The introduction is very brief. We hear nothing of Jesus’ birth or his childhood. Nothing of his family or upbringing. The focus of this opening passage is on John the Baptist. We know from elsewhere that he was Jesus’ cousin but again, other than his strange appearance / lifestyle we learn very little about him. All we know, and this I guess is the key, is his message.
Verse 7 John says: “After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
He is the messenger, who was prophesied by Isaiah who would come ahead of the Messiah to “prepare the way” (verse 2)
The brevity continues through out the first chapter but there are two points I wish to try and draw out. The first is that straight after Jesus� baptism he was sent by the Spirit into the desert. Why?
This was the time immediately before the start of Jesus ministry. He needed to prepare. We looked at this almost exactly one year ago in my post; Jesus Strength in the Wilderness?. I won�t repeat myself now but I will reiterate the solitude which Jesus often sort out is a vital part of strengthening our relationship with God.
The second is His interesting message on commencement of his ministry (v14-15). “Repent, the kingdom of God near“. I guess the first question is; what on earth does this mean? What is the Kingdom of God?
Jesus spent His entire ministry preaching about it. Everything He said was about the Kingdom. Why then does it seem so hard to pin down what it is? I’m not sure I have it completely clear and would be interested to know your views. One thing to notice is that “…the kingdom of God near..” is not a particularly accurate translation. The Kingdom of God is here is much closer.
Jesus wasn’t talking about the physical Kingdom as the Jews were expecting but a spiritual one. It’s often thought that Jesus opened the way for everyone to access the Kingdom. I direct route to Heaven and all the spiritual gifts and insights that go with it. But I wonder if it is more the case that instead of providing a path He simply brought the Kingdom with Him.
The Kingdom of God his here right now, all around us. All we need to do is be in relationship with the one who brought it, to access it. But it is more that simply having access to supernatural powers. It is also a choice of how to live. Righteousness is a key Kingdom principle and one that is often overlooked because, after all, God will forgive us wont He.
Sorry about the randomness of the thoughts. What do you think?
Bob, when you wrote about Jesus’ strength in the wilderness, you noted that “For we know that Satan has to ask permission from the Father to approach us, and the Father only allows as much as we can handle”.
Can you try and explain this a little because on first reading it is a worrying statement. Thanks dude
There are a number of occasions in the Bible where it’s clear that Satan has asked permission (or it is clear he was powerless until permission was given) to approach God’s servants; Luke 22:31 and Job 1 spring to mind but there are others.
We know from 1 Corinthians 10 that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear and they we will always offer us a way out.
Times of testing and times of temptation can be different. But I believe that the same applies to both, as, if we look at Job you will notice that God said to Satan that he can do pretty much anything to him but could not harm him. This was the limit placed; I guess this was also the limit of Job.
I would imagine our limits are often nowhere near Job’s.
Does that answer your question?
Rob,
Just a couple of thoughts re: “What is the Kingdom of God?”
It will come as no suprise to those familiar with Hebrew modes of thinking and expression to discover that both Old and New Testament authors, building and enlarging upon the expectations of their predecessors, worked in sequence towards an ultimate goal – the establishment of an ideal kingdom – the Kingdom of God on earth – to be ruled over by an earthly king.
The New Testament writers proclaimed :
that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all the expectations concerning this earthly king but in a totally ‘unexpected’ way;
that the Kingdom of God was now in existence and the door this Kingdom was now open;
and that Jesus would one day return to take his rightful place as ‘King of Israel’. “The Kingdom of this world has become the Kingdom of God and of his Christ” (Rev 11:15)
vynette, welcome to threedays, it’s great to have you with us. Thanks for you comment.
Do you have any thoughts on what it means for us to live in the Kingdom God? As Christians, are we just in it and that’s it? Do we enter it by default or do we need to actively do something to enter? Should we be noticing a change? What is the difference between being in the Kingdom, and not being in the Kingdom?
What are your thoughts?
Rob,
Thanks for your welcome. I must warn you advance, however, that what I have to say upsets and astounds many Christians.
Even though the evidence I present is taken solely from scripture, my comments on other blogs have called forth severe criticism.
To comment on another’s blog is to be a ‘visitor’, so to speak, so I always respect the wishes of the blog owner.
Now, down to business…
To expand on my thoughts about the Kingdom, I must prepare the ground with a little preamble.
According to the Bible story, humanity was faced with no other end than the grave because of the sin of Adam and Eve.
This grave (sheol, hell) was a place of eternal rest and perpetual peace where all earthly cares ended.
“For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.” (Eccles 9:5)
A hope and an expectancy grew amongst the Israelite people that, some day, one would arise who would save them from their sins and show them the way to eternal life.
The Hebrews had very definite ideas about this man and these were recorded in the books of the Old Covenant.
Many Christians are unaware of what exactly the Hebrews did expect and this ignorance has facilitated the building up of erroneous doctrines.
The New Testament records the fulfilment of this ‘messianic’ hope in Jesus of Nazareth.
To usher in the New Covenant, however, the sins that caused the original ‘fall’ of man had to be purged.
Scripture defines them as:
exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25)
worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25)
disobedience to the commands of the Creator – “as through one man’s disobedience, the many became sinners” (Romans 5:19).
Jesus of Nazareth redeemed us in the eyes of God and negated these three ‘original’ sins by:
(a) insisting on Truth and exposing and rejecting lies
(b) worshipping and serving the Creator rather than the creature
(c) learning obedience through his sufferings (Hebrews 5:8) and through this obedience the many were made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
Jesus of Nazareth lived and died for truth, as is evident by his statement to Pilate. It is encumbent on all who would be his followers to seek out the truth of scripture, to ‘prove all things’, as we have been enjoined to do.
When Jesus said “the Kingdom of God is within you” he meant exactly what he said – that through each invididual emulating his example and putting into practice the ‘redeemer’ virtues, the Kingdom of God could be brought into being.
This simple message of the New Testament is negated and made meaningless by doctrines that teach he was other than a normal man.
God’s controversy with man began in the Garden of Eden and has continued through the ages right to this present moment.
It is a controversy that demands of man that he weigh all things in the balances and find true measure.
A couple of questions to try and clarify your position.
I find the idea that the ‘Kingdom of God is within us’ interesting. Where does this come from? What does that mean practically if true?
Are you suggesting that Jesus was just a man? Or do you accept that He was/is also God?
Are you suggesting that Jesus death and resurrection was only for original sin? What about all the others past, present, and future?
That should do for now.
As an aside I think you are confusing Sheol and Hell. My understanding is that Sheol and Hell are different places. Sheol being better translated as Hades. Some Bible translations have confused the issue (notably the NIV) by mistranslating Hades and Hell as the same place. Which they are not. Hell does not yet exist; but I guess that�s another post.
Thanks again for your comments and I wait with intrigue for your answers.
Rob,
First , let me expand on what I meant about the three ‘original’ sins.
I was proposing that these are the real reasons for the ‘fall’ and, by setting ‘orginal’ thus, actually drawing a distinction between them and the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’.
I also maintain that this doctrine has no scriptural basis, but that is for another day
The ‘sins’ I described are universal and not restricted to time or place.
Through them, man fell from grace originally and they continue to be the reasons for our misfortunes.
From 30 AD onwards, however, Jesus of Nazareth redeemed us in the eyes of God by reversing the ‘sins’ that caused our fall: he did not ‘exchange the truth of God for a lie; he did not worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator; he did not disobey the will of God
Not only did he confront the false standards and false values of the establishment, but also, he was obedient unto death.
Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament as the greatest living example of the excellence of God’s creation.
By following Jesus along that path, we also can reclaim the esteem in which we were ‘originally’ held by God.
That path is described as ‘straight’ and ‘narrow’ and ‘few there be that find it’. But how could it be anything less? How can we expect it to be any easier for us than it was for the prophets, the disciples and Jesus.
Nevertheless, we can certainly pray that, through the ‘grace of God’, we will not have to undergo similar trials.
Yes, I do maintain that the New Testament portrays Jesus of Nazareth as a perfectly normal human who was chosen by God as an instrument of intervention into wordly affairs.
If he were not a normal man, one of us, he could not fulfil the function he was chosen to perform. In my view, it is demeaning to Jesus to ascribe ‘divinity’ to him.
It demeans the enormity of his trials and sacrifices on our behalf.
It is also demeaning to the Creator to identify him, in any other than an ‘ethical’ way, with one of his creatures.
Rob, you will understand of course that the above comments are only a very brief look at a vast range of material. The subject of the ‘Kingdom of God’, being as it is both a spiritual and a physical entity, requires considerable analysis so perhaps I will leave that to another day.
By the way, you describe your blog as belonging to a group of people who are passionate about Jesus. That is what drew me here. I can identify wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed.
I see where you may have run into problems on other sites *smile*.
While this site is about discussion and investigation so that together we can grow in faith and understanding of the Bible there are some things which are simply not negotiable.
Christianity lives and dies on the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.
He was begotten, not created. He has always been, and always will be.
He was 100% human, at the same time as being 100% God. That is the miracle of the incarnation.
I’m not wishing to be rude but I don’t understand have you can read the Bible and not see that this is what the Bible teaches.
Thanks again your comments. Our views clearly differ but you are welcome to express them here.
But vynette (welcome, by the way), how do you look at some of the things Jesus did during his ministry without associating divinity to it? He cast out evil Spirits, raised the dead, accelerated healing, went to the cross for our sakes, and did things that were too numerous to be recorded by the Gospel writers. Now if Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit by God, and sent out, it’s too mind boggling to imagine that he could have done these things without being totally living in the divine nature. It’s just infeasible to believe that Jesus was just man.
There are loads of accounts of Jesus (not biblical but not totally dispensible) which speak of him as having a sense of peace and spirit surrounding him that could not be described as earthly. Even before Pilate, his demeanour is described as without fear, defence, aggression, but readiness and peace. Try telling me that a man who knows his own fate as Jesus did can stand in acceptance of it, and not be ‘just a man’. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Good to have your thoughts though, look forward to your contributions
Dan and Rob,
Thanks for your kind words of welcome.
But, as Rob says, some views you hold are non-negotiable.
These non-negotiable views of yours are precisely the opposite of mine.
So, I see we are in stalemate.
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts here.
Vynette
I’m not dismissing what you’re saying Vynette, it would be good to get an idea of where you’re coming from. You made a couple of statements there which are quite interesting, and while i might not agree, it would be good to hear where you’re coming from.
Speaking for myself, i’d like to think i’m a person who’s open to hear as much as possible, then see where my limited little brain goes with it
*smile*
Dan,
Even though there are other ‘christs’ or ‘anointeds’ in the Bible, the ‘anointing’ of Jesus was certainly of a different order.
As the ‘messenger’ of the New Covenant, he was ‘anointed’ to perform the specific tasks spoken of by Isaiah the prophet (Is. 61) and he made the formal announcement of his ‘anointing’ in Luke 4:18-19…
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
As part of his ‘job description’, so to speak, it was necessary that Jesus be empowered. But, at all times, the actual power came from God. Jesus was careful to make this distinction between himself and the Father on many occasions.
To claim that Jesus was ‘divine’ because he performed miracles, raised the dead, and forgave sins, is to overlook the fact that the Bible ascribes these feats to others as well as he.
On another note, the episode in the synagogue is intriguing.
When one looks at the original passage from which Jesus quoted, we find that he deliberately stopped mid-verse (Is.61:2) and ‘closed the book’.
Why would he stop part-way through a prophecy concerning himself?
Something for eschatologists to ponder…
Without getting in too deep, it’s interesting to note that when all the prophecies and expectations concerning the Hebrew ‘messiah’ are collected and analysed, it becomes apparent that they could not all be fulfilled by one man, at one time.