<>
(Download Audio)
Mark's Presentation of Jesus
Mark 1:2-8
Chapter # 1 Paragraph # 2 Study # 2
September 11, 2018
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
Thesis: Mark wanted his readers to understand that Isaiah set the stage for our understanding that John the Baptizer was a fulfillment of the Old Testament's prophecies concerning a forerunner who would prepare the way for the coming of "The Lord".
Introduction: We have already seen that there are two issues involved in getting at the "truth" of the Scriptures. The first is actually coming to grips with the words actually used in the Scriptures. The second is actually coming to grips with the message of those words.
In our last study we considered the first of those issues. Our study this evening will be primarily focused upon the second of those issues as they relate to Mark 1:2.
- I. The Primary Issues of Our Present Text.
- A. Mark's use of "Just as..." (the opening word of 1:2).
- 1. This is what is called "a comparative conjunction" and it means that there is going to follow a "setting" that is to be "compared" to another.
- 2. The "situation" that is given to be the "standard" in the comparison is a prophetic utterance that is, then, to be used to evaluate the following "situation".
- a. This "prophetic utterance" sets forth what is known as "a type of meaning".
- b. The following text proposes that the ministry of John the Baptizer is to be evaluated, and seen to be, in specific harmony with the prophetic scenario given as the standard.
- B. Mark's use of "...it stands written...".
- 1. The significance of the word linguistically [Perfect Passive Indicative].
- 2. The significance of the word theologically [it is a part of the inalterable Word of God so that what "stands written" as prophecy will eventually "exist in the history of man"].
- 3. This is the significant reality of Isaiah 40:8.
- C. Mark's phrase "in Isaiah the prophet".
- 1. It is clear from the history of the transmission of the text that there are two "texts" that compete for our thought.
- 2. It is also clear that if the copiests who gave us the false reading had understood how language works, they would never have given us an adulterated text.
- a. The first issue here is that the words Mark wrote are "in Isaiah the prophet" and that was adulterated into "in the prophets".
- 1. I state this as a "fact" but it rests upon the conclusions of fallible people who have made textual criticism their focus of study.
- 2. One of the "rules" in textual criticism is that the text that is the more difficult to explain in terms of its presence in the larger text is preferred over the one that is fairly easy to explain in respect to how it might have come to be in the text.
- 3. Since the first part of the prophetic quote has significant similarities to Malachi 3:1 (as it exists in the Septuagint) and the second part has significant similarities to Isaiah 40:3 (as it exists in the Septuagint), it appears obvious that some copiest was aware of both texts and considered "in Isaiah the prophet" a "mistake", so it was changed to "in the prophets".
- b. The second issue here is the way language works in respect to what is called "a field of meaning".
- 1. There are often certain "meanings" that make multiple appearances in the Bible.
- 2. At any point where a given "meaning" shows up in a new place, it is simply an old meaning being put into another context to broaden our understanding of the larger meaning.
- a) An example is Malachi 3:1 showing up again in 4:5 with a greater specificity: we now know the messenger's "name".
- b) Then the same meaning that exists in Malachi 3:1 shows up again in Revelation 11:3, and yet again in Revelation 14:6.
- c) And this explains how both John 1:21 where John denies he is "Elijah" and Matt. 17:10-13 where Jesus says he is "Elijah" are both true (Note also Matthew 11:14).
- c. The third issue here is that the emendation does not threaten our "general" understanding of "truth", but it does take our minds in directions Mark did not intend.
- 1. The emendation expresses real "truth" so that it does not create "false theology".
- 2. But, the emendation blurs Mark's point: Mark wanted us to understand that it was the potent prophet Isaiah who first gave us a "forerunner" prophecy and it was followed up on by Malachi (Isaiah had a greater impact for Mark's general readership than did Malachi).
- a) Also, it was Isaiah who actually gave us the specific characteristics of the forerunner so that we could see John as a specific fulfillment.
- b) Malachi 3:1 does not confuse us; but Malachi 4:5 does introduce some level of confusion (thus, Mark blunts the confusion immediately, but, apparently, created some of a different kind or we would not have an emendation).
