A Reflection on Jesus' teaching in Mark 7 

One thing is universally agreed upon on planet earth.  Things are not perfect and things need to change.  Some in pride situate the needed change only in others, fully confident of their own righteousness and goodness.  They think, If THOSE PEOPLE would get their act together the world would be a better place.  Yet, just in case I may be writing to some people who realize that they themselves might need to change, I hope this essay is of some help to you.  In this brief discussion I have but modest goals.  I first want to diagnose the problem of the human heart following the teaching of Jesus in seventh chapter of Mark's gospel.  I then want to look at the biblical prescriptions and ways by which we actually change.  In doing so I will touch briefly on Christian sanctification, the teaching or the Bible about how we are conformed to the image of Jesus where sin is defeated and we are changed.  So following the great prophet Michael Jackson, lets start with the man in the mirror and ask him to make a change.  And when we find out that we cannot change ourselves we'll land in a good place.  The place of grace and transformation in the hands of our good God and Savior Jesus Christ.

What's Wrong with Us?

Years ago the British Journalist GK Chesterton was asked along with others to write an essay for the London Times responding to the question "What is wrong with the world?"  Chesterton wrote back a simple editorial which read: Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton.  Of course he had much more to say about the problems of the world and he did indeed write an essay dealing with this question.¹  Yet Chesterton's understanding of the question and his pithy response shows something profound and unique in the Christian worldview. 

Perhaps one of the more offensive, honest and easily verified teaching of Jesus and his apostles is that of the sinfulness of human beings.  Other worldviews present man as essentially good or morally neutral, it is simply his behavior that is out of line.  If we only teach a person the right things he will act better-hence there is a sort of belief today in salvation by education.  Yet in the face of this is the fact that sin is found both in the simple and the intellectual elite.  In fact, the most educationally sophisticated nation of the 20th century perpetuated the most evil of crimes in recent history.  Nazi Germany was not an ignorant people, but a sophisticated child of enlightenment thinking which resulted in atrocities unspeakable.   When we are honest we see that we all have sin in us, it is not simply "out there" in others.  Today many secular thinkers such as Steven Pinker of MIT are finally rethinking the "man as basically good" shtick teaching that human nature is in fact bent towards doing bad things.²  The problem is that he reasons that we are genetically predetermined to be selfish, fight each other etc. and we have no choice in matters anyway.  For in this view we are but the machinations and fluctuations of DNA with no heart or soul left to speak of. Of course many other secular minds do not want such a dark view of ourselves and Pinker has his critics.³  Thankfully, Jesus presents a much different picture of the problem of the human condition, one more devastating, but ultimately one that brings liberation to all who believe.

In Mark chapter 7 we find Jesus teaching a parable to some religious folks about what makes us unholy or unclean before God.  While today's secular minds might say our DNA makes us bad, the ancient religious person thought it was all manner of external things which separated them from God.  Being around the wrong people, eating the wrong foods, not maintaining proper hygiene or even some aspects of the human body itself were what made people unholy.  These external things would make us dirty and unacceptable to God.  Jesus blows this idea up with a simple statement that it is not what goes into a person that makes them unholy, it is what comes from his heart that is the problem.  In other words, Jesus diagnoses is much more severe than we would like.  He does not say that we are sinful because we do sinful things.  His teaching is that we do sinful things because our very hearts, the center of who we are, are sinful.  So what is wrong with me.  I have a sinful heart, a heart that turns from God and attempts to live life my own way.  I will have all things on my terms, my own morality, my own way of treating people.  So Jesus teaches us that what comes out of a person is what defiles him. "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person" (Mark 7:21-23). Our world is filled with all of these things-and they come right out of human beings not from evil aliens from galaxies far, far away. 

Sanctification-How the Sinner is Made Holy

The Bible's teaching on sanctification, or becoming holy, is wide and deep and beyond a full treatment in the junk drawer.  There are several views on the subject so for those interested I refer you to the discussion in the book Five Views on Sanctification edited by Stan Gundry.  The following will simply be a summary of the biblical teaching about how sinners becoming more saintly-in a real, not religious, sense of the term.  A quick definition is in order-this one is from the late Anthony Hoekema and I find it covers the breadth of the topic concisely:

We may define sanctification as that gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, involving our responsible participation, by which he delivers us from the pollution of sin, renews our entire nature according to the image of God, and enables us to live lives that are pleasing to Him.⁴

Many see sanctification as a work of God which takes place over time but begins at a definitive point in a person's life.  We will discuss it in these two ways, new life given and life change over time.  To these we now turn.

New Life Given

When a person gives her sin to Jesus, begins to trust him alone and his work on the cross for them for her sins, she becomes a Christian, a person forgiven by and reconciled to God.  At this point many things take place which the Bible describes in beautiful language.  The person experiences a new birth (John 3:5), he becomes a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:11-15) and is set free from slavery to sin to walk in newness of life (Romans 6).  All of this is done by God, by his grace, through the work of Jesus on the cross and the Holy Spirit's direct regenerating power.  This is a work of God the Trinity and is not a result of the believers own efforts, it is something accomplished for her and applied to her.  

Some have argued that human beings have in themselves the ability to turn to God on their own and obey him by their own moral ability.  The ancient heretic Pelagius erred in teaching this long ago and many have followed similar teachings throughout time.  Yet the Scripture teaches us that the solution to the human heart comes not from within but from a gracious and good God.  He moves us from a dominion of darkness to the new kingdom and rule of Jesus.  The Scriptures say many things about our initial conversion, our becoming a follower of Jesus, but one thing is clear-it is his work, not our own.  His work changes us, puts thanksgiving into our hearts and excludes boasting.  It is not by our own education, religion, morality, or will-that the human heart is changed, this remains the work of God alone.  Theologians call this initial sanctification (to set apart as holy) as definitive sanctification.  God no longer sees us as sinners but as saints.  This is good news-gospel. Yet this begins the journey of life change where we become more and more like Jesus over time.  Old habits, thoughts, indwelling sin must be fought and defeated by the power of God and the existence of new loves in our lives. 

Life Change-Joy, Affections and Battle

If all we were was "new" life would be somewhat easy.  We would skip through the tulips of this world singing "hakuna matata" without a care in the world.  Yet sanctification has a second part-the process by which God defeats indwelling sin and puts it to death in us daily.  This process is one in which we have a role to play.  He calls us to obey him, but we find that our hearts are prone to wander.  So our lives now are mingled with temptation to go back to a former ways of life or to succumb to the lure of sin which faces us in the world each day.  We are called to become more and more like Jesus and to he has given us means to this end-prayer, study, meditation, solitude, fasting, scripture, communion as well as others.  He calls us forward in order that we might grow in righteousness and mortify, or put to death, the sin which can cling so closely.  It is a process that begins when we come to Jesus and continues until we are made perfect by God in the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven. 

As we follow Jesus over time we find that we become more and more aware of our sin and how much we need the grace of the gospel.  As we see our sin more clearly, the cross of Christ and God's grace towards us grows larger as well.  God saves us by grace and also gives grace to us that empowers continual change as well (1 Corinthians 15:10) It is in the gospel, in thankfulness of heart, that our joy increases and gives us fuel in following him.  We know he has paid our debt and that we never can repay him so joy rises in us that helps want to faithfully obey Jesus.  If we ever make following Jesus a duty without delight we will find ourselves in empty legalism which Jesus rebukes so strongly in Mark 7:1-23.  It is the gospel that saves, it is God who sanctifies us in the gospel.  Our motivation for obedience and walking in God's paths is his gracious work for us in Jesus Christ.  When we love him, we obey him.  So our steadfast prayer is for the love of God to be poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5).  In this way he receives glory and we receive joy and new affections for him that give us hope to fight sin tomorrow. 

The British theologian John Owen years ago wrote a great work on the nature of our battle with sin.  He taught that the Scriptures do not teach that we arrive at a state of complete sinlessness in this life but the power of sin over us can grow dimmer and dimmer over time.⁶  It is a walk of faith to trust God, practice spiritual disciplines, and confess and repent of sin.  It is in love and joy we do not grow weary and lose heart in this struggle, for it is indeed a battle.   Our God has promised to complete the work he began in us so even in our darkest valleys and deepest failures we can get back up and live tomorrow.  The author of Hebrews reveals to us the beauty of this race called life and he needs to be repeated as it sums up the process side of sanctification so well:

We indeed look to Jesus, who looked ahead to the joy of the mission of God accomplished on the cross.  We look to him in joy and love so that we may rise and choose the path of life each day.  God will one day deliver us finally and fully from sin and temptation so we are mindful of this as we fight the good fight together today.  Remember, we are not alone in this thing, we walk together as his people the church-discuss your struggles with a friend today and do not forfeit the hope we have in the gospel.

Notes 

1. You can read some of fuller thoughts on the matter in his essay What is Wrong with the World? Available at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/wwwtw10.txt
2. Steven PInker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, (New York: Penguin Putnam, 2002)
3. See Simon Blackburn's  essay Meet the Flintstones http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/reviews/Pinker.htm
4. Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 192.
5. Ibid 202-209.  A great discussion of both definitive and process sanctification.
6. To read Owen's works see the recently published Justin Taylor and Kelly Kapic Overcoming Sin and Temptation: Three Classic Works by John Owen (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006)

The following are some additional notes given out along with the message Healing is from Jesus, given at the Inversion Fellowship on Sept 13, 2007. 

The teaching of the Bible regarding The Kingdom of God is perhaps some of the most complex, mysterious, beautiful and awe inspiring realities.  This essay will be but a gnat scratching on the surface of the moon in attempting to describe the teaching of Scripture on this topic.  Yet it is also a matter of great importance because it is deeply connected to the gospel as taught by Jesus and the apostles.  The sections of this essay will be excessively brief as my goal iw to introduce rather than rigorously present all the issues.  For those interested there is a short and accessible book by the late George Eldon Ladd entitled The Gospel of the Kingdom which I recommend.

The Kingdom Defined-Rule and Reign

When we hear the word Kingdom today we are tempted to define it in terms of a geographical realm with a castle and certain people being ruled by a monarch.  At least in my kids' fairy tale books and DVDs this is usually how it rolls out.  Or if you are up on world affairs you might thing of a middle eastern monarchy such as Saudi Arabia or perhaps history buffs will think of historical western kingdoms before the advent of democratic nation states.  Either way, both impressions will not help us in thinking of what the ancients meant when they spoke of the Kingdom of God.  A kingdom as described in Scripture is the actual rule and reign of a King himself.  Rather than a geography or a people, the kingdom is the expression of an authority and the nature of that rule.  To put it very simply, the Kingdom of God is the rule and reign of God.  It is his exercised rule or sovereignty, not the realm in which it is implemented.¹  Additionally, there is great agreement that the Kingdom or Rule of God is one of complete justice, the eradication of sin and death and the peaceful ordering of all things by Christ our King.

So this brings to us an important question.  If the Kingdom is the rule of God, is it now here with us?  Or is the Kingdom a future reality coming in the time which we call "Heaven." Our answer will be yes...and yes.

Did it already come?  Still Coming? 

The idea of the coming Kingdom is rife with discussions of temporality (issues of time).  Did Jesus bring the Kingdom in AD 33? Is God in charge now, or is that still coming?  What does the second coming of Jesus say to the reality of the Kingdom?  Does the Kingdom have to do with righteous and just rule or the salvation of sinners by a holy, wrathful, loving, good and forgiving God?  Additionally, is it God's job to bring about his rule and reign on the earth, or is it our job as the church?  Or both? There are so many questions associated with this.   Christians throughout history have fallen on various sides of these questions and the issue is very important in many conversations today.  The witness of the Bible on this is precisely the source of the struggle for it clearly teaches that the Kingdom came with Jesus in some way (i.e. Mark 1:14,15) and it is with us in our present reality (Romans 14:17).  It teaches that those who believe in Jesus are moved into the Kingdom, yet at the same time there remains a dominion of darkness (Colossians 1:13,14).  Our greatest mistake is to be reductionist about the Scriptures teaching, silencing some parts in favor of others.  This is what Christians have done from time to time with the teaching on the Kingdom of God.  A few examples.

Too Much Now

Over time many Christians see the rule of God as perfect justice for all people and creation itself.  It is a state where all is made right on the earth.  So they see the gospel in these terms.  The good news is that there is a different life available now.  We can live lives of love and justice and bring the Kingdom to the earth more fully.  Liberal Christianity of the late 19th and early 20th century made this push.  Today, the idea that the gospel is "the Kingdom is here now" and live that way is becoming popular among Christians flying the flag "Emergent."  The call of the gospel is to live the Kingdom way now.  That is the good news brought by Jesus.  This is in some sense true.  Yet the casualty of "Kingdom Now" thinking is that the salvation of sinners from the wrath of God, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus "for our sins" is lost.  Many in this camp no longer teach that sin is individual, but only social.  They no longer teach the reality of eternity and the right judgment of God.  They no longer teach that Hell even exists but instead that our only focus should be "bringing the Kingdom" now.  It you choose to believe that the Kingdom is all Now, we miss some incredibly important truths about the Later.   If you like theology-you would call this over realized eschatology. 

Too Much Later

On the other extreme is the teaching that the gospel is only about getting a "go to heaven card" and not a call to followership of Jesus, transformation of communities, and reflection of the saving gospel of the Kingdom in our lives today.  All the focus is on the second coming of Jesus and the coming judgment and not living the way of Jesus today.  If all we are to do today is get folks saved-and I do believe we have a job to call sinners to repentance and faith-we will neglect building a Kingdom culture now that reflects the reign of God.  God desires for us to proclaim justice for the oppressed, to feed the hungry and to steward creation as representatives of another Kingdom.  You might say that under realized eschatology ignores some very important aspects of the rule of God-NOW for the sake of thinking about the Later.

Of course all this is too simplistic-but these issues are important.  The solution to this is not reductionism but to see all the teaching on the Kingdom-that it is a present in breaking reality, that it is not fully here, that it will come definitively at the second coming of Jesus as important.  We must like Now and Laters, not just Now or Later.  Sorry, you knew that was coming...

Now and Not Yet...

The Kingdom is Now

What we want to hold in tension is that the Kingdom very much appeared with the incarnation of Jesus, who is our covenant King.  The Kingdom also expresses itself when people enter into it by repentance and faith in Jesus.  When someone becomes a Christian, a follower of Jesus, for whom Christ has paid for their sins and reconciled them with God, the person very much enters the Kingdom.  After the first coming of Jesus we now can be set free from the power of sin, death, Satan.  All of these are thwarted-Jesus is the first fruits, the promise of our own resurrection and eternal life.

The Kingdom is Later

Yet Scripture is clear that this current age is under the dominion or rule of sin, death and Satan.  Our great enemy is called the prince of the power of the air, the ruler of this world (or age) and we know very well that sin and death still hold fast on the earth.  George Ladd summarizes this very well:

This age is dominated by evil, wickedness and rebellion against the will of God, while the age to come is the age of the Kingdom of God...The point is this: it is the character of this age to choke the working of the Word of God.  The spirit of the age is hostile to the gospel.²

Yet, in becoming a Christian now we receive the promise and evidence of the final destruction of these things as sin looses it power over us (sanctification) and death itself is not the end for us any longer (See John 11:17-27).  Finally, the second coming of Christ will fully bring the reality of the Kingdom in forever.  It will be definitive.  The dead will rise to immortality, evil and wickedness will be judged completely and demonic powers removed for all time.  As such all things will be made new and the redemption of God in all things will arrive. 

The Gospel and the Church-A Resistance Movement

In our day Jesus is still at work in the world saving sinners and adding folks to his community known as the church.  In this group of people we have a counter cultural community that lives according to the gospel of the Kingdom.  It proclaims good news of the death of Jesus for sin and the resurrection of Jesus for our hope.  It loves others and cares about injustice and empowering the poor.  The church is an in breaking of the Kingdom and this reality is proclaimed in the preaching of God's Word and visible in the practice of the ordinances of baptism (entry sign into the Kingdom) and the Lord's Supper (a continuing sign of the Kingdom).  This community exists for the world but does not subscribe to the systems and power of the world.  It is a revolution, an Inversion by which God is transforming people and extending grace into communities.  We are much like a resistance force in occupied territory.  Though sin, death and hell still have power, we proclaim hope through the gospel. We are a rag tag group of folks who are desiring the Lord to come and working hard for the sake of others.   We hold out the gospel and call people to Jesus for their salvation.  Then we walk together as a broken community giving our lives away for the sake of others.  When we fail we practice and live in regular repentance and hope in the gospel because we all fall short of the glory of God.  This is why we need Jesus.  We cannot bring his Kingdom or deal with our sin.  He does.  This is why the gospel is central to our lives and mission.  Once someone becomes a follower of Jesus, he is then part of the Inversion...Dallas Willard said it well:

To become a disciple of Jesus is to accept now that inversion of human distinctions that will sooner or later be forced upon everyone by the irresistible reality of his kingdom. How must we think of him to see the inversion from our present viewpoint? We must, simply, accept that he is the best and smartest man who ever lived in this world, that he is even now "the prince of the kings of the earth" (Rev 1:5). Then we heartily join his cosmic conspiracy to overcome evil with good.³

What is the Gospel of the Kingdom?  It is two fold.  It is to see sinners saved and involves individual salvation.  Yet it also calls us to see a new society or culture formed-the church.  The gospel saves us and will ultimately redeem all things.  It is Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15) and a uniting of all things under God (Ephesians 1.10).  In our lives today we live as part of a revolution, not a fortress to keep out the world.  The gospel saves you and me and makes us part of God's restoration of all things. I'll give the late British journalist GK Chesterton the final word.

In the upper world hell once rebelled against heaven. But in this world heaven is rebelling against hell. For the orthodox there can always be a revolution; for a revolution is a restoration. ⁴

Yours in the Revolution,

Reid S. Monaghan

Notes

• 1. George Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom; Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.,: Eerdmans, 1959 20.
• 2. Ladd, 28, 29
• 3. Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy : Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God, 1st ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 90.
• 4. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Image Books ed. (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 113.

 

The following are some additional notes given out along with the message The Gospel is Our Life, given at the Inversion Fellowship on Sept 6, 2007.

A Tale of Two Titles

There are many names or titles given to Jesus in the Scriptures. He is called the lion of the tribe of Judah, the rose of Sharon, the son of man, the great I AM, the Lamb of God, the Lilly of the valley, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace, the Good Shepherd, the Word of God, the Light of the World, Savior, Lord. Indeed, you could keep going as this just scratches the surface.¹ Yet perhaps two of the most significant and radical titles ascribed to Jesus in Scripture appear in startling fashion in the prologue to the gospel of Mark. In one simple verse, something unbelievable is seen:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Now for many of us the names here are so familiar that the awe they bring may be lost to us. We are so used to hearing or reading "Christ" and "Son of God" in reference to Jesus without really pausing to see what they mean. Christ has become something like Jesus' last name...sort of like Fred Jones-but Jesus Christ. Son of God is taken for granted so we forget the radical nature of calling a human being such a thing. Lets look very briefly at each of these.

Jesus, Who is the Christ

The term Christ is derived from the Greek term Χριστός or Christos. Rather than a last name it is a title which means "anointed one of God" its Old Testament equivalent is Messiah. The term comes from the practice by which certain people were "anointed" or called by God and set apart for a special ministry. In the OT the priests (Exodus 29:7, 21), prophets (1 Kings 19:16), and kings (1 Samuel 10:1) were anointed with oil for their specific roles with God's people. When Jesus is called the Christ, or the Messiah, it simply states that Jesus is the completion of the work of God in history in whom all the covenant promises are fulfilled. He is the great high priest connecting human beings to God. He is the great prophet incarnating and speaking to us the Word of God. He is the great king that we long for who will benevolently rule for all eternity. To say Jesus is the Christ is to say that the hopes and longings of Israel-the hopes of all who will become children of God by faith-are fulfilled. The promised coming is on the ground-this is a new beginning, nothing will ever be the same.

Jesus, The Son of God

Muslim people have misinterpreted this title for years. The term Son is many times understood in the wrong context to mean that God had a physical offspring through copulation with a human being. It hasn't help that Mormonism actually teaches this, but nonetheless this sort of thinking is not what Scripture means when Jesus is called the Son of God. Philosopher Peter Kreeft sheds great light on how this term was used in the time of Jesus.

Son of a dog, is a dog, son of an ape an ape, son of God, is God - Jews were Monotheistic, only one God-Son of God is the divine title of Jesus and everyone at his time understood this title to mean just that.²

In titling Jesus as the Son of God they were clearly stating that this human being was God become man. This was no ordinary person walking the ancient landscape-the world's very creator, the second person of the triune God, was making an appearance.

In writing this inspired book, Mark structures the account of Jesus' life, teaching, death and resurrection using these titles. - Christ and Son of God. Here in the prologue they land on us in the first words of the gospel. Jesus, the Messiah, God come to earth is on the scene. Everything is about to change. From the middle of Chapter 1 until the middle of the book Jesus is living out a ministry of healing, exorcism and authoritative preaching in the areas of Galilee and Judea. In Chapter 8 Peter makes a confession as to Jesus' identity-"You are the Christ." From this point the narrative is heading towards Jerusalem. Finally, at the end of the book another confession is made; this time the words are from a Roman centurion. After observing the death of Jesus on an executioners cross, the words are uttered-"Truly this man was the Son of God!"

From the Wilderness to the Cross

The appearance of Jesus was not before the political powers and religious leaders, no, rather God came to his people in a dusty wilderness. Outside the pomp and regality of the powers that be, the man born in a humble manger, would now begin his ministry on the outskirts of town. From this lonely outpost would launch the most significant, world changing, universe changing work of all time. God would have it no other way. In the Exodus he led his people in a wilderness. In those days his people were disciplined and tested so that they would learn to trust God (Psalm 95:7-11). In Jesus coming to meet God and his people in the wilderness he will pass the test, be affirmed by the Father and by the Spirit launch his ministry onto the public scene. The Jesus release party took place not in a big ballroom or the hippest scene in town. It took place in the mysterious, dangerous and lonely place where God provides for and meets his people. He still calls to us in our own wilderness of sin and death today.

Where Mark begins his gospel he brings it full circle. He is recognized as the Christ, the Messiah and then he heads towards his ultimate mission of dying for the sins of the world. When this mission has been accomplished, a gentile, who would have access to God through Christ has his eyes open to what has just taken place. The crucified before him was indeed God. The coming resurrection would kick off the mission of the gospel in the world which continues into our day. This gospel continues to shape peoples' destinies in our day. The risen Jesus is still entering and saving lives today by the Holy Spirit sent into the world to glorify Jesus among his people. The gospel presented in Scripture is the defining story of our lives. 

The Gospel, our A-Z not our ABCs

What is the gospel? So many times we associate the term with some simple truths that we believe in order to go to heaven and then move on with life. Let me be clear. The gospel is the story of God's redemption of people through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Yet the good news of Jesus Christ extends further into our lives than simply getting us to a preferred afterlife. Dr. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City has written and spoken extensively on the gospel and its all encompassing role in our lives as followers of Jesus.

We never "get beyond the gospel" in our Christian life to something more "advanced." The gospel is not the first "step" in a "stairway" of truths, rather, it is more like the "hub" in a "wheel" of truth. The gospel is not just the A-B-C's of Christianity, but it is the A to Z of Christianity. The gospel is not just the minimum required doctrine necessary to enter the kingdom, but the way we all make progress in the kingdom. ³

The gospel is not something we hear at camp, pray a prayer and then get on with life. It is not just for people who are not Christians, but it is the story that must define our lives. If we do not see our relationships, our vocational choices, our time, our money, the use of our lives on the earth in light of the gospel our lives will not be transformed as they ought. The following is but a brief recounting of the gospel, the large story of Scripture, which invades us anew each day that we follow by faith in the way of Jesus. Let me summarize in short form, the good news found in Scripture.

The Gospel

The gospel is the large story of Scripture of the working of God throughout time and history to bring about the redemption of his people and all things. The gospel is the story of the one Creator God, making all things, space, time, matter, energy in order to display his nature to his creatures. God created human beings in his own image and likeness to know him, love him, and reflect his character in the world to one another for their joy and his glory. Our first parents then gave God the proverbial Heisman, choosing to live life their way rather than God's way. They turned away from God and his provision for them, disobeying his commandment and thereby bringing fracture in their relationship with God, one another, and creation. God thereby cursed man and creation subjecting it to futility, bondage and decay. Yet God in his grace set about to redeem a people back to himself and has pursued us throughout history to this end. He promised in the very early days to send a human being, a seed of a woman to bring people back to God, reconciling them to himself and all things (Genesis 3:15) Throughout history he communicated with us and connected with us through prophets, men called to speak God's message to humanity. He made covenants with his people that would culminate in his sending of his own Son to the earth. He would be a Jewish person, the offspring of Abraham (Genesis 12, 15). He would fulfill God's commandments perfectly satisfying the demands of the law completely and live without sin (Hebrews 4.15). He would be a king to his people (2 Samuel 7) guiding them into a life of love, joy and peace. He would teach us the truth, show us perfected humanity, and ultimately die to take our place and pay the penalty for our own rebellion and sin (1 Corinthians 15:1-3). This person, Jesus, gave his life for us in what Martin Luther called the great exchange. Our sin was placed on him as he took our deserved judgment and punishment by dying on a cross. We then receive his righteousness and favor and good name before God the Father (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). We are thereby forgiven, brought back into relationship with God, our guilt is removed, God's wrath no longer is upon us, and we now become his followers and agents of reconciliation in the world. We receive all of this by his grace, none of it is earned by our works or actions. God will someday bring his kingdom in fullness where Jesus will completely and finally bring an end to all evil and usher in an eternal age of life and peace for all who follow him. Those who persist in rebellion against God will face his justice in Hell for all which was done in this life, eternally receiving the due penalty for sin.

Seeing Through The Gospel

• How I see myself -It is devastating and liberating to see myself as a sinner saved by grace. I need to know that I was bad enough for Jesus to die and loved enough that he joyfully did so.
• How I see and relate to others-If God has forgiven me, how ought I to live with others who sin against me. If we cannot learn to forgive those who make mistakes, who hurt us, we will simply be unable to love and be loved in relationships.
• How I understand where I live, where I work-I will spend most of my time in my workplace and in the place I call home. How does the gospel speak to where I live, who I associate with, what people I deem lovable, how I seek to invest my free time?

Seeing the gospel applied to all areas of life is Christian faith. If we miss this we will make following Jesus about morality or a set of religious rules we create for ourselves and by which we judge others. Legalism and relativism are equally poisonous.4 Our sinfulness and need for grace should slay legalism in our hearts. God's holiness and leadership in our lives should lead us to embrace God's ways and follow him because we are accepted and loved by him.

Notes

1. Names of Jesus, Rose Publishing-This handy little pamphlet has 50 names http://www.rose-publishing.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=757.
2. Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman, Why I Am a Christian (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001). For a defense of the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God and how this title is used see Part 5, Chapter 13-Peter Kreeft, Why I believe Jesus is the Son of God, 222-234.
3. See Timothy Keller-The The Sufficiency of Christ and the Gospel in a Post-Modern World at TheResurgence.com
4. See Timothy Keller - Preaching in a Post Modern City - Part 2.
   

...Continued from The Gospel of Mark

As we begin a new season together we will all be following Mark's story of Jesus which was a Journey towards the cross of Christ and living in light of his resurrection.  In our short few months together in Mark will have no illusions that we will be able to probe the depths of this book.  However, while we cannot plumb its depths, we will ascend its heights and run across its peaks.  Our main concern is having our vision of life transformed by the wonders we see in Jesus Christ and his gospel.  It is our hope that our vision and love of Jesus is aroused and our feet made swift in following.  

The Gospel is Our Life - Signpost in Mark 1

The book of Mark begins with a resounding clarity of purpose: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  Here we find a beginning of a new chapter in an unfolding story, here we have good news coming forth, here we find the name of a person which means "The Lord Saves," here we find a person unique in all of history; a Son but no ordinary man.  Human beings have been made and fashioned for worship and our hearts will glory in all manner of things be it through religion, the pursuit of pleasure, the identification with a certain group or the exaltation of self.  Yet our lives will wander adrift without the lifting of our burdens of sin and the receiving of grace and peace with God. 

When religion beckons we must find the root of our story in the good news.  It is not what we do that makes us acceptable to a holy and good God, it is what has been done by Jesus himself in the fullness of time on the earth.  Jesus' first words in the gospel of Mark beckon us to action: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Healing Comes from Jesus - Signpost in Mark 1, 2, and 3 

In a world that daily echoes the remnants of the fall of man we know that we are in desperate need of healing and wholeness.  Our bodies are broken and will surely pass away at an appointed time.  Our relationships are broken with communities constantly separating and being fractured.  Spiritual powers torment and destroy lives daily around the world and our souls are stained with the reality of sin.  We live today with the present world groaning and longing for redemption and renewal.  Jesus tells us that the self-righteous, the proud, the self-sufficient and the denial of our condition have no place with God.  For he tells us in Mark 2:17 - "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." All sinners may come to him and none will be cast out.

We Live In His Story - Signpost in Mark 4 

There are many ways to define life and communicate its ultimate meaning and purpose.  Many have chosen to describe the world only in scientific terms.  Many have chosen to weave complex philosophies for the consumption of humanity.  Others have danced through a myriad of political visions, cultural revolutions and social engineering.    Yet how did Jesus teach us and define for us the ultimate reality and the Kingdom of God?  He told stories to teach those who could hear.  Stories designed by God to both reveal the hidden secrets of the rule and reign of Jesus and to conceal them from those who would have no part in worshipping their Creator.   In the parables of Jesus life finds form and definition.  In his stories we see our story with clarity and soul humbling and soul refreshing life.  In fact, in the large story of the gospel we find the truth and see our faces as we are meant to be. 

The Hero of Every Story - Signpost in Mark 4

If life is the unfolding of a great story, the story of God, then that story has a beginning, a climax, and a final resolution.  It also has a hero, a great rescuer and every story of Scripture whispers his name[1].  The identity of Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God is the most important issue in all of history.  In the last part of Mark four we see a question emerge from the lips of the disciples, "Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?" In this signpost we look at the hero of history in a story that includes uncertainty, calamity, fear, peril and chaos - sound like life?  It ends with Jesus speaking definitively into hearts filled with trepidation and the peace and calm that results.  

A New Living Way - Signpost in Mark 7

So many times we get consumed with the external realities of appearances, morality, religion and wearing masks for people all around us.  Yet what is the reality of the human heart?  The picture that Jesus paints for us is not pretty as he tells us all matter of sin and wickedness flows out from our hearts.  Though his picture of humanity is one of depravity, he does not leave us there.  He knows that a mere coat of paint to cover our brokenness will crack and crumble in life.  No, instead of a simple pious makeover, he reminds us that the problem we have is not simply our poor religious performances.   In order to transform us into new people and place us on a path of life, it requires radical heart surgery.   It is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean, and it is a renewal and recreation of our very selves which we most desperately need.  Is this possible?  Seeing Jesus in Mark 7 tell us YES!  But we must come to God needy and hopeful - in faith - for the work only he can do. 

A Continual Unfolding - Signposts in Mark 8, 9 and 10

There are some high mountain peaks in every narrative, crucial plot turns which move the story to its climax.  As the story of Jesus unfolds in Mark we see some very important events go down.   First, Peter confesses Jesus to be the Christ a confession upon which the church will be built.  Second, Jesus begins to foretell what was prophesied about him long ago, that the Son of Man must suffer, be murdered and rise from death.  This was an unexpected turn of events for the disciples that he repeats with them driving home the central focus of his mission.  Third, God reveals Jesus is his glory on the top of a mountain.  His radiant beauty and manifest glory was displayed for the disciples just before they turn towards leading the mission towards a cross in Jerusalem.  The cost of following Jesus, a Jesus who would be rejected by people and die an ignoble death, was being made clear. 

Do We Really Want Jesus? Signposts in Mark 11 and 12

Upon his entry to Jerusalem Jesus was being treated like a political religious rock star.  He was on the Jay Leno show, Carson Daly wanted to hang out and pretty much the whole town was in an uproar at the arrival of Jesus.  Their hero had come to save the day for Jerusalem and the reigns of the Roman oppressor would soon by conquered by the Messiah, a great warrior King! Or was there another plan?  Many of the people who welcomed Jesus would soon stand on the other side of his cause.  He would threaten religious power by bringing the salvation of God.  Those who desire to lead men in religion, rather than to the throne of grace, would soon shout out with ferocity "Crucify Him!"Even his closest of friends, the man who just had confessed him as the Christ of God would turn on his friend in a moment of trial.  Peter himself would deny Jesus. So I ask us...do we really want Jesus? 

Death by Love and Life By Death - Signposts in Mark 14, 15, and 16

The final apex of Mark's story comes to a head in the final chapters of the book.  Everything that began in chapter 1 has moved to this final station where death will come by love and life for God's people will come by death.  Jesus, the creator of all things, is mocked, rejected and tried as a common criminal.  His people abandon him and he submits himself to a shameful death, even death on a cross.  Yet such was the will of a loving God, for it pleased the Father to crush the Son.  Putting an end to sin, death and hell in one act and by death would come life to all men who believe.  This is the crown jewel of our faith.  The songs of men might sing of self-sufficiency and the triumph of our human ingenuity.  We will have no portion on this plate - we will preach and live Christ. Christ crucified, victoriously raised, on mission on the earth today beckoning to each of us...Follow Me. 

This is my prayer - joy in following Jesus in the mission of God on the earth,

Reid S. Monaghan

---

[1]This phrase is borrowed from the subtitle of what I consider to be the best children's Bible available today.  Sally Lloyd-Jones, The Jesus Storybook Bible - Every Story Whispers His Name (Grand Rapids: Zonderkidz, 2007).

Continued from The Gospels - A Reliable and Biased Testimony to an Unparalleled Life

In terms of historical attention, the gospel of Mark has been a bit of a little step brother to the longer gospels of Matthew, Luke and John.  In fact, many in the ancient world considered Mark to serve the church as a sort of abstract, or a short outline version, of the Gospel of Matthew.[1] Historically there has been much more preaching on John and Matthew. Even today, you will not find as many sermons preached from Mark's gospel as you will from the more theological gospel of John.[2]  In recent times much more scholarly focus has been given to this gospel due to its helpfulness in a solution to the Synoptic Problem (see above).  The work is a mere sixteen chapters and is a fast paced accounting of the teaching and life of Jesus.  It contains no birth narrative as do Matthew and Luke and is very concerned with presenting Jesus' Passion Week as the focus of the story.  In fact, about half of the book is about the last week of Jesus life.  This will be only a brief introduction to the background of the book and its teaching.  For those who want more just follow the yellow brick road called the footnotes.  I am convinced that Jesus just loves footnotes.  At least I do.

Authorship of Mark

All of the gospels do not have the authors name as part of the text itself, but the four gospels have never really been anonymous in church history.  The author's name which is associated with the book is that of a man named Mark.  This person is mentioned several times in the New Testament and was commonly known as John Mark.  The earliest church traditions all associate this gospel with Mark and his task to record the account of the apostle Peter in writing.  The earliest sources we have are from the writings of Papias a church leader in Hierapolis and Irenaeus bishop in Lyon (modern day France).  Papias' work survives in a text written by the prominent early church historian Eusebius.  It reads as follows:

And the Elder said this also: "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of the things said and done by the lord, but no however in order." For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him, but afterwards, as I said, Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord's oracles.  So then Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them.  For he took forethought for one thing, not to omit any of the things that he had heard, nor to state any of them falsely. [3]

It is estimated the Papias tradition is very early and dates perhaps to within 90-100 AD.[4]  Irenaeus, writing in the second century recorded the following:

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.[5]

The oldest traditions all hold that Mark was the other who arranged the teachings of Peter to give a written account of Jesus Christ to the church.  In addition to the tradition there is good internal evidence in the book that Mark's gospel greatly reflects the preaching of Peter that we see in the book of Acts.[6]  New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace provides a great summary of the internal connection with Mark and Peter; I will quote him at length:

• John Mark had contact with Peter from no later than the mid-40s (Acts 12:12) and it appears that the church met at Mark's own residence.
• Both Peter and Mark were connected to the churches in Antioch and Jerusalem.
• Paul sent Mark from Rome to the Colossian church and to Philemon in 60-62.  If Peter were in Rome at this time, Mark would have had contact with him there.
• 2 Timothy 4:11 we find Paul giving Timothy instructions to bring Mark with him from Ephesus to Rom (c. 64).  It is possible that he had been outside of Rome since his departure in 62.
• Mark is with Peter in Rom in c. 65 (1 Peter 5:13) perhaps after his return at Paul's request.  Peter also calls Mark his "son" in this passage indicating a more long-standing relationship.
• The book of Mark's outline follows the Petrine teaching recorded in Acts 10:36-41.  (1) John the Baptist  (2) Jesus Baptized by John (3) Jesus' miracles show he is from God (4) he went to Jerusalem (5) was crucified (6) he was raised on the third day.  This shows that perhaps Mark even received a framework for the oracles of Jesus from Peter.
• The low view of Peter and the other apostles in Mark shows that the person writing was not trying to put them on a pedestal.  A non-apostolic writer would have done this unless he was recording what he actually had received from Peter.[7]

So we have good reasons, both external testimony from tradition and content of the book itself that John Mark arranged the instruction of Peter who gave eyewitness testimony to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ his Lord.

Who was John Mark

John Mark is mentioned several times in the New Testament as an associate in ministry of both Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and Paul (Acts 12:25, 15:37-39; 2 Timothy 4:11).  In some ways he is one of the key players in the early church as he is a disciple and co-laborer of the two men who most shaped the Christian movement after the ascension of Jesus.  In the early days in Jerusalem the church apparently met in his house (Acts 12:12), the same house in which the last supper was held.[8] He exhibits great ability as a storyteller and takes us on a journey to the central focus of the gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

One of the things I appreciate most about John Mark is that he is a bit of a comeback kid.  In his relationship with Paul we see him as one of the earliest missionaries taking the gospel out into the world.  Then apparently he becomes a little freaked out in the field and abandons the mission.  This of course had Paul a little miffed and Paul and Barnabas actually part ways.  Paul simply doesn't trust him after Mark punked out on him.  Yet Barnabas, whose name means son of encouragement, gives him a second chance and Mark was greatly used by God.  He eventually becomes Peter's right hand man and what God does in his relationship with Paul is amazing.  Paul's last comments about him are very endearing.  Just before Paul's death, he asks Timothy to send for John Mark; apparently he wanted his friend at his side in his last days.

Dating of Mark

Many events factor into a dating of the gospel of Mark and knowing some important and confirmed/accepted times from the first century is always helpful.  These dates will be brought into our discussion of a date for Mark's writing.

Event	Date (AD)
Fall of Jerusalem	70
Martyrdom of Paul and Peter	64-68
Epistles of Paul	45-68
Some Oral Tradition	32-70
Crucifixion of Jesus	32

In looking at Mark's date we find several important issues.  First, if we accept the tradition that he recorded the teaching of Peter then we must place it somewhere in the locus of the life of the apostle.  Second, if one finds the two source/Markan priority hypothesis as a good solution to the Synoptic Problem, then Mark must precede Matthew and Luke and this affects its dating.  Third, we have testimony from the early church that Mark wrote either just before or just after the death of Peter which we date to the persecution under Nero after a great fire in 64 AD.  With the theme of suffering so prominent in Mark and Peter's execution in the mid sixties, most prefer a date for the gospel between 60 and 70, usually right around 65. 

Yet some who favor Markan priority place it in the mid 50s[9] for the following reasons.  If Mark was written first then the gospel of Luke must be dated after Mark.  Dating Luke's gospel is not so difficult.  We know from the text itself that the same author composed by Luke and Acts as a two part volume with Luke compiled first.  A few dates help us position Luke-Acts.  First, Acts has no mention of the fall of Jerusalem which we date conclusively to 70AD.  This would be strange if this painful event had already occurred.  This gives us confidence to place the writing of Acts to before 70.  Additionally, Acts also ends with Paul living under house arrest in Rome.  We estimate that Paul is martyred in between 64-68 so this would place Acts some time before his death.  If Luke came before Acts we find that gospel coming on to the scene in the very early part of the 60s with some placing it around 62AD.  So if one favors the thesis that Mark was written first, then a date preceding Luke, sometime in the late 50s seems to be preferred.  However, if you hold to the tradition that Matthew was first, then Mark can be happy at around 65AD.  With either consideration, Mark is one of the earliest gospels recorded to pass the teaching and story of Jesus on for generations to come. 

Provenance of Mark

Here is our big word for the day...provenance.  It simply means the origin of the writing or the place where it was written. The church has always held that the gospel was written from Italy, in the imperial capital of Rome.  The use of technical Latin terminology, the use of Roman accounting of time (6:48; 13:35) all point towards Rome. Mark's use of the Greek version of the Old Testament, his explanation of Jewish customs and practices, his translation of Aramaic terms indicate he was writing with a Gentile audience in mind. [10]   Finally, Mark's lack of inclusion of a Jewish genealogy for Jesus perhaps points to a Roman audience as well.  We have no good reason to doubt that the gospel originated in the first century Christian community in Rome. 

Context and Purpose of Mark

Ben Witherington's commentary on Mark calls to mind two very important cultural contexts which are in play in Mark's gospel.  First, the culture of early first century Galilee/Judea in 20-30 AD and second, the mid first century culture of Rome in the 60s.[11]  It is an interesting fact that both contexts presented great difficulty for both the Jewish and early Christian communities.  Galilee/Judea was under Roman occupation and rule where Jesus and his following appeared a religious-political threat to imperial power.  Rome in the mid 60s presented an intense, though brief, time of suffering and persecution under the maniacal leadership of Nero.  That story needs a brief explanation.

In the early days of Nero's reign Christians lived in relative peace in the empire.  They were seen with some suspicion due to their rejection of pagan gods and festivals as well as their preaching of the gospel.  Aggressive seeking of converts put them at odds with the established and ancient religions of the day.  Though Peter and Paul were executed for their leadership in preaching the gospel, aggressive, wide spread persecution of Christians as a class of people was not yet the reality.  This changed around 64 AD with a widespread fire in Rome.  The cause of the fire is uncertain with some blaming the emperor as the source.  Nero, however, found a different scapegoat to turn suspicion away from him.  He blamed the Christians.  This was significant for two reasons. First, he was the first emperor to treat the Christians as followers of a different religion than that of the Jews.  This made them believers in a new religion, not an ancient and accepted faith.[12]  Second, he declared open season on Christians and set off unprecedented abuse of Christian people. After the time of Nero's persecutions, a brutal account was recorded by the ancient historian Tacitus.  Oh, how our sisters and brothers suffered for the sake of the name of Christ.  Here is the account of Tacitus:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.[13]

Nero sounds like a pretty big jerk to me and just making an educated guess I imagine that he received a really, really warm reception in the afterlife.  The themes in Mark reflect this context of suffering and persecution.  In the gospel Jesus is presented as the suffering servant, wrongly and brutally punished by the hand of Rome.  Christians in Rome under Nero's reign would have understood this message.  Follow the example of Jesus in the midst of suffering. 

Such is our own call - we are called to Jesus and to live together in his mission.  Whether we live in times of open suffering or lulled to sleep by comfort and familiarity we must be shaken loose from our current views of life in order to follow Jesus in our world today.  We need his life and story to constantly define our own.  This is our invitation, to see Jesus as the founder and perfecter of our faith, the definer of life and the person whose story gives us signposts for ever turn of life ahead.

---

[1] William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark; the English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids,: Eerdmans, 1974), 3.

[2] This is not a scientific survey, but if you compare the two pages on SermonCloud.com and you will see the disparity.  Mark - http://www.sermoncloud.com/sermons-on-Mark/ and John - http://www.sermoncloud.com/sermons-on-John/

[3] Lane, 8.

[4] James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002), 4.

[5] Irenaeus, Against Heresies(Christian Classics Ethereal Library, accessed August 15 2007); available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html.

[6] Lane, 10-12.

[7] Daniel Wallace, Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline(Bible.org, accessed August 15 2007); available from http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1093.

[8] Edwards, 5.

[9] This is the position favored in Carson, Moo, and Morris.

[10] Lane, 25.

[11] Witherington, 31.

[12] Ibid., 34-35.

[13] Tacitus, The Annals (MIT Internet Classics Archive, accessed August 15 2007); available from

Continued from The Books of the New Testament

Skeptics throughout the ages have asked whether the gospels are to be trusted because they were written by biased people, the followers of Jesus himself.  They surely must have had a skewed point of view as to who this Jesus is.  After all, you cannot trust someone's biggest fans to give an objective account of someone's life...can you?  Recently this skepticism has been found unwarranted for a couple reasons.  First, we know that eyewitness accounts are always the most reliable when looking at events that we ourselves did not observe.  If the gospels demonstrate themselves to be the testimony of eyewitnesses they are then the most trustworthy views of Jesus we possess.  Second, the claim that someone is unable to correctly convey a story because they are "biased" is highly unwarranted.  We will look at each of these issues.

Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament

When asking the question "What happened with this Jesus guy?" the first persons we should ask are those who walked with him, talked with him and lived their lives with him.  Or as 2 Peter 1:16 rightly records, those who were eyewitnesses of his majesty.  This requires us to look at the claims of the gospels to be just that - a written record of eyewitness testimony.  This was a view taken for granted for years until the advent of critical scholarship in the 19^th century where the origin and source of all the gospel writings was brought into question.  Revisionist historians and liberal New Testament scholars began to claim the gospels were 3^rd or 4^th century compilations of Christian communities which did not reflect anything close to eyewitness testimony. 

However, there has been much movement in New Testament studies over the last several decades which has ruled out the revisionist ideas of liberal theology.  The late 3^rd and 4^th century dates have been utterly repudiated and we have been able to date all the gospels conclusively to the first century.  This has been due to amazing archaeological discoveries such as a fragment of John's gospel dating to around 125 AD.  Additionally, recent scholarship has shown that there are very good reasons to understand the gospels as testimony.  In 2006 Scottish Richard Bauckham published Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony which makes a strong case for our understanding the gospels as containing the testimony of those who knew the life and teaching of Jesus directly.  More and more scholars are coming to the position which the church has always held.  The gospels are the most reliable portrait of the life and teaching of Jesus because they contain the accounts of the people who were there.  But where these people just Jesus fan boys, too biased to be trusted?  Good question.

Bias is not Always Bad 

The question of bias is important, after all, the gospel writers did not leave us with a simple narrative that records nothing more than rote historical facts.  No, they were convinced of the truth of Jesus' teaching and their account of history contains the teaching of theology about Jesus as well as historical data.  Yes, there are towns, rulers, times and places mentioned, but also teaching as to the identity of Jesus and his mission from God.  But does this one sided account, that of Jesus' followers, disqualify their testimony as being valid?  In fact I will argue that if you want to know something about something or someone, you are better off asking people who are passionately committed to the story he shares.  A few examples can help us see that Bias is not always bad.

One example comes from the world of technology and through a simple question.   If you desire to know about the ins and outs of Macintosh computers, would you ask someone has never touched a Mac to be your teacher?  Of course not...who would you ask?  You probably would ask one of those MacIdolaters who are loyal subjects of the cult of Steve Jobs.  You know that crazy Apple guy who has to put down Windows every time the subject arises.  You know the guy who is flossing[1] his iPhone for all to see.  You may be that guy.  My point is this.  The people from whom you will get the best information about Macs are probably the ones who are the most biased; the ones who are passionate about their elite computers.  In like manner, NASCAR fans should be consulted on the intricacies of Stock car racing, indie rockers should be the ones you talk to about what is happening in the music scene and his original followers are the ones we should consult about Jesus Christ.   

One final example of a more serious kind should be mentioned.  To exclude a person who was involved with an event, who passionately cares that the story be told, as being a reliable witness would be quite odd indeed.  This sort of reasoning would rule out the accounts of Jewish historians of the Holocaust.  They are most interested as they were the ones most closely involved with this horrific course of events.  We would not think of discounting someone's testimony because they are "biased" against the Nazi's because their family went through the Holocaust.  No, rather we trust them as they were the closest people to the events and care most passionately about conveying and passing on this history.[2] 

Until someone is shown to be an unreliable witness we ought to take their word for something until they are shown to be not trustworthy.  The philosopher Immanuel Kant rightly showed some time ago that an assumption that all people are lying all the time is self-refuting.  We should assume truth telling unless we have good reason to think that someone is not telling the truth.[3]  If we find that someone is in their right mind and capable to tell the truth, is willing to do so, his words are recorded and preserved with integrity and his testimony is validated by other witnesses, we should trust the words of that person.[4]  It seems that this is precisely the sort of reality that we find in the writers of the gospels. 

It was their intention to tell the truth

• Most of them were religious Jews who thought that intentional falsification (lying) was a direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments.  Lying was not a virtue in their community.  This does not mean there were not religious Jews who were liars at the time, but it was not a virtue extolled in the community.
• The New Testament writers were concerned with "delivering" the teaching of Jesus and the gospel to the next generation in their writing.  The Apostle Paul specifically says that he delivered or passed on to the Corinthian church the gospel.  This gospel was considered by the early Christians as a matter "of first importance." See 1 Corinthians 15:1-3.  There is good evidence that they believed they were passing on what they saw as a holy tradition through their writings.^[5]

They were able to tell the truth

• They were a culture steeped in a tradition of oral teaching and memorization.  In fact, scholars have shown that ancient peoples could memorize massive amounts of information, with an important focus on maintaining the very words of their teachers.[6]
• If they experienced any external pressure it was against the preaching of their message. They gained nothing in the way of position, power and possessions for faithfully telling the Jesus story.  To the contrary most of them were killed for it.  

 Their Words Preserved Accurately

• It is beyond the scope of this paper but there is good textual evidence that we have the New Testament documents today in a form that is extremely close to the original manuscripts.  This is non controversial.  Most scholars agree that the current Greek texts of the New Testament are very accurate.  To put it simply, we have pretty much what was written.  Interesting enough, one of the few controversial passages, Mark 16:9-20, is in the gospel of Mark.
• Additionally, there was very little time between the actual events of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.  The less time that passes the less likely legendary development occurs.  The gospels were all finished by around 90AD with Mark and Matthew likely within just a few decades of the resurrection of Jesus.  In the period in which the gospels were written down many eyewitnesses of the events would have still been alive.  As Richard Bauckham states, "The Gospels were written within living memory of the events they recount.  Mark's gospel was written well within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses, while the other three canonical Gospels were written in the period when living eyewitnesses were becoming scarce, exactly at the point in time when their testimony would perish with them were it not put in writing"[7]

They are Corroborated/Validated by Others

• If an author shows that he tells the truth on matters that are verifiable externally, he is thought to be a reliable witness.  The New Testament writers note at least thirty historically confirmed people in their works. The gospels in general and the passion narrative in particular find corroboration in several ancient sources outside of the New Testament.^[8]  In addition, we find quotations at length from the gospels in the sermons and writings of the early church fathers.
• When the gospels are examined, they show a strong historicity which is only doubted when a bias against the supernatural is brought to bear.  Many skeptics have written off the testimony of the gospels because they were written down by men who believed in God, who record the occurrence of the miraculous and the resurrection of an incarnate Savior God.  Yet such bias against the supernatural is just the work of a closed mind.  Someone who says - I cannot believe the words of the New Testament because I don't believe in God or miracles - is already closed off to any amount of evidence.  They are saying "I don't believe because I don't believe."  Such views are intellectually stifling and hardened to what God might say if they simply read the gospels with an open heart and mind to see the unparalleled life of Jesus on display.

In closing, the gospel literature is unique indeed.  It is part biography, part history, part theology yet passionately what Bauckham simply calls testimony. 

Understanding the Gospels as testimony, we can recognize this theological meaning of the history not as an arbitrary imposition on the objective facts, but as the way the witnesses perceived the history, in an inextricable coinherence of observable event and perceptible meaning.  Testimony is the category that enables us to read the Gospels in a properly historical way and a properly theological way.  It is where history and theology meet.[9] 

Let's go get some history and theology, in a portrait of the person of Jesus, truthfully set forth in the gospel of Mark.

---

[1] See the Urban Dictionary for a definition of the word floss - The Urban Dictionary, (accessed August 14 2007); available from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=floss.

[2] For a more sophisticated look at the uniqueness of Holocaust testimonies see the treatment in Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses : The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 493-502.

[3] James Porter Moreland, Scaling the Secular City : A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987), 137-138.

[4] Ibid., 138.

[5] Ibid., 144.

[6] See particularly chapters 10 and 11 of Bauckham, 240-263.

[7] Ibid., 7.

[8] See the chapter "The Corroborating Evidence" interviewing history professor Edwin Yamauchi in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ : A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 73.

[9] Bauckham, 5,6.

Continued from Introduction to the New Testament... 

The New Testament, shared by Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians is comprised of 27 individual books of varying length and literary genre.  A genre is simply a kind of writing.  Poetry, narrative stories, legal literature, prophecies are simple examples of different literary genres.  The New Testament contains four main genres of literature: gospel, narrative, epistle/letter and apocalyptic.  Many of these genres contain different sub genres such as parables, poems, creedal material as well as personal testimony.  The following is only a brief description of the parts of the New Testament.

The Gospel Literature - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John 

There are four books in the New Testament classified as gospel literature.  The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are considered to be gospels. The word gospel is derived from the Greek term euangélion, which simply means good news or good tidings.  So the gospels are books containing good news, but not just any kind of news.  It would be one thing if a historical rise in the stock market or the fortunes of a nation are recorded dispassionately as history.  That might be interesting, but it would not be world changing.  The New Testament gospels however record something different-they record good news of God's action in history, to bring people into a relationship of love and worship through Jesus Christ.  The gospels are a fairly unique form of writing comprising several literary forms.  In some ways they are part biography, part history and part theology.  They have the goal of presenting and persuading - they endeavor to present Jesus but also to teach us who he is and what our response to him should be.  Each of the gospels had a different audience which originally received the work and each was composed by a different author.  As such they record some of the same details of Jesus' life but at times in different ways.  There is a commonality in the events, but a different recording depending on the purposes of the author and his intended audience.

The Synoptic Gospels

The gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels, in that each provides a synopsis, or outline of the life and teaching of Jesus.  The word synoptic is derived from two Greek terms that when combined mean to see together.  When examined together, these gospels present a multifaceted view of the life and teaching of Jesus.  There is an interesting body of scholarship whose goal has been to investigate the origin and compiling of the synoptic gospels from early oral tradition and eyewitness accounts.  Scholars call this the synoptic problem.  The question arises from both the similarity and differences between the texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke and the literary and source connections between them.  A complete summary of the synoptic problem is well beyond our purposes here, but I think a brief summary will help you at least know some of the issues.  I will lay out a few of the issues that make the synoptic puzzle an interesting area of New Testament studies.  For those interested in a very brief, approachable, but scholarly summary of the current discussion I recommend Rethinking the Synoptic Problem published by Baker Academic.[1]  It is only about 160 pages so throw it in your Amazon.com shopping cart.

First Issue - We know the Gospels are Compilations 

The fact that the evangelists, the writers of the synoptic gospels compiled their accounts from other sources is non controversial.  It is the clear teaching of the Bible and of church tradition.  For instance, Luke begins his gospel with the following statement:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke 1:1-4 ESV

A few things should be noted about Luke's goals in writing his gospel.  First, he acknowledges others have taken up the task to compile a written narrative of Jesus.  Second, these compilations are based on eyewitness accounts from those who were with Jesus and ministers of the word.  Third, his concern was to put together a written, orderly, factual account of the teachings of the Christian faith.  Additionally, there is a strong tradition stating that Mark's gospel is a compilation of the account and preaching of Peter which was written around the time of the apostle's death.  We'll have more on that later.   So if the gospels are compilations which were written down at different times, for different communities, by different authors it is likely that they shared some of the same sources and perhaps used one another's writings. 

Second Issue - Same Stories, Different Accountings 

If you ever interact with people who are skeptical about the Bible they are sure to bring up the so called "contradictions" in the gospel narratives.   You see some of the stories are the same, sometimes verbatim (see next issue), but sometimes the stories are similar but have some pretty significant differences.  A quick read of the resurrection narrative accounts in the synoptic gospels will suffice to illustrate.  How many angels were there at the empty tomb?  If you go after answering that question for a moment you run into a feature of the synoptic problem.  My answer?  Probably, at least two...but each does not always get props in the story.

Third Issue - Same Stories, Same Wordings 

Many times the synoptic gospels contain the exact same stories and teachings of Jesus Christ.  This would be rather uninteresting as a mere accounting of the same life would suffice to explain this occurrence.  However, many times in the gospels we find Matthew and Luke repeating Mark almost word for word.  Additionally Matthew and Luke contain some of the same sayings of Jesus that are not found in Mark. This asks the question: Who was using what writings in compiling their work?  In any account, there appears to be a literary interdependence of the synoptic gospels and their sources.  This has led to the dominant position among many scholars today known as the Two Source hypothesis.

The Dominant Solution - Two Source Hypothesis

• Mark was written first.  The view that Mark was the first gospel is simply assumed by many in New Testament studies today. [2] For example, Ben Witherington begins his commentary with a simple statement regarding studies of the gospel of Mark: "The sheer volume of recent studies, however, suggests that we are trying harder to grasp the meaning of this, the earliest of the gospels."[3]  There are many reasons for thinking Mark may have been written first. [4]
• Matthew and Luke had Mark available to them as they wrote
• Scholars have formed a hypothesis (a good and educated guess) of another source which they have called "Q"[5] (from the German quelle for "source").  It is held that this source contained sayings that Matthew and Luke share in common but are absent from Mark.  Q is a working hypothesis used by some scholars.  There is not a single shred of archaeological evidence of its existence.  We do not have one copy of this source.  Yet it is a reasonable inference due to the material shared by Matthew and Luke.  It is questioned by some scholars and an assumed hypothesis by others.
• Today, Markan priority and the use of Luke/Matthew of Mark/Q remains the dominant view.

However, in the last several decades there have been others who are arguing quite convincingly for the priority of Matthew.[6]  This holds promise for a couple reasons.  First, the tradition and teaching of church history is univocal that Matthew was written first.  This was unchallenged for over 1800 years.  Second, this school of thought is giving much more credence to patristic studies, studies of the writings of the church fathers.  For those interested in this school of thought will want to see Why Four Gospels by David Allan Black.[7] 

Let me close briefly by saying that all evangelical scholars-whether those who hold to the two source hypothesis or the priority of Matthew-hold that the synoptic gospels were written down by the inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit.  All evangelical New Testament scholars agree that each view is compatible with the truth that the writers of the gospels recorded scripture as inspired by God. 

Dr. Craig Blomberg sums this up well: 

...it is important to state up front that none of the major solutions to the Synoptic problem is inherently more or less compatible with historic Christian views of the inspiritation and authority of Scripture. [8]

Though the precise solution to the literary connectedness of the gospels is not of central importance to our faith, it is good to be aware of these issues.  Many so called "contradictions" skeptics claim to find in the synoptic narratives are easily resolved when we realized that each other arranged his material to tell the story of Jesus to a specific audience of Christians from a particu