I'm going to make every effort here to be non-denominational in my study of the following scripture. However, as you well know, I am a Reformed Presbyterian (PCA), and so my own beliefs may filter through.
2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
"Behold, I send my messenger
before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
'Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,'"
Before we go much further, I’d like to stop here for a moment. Mark has chosen to do something very
interesting here. While much of Mark, as
we have said, is a very kinetic book – it focuses a lot on the actions of
Jesus, Mark does take the time to make a connection with his readers and the
history of Jesus Christ. Most Christians
at the time of the writing of Mark would have come from Judea / Israel,
and would have either been Jewish or would have made some connection with
Jewish scriptures, since the New Testament had not yet been written – and
wouldn’t be completed for another 40 years or so. In other words: the Old Testament WAS the Bible as far as Mark would have been concerned.
Mark’s first action after introducing his purpose in writing this Gospel is to
make a connection with 2 prophets:
Malachi and Isaiah, which gives us a good idea of exactly who the prophets of Israel were
looking for. While the rest of Israel was
looking for a literal king or rebel leader to free them from Roman oppression, Malachi
was looking for someone different. In
fact, looking at the entire verse in Malachi, we see that the messenger was
preparing the way for someone who would “suddenly come to his temple”. We’ll see more of this later on in Mark.
And, yes. I'm well aware that the verse above says "Isaiah". There are lots of theories as to why this verse includes "Isaiah" when the verses come from Malachi, and to a lesser extent, Deuteronomy. My favorite is the concept that a well-meaning copyist included it because he knew recognized the part that came from Isaiah, but the fact is: we just don't know. "Isaiah" appears in some older manuscripts and doesn't appear in others. My opinion is that Mark would have been well-aware that his readers were just as picky as the pickiest theologian today, and would have known what parts of this verse came from what books, and would've called him on it.
So what we actually have here is Mark beginning to make the case – he’s
beginning to lay out the evidence for the case that is Jesus as the Messiah –
as the Christ. He’s reaching back to
Isaiah and Malachi (both of whom early Christians would have been familiar
with) to prepare his case. He’s laying
the foundation. Now, let’s see how that
foundation is getting built:
4John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5And all the country of Judea and all
Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river
Jordan, confessing their sins. 6Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore
a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey. 7And he
preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of
whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I have baptized you
with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
Here, we have the very beginning of New Testament action. John the Baptist (or Baptizer, if you’d
prefer) is starting to preach what will become a basic Christian doctrine, and one of two elements that all Christians consider to be a sacrament:
baptism. Now, there are different
theories on the theology and doctrine of baptism that we won’t get into just
yet (ranging from dunking vs. sprinkling, paedeobaptism vs. credobaptism,
etc.), but the point is this: John started the foundation. He preached a need for repentance of sins,
which apparently was hitting people exactly where they lived: “And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being
baptized by him in the river Jordan,
confessing their sins.” He was preaching
something that these people recognized and knew that they needed (it wasn’t
because he was a popular, clean-cut, nice-looking guy, what with his camel hair
outfit and diet of bugs and honey….).
They knew:
A. That there was a law set down by God;
and
B. They weren’t following it.
See – John wasn’t really asking Jews just to get wet. Baptism was a real thing in the Jewish faith,
and it was taken very, very seriously.
While groups like the Essenes baptized themselves daily for
purification, most Jews were only baptized upon conversion to Judaism. What John was asking these Jews to do was to
lower themselves, humble themselves, to the level of a new convert. He was calling on them to acknowledge that
their ability to follow the law hadn’t changed their hearts, and that they were
still in need of repentance and of God’s grace – and his listeners responded by coming in droves. Thousands of proud, religious Jews going to
be humiliated in front of each other, living, breathing examples of how the
law’s training wheels weren’t producing the grace that these people needed.
Now, there are a couple of other things that I’d like to point out...
1. John’s Appearance is actually
important. While he was kinda
strange walking around in his camel hair and leather belt, John was actually making
a reference back to the Old Testament.
Back in II Kings, there was a famous prophet who was walking around in
camel hair and a leather belt – and nobody recognized him - Elijah. In Malachi, God promised that He would send
Elijah before the Day of the Lord. Now,
while John the Baptist wasn’t the actual physical Elijah, He was exactly what
God promised. He was a prophet who
believed that Jehovah was his God (which is what “Elijah” means). He was indeed the prophet before the Day of
the Lord. John's appearance was another chunk of evidence that the prophecy of the Christ was about to be fulfilled.
2. Baptism – now’s a good time to
address baptism. There are a lot of
issues that come in with Baptism, and it’s not going to be easy (or quick) to
cover them all. I’m going to give you
the basics here, and if you’d like my opinion on the matter, we can discuss it in the forums. Keep in mind: these are Cliff's Notes on the subject - there are many, many other books and scholarly writings that go into much better, much greater detail than I will here.
On methods:
a. Full Immersion: the belief that the
Greek terms “bapto” (temporary) and “baptizo” (implying permanence) mean to
submerge completely in liquid. This
method has historical backing in the Eastern Churches, and has found its way
into the modern Baptistic churches. It
is usually based in scriptures such as Mark 1 that show Jesus “coming up out of
the water”.
b. Pouring / Sprinkling: the belief that
these terms also mean “pour” or “sprinkle”, and that baptism takes place upon
the ceremonial sprinkling of water. This
method has historical backing in the Western Churches, and is commonly practiced
by non-Baptistic churches. Scriptures
used in favor of this include Acts 8:36, and others that show that these terms
may reflect multiple possible definitions.
On who may be baptized:
a. Credobaptism: the belief that only
confessing Christians should be baptized.
Based on repeated scriptures that say “believe and be baptized”.
b. Paedobaptism: the belief that Baptism should be performed on "covenant children" - children of believers. This is often called “infant
baptism”, and is based on scriptures such as Acts 2:38-39 and Acts 16:31ff, among others.
On the salvific / effective nature of Baptism:
a. Baptismal Regeneration: The belief
that, under usual circumstances, a person is not fully a Christian until they have been
baptized - or (sometimes) have expressed a desire to be baptized. Based on repeated scriptures
that indicate that acceptance of the Gospel and Baptism were connected.
b. Baptism as a Sign and Seal of the New Covenant: the
belief that a person is a member of the family of God upon conversion
regardless of Baptism, and that Baptism is a sign and seal of
the covenant between the believer and God. Based on many scriptures where circumcision is replaced with Baptism in the NT.
c. Baptism as an Outward Sign of Inward Change: the belief that Baptism is a reflection of the Holy Spirit's action on a person after that person has been saved.
Note: while there is a difference concerning efficacy among the various theologies, I am unaware of any Christian group that considers a refusal to be baptized as an acceptable behavior, and every group I am aware of would seriously question that person's salvation.
Back to Mark. Back to John, the camel-hair-clad, bug-eating baptizer from the desert that was the fulfillment of the prophecies...
Now, if John thought he was the cat’s meow, he didn’t show it. In fact, he actively denied it. John himself said that Someone
Else was coming coming whose sandals he not even worthy to touch, who’ll preach the same
repentance, but instead of water, He’ll baptize you with something you’ve never
even seen…
The sandals comment is very interesting, especially considering how Middle Eastern cultures tend to view shoes: badly. Have you ever heard that showing the bottom of your shoe to someone from the Middle East is a grave, grave insult? Have you ever heard about protests where Middle Easterners threw shoes at people? Ever wonder why? It's because shoes are... well, they're dirty. Sure, they kept your feet protected, but those shoes are just plain nasty... they're just about the dirtiest form of clothing that a human can have, outside of toiletries, and to toss a shoe or show the sole of your foot to a Middle Easterner, such as an Arab or a 1st-Century Jew, is to basically say, "You are utterly beneath me." And yet, John seems to have taken the concept of him being utterly beneath the coming Christ as a place of honor.