to St. Mark) also views verse one as a potential title that introduces the beginning of the gospel of Jesus that will be continued by the Acts of the Apostles (see Acts 1:1). Even though verse one is a title, Cranfield quickly adds that the view that the title is introducing the reader to just the beginning of the gospel of Christ is probably wrong (p34). He also does think the the title is a "summary" account of the gospel of Jesus. His view is that the title is for the section on John the Baptist (Mk 1:2-13) only (p34-35). Hunter (The Gospel According to Saint Mark: A Commentary) also sees verse one as a title to the ministry of John the Baptist found in verses 2-13.

This title states that it is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Wallace again helps us with this construction by telling us that it is a plenary genitive construction meaning we have both a subjective and objective meaning (p119-121). The subjective genitive means that Jesus Christ is the subject. Therefore, this is the gospel from Jesus Christ. It is the good news that he preached. Jesus is the origin of the teaching, and he is the context of the teaching too. The objective genitive means that Jesus Christ is the object of the gospel. In other words the good news is about Jesus.

 The last section of the verse is shocking. Mark clearly identifies Jesus Christ as the Son of God. While there are some textual variants that need to be worked out, on the surface this identification seems original. It is shocking because Jesus usually identifies himself as the Son of Man. Jesus, it seems, often went out of his way, especially in the early part of his ministry, to not make himself known. But Mark is happy to identify Jesus as God from the very first verse of his gospel.

In Mark 1:1 we get the beginning of good news that comes from Jesus and is also about Jesus. This title introduces us to the work of the person who will kick start the ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist. For Mark there is no need to start by proving that Jesus is the Son of God. It is assumed. Mark is already convinced, and there is a sense that after one encounters the stories and teachings of Jesus, the reader too will be convinced that Jesus is God. In true, in medias rea style of telling a story, the reader is thrown into the story, and it is hoped that it will be made clear who Jesus is.

 

Paul to the Romans (Romans 1:1-15)

Verse 1

Paul identifies himself as a slave to Jesus. One cannot be a slave to a dead master. The foundation of Paul's life was being a slave to a living Jesus. By implication if Jesus were living, then he is God.

Paul has been set aside for the gospel. So many times we get caught up in other causes such as social justice or environmental conservation that our time for the gospel is limited. Is it possible to be first set aside for the gospel then other causes? Is Paul special? Does Paul's separation indicate that some of us are not necessarily separated for the gospel? What does it mean to be set aside or the gospel anyway?

Verse 2

This gospel was promised beforehand. The implication is that Hebrew prophets and Hebrew Scripture had promised that good news was coming. A reading of these prophets should indicate good news coming to the Jewish people.

Verse 3

The gospel of God is about Jesus, a descendant of David. Paul believed that Jesus was both man and God.

Verse 4

It is the resurrection from the dead that declared Jesus God. He is our Lord and we are his slave.

Verse 5

Who are the "we"? Is it other apostles or other believers? They (or we) have received grace and apostleship to minister to the Gentiles so that they will by faith believe in Jesus.

Verse 6

The Romans (and by extension believers) are the called.

Verse 7

The believers in Rome are saints. May other believers enjoy the grace of God and the peace of God

Verse 8

Paul is often thankful for the believers. Are we thankful for other believers? The faith of the Romans was well know. Our prayer is that our faith would be well known too. But it is hard. However, it must have been hard being a believer in Rome also.

Verse 9

Paul is a man of prayer. He prays for other believers often.

Verse 10

Paul really wanted to go to Rome and meet these believers he had never met but had heard about.

Verse 11

Paul has a gift for them, but the gift is not a material gift, but a spiritual one. This gift will not fade because it is meant to establish them.

Verse 12

How wonderful it is to be mutually encouraged by other believers. We want to always be a blessing and receive from a blessing from others.

Verse 13

Paul wanted them to know that he really had wanted to come to them sooner, but he had been prevented presumably by God. We often plan to go here and there, but God has prevented us. It is because he is not finished with us where we are.

Verse 14

Paul cannot just go to Rome when he wanted. he had an obligation to the Greeks and barbarians and wise ones and foolish ones. He needed to fulfill that obligation first before he could go to Rome, where they were already believers.

Verse 15

How excited are we to preach the gospel among the brethren! Paul was excited and looked forward to preaching in Rome.

Introduction to Romans

Rome, often called the eternal city, is a place that draws tourists from all over to the world. The city has a long history and is significant to the development of Christianity. One cannot help but become enchanted by the events that have taken place in this city. It is a city that keeps drawing us to it.

The apostle Paul was also fascinated by Rome and had often hoped to go there in order to see the believers there (Romans 15:20-24). He was prevented (ἐνεκοπτόμην) from going to Rome several times (πολλά) seemingly because there were other places where he needed to bring the gospel first. Paul had said that he did not want to build on someone else's foundation but wanted to preach where Christ had not yet been "named" (ὠνομάσθη). This means that the church at Rome had been established without Paul but was known by Paul.

So, when was the church at Rome established and by whom? No one is sure of the answer to these two questions. A couple of theories have been put forward as possible answers. First, it may be a good idea to locate the story of the church at Rome and thus the book of Romans inside a historical context. Dr. Harold Hoehner has researched biblical chronology and has given us a reconstructed time line from the crucifixion to the death of Paul. The following is a dateline summary to help us put the book of Romans into a historical context.

• The Crucifixion - Friday, April 3, 33 A.D.
• Stephan stoned to death - April 35 A.D.
• Paul's conversion - summer 35 A.D.
• Paul's 1st missionary journey - April 48 to September 49 A.D.
• (Galatians written in autumn of 49 A.D. = southern theory and written from Antioch)
• Paul's 2nd missionary journey - April 50 - September 52 A.D.
• Paul's 3rd missionary journey - Spring 53 - May 57 A.D.
• Arrives in Corinth - last part of November 56 A.D.
• Romans written - winter 56/57 A.D.
• Departs Corinth - last of February 57 A.D.
• Voyage to Rome as a prisoner - August 59 - February 60 A.D.
• Arrival in Rome - last of February 60 A.D.
• 1st Roman imprisonment - February 60 - March 62 A.D.
• Ephesians written - autumn 60 A.D.
• Colossians and Philemon - 61 A.D.
• Philippians - early spring 62 A.D.
• (Peter in Rome - 62 A.D.)
• 2nd arrest and imprisonment in Rome - autumn 67 A.D. (see also 2 Timothy 1:8; 2:9)
• Paul beheaded - spring 68 A.D.
• Jerusalem destroyed - 70 A.D.

So, with the above information, the church in Rome would have been established between 33 A.D. and 57 A.D. The book of Acts (2:10) states that on the day of Pentecost, there were Jews from Rome who heard Peter's sermon. It might be possible that some of those Jews and converts to Judaism heard the gospel and believed in Jesus as their Messiah. These would have been the founding members of the church in Rome.

According to Bruce (1994, p.16), there were Jews living in Rome from the time of Pompey. After conquering Judea, he brought some of them to Rome about 60 years before Christ. The Jewish community went through periods of being pushed out of the city and being allowed to come back. During the time of Emperor Claudius, who reigned from 41 - 54 A.D., the Jews were commanded to leave (Acts 18:2). With that expulsion there was a husband (Aquila) and his wife (Priscilla) who had recently come to Corinth. They were Jewish and made tents for a living. It is unclear if they were believers in Jesus while in Rome or became believers after meeting Paul in Corinth. What is clear is that when they returned to Rome and by the time Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, they had a church that met in their home. They had previously risked their lives for Paul.

Next, one may ask why Paul wrote to the church in Rome. Paul indicated in the letter that he had wanted to visit them (Romans 15:20-24) and would plan to see them on his way to Spain. He also wanted to impart a spiritual gift and enjoy mutual encouragement (Romans 1:11-15). The content of the letter seems to suggest that Paul wanted to fully explain the gospel to the believers in Rome.

In conclusion, Paul was in Corinth after his 3rd missionary journey. He wrote to the church in Rome in the winter of 56-57 A.D. to a mixed congregation composed of Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity. His purpose in writing was to tell of his desire to come to them and give them a full account of the gospel message that he preached.

King Jehu (2 Kings 9-10) overview

When it comes to the kings of the Bible, we've probably heard of David and Solomon and maybe even Ahab, but many of us, even if we have heard of the others, cannot recall much about their lives. Such is probably the case for King Jehu. For the avid Bible trivia player, one may remember that King Jehu was known for his fast (and probably reckless) driving. But for what else was he known?

King Jehu may not have made an impression on us today, but he surely made an impression on another king about 2800 years ago. The king of the Assyrian Empire, Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C.), perceived King Jehu to be so important that he had his monument makers include him on an obelisk. Not only is Jehu's name inscribed in cuneiform but his image is depicted on the Black Obelisk.

But what is the story of King Jehu? The Bible tells us that the prophet Elisha sent one of his apprentice prophets to anoint Jehu as king of Israel (i.e. the Northern kingdom). This king's mission was to "destroy the house of Ahab..." (2 K 9: 7). The destruction of the house of Ahab was to avenge the murder of the prophets by Jezebel, Ahab's wife. Jehu conspired against the current king, King Joram, who was in Jezreel and was recovering from wounds received from fighting the Arameans. King Jehu rode to Jezreel in his chariot, and the tower watchman noticed the driving and remarked that it reminded him of Jehu who "drives like a madman" (2 K 9:20). When two messengers sent out from King Joram did not return to the compound but fell in behind Jehu, King Joram and King Ahaziah rode out to meet Jehu. After an exchange of words, Joram and Ahaziah rode off. Jehu shot an arrow, and it hit Joram between the shoulders and pierced his heart and he died in his chariot. His body was thrown onto the field of Naboth which had been acquired by Jezebel for her husband by having Naboth killed (1 K 21). King Ahaziah also fled and was mortally wounded and died in Megiddo. King Jehu continued his mission and went back to Jezreel, where he found Jezebel looking out a window. He commanded a couple of eunuchs to throw her down to a violent death (2 K 9:33). When she was going to be buried all they found was "her skull, her feet, and her hands" (2 K 9:35). Afterwards, Jehu had Ahab's sons, all seventy of them, "slaughtered" (2 K 10:7) and beheaded, and then he had their heads stacked in two piles at the entrance of the city gate of Jezreel (2 10: 8). The Bible goes on to say that Jehu killed the relatives of Ahaziah, the remaining family members of Ahab, and the ministers of Baal.

God seemed to be pleased with what King Jehu had accomplished (2 K 10:28,30). His sons would be on the throne of Israel for four generations because of his righteousness. However, two verses show that not everything was perfect. Jehu did not "turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat...the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan," (2 K 10:29) nor did he "keep the law of the LORD with all his heart" (2 K 10:31).

So, even though we rarely take note of King Jehu today, in his day he was an important ruler, so important that the ruler of the Assyrian Empire decided to use his image to show how powerful the Assyria king was. God used Jehu to carry out justice to the house of Ahab. What does he have for us? But no matter what God has called us to do, he first calls us to him and him alone. If we only half do what God has called us to do, we disobey. If we do do what he calls us to do and forget to worship him only, then we fail in our mission. Jehu accomplished the first part of his mission, the avenging of the prophet's blood and the killing of Baal's ministers, but Jehu only exchanged one idol for another. He, possibly passively, did not eradicate idolatry but allowed he worship of the golden calves to continue in the land. What we do actively is just as important as what we allow to continue passively.

εἰς + accusative for places = "to"

• εἰς την Γαλιλαιαν -- to Galilee 
• verbs ἐπεστρεψαν [3P Aor Act Ind] from ἐπιστερεφω - I turn around Luke 2:39
• and ὑπεστρεψεν [3S Aor Act Ind] from  ὑποστεφω - I turn back, return Luke 4:14
• 
  

Honeymoon in the desert (Jeremiah 2:2)

When two people get married and they're planning a honeymoon, they think of exotic locations. But what about going to a barren desert for a honeymoon? It's probably not even on the list for most of us.

But God compared the beginning of his relationship with Israel to a husband taking his bride to the desert. In the beginning Israel was ready to go wherever God would take them. He was taking them to an inhospitable environment. There was nothing there, but they were ready to follow with no regard to the consequences.

It's a beautiful picture of faith. When one decides to follow the path of God, He will lead them on a life-long adventure in which  they may not know where they are going. But like Israel's journey in the desert, we may not be able to see his providence. We just have to trust He will provide and not chase after so-called "gods"to rescue us when things look dire.

Into the desert they ran hand in hand.

The bride didn't know where they were going,

But she didn't care, she was with her love.

He gave her water, when she had the first hint of thirst.

Never did she suffer from heat,

Despite never having shelter.

The same with the night cold.

There was nothing,

But she was never hungry.

But when the bride wanted to see the water, shelter, and food,

She didn't see anything,

And began to doubt her husband.

She developed physical eyes

And looked to physical gods to provide for her.

Despite her needs being previously met,

She walked by sight and found herself destitute.

Her husband now jilted.

First now last.