Mark: A Commentary

Mark: A Commentary

Yes, yet another commentary (but this one from an Australian Biblical scholar, written for the lay reader, with a devotional emphasis and practical applications for today)

Jim Reiher

Copyright © 2018 by Jim Reiher

All Rights Reserved.

Acknowledgements

A lot of people have assisted me in the preparation of this book. There are many who have been encouraging and kind and who helped spur me on to finish the work. And there were others who helped by proof reading sections. They were busy ironing out my typos, and sometimes going a bit further and engaging in the topics being discussed. They would offer their thoughts, insights, criticisms and reflections. It was all a part of a terrific journey.

So special thanks to: Russell Kilgour; Nils Von Kalm; Wendy Nagyivan; Brendan Brown; Chris Mercer; Jeannie Babb; Bec Hayfron; Caroline Schleier Cutler; Lynette Leach; Kate Moore; Steve Barrington; and Tony Dawson! You have all been most helpful, and much appreciated.

Table of Contents

When there are four Gospels to choose from, why Mark?

How do you ‘see’ the Bible?

Mark 1

Mark 1:1-3 The Gospel

Mark 1:4-11 John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus

Mark 1:12-13 Jesus’ Temptation

Mark 1:14-20 The calling of the first disciples

Mark 1:21-34 Jesus the exorcist/healer

Mark 1:35-39 Jesus: a man of prayer

Mark 1:40-45 The one who could cleanse lepers

Mark 2

Mark 2:1-12 Jesus forgives sins and heals

Mark 2:13-17 The calling of Matthew

Mark 2:18-28 Jesus’ critics

Mark 3

Mark 3:1-12 Another Sabbath controversy

Mark 3:13-19 The 12 Apostles

Mark 3:20-35 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Mark 4

Mark 4:1-20 Introduction to Parables, and the Parable of the Sower

Mark 4:21-25 Lamps Give off Light

Mark 4:26-34 Two more Kingdom Parables

Mark 4:35-41 Jesus Stills a Storm

Mark 5

Mark 5:1-20 Jesus casts out a legion of demons

Mark 5:21-43 Two healings of two women

Mark 6

Mark 6:1-6 A snap-shot of Jesus’ family

Mark 6:7-13 Sending out his disciples two by two

Mark 6:14-29 The execution of John the Baptist

Mark 6:30-44 Feeding the 5,000

Mark 6:45-56 Jesus walked on water

Mark 7

Mark 7:1-23 Criticising the Religious Leaders of his day

Mark 7:24-30 Did Jesus just call a woman a ‘dog’?

Mark 7:31-37 The healing of a deaf mute

Mark 8

Mark 8:1-9 The feeding of 4,000

Mark 8:10-21 Avoid the Hypocrisy of the Pharisees

Mark 8:22-26 A two stage healing

Mark 8:27-33 Who do people say that I am? And the 1st prediction of his death

Mark 8:34-38 Take up your cross and follow me

Mark 9

Mark 9:1-13 The Transfiguration of Jesus

Mark 9:14-29 The Healing of an Epileptic Boy

Mark 9:30-32 Jesus’ 2nd Prediction of his death

Mark 9:33-37 Who is the Greatest?

Mark 9:38-41 An exorcist not in Jesus’ band of followers

Mark 9:42-50 Jesus on hell

Mark 10

Mark 10:1-12 Jesus on divorce

Mark 10:13-16 Jesus welcomes children

Mark 10:17-31 The Rich Young Ruler

Mark 10:32-45 The 3rd prediction of his death, and the Zebedee boys ask a favour

Mark 10:46-52 Blind Bartimaeus

Mark 11

Mark 11:1-11 Entry into Jerusalem on a donkey

Mark 11:12-19 The Cleansing of the Temple

Mark 11:20-26 A Withered Tree and a Faith Lesson

Mark 11:27-33 What authority does Jesus work under?

Mark 12

Mark 12:1-12 The parable of the vineyard and its evil tenants

Mark 12:13-17 Should we pay taxes to Caesar?

Mark 12:18-27 Marriage in the Resurrected state

Mark 12:28-34 The Greatest Commandment

Mark 12:35-37 The Son of David

Mark 12:38-44 The hypocrisy of the religious leaders

Mark 13

Mark 13:1-37 Introduction to the Olivet Discourse

Mark 13:1-4 The Context of the Olivet Discourse

Mark 13:5-37 The Content of the Olivet Discourse

Mark 14

Mark 14:1-11 The anointing at Bethany

Mark 14:12-16 Preparation for the Last Supper

Mark 14:17-25 The Last Supper

Mark 14:26-31 Peter’s denial predicted

Mark 14:32-42 Jesus’ Prayer in the Garden

Mark 14:43-52 Judas betrays Jesus

Mark 14:53-65 The beginning of a series of court trials

Mark 14:66-72 Peter denies Jesus three times

Mark 15

Mark 15:1-15 Before Pilate

Mark 15:16-41 Introduction to the Crucifixion of Jesus

Mark 15:16-20 The Abuse by the Soldiers

Mark 15:21 Simon of Cyrene

[Luke 23:27-32 Weeping women following Jesus]

Mark 15:22-23 An attempt to numb his pain

Mark 15:24 His garments divided between the guards

Mark 15:25 The time of the crucifixion (the 3rd hour)

Mark 15:26 The sign nailed on the cross

[John 19:26-28 The words of Jesus to his Mother and John]

Mark 15:27-32 Crucified between two thieves

Mark 15:33 The darkening of the sky

Mark 15:34-37 Jesus dies

Mark 15:38 The veil in the Temple tears

Mark 15:39 The Centurion at the Cross

Mark 15:40-41 The Women at the Cross

[John 19:31-37 The Soldiers make sure Jesus is dead]

Mark 16

Mark 16:1-8 The Resurrection of Jesus

Mark 16:9-20 The ‘Long Ending’

What else happened on Resurrection Morning, and in the days that followed?

Lessons we can learn from the Resurrection stories

When there are four Gospels to choose from, why Mark?

To help us reflect on and learn more about the life and teaching of Jesus, I want to use the Gospel of Mark to assist us. There are, of course, four Gospels that talk about the life and teachings of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each is wonderful and has its own emphasis. They all overlap in big or small ways but they are all unique as well. So why Mark?

Mainly because it is the shortest, and the easiest to read. The length is ‘manageable’. After all, this commentary on Mark is over 100,000 words long. Mark itself is just over 11,000 words long (in the original Greek). A lot is being said, discussed, reflected on, regarding the content of a pretty short book!

Matthew is 28 chapters in length and we think it was written essentially to a Jewish audience, to argue that Jesus is the long awaited for Messiah of the Jews. It is famous for some of its unique content, especially the Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5-7); the detailed berating Jesus poured out on the Pharisees and Scribes (chapter 23); and various parables found only in Matthew (eg: the hidden treasure; the ten virgins; the sheep and the goats; the unforgiving servant; and the laborers in the vineyard). It has been historically attributed to the apostle Matthew (one of the first 12 apostles) as the author. Some dispute that and offer a range of theories about its origin, as they do all the Gospels.

Mark is a much shorter Gospel, just 16 chapters in length. It seems to be written more to a Roman audience and focuses on actions especially, but also some teachings. I am choosing to use it partly because it is the most succinct of the four. It has been historically attributed to John Mark, the son of a ‘comfortable’ family in Jerusalem, and the friend and disciple of Simon-Peter. As such, the Gospel of Mark is thought to be very much Peter’s memoirs as told to his younger disciple. This does not mean Mark did not meet Jesus or know him personally. He lived in Jerusalem after all, and he becomes a noticeable character in the Book of Acts in the early days of the new church. He is thought to have known some of the disciples (especially Peter) while they were following Jesus. Mark may have been a ‘hanger on’ who heard and saw some of the things that happened, especially in the last week of Jesus’ life before the crucifixion. Some theories actually place Mark in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night that Jesus was arrested. Other theories suggest that his house (or at least his mother’s house) was used for the last supper.

As already noted, Mark’s Gospel is the shortest of the four. Luke on the other hand is the longest one. Luke is made up of 24 chapters, and even though Matthew has 28, Luke’s chapters are very long! So Luke has more total pages than Matthew. Luke is written we think, mainly to a Greek reading audience and it focuses on Jesus as the friend of sinners and outcasts, the one who sided with the poor and marginalised. The other Gospels show that too, but not to the extent that Luke does. Luke is famous for various unique features, such as recording the shepherds coming to see baby Jesus; the Elizabeth and Mary stories; the story of the conversion of Zacchaeus the rich tax collector; and numerous much loved parables only found in his Gospel (The Good Samaritan; the Prodigal Son; The Rich Fool; The Pharisee and the tax collector in the synagogue praying; and the friend at midnight).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are often called ‘The Synoptic Gospels’ – because they are similar to each other. They all look at Jesus from a somewhat similar perspective.

John’s Gospel is the odd one out. That Gospel is like reading a different book altogether. It was written last, very late, and we think John wrote it to leave the church with stories that were not already recorded anywhere. Over 90% of John is unique material not mentioned in any of the other Gospels. Different stories, different dialogues, and a very different emphasis: Jesus is unambiguously presented as the living Word of God, the Son of God, the very essence of God in flesh for us to follow and learn from.

All four Gospels are well worth reading. But for the sake of reflecting on the life and teaching of Christ, I have decided to use Mark. It is not just the shortest, but it also has avoided some things that bog some readers down in the other Gospels. It has not included the genealogy of Jesus (as do Matthew and Luke). It has not included the long and complex dialogues (as in John). It is probably the first one written (though it is possible Matthew beat him to the parchment, even though that is not a popularly held view today). It is definitely the simplest of the four to read. It is punchy, and moves along from story to story quickly and effortlessly.

At the same time, this set of reflections on Mark will not completely ignore the other Gospels. When a particular story (recorded in more than one Gospel) is given more details in a different Gospel, and if it is valuable to note that, then it will be mentioned. Occasionally there will be minor details that either contradict or seem to contradict each other between two accounts of the same story. When that happens, it will be noted and explored as well. And there will be times when I encourage you to look at what the other Gospels writers say on a particular story or teaching, and I will put in small tables with each of their comments listed side by side for easy comparison.

Hopefully by the end of this set of reflections, you will be much more familiar with Jesus: who he was, what he did, and what he said. You will know a lot more about this amazing person who changed the world. You might even decide (if you have not done so already), that this Jesus is still worth following in our own day and age.

How do you ‘see’ the Bible?

This is a really important short chapter. Please read it before progressing into the text itself.

There is one more thing to discuss before we launch into the actual content of Mark.

There is a very important issue that must be addressed. It impacts how we read and apply the material we are going to look at. It is the issue of ‘how we see the Bible’.

How do you ‘see’ the Bible? How do you view it? I mean: when you start reading it, what are your assumptions about the Bible that you bring along?

Do you think the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God and must be taken literally? Do you feel obligated (to God) to take every word and every sentence as if it is from the very mouth of God and spoken directly to you, literally and absolutely? Do you have pangs of guilt (that you try not to think too much about) when you skim past ‘hard passages’ or passages that you just do not apply to your life? Do you think the Bible contains no errors or contradictions? Or ... do you allow for possible mistakes by the authors – after all they are human. Do you accept the possibility of errors in the text? Or contradictions? Or ... do you believe that even though the authors were indeed ‘just human’ they were also guided by God to write perfectly so that every word and every letter is exactly what God wanted written? Therefore there are no errors and no contradictions, and if someone points one out to you, you seek to explain it away, or harmonise it, or fall back on the belief that ‘even if there seems to be an error or contradiction, there is not really. I just don’t understand how it holds together, but it does, somehow’? ... Do you see the Bible as absolute and wonderful, ... or do you see it as just wonderful? ... Do you see it as perfect and reliable?... Or just reliable, if not perfect? ... Or do you go further and see it as unreliable and imperfect? Perhaps you see it as a conspiracy of early Christians to hoodwink the church for all time? Perhaps they are documents written by men with their own agendas to propagate. They just want to promote their own ideas and beliefs – and so they have distorted the stories and the teachings to that end?

How do you see the Bible?

I would suggest that there are 4 main ways people see the Bible. I have alluded to them in the paragraph above, but let me list them here in order for greater clarity:

1) The Bible is perfect in every detail. It is inerrant (no mistakes) and infallible (always tells the truth). It is the authoritative word of God and therefore we are obligated to follow it completely as our first and foremost guide for life and belief.

2) The Bible is a wonderful set of religious writings but it is not necessarily perfect in every detail, nor infallible. Nevertheless it is still a gift to us from God, who in his providence oversaw the writing and compilation of these documents by fallible human authors. We should glean principles and truths from the Bible, but we can also be honest about the contradictions and errors that it contains. Those natural human slips occur in all human writings, and do not take away from the important stories or themes or doctrines of the Scripture.

3) The Bible is an important set of religious writings from men who wrote what they believed to be true. It can be useful for inspiration and ideas and ethical principles, but it is not any more ‘special’ that any other ancient writing. It is nice that we have those documents to use, and to evaluate, but they are not particularly a gift from God, or overseen by God in their production or collection.

4) The Bible is a scam: written by vested interests to promote their own beliefs and views. It is not worth using and is not relevant or helpful to us today. In fact, it is downright problematic for our modern world as people try in vain to live by the beliefs and attitudes of people who lived thousands of years ago. It is particularly harmful because it carries with it beliefs and practices from ancient cultures that we should be very suspicious of today. Not least of all: the suppression of women, the acceptance of slavery, the practice of polygamy, and the justification of wars for territorial expansion.

There are shades of differences within each of the above positions, but essentially you will have one or the other of those positions in your mind, as you read the Bible.

What I want to ask you is this: whichever position you hold, WHY do you hold it?

Do you hold to position number (1) because you were told that is how it is? Perhaps by parents who go to church, or by a minister? Or by a youth group leader you respected? How did you come to believe position number (1)? If you hold that position, is it critical to keep holding onto it? Why or why not? And really: is it even sustainable to try to keep holding that position as you actually read the Bible more and more? As you bump into the occasional contradiction or mistake?

If you hold position number (2) or number (3) the same questions apply. Why do you hold that view? Could it be that you have grown up in a more progressive or ‘liberal’ church context and that is what they teach? Or perhaps you have grown up as a Catholic and that is what they teach – after all it is not the Bible that is infallible, it is the Pope in Chair. And if the church and the Bible contradict, then the church tells you what is right, right? Or perhaps you started in position number (1) but as you kept reading the Bible you could not keep on ignoring the contradictions or the minor errors that pop up here and there? You finally shrugged your shoulders and said ‘you know what, I just can’t in good conscience hold to number (1) anymore. Number (2) or number (3) is where I am now’?

If you hold position number (4) – again – ask yourself ‘why?’ Perhaps you have very strong views about gay marriage or euthanasia or other social issues, and you believe the Bible undermines your view on those things. So you start out rejecting it because you don’t want other core values and beliefs you hold to be challenged? If that is happening, then what’s really going on is that you have a preformed view about one thing (the Bible), based on a desire to maintain a certain worldview about something else. (You feel the need to reinforce other beliefs and so the Bible has to be ‘sacrificed’ to those other views.) But is that really being honest about investigating the Scriptures you are dismissing so quickly? Is it considering with reason and integrity, the possibility that the Scriptures might just contain some wonderful things that you won’t even allow yourself to be exposed to?

As you proceed, you will find that from time to time I come back to this debate. It wont take you long to see that I am operating from position number (2). I love the Bible, and think it is wonderful…. But I can not argue for position (1) – I find that impossible to sustain. I have been studying the Bible for the last 40 years, (20 years of that time I was studying it for a living: as a Bible college student and then full time lecturer). For me, I reached that point where I just could not in good conscience and with rational integrity hold to position (1).

So as you read the following, I don’t mind if you disagree with me. I don’t mind if you partly agree and partly disagree. And I would be pleasantly surprised if you decided to agree with everything, but even then I would be nervous about you! So read me as you would any other author: with a discerning attitude. Accept that which seems right, and reject that which seems wrong. I would do the same to you! ;-)

Mark 1

Mark 1:1-3 The Gospel

Mark begins his wonderful book about Jesus with this opening statement. ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God…’.

‘Gospel’ literally means ‘good news’. Mark is about to share some really good news with his readers: the story of Jesus! Hence it is going to be ‘the Gospel of Jesus Christ’ – the good news about Jesus the Christ.

(Funny how we have changed the title of this book to ‘The Gospel of Mark’ – really it is ‘The Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to Mark’).

Note how Jesus is called both ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ in the opening sentence.

‘Christ’ is the Greek version of the Hebrew word ‘Messiah’. They are the same word in different languages. The Christ or the Messiah is the one who will save his people. Jesus is the Christ. The one who saves.

When the first century Jews used the term, they would normally have thought about being ‘saved’ from Roman domination. They would want their Messiah to rise up and overthrow the Roman rule that was over them. They were expecting a Messiah to liberate them politically and physically.

Jesus came to save them is a much more radical way than most were expecting. He came to save them by bringing them into another Kingdom: the Kingdom of God. He would not be taking them out of the Roman dominated world of his time. He would be taking his followers into the Kingdom of God which was in them, around them, and not limited to a physical realm or time frame. He would bring them from the Kingdom of this world, into the Kingdom of God that exists even while they are still in this world. He would also save them from their sins (see Matthew 1:21). He would liberate them from their own failings and imperfections. He would teach them a better way to live. He would save them, in every way, for God.

‘The Son of God’ is a deeply significant title as well. It is also controversial. Some outside the faith find it an offensive term, thinking that God lowered himself to become some kind of angelic/human being, who then slept with Mary and conceived Jesus. That is as offensive a thought to Muslim ears, as it is to Christian ears. It is not the meaning of the phrase.

Some Christians see the phrase as packed with deep meaning about the connection of Jesus with God. They see it as a plank of the doctrine of the Trinity: That God is indeed one God, but that one God appears in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. The Son of God, then, is interpreted as a divine title, reflecting the divinity of Jesus.

Others who still accept the doctrine of the Trinity, and others who at least accept the divinity of Jesus, (and others who accept neither), do question the use of the term ‘Son of God’ in that way. They say that first and foremost it is a metaphor that tells us that Jesus is very much the picture and image of God. Just as a human son can be the ‘spitting image’ of his father, so too Jesus was ‘the spitting image of the invisible God.’ (Paul uses that very phrase, except for the word ‘spitting’ in Colossians 1:15 and 2 Corinthians 4:4). That title therefore, may or may not have to mean the doctrine of the Trinity, but it certainly means something deeply significant.

And just as a son is seen to be ‘a chip off the old block’, so too Jesus was ‘a chip off the old block, God the Father’. (Paul didn’t use that one.) But in all that Jesus did, he reflected God. In all that he taught, he represented God. He was a good son: one who faithfully did as his Father wanted, making his father’s intent and character known in his own life and actions. Jesus himself is recorded as saying as much in John’s Gospel, in 5:19: ‘The Son can do nothing of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.’

The definition of the Gospel – let’s take that a bit further.

One other thing needs to be noted and emphasised. When Mark talked about ‘the Gospel of Jesus Christ’, he did not add any detailed definition of ‘Gospel’. He did not say ‘and that means you believe in Jesus, and you invite him into your heart in faith, and you get your sins forgiven and go to heaven when you die.’ No. Mark did not define the ‘Gospel’ in a modern evangelical way.

How did he define or use it? Mark defined it as the story and teaching of Jesus – Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.{1}

The Gospel first and foremost is the story of Jesus. To spread the Gospel is to spread the story of Jesus. Just like Mark is going to do here. Just like Matthew, Luke and John also do. It is telling the story of Jesus: his life and his teachings. It leads to some people embracing Jesus for themselves, and deciding to follow him.

The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus

Interestingly, as soon as he has said that he is going to focus on Jesus, he then goes on to mention someone else. He mentions John the Baptist.

Actually, that makes sense, when you think about it. The good news of Jesus is indeed good news! It is the great news! It is the best news you will ever hear. But the beginning of the Gospel story really begins with the coming of John the Baptist. That person and his ministry, was the beginning of the good news. The actual heart and soul, good news, is about Jesus of course. But the beginning of the good news is the story of John the Baptist. This is because it is John who prepares the people for the coming of Jesus. It is John who sets things into perspective. John will introduce Jesus to the people. He is the well known, much loved, greatly respected ‘voice’ that sets the stage for the coming of the Good News! He helps ‘prepare the way’ for the coming of the Lord.

An aside: the Old Testament verses that Mark selects to remind us that Jesus is the continuation and expectation of the Old Covenant

Mark introduces the good news by quoting two verses from the Old Testament. The first one is Malachi 3:1. The next is Isaiah 1:3. Mark introduced the two fold quote by saying ‘As is written in the Book of Isaiah the prophet…’

These verses remind us that the Gospel of Jesus is a continuation of the Old Testament story. It is the expectation and hope of the Jewish people. It is the fulfilment of all that came before: finally, the arrival of the promised Messiah! Jesus will change things. He will re-explain the Old Testament quite radically. He will say that some parts have had their ‘shelf life’ and are no longer relevant. He will actually teach the actual opposite to some things in the Old Covenant Scriptures. But he still sees himself as ‘fulfilling not abolishing’ the Old. (See Matthew 5: 17-48). And so it is quite appropriate that Mark begin his Gospel from this starting point.

--------------

Some people who try to discredit the Bible, like to highlight mistakes in it. Some of them even point to this verse here and say, ‘Mark said Isaiah! But he should have said Malachi and Isaiah! He made a mistake!’

Honestly? There are better things they can point to than this verse. That kind of criticism is just nit-picking. Mark does quote an Isaiah verse – his second one selected. Isaiah was the much revered prophet, after all. His prophetic book was also the biggest such book, and the start of the whole section of the books of the Prophets. It was even used as a title for the whole collection. Give him a break.

And Mark uses the two verses to introduce us to John the Baptist.

Food for thought:

We have spent a long time on the first 3 verses of this Gospel. But think about your Christian faith. Think about the way you present it to those around you, perhaps your work colleagues, or fellow students, or neighbours and friends. Ask yourself if those folk that you know would see your Christian faith as ‘good news’? Do you shine a joyful good message? Or a harsh and judgmental one? Do you find your discussions about your faith to be about a few selective moral issues? Or is it about the person and life and teachings of Jesus? Have we turned the ‘good news’ about the wonderful life and teachings and example of Jesus, into harsh and heavy news that makes people repel from our faith?

If that is the case, then what can we do to change that situation?

Mark 1:4-11 John the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism

The beginning of the good news is indeed John the Baptist. He was preparing the way for Jesus. And so his ministry is briefly described. If you want more details about John the Baptist’s ministry and the Baptism of Jesus, then by all means read and compare and contrast what Mark writes with the other Gospel accounts.{2} But what we have in Mark is enough to get a feel for what was going on with John the Baptist.

John the Baptist ‘appeared’ in the wilderness. He became ‘known of’ quickly and seems to have become quite ‘popular’. His message is summed up as him ‘preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.’

Repentance is a strong word. It means to turn around and go the other way. It is changing your direction. It is not just saying ‘sorry’: it is action that follows on from saying sorry! If you say ‘sorry’ but don’t change anything, you have not repented. You have just used a word in a meaningless way. To actually repent, means to say sorry and to mean it by showing it.

So people were being baptised and repenting as they were doing so. This is further unpacked: they were ‘confessing their sins’ as this was happening.

Confession is admitting that you have indeed done the wrong thing. So these folk were not just saying ‘sorry’ in a vague vacuum. They were saying ‘sorry’ and confessing the specific things that they were sorry about, determining to not do them again (repenting). They were getting baptised by John in the process.

The actual baptism was probably full immersion into the river. Some will say it could have been standing – perhaps waist deep - in the Jordon River, and having water lifted up and splashed over the head of the person repenting. Possibly. Others feel sure it would have been a dunking, and full immersion. And just as possibly it does not really matter.{3} What matters is the meaning or symbolism or significance of the act.

To be baptised was to be ‘washed clean’. It was a cleansing ritual to capture the thought that in repenting, in confessing, in ‘turning around’ – the person was getting a fresh start. Their sins and failings were being washed away in the symbolism of the water cleansing them – and they were to begin a new chapter in their lives.

The apostle Paul would take the picture of baptism further. In Romans 6:3-4 Paul sees baptism as a picture of the person dying and rising again into new life in Christ. So to go under the water, was like being buried, and then coming out of the water was like being raised from the dead. It was the same point: it represented a new start. A fresh beginning. A new person being born that day.

John was having people repent, confess, and be baptised. The outcome was ‘for the forgiveness of their sins.’(v.4).

This might lead you to wonder: ‘Hang on…. Just how do you get your sins forgiven by God?’ This is a question often asked by Christians (and sometimes by non-Christians). The usual Christian answer is ‘though faith in Jesus Christ, not by works but by faith: believing in Him and inviting him into your life.’ Those who give us that answer might then add a bit more on to it: ‘Oh and in believing in him you should confess your sins and determine to live a more honourable life for God.’

Whether or not that last bit is tacked on, that ‘usual Christian answer’ is not what this particular passage teaches here. John the Baptist taught that confession, repentance and baptism would see you get ‘the forgiveness of sins’. Nothing about personal faith in Jesus Christ – just a right heart attitude towards God and a humility to admit our failings and sins, and to determine to live better.

Of course, John did then go on to point people to Jesus (vs. 7-8), so he sees the value of people believing in Jesus and following him, too. But he did not link that to his message of ‘forgiveness of sins’. Forgiveness of sins, for John the Baptist, was available for anyone who confessed, repented and got baptised.

The Christian who insists that we must express personal faith in Jesus Christ to receive forgiveness of sins, will cross reference us to other passages (like Romans 10:8-13) and add that John the Baptist was ‘pre-Christ’ and so was still in the ‘Old Covenant times’. Jesus would bring in the New Covenant where salvation is all about grace and faith, not works of the law and rule keeping. And so John the Baptist’s message is not really ‘complete’ or accurate for someone who follows Christ. It is still ‘Old Covenant’ in its appearance, and needs to be ‘brought up