Why Did Mark Omit Jesusâ Baptism? / Why Was Jesus Baptized? / âSuffering Servantâ & Messiah in Isaiah / Spiritual âKingdom of Godâ / Archaeological Support

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on Mark by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, âNot-Your-Pastorâs Tour of Markâs Gospel: The falsification of Christianity made easyâ (Debunking Christianity, 7-17-19). His words will be in blue below.
Dr. Madison has utterly ignored my twelve refutations of his âdirty dozenâ podcasts against Jesus, and I fully expect that stony silence to continue. If he wants to be repeatedly critiqued and make no response, thatâs his choice (which would challenge Bob Seidensticker as the most intellectually cowardly atheist I know). I will continue on, whatever he decides to do (no skin off my back).
Dr. Madison believes we are not at all sure whether Jesus in fact said anything recorded in the Gospels. The atheist always has a convenient âoutâ (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it anyway and that the text in question was simply made up and added later by unscrupulous and âcultishâ Christian propagandists.
I always refuse to play this silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, because there is no way to âwinâ with such a stacked, subjective deck. I start with the assumption (based on many historical evidences) that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in the Bible (believe it or not).Â
Dr. Madison himself â in his anti-Jesus project noted above, granted my outlook, strictly in terms of practical âx vs. yâ debate purposes: âFor the sake of argument, Iâm willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.â And in the combox: âSo, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. Weâll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.â Excellent! Otherwise, there would be no possible discussion at all.
*****
Dr. Madison called this installment:Â Did Jesus Graduate from Hogwarts?: The problems pile on, right from the start (2-16-18).
Problem Number 1: A Big Omission
It has been a source of some anxiety among theologians that Mark begins his story with Jesus as an adult: There is no mention whatever of a virgin birth. Why would Mark leave that out? For starters, of course, he may never have heard this story associated with Jesus. The apostle Paul, who had written a couple of decades earlier, hadnât heard of it eitherâat least, he never mentions it.
Apologist J. Warner Wallace deals with this:
While it is true that Mark does not include a birth narrative, this does not mean that he was either unaware of the truth about Jesus or denied the virgin conception. Eyewitnesses often omit important details because they either (1) have other concerns they want to highlight with greater priority, or (2) presume that the issue under question is already well understood. The gospel of Mark exhibits great influence from the Apostle Peter. In fact, the outline of Markâs Gospel is very similar to the outline of Peterâs first sermon at Pentecost. According to the Papias, Mark was Peterâs scribe; his gospel is brief and focused. Like Peterâs sermon in Chapter 2 of the Book of Actâs, Mark is focused only on the public life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. But Mark is not alone in omitting the birth narrative. Johnâs gospel is considered by scholars to be the last Gospel written. The prior three âsynoptic Gospelsâ were already in circulation and the issue of the virgin conception had already been described in two of them. Yet John also omitted the birth narrative. Why? John clearly wanted to cover material that the other Gospel writers did not address; over 90% of the material in the Gospel of John is unique to the text. If John did not agree with the virgin conception as described in the Gospels of Matthew or Luke, he certainly had the opportunity to correct the matter in his own work. But John never does this; his silence serves as a presumption that the âvirgin conceptionâ has been accurately described by prior authors. . . .
At the same time, Mark does not appear to be ignorant of the âvirgin conceptionâ. Note, for example, that Mark uses an unusual expression related to Jesusâ parentage:
Mark 6:1-3 Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown ; and His disciples followed Him. When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue ; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, âWhere did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands ? âIs not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ? Are not His sisters here with us?â And they took offense at Him.
It is highly unusual for the âmany listenersâ in this first century Jewish culture to describe Jesus as the âson of Maryâ rather than the âson of Josephâ. These first century eyewitnesses of Jesus apparently knew something about Jesusâ birth narrative and chose to trace Jesusâ lineage back through His mother rather than through His father (as would customarily have been the case). This early reference in the Gospel of Mark may expose the fact that Mark was aware of the âvirgin conceptionâ . . . (âWhy Doesnât Mark Say Anything About Jesusâ Birth?â, Cold-Case Christianity, 12-11-15)
Problem Number 2: Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins
We read in vv. 4-5: âJohn the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.â
Just what Jesus should do, right? Well, no. Why would the perfect, sinless son of God show up to be baptized? Markâs naivetĂ© has bothered theologiansâstarting with Matthew, who maneuvered to avoid this embarrassment. He adds extra script, i.e., that John the Baptist objected (3:14): âJohn would have prevented him, saying, âI need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?â Jesus seems to say, âTrue, but letâs do it for appearances.â âBut Jesus answered him, âLet it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousnessââ (v. 3:15). In Johnâs gospel Jesus doesnât even set foot in the water. John says that he saw the spirit descend on Jesus âas a dove from heaven,â and declares, âHere is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.â
Catholic writer Kirsten Andersen explains:
Since Jesus didnât have any sins that needed forgiving (original or otherwise), was already fully himself and fully Godâs son and had no need of salvation, baptism would seem redundant . . .
So whatâs the deal? Why did Jesus insist on receiving baptism from John, even though John himself flat-out objected, arguing that it was Jesus who should baptize him?
The easy answer is that Jesus was simply setting the example for his followers. âWWJDâ bracelets may be out-of-fashion and clichĂ©d, but they do express the rather profound truth that as long as we keep our eyes on Jesus, and do what he showed us how to do in both word and deed, salvation can be ours. . . .
[T]he baptism Jesus received from John wasnât the same sacrament we celebrate today. How could it have been? Jesus had not yet established his Church, so the sacraments didnât exist yet. The âbaptismsâ John performed were actually ritual washings (mikveh/pl. mikvaot) given to converting and reverting Jews, symbolizing the death of oneâs old, sinful self, and rebirth as a ritually clean Jew.
Mikvaot were commonly performed to cleanse Jews of any sins and ritual impurities before presenting themselves at the temple, . . . (âIf Jesus Was Sinless, Why Did He Need to Be Baptized?,â Aleteia, 1-8-16)
Catholic writer Cale Clark cites Pope Benedict XVI (writing before he was pope), explaining another symbolic aspect of Jesusâ baptism:
Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Joseph Ratzinger), in his Jesus of Nazareth [2004] offers some illuminating insights on all this. Thereâs a whole chapter in the book on Jesusâ baptism, but here are a few of his key thoughts.
First, in antiquity water conjured up two distinct images: death and life. Benedict notes:
On the one hand, immersion into the waters is a symbol of death, which recalls the death symbolism of the annihilating, destructive power of the ocean flood. The ancient mind perceived the ocean as a permanent threat to the cosmos, to the earth; it was the primeval flood that might submerge all life . . . But the flowing waters of the river are above all a symbol of life (15-16).
Even the physical act of baptism, especially baptism by immersion, represents death and new life: the descent into the waters is a form of death and burial; the rising to a new life is an icon of resurrection.
Looking at the events (of Christâs baptism) in light of the Cross and Resurrection, the Christian people realized what happened: Jesus loaded the burden of all mankindâs guilt upon his shoulders; he bore it down into the depths of the Jordan. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners. His inaugural gesture is an anticipation of the Cross. He is, as it were, the true Jonah who said to the crew of the ship, âTake me and throw me into the seaâ (Jon. 1:12) . . . The baptism is an acceptance of death for the sins of humanity, and the voice that calls out âThis is my beloved Sonâ over the baptismal waters is an anticipatory reference to the Resurrection. This also explains why, in his own discourses, Jesus uses the word âbaptismâ to refer to his death (18).
The Eastern traditions of iconography pick up on many of these themes, as the current pope emeritus elucidates:
The icon of Jesusâ baptism depicts the water as a liquid tomb having the form of a dark cavern, which is in turn the iconographic sign of Hades, the underworld, or hell. Jesusâ descent into this watery tomb, into this inferno that envelops him from every side, is thus an anticipation of his act of descending into the underworld . . . John Chrysostom writes: âGoing down into the water and emerging again are the image of the descent into hell and the Resurrectionâ (19). (âWhy Jesus Was Baptized,â Catholic Answers, 1-9-18)
Problem Number 3: The Powerful Savior Myth
John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness to âprepare the way of the Lordâââthe one who is more powerful than I is coming after meâ (v.7). These textsâand many others like themâusher us into the world of delusional thinking that seeks to bend history to fit theology. The Chosen People had been oppressed for centuriesâwhich was inexplicable. What was the way out of this? Itâll be magic: There is a hero on the way, a messiah, one specially anointed by God, who will set things right. Thus one of the main themes of Mark is the proclamation of Jesus that the âthe time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come nearâ (v. 15).
But that didnât happen. God has not intervened in human history to make everything better. When hope faded that the Son of Man would descend to Earth to establish the kingdom of God, Christian theologians made the adjustment: it became a âspiritualâ reality. But weâre still dealing with a form of hero worship: âHere is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.â
What? Someone can actually do that? Whether itâs intervening in history to rescue the Chosen People, or âtaking away the sins of the world,â itâs wishful thinking, theology denying reality. This is the Superman fantasy, and outside of the âmessiahâ version of it, nobody takes it seriously. Of course, in our own time, there have been so many spin-off super-heroes; this is fun fantasy, nothing more.
The Jews for centuries had had a dual notion of the Messiah: that of the Suffering Servant and of the conquering king. So this was nothing new. Educated Christians knew the Old Testament. It included Isaiah 53, which is the famous passage of the Messiah suffering. There was no huge [implied, dishonest] âadjustmentâ made by the time the Gospels were written. Whereas during the time of Jesus it was understandable that some thought that the messianic kingdom was to be established, and the end of the age was near, after He died, of course it was understood that He was the suffering servant, and that the âtriumphantâ messianism had to await His second Coming. In the meantime, Jesus made salvation possible by His redemptive death; and that is quite enough itself.
Dr. Madison acts as if John the Baptist was proclaiming a superhero and the messianic earthy kingdom: fulfilled in Jesus. If so, how odd that he referred to Him as follows: ââBehold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!â (Jn 1:29, RSV). Thatâs the suffering Messiah of Isaiah 53. The Jews at the time couldnât misinterpret the analogy of the Passover Lamb that was sacrificed. Jesusâ sacrifice on the cross was also at the time of Passover.
Mark cites Isaiah 40:3: âA voice cries: âIn the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'â Isaiah 40:1-26 is a triumphant passage of hope. God was going to deliver the Israelites. But as always in the Old Testament, such deliverance was conditional upon obedience. And once again, as so often, God didnât receive that, as the grand narrative of the magnificent book of Isaiah continues. Thus, we see the beginning of this discontent in the same chapter:
Isaiah 40:27 Why do you say, O Jacob, and speak, O Israel, âMy way is hid from the LORD, and my right is disregarded by my Godâ? (cf. 49:14: â. . . âThe LORD has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me.â)
God in effect responds to this rebellion and rejection in Isaiah chapters 41-47. Isaiah 42 describes what could have been, had Israel been obedient. But it was not, and Israelâs exile came about as a result (43:22-28). Then Babylon is judged for opposing Israel (chapters 46-47). Isaiah 48 is Godâs response to Israelâs rebellion. God declares:
Isaiah 48:6 . . . From this time forth I make you hear new things, hidden things which you have not known.
The text then highlights the âServantâ (chapters 49-55) which represents both the Messiah and the nation of Israel (prophecies often have multiple applications in Scripture). The Servantâs mission is to Israel first, then âas a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earthâ (49:6). But the âServantâ is also rejected:
Isaiah 49:7 . . . one deeply despised, abhorred by the nations . . .
Isaiah 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
Nevertheless the Servant continues to proclaim a message of good news (chapters 51-52). But what happens next is that the full suffering of the Servant is revealed: and its purpose:
Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. [14] As many were astonished at him â his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men â [15] so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand. [1] Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? [2] For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. [3] He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. [5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. [6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. [8] By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? [9] And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. [10] Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand; [11] he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. [12] Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
All of this, of course, is a prophecy of exactly what would happen with Jesus Christ: God the Son / Son of God. He came as the expected Messiah, but was rejected and killed on the cross. But this was Godâs plan to save mankind. Many missed that (included all those who rejected Jesus Christ), but it was there in plain view, in Isaiah (written many centuries before). And this is the backdrop of the Gospel presentation of the life and mission of Jesus. Precisely for this reason, Jesus cited Isaiah in public, in a synagogue, at the beginning of His public ministry, in his own hometown of Nazareth:
Luke 4:16-21 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; [17] and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, [18] âThe Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, [19] to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.â [20] And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. [21] And he began to say to them, âToday this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.â
After He said a bit more, here was the response:
Luke 4:28-29 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. [29] And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
Jesus was citing Isaiah 61:1-2 and also 58:6. He was thus claiming to be the Old Testament Servant, who was the Messiah. It was all foretold in the Old Testament before any Gospel writer was born. So to make out that they âinventedâ the whole story because Jesus disappointed their expectations and failed to reign triumphant over all mankind, and was instead tortured and killed, is ludicrous. Markâs Gospel recounts the same incident, but only in bare outline: Jesus was âin his own countryâ (6:1), taught in the synagogue (6:2), the people âtook offenseâ (6:3), and Jesus noted that a prophet is not honored in his home town (6:4; cf. Lk 4:24). Matthewâs account (13:54-58) is similar to Markâs.
[I pass over Dr. Madisonâs stock atheist objections to Satan, demons (getting also a bit into the problem of evil), and supernatural healing. These are discussions that are very involved, entailing in-depth philosophy and theology, and go far beyond the âtextualâ arguments that I am concentrating on in my critiques.]
Problem Number 7: The Message Without SubstanceÂ
Weâll be searching for the substance of Jesusâs message as we make our way through Mark, but we donât get many clues in the first chapter. . . . But what âastounded and amazedâ themâother than roughing up the demons? What was the message that he taught with authority? Mark neglects to give us the details.
So what? Itâs only the first chapter of sixteen. Heâll get to it. Mark chose in this chapter to highlight his baptism and early healings and casting out of demons. But of course, chapters were only added to the Bible in the 13th century:Â by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. They first appeared in a Bible with Wycliffeâs English version of 1382. The Old Testament was first divided into verses in 1448, and the New Testament in 1555 (surprisingly, after Martin Lutherâs death!).
We observe that Jesus starts revealing more of His mission and message in what we now call chapter 2.
We will see that Jesus talks a lot about the anticipated kingdom of Godâwhich never showed up, by the way.
As with many words and phrases in the Bible, it has more than one meaning. Itâs obvious in many passages that âkingdom of Godâ (and the equivalent âkingdom of heavenâ: used only by Matthew) in the New Testament referred to a spiritual reality, as opposed to the physical and âinstitutionalâ messianic kingdom to come. Again, this was no cynical âevolutionâ or rationalization after the fact of an alleged massive disenchantment of early Christians (one of Dr. Madisonâs recurring false assertions). It was foreshadowed in the Old Testament in the motif of changed âheartsâ that served and followed God: especially in Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 31:33Â But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah 32:40Â I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.
Also, being inhabited by Godâs âspiritâ in the Old Testament was a precursor to Pentecost and all Christians being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (essentially, being in the kingdom of God; regenerated, justified, sanctified, etc.):
Numbers 11:29 But Moses said to him, âAre you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORDâs people were prophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!â
Psalm 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me.
Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.
Isaiah 44:3 I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring.
Isaiah 59:21 âAnd as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, . . .â (cf. 63:11)
Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. (cf. 37:14; 39:29)
Joel 2:28 âAnd it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; . . .â (cf. 2:29; Hag 2:5)
Zechariah 7:12 . . . the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. . . . (cf. 4:6)
Here are some of Jesusâ many uses of these phrases in a strictly spiritual sense:
Matthew 5:3 âBlessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.â (cf. Lk 6:20)
Matthew 11:12 âFrom the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force.â
Matthew 12:28 âBut if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.â
Matthew 19:12 âFor there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. . . .â
Matthew 19:24 âAgain I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.â [this is the famous ârich young rulerâ incident. Jesus appears to define the term as âeternal lifeâ (19:16, 29), or spiritual âlifeâ (19:17), or âtreasure in heavenâ (19:21), or being âsavedâ (19:25) ]
Mark 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, âYou are not far from the kingdom of God.â . . .
Luke 7:28 âI tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.â
Luke 10:9 âheal the sick in it and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you.'â
Luke 11:20 âBut if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.â
No matter how confident the faithful are that Mark is telling the âtrue story of Jesus,â this is not biography. Mark fails to qualify as a historian; we have no wayânone at allâto determine if there is any history at all in his narratives. Mark was a theologian who had a talent for the creation of religious fantasy literature.
Why are we not impressed, let alone convinced? [my bolding added, to highlight the sweeping absurdity of the false claim]
Well, I say itâs because he has apparently not read about any of the abundant New Testament archaeological evidences of its accuracy. The following article alone has six archaeological confirmations (i.e., scientific findings, completely separate from religious faith) of the Gospel of Mark (a word-search can locate them):
âArchaeology and the Historical Reliability of the New Testamentâ (Peter S. Williams)
As a second example, archaeologists in 2013 believed that they found the town of Dalmanutha, along the sea of Galilee, mentioned in Mark 8:10. I ran across three articles about it (one / two / three).
***
Photo credit: 22Kartika (3-28-14). Located inside Maria Kerep Cave, Ambarawa, Indonesia [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]
***