The Proof of Christianity (series on Mark)
1. A New World (Mark 1.1-15)
Personal Note
It is a big thing for me to back in a pulpit. When you have to face major surgery, especially on your head you’re not too sure what shape you are going to end up in, or whether you will be good for anything much else again. So I am grateful to God that I can still think and talk. In the recovery months I have become very aware of the wonder of the Christian gospel and more and more restless to be talking about it. I feel we have this priceless treasure, and mostly it is hardly recognized. Church people are bored when they should be excited out of their socks. Outsiders don’t want to come to church for fear of being bored. If only they knew! Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is like a man who found a treasure hidden in a field and in his joy went and sold everything he had to own that field.
Christianity under attack
I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that Christianity is under attack like it hasn’t been for a long time. There is a gathering movement to remove it from any place of influence or privilege it might once have had and liberate people from its guilt-producing demands. What is desired is a new world free from God and any of the demands he might make. This is not new. Here is what one hater of Christianity thought: “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. (Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 75-76)
Hitler was not a great historian and we thank God that he failed to realize his vision of the future. Maybe others will succeed and we will see for ourselves how good is a world where God is unknown.
Underpinning the modern feeling is the honest belief that religion is made up; many think it is based on a collection of unlikely stories. Richard Dawkins puts it like this: “To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and ‘improved’ by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries” (The God Delusion). Of God – “there is no proof,” says Lawrence Krauss who is forever contrasting religion with science. This new world which is coming is to be based on Science and Logic though the fact that Science and Logic were precisely what Stalin’s world was supposed to be all about and resulted in many more deaths than Hitler’s National Socialism, doesn’t fill us with enthusiasm.
Is There Evidence?
I am in agreement that a lot of religion is made up. The religions of Greece and Rome flourished as they met a need and then vanished leaving little trace except broken temples and statues in museums. “New Ageism”, which briefly became popular is now vanishing. But does it follow that all religion is made up? Christians of the first century said that God had actually done something in their time to disprove all the false philosophies and establish the truth. Were they another bunch of clever religion-inventers, or were they speaking the truth? We cannot know without attending to what they said they saw.
They said there was proof, and the proof they adduced was Jesus. I want to use the time before Easter to focus on him, and – not the question, can he be believed – but is it possible for a reasonable science-minded person not to believe in him.
George Macdonald in his novel, The Curate’s Awakening, begins with his hero, a misshapen dwarf, in an English village church listening to the new curate and realizing that he is preaching someone else’s sermon. This is because the new curate has been to university and is not really sure what he believes, or if he believes at all, so is making use of an uncle’s sermons he inherited. His uncle was a great preacher and his sermons are recognized by the dwarf. When the curate realizes his plagiarism has been found out he decides to resign, but the dwarf persuades him that he ought to give himself six months to investigate whether Christianity’s claims might possible be true. So he begins to look critically at Jesus’ claims and eventually realizes that to have made the claims he did, if they were false, he would have to have been a liar or a lunatic. His inability to believe either eventually drove him to the conclusion that he must indeed be the Lord he claimed. Some of you will know that in 1929 this logic drove C.S. Lewis from atheism to faith. Lewis went on to become a professor of English at Oxford University and the most able defender of Christian faith in the mid-twentieth century. Charles Colson, in prison for his part in the Watergate Scandal, came to Jesus by the same logic, as have many others.
Could Jesus be a Legend?
But anyone who lives in the 21st century is aware of a problem. There is a missing possibility. Could not Jesus have been a legend: made up? This is the commonest way out for the modern skeptic, and brings us to the question of whether the story of what Jesus did and said is fiction or fact. The curate and Lewis and Colson – and John Stott, if you have read his Basic Christianity – all focus on the Gospel of John, but this is where some scholars think they smell legend. So, if we want to investigate Jesus it is good to start further back, and we come to the door of Mark, the first of the Gospels. Mark was Jesus’ first biographer.
But I have to ask whether Mark is really a biography lest those who are learned in these things inform me that there are a host of books and articles discussing the genre of Mark, most of which admit there are similarities to biography, but conclude that it is something different. Granted! What we mean by genre is the type of literature into which we should classify Mark and this has become a favourite subject for PhD hopefuls. If you compare Mark with ancient biographies it is different. So how should it be classified? Is it a history? It tells us about past events, but is unlike other early history writings.
Something searchers for an appropriate genre sometimes overlook is that for every classification there has to be a first example, which others follow. Edgar Allan Poe’s, The Murders in the Rue Morgue (1841) is sometimes given as one of the earliest examples of the detective fiction genre. The first to write in some way is not following a tradition, he is creating one, and the truth is that Mark pioneered a new kind of writing. We call it “gospel”. It is biographical and historical, but these are the carrier of something else: God had announced something of world-changing importance and this is what Mark wanted to convey. He succeeded well and was imitated. Matthew and Luke followed Mark’s lead. So did John. So did a host of imitators in the second century try, but they had misunderstood the message and so it came out wrong. The point is that Mark invented something new, and that makes him special. I wont call him a genius because he did not create his material, just put in writing what he had heard preached by others. Nevertheless, in terms of literature he was a pioneer.
Who was Mark?
So who was he, and when did he write, and what was his knowledge of his subject? These are questions we must ask if we are suspicious we might be reading something legendary.
I have just read Clifton Black’s book ond Mark. He says no one knows who wrote Mark, because the book is anonymous. This is often said but it is not true. The great historian Adolf Harnack said that books without the author’s name were a rarity in the first century. It was an age of libraries. Books were classified by their author’s name. People read critically and wanted to know the value of what they were reading. That all depended on who wrote it and when, and what their connection to the facts was. That the author’s name does not appear in the text of the book means nothing; it doesn’t in most modern books. It is written on the cover! Everyone knew who wrote each of the gospels. They wouldn’t have known what value to accord them if they didn’t. Take Luke for example. One often reads the same skeptical comment that no one knows who wrote it because the book is anonymous. It was written for “Theolophilus” and he at least knew who gave him the book. When he had it copied, as he was expected to do, he wrote the author’s name on the front of the scroll. When later the four Gospels were brought together they called them “Gospel according to Mark” and “ according to Matthew” and “Luke” and “John”. They didn’t pull those names out of the air; they were written on the front of the scrolls they had. And it is something of a giveaway of the importance they accorded Mark that they called them all “Gospel”. That word comes from Mark’s title. Luke and John never use the word. All the latter three were categorized with Mark’s new “Gospel”.
So what do we know of Mark. From Acts we know that he accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first mission to Cyprus. He is described as hyperetes, (servant), but a servant with a difference. A hyperetes was usually the servant of someone important, so was himself an important person. The man who handed Jesus the Isaiah-scroll in the Nazareth synagogue is called a hyperetes. Luke speaks of those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and hyperetai of the Word. (Luke 1.2) Mark was included among them. There are indications that Mark’s job was to assist the preaching by telling the story of Jesus. He disgraced himself by abandoning the mission when Paul wanted to push on to Galatia, but is later associated with Peter, and later still is reunited with Paul. Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis early in the second century, says he had heard from the Elder John, possible John the Apostle, or at least a well-known first century Christian leader, that Mark was “Peter’s interpreter” and that the Gospel of Mark was actually taken from Peter’s preaching. Peter preached the gospel by telling Jesus’ story. Mark took that story with him to Cyprus, and later recorded it in writing. I don’t have time to explore this further, as I must say something about when Mark was written.
When was Mark Written?
At theological college I learned that the date was about AD 64, which you may recognize is when the emperor Nero began his violent push against Christians. I remember thinking at the time that just because Mark prepares his readers for persecution doesn’t mean it had to have been written during that persecution. Christians were persecuted before Nero! In fact the book itself gives us little material for fixing its date. What we do know is that it was written before Luke, and Luke and Acts give us a lot to go on. I will stick my neck out here and say with every confidence that Luke and Acts were written before Nero began his persecution, before the trial of Paul, before his and Peter’s execution, and before the fall of Jerusalem. There is no hint of any of these hugely significant events in Acts. So Acts was written about AD 63 and the Gospel before this. I say I am sticking my neck out because many scholars put Luke and Acts in the eighties, partly because the cannot bring themselves to think that Mark could be that early. I believe it is. Mark existed in writing by the end of the fifties. And that makes it a hugely important source of our knowledge of the life of Jesus. We are dealing with an author who was closely in touch with the earliest disciples, who listened and learned Peter’s stories, who was employed by the early missionaries to tell them where they had not been heard, and who produced a written account less that thirty years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
The Beginning of the Gospel
So let’s return to the book and its opening line: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. This could mean that the gospel began with John the Baptist, and Jesus’ baptism and temptation. That would be true, but there may be more. I remember Donald Robinson asking how it would have been for people who knew of the gospel approximately what is contained in the Letter to the Romans wanting to know how it all began. If Peter came to Rome, and there is evidence that he did, they would have wanted to hear the story from an eyewitness, and in all probability Mark’s Gospel is approximately what they heard (Clement of Alexandria says so). Let me tell you how it all began, says Mark; “The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” may be the title of his whole book.
How Did the Gospel Begin?
The story began not with Jesus himself, but when John the Baptist began to fulfill what the OT Scriptures had promised about the coming of a forerunner: God would send a messenger before the Messiah to prepare his way (Malachi). From the wilderness he would appeal to Israel to get the way ready for God to visit his people (Isaiah). So John came, preached, baptized and was recognized by most of the people as a true prophet. There had not been one in Israel for 400 years. His clothing and his wilderness food identified him clearly to Mark as the Elijah who Malachi promised would come before the visitation of God himself.
And then Jesus appears on the scene and is baptized by John in the Jordan River. The way Mark tells the story is impossibly brief. That is because he only has a short scroll within which he has a great deal to say, but also, I think, because the gospel was never meant to stand alone. It was to be used by preachers who were expected to knw more of the story. You can imagine that if Peter or a later preacher spoke to a group of people approximately what is in chapter 1, someone would interrupt him and ask why Jesus was baptized, and why he did not rather baptize John, and a host of other questions. The preacher would explain the best he could.
But Mark has provided enough clues for us to be able to get his meaning. When Jesus was baptized heaven was split open. Isaiah had longed for the day when God would rend the heavens and come down (64.1). Heaven and earth would meet, and now they have. In Jesus! Do you want to know the way into heaven? Then you must go to Jesus! The sky was opened and the Holy Spirit came like a dove and rested on him. This is what made him the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One. Kings were anointed with oil, but Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit himself. And while all this was happening God spoke: “This is my Son, the Beloved. In him I am well pleased.” This account of Jesus’ baptism is so brief it is easy to skip over. But if you know what it means, you will ponder it hard and long. Jesus is being appointed as the king of Israel and ultimately of the world! Throughout the OT God promised he would send a king who would restore Israel and fix up his broken world. At the baptism and with these words of appointment he declares Jesus to be his king and sends the Holy Spirit to give him the power.
This is breathtaking. Can it possibly be true, firstly that someone, a Messiah, will one day restore God’s creation to what he intends? (This is the Jewish hope.) And second that Jesus is the one? Mark is going to tell his story and let us decide for ourselves. For now he rushes on to tell us that the Spirit’s first action was to drive Jesus into the wilderness, where he would be tempted by the Devil: “He was with the wild beasts and angels cared for him.” This signaled to Jewish readers that Jesus was a new Adam, being tempted, this time without the fall, and making a new beginning.
Mark’s Prologue
When I was studying for my PhD I had to research various questions, write up the results as an essay, send it to my supervisor, and then meet with him when he had had a chance to read. He complained to me one day that my essays were like detective stories. I would line up all the evidence and finally come to the conclusion. He didn’t know until he had read to the end what my answer was. Then he would have to go back and read the essay again to see if I had really made a case. He begged me to state my conclusion first, and then tell him how I reached it. Any of you who has had to write essays knows that this is the secret to getting good marks. Well, Mark gets good marks. He tells us up front where he is going, and then tells us the story of how Peter got there, for as we read we will see that as much as Mark is telling us about Jesus, it is also about Peter, and through his eyes. It is Peter’s journey to faith. There were a lot of confusions and false hopes along the way and it took the best part of three years and a resurrection at the end to reach a true conclusion. But Mark didn’t want to keep us in the dark, so he says, “Let me tell you who Jesus is and what he came to do, and after that let me tell you how Peter finally worked that out.”
Jesus’ Announcement
So we come to the climax of the prologue and the lead into the rest of the story: “When John was arrested Jesus came into Galilee announcing the gospel of God and saying: ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel.’”
Note first that this is a piece of history writing. John the Baptist was a figure who made a mark on world history. He is known not only from the Bible. I say this to correct any who might think that because Mark is not classified as “a history” is does not therefore give us historical information. It does. Some of the characters who appear in Mark are known to us from other sources. He connects the beginning of Jesus’ preaching with the arrest of John the Baptist, which is also described by the Jewish historian, Josephus.
Note second that Jesus public ministry began in a certain locality: in Galilee. John’s Gospel tells us that Jesus was active in Judaea to the south of Galilee before this. Mark is describing the beginning of something new and dramatic that took place in Galilee beginning after the arrest of John the Baptist.
Notice thirdly what that new thing was: Jesus began to announce the gospel of God.
What this meant is not well understood even by Christians. “Gospel” was not a religious word. It was political. In the time of the Caesars gospels were good-news messages of great importance that were couriered by runners or on horseback or by ship to the people at home. Typically they were messages of victory and the rise and fall of kingdoms, which everyone was anxiously waiting for. When Mark says that Jesus announced “the gospel of God”, people would have thought that God was sending a vital message to mankind about his government. Probably it had to do with the coming of a king; it might suggest a great battle was underway and victory was being announced. The Jews had been waiting many years for such an announcement and here it was; Jesus announced it. Even the word I have translated as “announce” supports this point. Kerusso wasn’t what you did in church, but what a herald did in the market place.
Mark also tells us the content of the announcement. Jesus came into Galilee announcing the gospel of God and saying, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
What time was fulfilled? The time promised by the prophets for God to set up his own government and put the world to rights! What is the kingdom of God? The kingdom of God is the new order, which God had promised by many prophets, when he would intervene in the evil course of the world and put things to rights by means of his own king. The Jews called that king “Messiah” or “the King Messiah”. What did Jesus mean when he said the kingdom was at hand? As we read on in the Gospel we will find that he meant two things, firstly that it had arrived, and second that there was more to come. We will see more of that later.
So then, what is the significance of “Repent, and believe in the gospel?” I can best illustrate this with a little story. I was there when the new South Africa began. An old system ended and a new era began. It began with a simple announcement of good news, which most people heard on the radio or on television: the Republic of South Africa was henceforth under a new constitution and the new president was Nelson Mandela. In the first century that announcement would have been called a gospel. But not everyone believed in it. Some people drove around in cars shooting at people and trying to stir up a civil war. I was in the church when another group tried to keep the violence going and improve their political position by shooting up the congregation. But all these people who didn’t believe in the gospel of the new South Africa ended up dead or in prison. When Jesus called on people to believe the gospel and repent he meant they should align themselves with the new order – or else. The world was God’s and he had every right to appoint his own king. If they wanted a place in that new world they would need to accept this king and live by his teaching.
Questions
If you have been following me you will be asking yourself, “Did Jesus call on them to believe in him?” And this is where the story gets a little puzzling, because he didn’t. Not just like that. He announced the arrival of the kingdom of God, but where was the king? Well, Mark has already made clear to us who he is and something of what he has come to do; that is precisely what the baptism story is about. God appointed Jesus as the king of the world. But Jesus didn’t go around saying, “I am the king.” He announced the arrival of the kingdom of God and allowed people to question for themselves and decide who the king might be who would establish it and rule.
It would be very appropriate at this point to challenge you to repent and believe in the gospel. I am not going to do that yet, because if you are human, you will have doubts and questions, and that is exactly how Mark thought it would be, because he goes on to describe Peter’s doubts and questions and to tell us how he came finally to a full certainty of faith in Jesus and his kingdom. What I would like to challenge you about is to read Mark for yourself. Write out your doubts and questions as you go. Let us see how many of those we can resolve in the weeks ahead. And ask God to lead you to the truth.
I called this series on Mark, “The Proof of Christianity”. I am responding to Lawrence Krauss and you may think I am being foolhardy. I don’t have a mathematical or scientific proof; neither is appropriate. What I do have is evidence in the form of testimony to something that happened. Each person needs to assess it for himself or herself.
Where have we come? We have seen how John the Baptist filled the role of the promised forerunner and was recognized as a prophet by his countrymen. Jesus came to him for baptism and God chose that moment to send his Holy Spirit upon him and declared him the king of Israel and the world. The Spirit then drove him out to his first battle with Satan. He emerged victorious and began to announce the coming of God’s kingdom in Galilee, calling on the people to turn to God and believe in the gospel. Next Sunday we will look at what sort of a king he intends to be.