Words'nTone

Every time I ask an atheist, whether personally or through a blog, group board, or website, where did the known, physical universe come from—how did it begin?  I usually receive no answer, or the comment, “We’ve been through this before.” But when I say, “Can you explain it again,” no answer is given.  There is no doubt that there is an element of “faith” for the atheist regarding the origin (or dare say, non-origin) of the universe, and additionally, there is the lack of scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.  I repeat, who has determined that we live in a closed universe where the only way to “prove” things such as the existence of God, origins of the universe, angels, heaven, and hell must be scientific and not logical?  What’s wrong with reason as a method for determining the soundness of one’s conclusion concerning the original of creation?

The very “logic” used by atheists isn’t scientific (ironically), and seems to betray their insistence that there are no eternal, immaterial, non-changing things in this universe.  (Really how do they know that?) For the laws of logic are indeed immaterial, eternal, and non-changing.  Furthermore, what was before time began?  What was there before there was space?  It is hard for atheist to imagine what it was like before time and before space, for such imagining is indeed an almost impossible (and I might add, implausible) scientific pursuit that actually is a faith statement about one’s worldview—not a scientific answer.

If the atheist stipulates, that explaining what was before time and space cannot be imagined, “chance” then becomes, as Steve Turner once penned, “the Father of all flesh.” Chance brought this meaningless existence, rhymeless physical universe into being.  Steve Turner writes, so playfully, but poignantly, in his poem called “Chance”:

     If chance be the Father of all flesh,
     disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
     and when you hear
     State of Emergency! 
     Sniper Kills Ten! 
     Troops on Rampage! 
     Whites go Looting! 
     Bomb Blasts School!
     It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

The difficultly in imagining the creation of our physical and known universe where there is no material becoming material, along with no time and no space at one point becoming time and space leads to an even more devastating imagination of a universe without an eternal, all-powerful, holy, immutable Being.  Steve Turner reminds us what is left to imagine within an atheistic worldview and the plague of living with an atheistic faith in no-thing, just chance.

© Chip M. Anderson (October 2008)
    Words’nTone, Habits of the Mind,

Everything is backwards.  The good die young.  Evil outlasts the virtuous.  The wicked thrive.  Everything is upside-down.  The weight of what’s wrong can overwhelm the God-sensitive soul.  Like the Psalmist, our feet can slip, we can lose our foothold (Ps. 73:2) when we consider the unfair, backward dealings of the world.

They have no struggles;
    their bodies are healthy and strong.
They are free from the burdens common to man;
    they are not plagued by human ills.
Therefore pride is their necklace;
    they clothe themselves with violence.
From their callous hearts comes iniquity;
    the evil conceits of their minds know no limits.
They scoff, and speak with malice;
    in their arrogance they threaten oppression.
Their mouths lay claim to heaven,
    and their tongues take possession of the earth (Ps 73:4-9)

I read in the papers and watch on TV the meaningless acts of rage, wartime horror stories, families in despair, depressed children over family tragedies of illness, death, and divorce, and the world of substance abuse killing—all the souls of men and women, children and families.  This is not the way it is supposed to be.

Some ask, “Where is God?” Some just out rightly say, “God is dead, gone, finished, absent, never existed anyway…” Even for the believer, life can be a constant reminder of what the world could be like if God did not exist.  Yet, still believing…there is a God who acts in the history and in the mundane of human existence.  It seems to me foolishness, even in the face of the worst evil can unleash, to think that everything is just left to chance.  I think of Steve Turner’s poem, aptly called “Chance.”

        If chance be the Father of all flesh,
        disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
        and when you hear
        State of Emergency!
        Sniper Kills Ten!
        Troops on Rampage!
        Whites go Looting!
        Bomb Blasts School!
        It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

This cannot be the answer we must succumb to… But here’s the rub, even the answer to the questions of meaninglessness, hopelessness, confusion, and redemption seems foolishness to those who do not have ears to ear.

One morning, on my drive to work, I was listened to Imus (in the morning) making some comments on Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” He wasn’t being critical of the Passion, but his flippant word-bite, “If I were God, I just won’t have done it that way” (meaning the cross).  This spoke volumes about our so-called human wisdom.  Meaning: Imus would have chosen some other means other than crucifying his son to save mankind.  Well, that’s the point.  It took what looked like foolishness to man to answer the questions of evil, suffering, sin, goodness, peace, God, heaven, life, and hell.  It took the foolishness of Jesus to fix this world where “everything is backwards” and to redeem you and me.  Yes, it took a fool to make everything right side up.

Michael Card’s song (of some years back), God’s Own Fool, came to mind as I listened to Imus’ comment.  Here are the words of the song and some Scriptures that show insight and might help make sense out of this sometimes overwhelmingly senseless world:

        It seems I’ve imagined Him all of my life
        The wisest of all of mankind
        But if God’s holy wisdom is foolish to man
        He must have seemed out of His mind

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).

        For even His family said He was mad
        And the priests said a demon’s to blame
        But God in the form of this angry young man
        Could not have seemed perfectly sane

“And He came home, and the multitude gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. And when His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, ‘He has lost His senses’” (Mark 3:22).

“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, ‘He is possessed by Beelzebul,’ and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons’” (Mark 3:22).

“The Jews answered and said to Him, ‘Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?’” (John 8:48)

“The Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon’” (John 8:52)

“There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. And many of them were saying, ‘He has a demon, and is insane; why do you listen to Him?’” (John 10:19-20)

        When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
        He played the fool and He opened our eyes
        When we in our weakness believed we were strong
        He became helpless to show we were wrong
        And so we follow God’s own fool
        For only the foolish can tell
        Believe the unbelievable
        Come be a fool as well

“Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, ‘He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness’ and again, ‘The LORD knows that the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless’” (1 Corinthians 3:18-20).

“We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor” (1 Corinthians 4:10).

        So come lose your life for a carpenter’s son
        For a mad man who died for a dream
        And you’ll have the faith His first followers had
        And you’ll feel the weight of the beam
        So surrender the hunger to say you must know
        Have the courage to say “I believe”
        For the power of paradox opens your eyes
        And blinds those who say they can see

“And Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.’ Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, ‘We are not blind too, are we?’ Jesus said to them, ‘if you were blind you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains” (John 9:39-41)

        When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
        He played the fool and He opened our eyes
        When we in our weakness believed we were strong
        He became helpless to show we were wrong
        And so we follow God’s own fool
        For only the foolish can tell
        Believe the unbelievable
        Come be a fool as well
        And so we follow God’s own fool
        For only the foolish can tell
        Believe the unbelievable
        Come be a fool as well

No one in Scripture said bearing witness of the Gospel was easy.  In fact, the few times Scripture does speak of Gospel-telling, it says martyrdom is expected.  It is tough being a fool in this world.  Sometimes it leads to a cross.  But I for one, will continue to “believe the unbelievable” and will continue to show how Christ’s foolishness is the answer to the deepest questions of life.

We have come to a pretty pass when atheism is allowed to invade public life.  Of course I am punning on the older, with a slightly altered spin on Lord Melbourne’s famous comment toward Christianity just to make a somewhat sarcastic point.  The older words I refer to are Lord Melbourne’s terse cut leveled at the horrible likes of William Wilberforce’s audacity to allow his private faith in Jesus Christ to influence his political views and invade English cultural debate.  The original Melbourne sneer at Wilberforce’s advocacy to end the slave trade read are on record: “Things are coming to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.”

We hear this in modern times as well, in many forms.  One particular inference comes from atheists who, in America, insist that religion should play no role, have no influence, nor have any bearing on matters public, especially if tax dollars or public property is concerned.  Anything that is forced on the public should not have a religious basis whatsoever.  There is a strong underlying secondary principle that, at least among atheists, that only what finds its basis scientifically should be forced upon the public and invade the arena of debate.  Those holding an atheistic worldview cannot mean that forced beliefs, rules, actions, etc. should find their basis in consensus (for a consensus still exits to allow, at least in a restricted measure, religious thoughts and ideas into public debate), or as a basis in democratic vote (i.e., a majority, since a vast majority of Americans hold to some form of religious faith).

My ponder here is not to say that in America an atheistic worldview, or a scientific basis cannot be allowed in the public debate (thus my opening is jest).  Of course they can.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights allows for all voices to be heard.  My only limit to such “freedom” is that any view—including a religious one—that denies the right of another’s voice to be heard equally no matter their basis is unconstitutional.  But I digress a little—my ponder:

Are we then to have a purely secular influence and shall absolutely no private belief system be allowed to have a say, a voice, an opinion, or a vote in the public sphere?  But, someone’s personal belief system will be allowed; for the public sphere shall not be voiceless (I am sure).  Why is it then that only religious-based beliefs are rejected and off-limits?  Isn’t an atheistic belief system a personal belief—for certainly it is a matter of faith that underlies the assumption that only science is a valid basis for debate and public opinion?  (For such a belief is most certainly built on an a priori assumption, which is a matter of faith, or at least a non-scientifically verifiable assumption about the universe.)

If we live in a democracy, then all voices have a right to be there—not just secular voices.  Of course, in America those of non-faith (e.g., agnostics and atheists) have a right to be heard and their views a part of the political debate.  I just don’t like it when I hear my view is being imposed upon American-atheists as if it simply should not even be a part of the public discussion.  “Your opinion is religiously based and motivated, so it is invalid and should not be imposed upon others.” It is still, things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life to some.

I am afraid, despite the desires of my non-believing, God-denying fellow Americans, that religion in the public sphere was part of the original intent of the founders and it is even, for crying out loud, in the founding documents.  Argue if you will that the First Amendment clauses keep religion out of public life via some supposed high “Wall of Separation,” but that wall was built to keep the State from mandating which religion you must adhere to—not the public to be void of hearing from those who have religions convictions.  It has always amazed me that the Lord Melbournes of today forget and ignore this historic context and the literary context of the Bill of Rights.  The placement and literary context gives first place of importance to how the public interacts with its government, and the founders agreed that religion does play a role.  The freedom of speech, the right of assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances are directly, contextually juxtaposed to the State not interfering with religion and that those having a religious basis for life to be free to do so (i.e., redress the government).  The First Amendment implies a religious voice in public affairs.  Until we live in a country which foundations are atheistic in worldview (like the former communist countries and various dictatorships—all which have not faired so well, have they), the role of religion in public life is a right by design, not default.

Finally, it amazes me that, although American-atheists desire to rid the public sphere of religious speech, they borrow religious terms and concepts such as love and honesty and other moral concepts.  This is odd, since in a purely atheistic world (universe), there is no basis for morality and such emotions and ideals are willy nilly up to the person.  Value statements are all personal.  And conveniently, atheists tend to forget (or deny) that there are still many underlying non-scientific and supra-historical assumptions that exist to form an atheistic worldview.  It has come to a pretty pass when religion and/or religiously based beliefs are left out of or even forced out of public debate.

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

“My memory is nearly gone, but I remember two things, that I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Saviour.” ~John Newton (1725-1807), former slave ship captain, at the age of 82

“John Newton, Clerk, once an infidel and libertine, a servant of slaves in Africa, was, by the rich mercy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, preserved, restored, pardoned, and appointed to preach the faith he had long labored to destroy.” ~John Newton’s Tombstone (December 1807)

Ian Stackhouse has presented a rather potent book on the subject of God’s purpose for the church, The Gospel-Driven Church: Retrieving Classical Ministries for Contemporary Revivalism.  This book, although more biblically based and more truly reflective of good exegesis and biblical reflection, will be ignored, and sadly overshadowed by the New York Times best seller, The Purpose-Driven Church by Rick Warren.  I’d love to get these two authors in a debate!

As I read Stackhouse’s book, I was once again reminded of why I admire Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the radical German Pastor who penned the book The Cost of Discipleship.  Although most people take the book on discipleship inividualiztically, Bonhoeffer has much to speech to the preacher and to the community as a whole.  Stackhouse references Bonhoeffer as he pointedly spoke of the church’s “cheap grace.” Stackhouse writes:

“In terms of preaching, it requires, according to Bonhoeffer, competence and careful exegesis to ensure that it is the text, and not the personal preferences of the preacher, that determines what is said.  ‘When we ask ourselves, “What shall I say today to the congregation?” we are lost,’ says Bonhoeffer.  ‘But when we ask, “What does this text say to the congregation?” we find ample support and abundant confidence.  The faithfulness with which we enter the text makes this possible’ (p. 108).”

The component of worship where the congregation needs to hear from God and a retelling of the redemptive acts of God is called “the sermon.” But we have strayed from this important aspect of worship and have neglected this vital act of continual renewal of the church for preacher-opinions, self-aggrandizement, and agenda, and recruitment.  We have confused hearing about the preacher with hearing from God.  Perhaps the preacher wants to tell the congregation what he or she thinks God wants the congregation to hear, but this is not the same thing as hearing from God through faithful exegetical exposition of the text of Scripture.  Unless the sermon is a faithful exegesis of the text, it is, then, just cheap words.  The one delivering the sermon, while doing his or her homework and then at the point of delivery should have one thing and one thing alone as ultimate concern, “What does the text say to the congregation?” This is the preacher’s one aim.

---

The text of Bonhoeffer’s original German text has been updated in Discipleship (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Vol. 4)

I just recently heard a rather simple, yet poignant and very personal reason that truth matters.  Bottom line, we expect people to be truthful to me--to us, personally.  The example stemmed from an answer given to comment made by a skeptic who doubts Christianity’s validity, yet posits a postmodern worldview where the universe is closed and truth is in the beholder.  “Truth simply does not matter.” But of course it does.  “When your wife says she loves you, don’t you want her telling you the truth,” asked the apologist.  I would have added, when a friend or business associate tells you something you expect it to be the truth, don’t you?  Of the cashier at a store or your bank statement!  If truth doesn’t matter, why do we have so many laws to protect us from untruth, or maliciousness, or libel, or fraud?  No one likes being lied to, mislead, or deceived.  Why all the courtrooms?  Truth matters.

Now what I take the person to mean is that ultimate truth does not matter.  What we want are the penultimate truths we need in order to survive and even enjoy a measure of happiness as a species.  But truth as a category for a worldview, an ultimate truth, is not needed.  Oh, really?

But this playing with truth categories is a farce, a difference without distinction.  Really, for many it is an excuse for a lifestyle, or a simplistic reason to exclude the ultimate claims of a Creator on one’s life.  Or, even just a commentary one one’s own dislike or distaste (or even hatred) for Christians and things Christian.  Sometimes it is simply a reason to continue to be mad at God, or even just to be mad and distrustful in general.  Such wordplay on truth--penultimate or ultimate--allows one to demand truth from people, but allow personally to be excused of ultimate accountability from a Creator.  If one is to posit the need for relational truth, immediate penultimate truth for the sake of living in this world, then we should be perplexed at whose truth matters: where is the line that is to be drawn that distinguishes between penultimate, relational truths and ultimate, worldview truth(s)?  Such a demand for personal and relational truth, while denying ultimate truth, puts the realm of truth back into personal choice and preference.  And we’re back to the foundation again—what objective, unchanging truth(s) determine what is right and what is wrong so we may judge what and which truth (and falsehood) matters to us personally, or even corporately.  This leads us, again, to point out the reasonableness of belief in a Creator-God outside of this known universe and that denying God’s existence is, well, still unreasonable.  “Truth to me works as long as it is personal truth that supports one’s self-interests.” To promote any form of truth demands some form of objectivity, however.  Or this demand for personal and relational truth is just purely self-interest and has nothing to do with actually truthful or factual statements.  So, it is either the truthfulness of wife’s statement, “I love you” or it’s only a empty statement to make the one who demands it to be true to feel good about what has been stated.  Shallow comfort, really.  Personally, I’d prefer some factual basis for such a statement.  You see truth matters…to everyone…even if the God-denier denies it.  He or she cannot live without it, nor would they want to.

“One function of redescription is to protest against that initial description and to insist that the initial presentation of reality is not an adequate or trustworthy account.  The initial description of our current context may be a secular account of reality, preoccupied with power and the self-indulgent use of power in a way of entitlement or, alternatively, it may be a supernaturalist fideistic presentation of reality that misconstrues the claims of faith.  Either way, such a description of reality will not do, for it distorts the truth of God’s hidden reality amid the ordered workings of the world” (Walter Brueggemann, The Word That Redescribes the World: The Bible and Discipleship, xiii).

“One function of redescription is to protest against that initial description and to insist that the initial presentation of reality is not an adequate or trustworthy account.  The initial description of our current context may be a secular account of reality, preoccupied with power and the self-indulgent use of power in a way of entitlement or, alternatively, it may be a supernaturalist fideistic presentation of reality that misconstrues the claims of faith.  Either way, such a description of reality will not do, for it distorts the truth of God’s hidden reality amid the ordered workings of the world” (Walter Brueggemann, The Word That Redescribes the World: The Bible and Discipleship, xiii).

The world is something other than what God intends it to be--must Christian easily identify this to be true.  The biblical story constantly ought to expose the world for what it is not—at least in those places and spaces and relationships where God’s dominion is not actualized.  But what we see distorts how we perceive reality and even misinformed how we experience and interprete reality (that is, our context in the world).  This distortion “hides” and “minsconstrues” the reality of God’s “workings” in the world. (And this is why God’s ordering of His world is “hidden” from us and why His revelation and action are a “mystery,” and, in turn this is, indeed, why we are in need of parables of word and deed to expose the truth of God’s working in the world--but this is for another time and post.)

God’s Word is two things—it describes how His people are aligned with God and God’s purposes.  These truths are stabilizing, affirming, mythic (in the sense of giving a reason for existence and meaning), and encouraging (to use such an over-used, bland word).  However, much of God’s Word describes the ways in which life (social and private, personal and institutional, individualistic and community) are not aligned with God’s creative-purposes.  These Words are less mythic and more subversive, for they redescribe reality, which opposes our perception of our context in the world and offers a counter-reality that is fundamentally opposed to current structures and how the world is ordered.  It seems we like the myth of who we are as the Church (and as inividual Christians), but we avoid any subversive Word that tells us we are out of place, foreigners, aliens to this world and our context.  Our “protest” is then against the things that makes us uncomfortable “in this world.” Our “protest” is selective for we want the “things of this earth” to affirm who we are and to make us fit into its daily life and structures.  We protest that our “power at the table” is diminished because…well just because, and it ought not to be because, we, too, are Americans, and have every right the U.S. Constitution gives us.  It is not fair if our vote and voice are not heard.  But this is all wrong.  We ought to be in “protest” against the ways our world is ordered contrary to God’s hidden ordering of the world.  While we should, certainly, defend the defenseless against those who would rob them of their Constitutional rights and deny their Constitutional privileges, this is not our primary basis for existence.  We live out—we are to live out—the subversive Word, the Word that redescribes the workings of the world.

As the doxologies of ancient Israel, as well as the inspired imagination of Paul’s high lyrical thoughts, as well as the wonder, shock, and bewilderment of the deeds and teachings of Jesus throughout the Gospels, the Gospel as depicted by Mark affirms that the world as we know it is not right, it is not what is seems to be; the world is other than we are taking it to be, because the world is now the venue for God’s reign (borrowing language from Brueggemann, p. xiv).  This is what we miss when we seek to be comfortable in our American Christian skin--when we demand our own rights and entitlements to power, status, and privilege.  Everything is different for the Christian and for the confessing Christian community: we redescribe the world by living under the reign of God and demonstrating to our context in the world that both the private and the public spheres are, indeed, the venues for God’s reign.  This is biblical evangelism.

I have spent years thinking about this, and more recently, months researching, more specifically, the concepts of “evangelism” and “social action” and especially the parables found in Mark chapter 4. I know I am getting a little ahead of myself, but I have arrived at my thesis regarding “wasted evangelism.” In order to actually be biblical the concept of evangelism first must find its foundation and basis in the New Testament understanding of both the Kingdom of God and the person, life, and events of Jesus Messiah and be outcome-driven in order to accomplish and fulfill the goals and objectives of biblical evangelism. I offer the following as a preliminary understanding of biblical evangelism:

The basis of New Testament, Christian era evangelism is the arrival and inauguration of the Kingdom of God. Evangelism’s content is formed by the meaning of the events and activities of the person “Jesus Messiah, Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Evangelistic strategies, actions and activities, as well as evangelistic proclamation, seek to employ, enact, demonstrate, fulfill, and advocate for outcomes consistent with God’s rule and reign over all the realms of mankind.

Therefore, it is consistent to include social action in the definition and activities of biblical evangelism. Evangelism in the form of social action might and might not necessarily have conversions as outcomes; but, such social action ought to seek to align the social structures, systems, and actions of people toward God’s dominion and expectation of His kingdom. It is incorrect to posit that evangelism is social action, for social action should be consistent with God’s reign and expectation of His new creation/renewed creation in order to be consistent with biblical evangelism. However, evangelism can be social action when it seeks to demonstrate, fulfill, and advocate outcomes consistent with God’s rule and reign over all the realms of mankind.

Over the past number of posts to this thread, I have offered some connections to the three Old Testament referents compiled into the Old Testament citation at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel.  Mark most likely wanted us to read (to hear) “the heading” (v 1) and the reference to Isaiah and the citation (vv 2-3) together.  Again, my freestyle rendering of the Mark 1 heading:

“This is the foundation of which the Gospel of Jesus Messiah, the Son of God is built upon—this is the first thing you need to hear to ‘get the story right.’”

I will not repeat what I explained in the individual posts.  Please read them for details (1, 2, 2b, 3, 4, 5).  However I note five (5) contextual considerations within the three Old Testament referents (Exodus 23:20; Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1) that make up the Old Testament citation in Mark 1:2-3:

1. Founding/Creation of God’s people/covenant—although this connection is concentrated in the Exodus 23:20 reference, the concept of the founding of God’s people and their covenant-relationship that forms the basis for continued relationship with God and for the socio-economic sphere should be considered as one understands Mark’s purpose for writing his Gospel in general and for interpreting the significance of the chapter 4 parables.  Both Isaiah and Malachi inform us of the importance of the founding and the social aspect of the covenant among God’s people—and conversely, the threat of punishment when broken.

2. God’s Reign/Covenant Stipulations—There is a strong relationship between the dominion of God and the expectation of living under His reign.  The centrality of God’s kingdom is of utmost important in understanding the content, expectations, and outcomes of the Gospel.

3. Idolatry/Exile/Remnant/Promise—These concepts are a significant component in the context of the Exodus, Isaiah, and Malachi referents.  As such, these concepts will offer insights in how to understand the in-breaking of the kingdom and the foundational nature and significance of the chapter 4 parables, especially in light of the Isaiah 6 (judicial threat for idolatry) reference as a key to understanding the parables (πάσας τὰς παραβολὰς, all the parables).

4. Leadership—I did not go into depth on this item, but the Exodus-Isaiah-Malachi context strongly suggests the issues of covenant-breaking and idolatry is leveled at the leadership.  (This item will be taken up in future comments on the Beelzebub controversy in Mark 3 and its importance for understanding both the reason for the Isaiah 6 reference and the meaning of the parables.)

5. Agricultural/Garden Language—It was noted that the writes/speakers of these three reference utilize agricultural/garden language to talk about both God’s restoration and the people’s idolatry.  Most commentators seem to solely allow for “contemporary” background to the images in the three agricultural-laden parables in Mark 4, rather than pulling from Old Testament agricultural/garden imagery (and meaning).

These items above form the content and expectations that Mark gives his use of the term “Gospel.” Mark’s use of the Old Testament, and in particular the three references indicate that Mark 1:1-3 is programmatic and offers a better way to hear the significance of the Gospel Marks is narrating and how we should be responding to it—or, more specifically, becoming listeners (hearers) who are molded by this Gospel story.

Since I started out by referring to “the poor” and social action as legitimate concerns for defining evangelism, I return just briefly.  The Old Testament contexts do offer reasonable contexts where the poor and the socio-economic sphere are indeed part of the content.  I might not have a proof text—like, “See here God says in such and such verse that ‘Evangelism is social action and the church should have great concern for the poor, not just in the church-sphere, but also within the public sphere.”” —but I do have an established Old Testament context that is utilized by Mark to define, give content to, and potential outcomes for the Gospel.  The Old Testament referents and Mark’s Gospel-story places God’s reign within the sphere of both economic and social relationships, with a particular identification of the marginalized (the poor of the land).

Utilizing a “word study” approach to define “evangelism” and its outcomes is both shallow and, frankly, unbiblical—probably a better word is “il-bibilical.” And the debate surrounding the concepts of evangelism and social action is misplaced for both sides are relying on commonplace definitions of evangelism and, I dare say, the Gospel that do not consider the actual biblical text and backgrounds (particularly the Old Testament backgrounds) utilized to give Mark’s understanding of the Gospel and its cousin, evangelism.  We might not have specific proof texts, but we certainly have a better context to hear how we should understand the biblical concept of evangelism, its content, and the potential outcomes associated with evangelistic actions and activities (in the public sphere).

---

Tomorrow I will offer a suggested understanding of how evangelism and social action ought to be related and understood by the Christian community.

Before making some conclusions and making comments regarding the significance of these Old Testament referents at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel, we now turn to the Malachi component of the citation.  There is, however, more to say about Malachi and its use in Mark’s Gospel than is possible in this brief post.  I refer to the Malachi threat of chapter 3 in my essay on Mark 12, “Widows in Our Courts (Mark 12:38-44): The Public Advocacy Role of the Local Congregation as Christian Discipleship.” This essay will give further indication of Malachi’s role in Mark’s structure and story.  (The paper / the audio)

For the sake of remembrance, here again is the Mark introduction where he utilizes these Old Testament referents to given content to his Gospel:

    The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
        “BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
        WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;
      THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
     ‘MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
        MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT’” (1:1-3).

[My translation to show the between grammatical connection between the “heading” in verse one and the Old Testament.]

---

Turning to Malachi opens new doors of understanding and significance for reading and hearing Mark’s Gospel.  Malachi 3 and its context have great bearing on how to read and hear Mark’s Gospel.  The referent of Mark’s citation at his opening is Malachi 3:1

“‘Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,’ says the LORD of hosts.”

It is the sending of God’s messenger and his action (“he will clear the way,” τὴν ὁδόν, LXX) that makes the immediate connection, similar to the Isaiah 40:3 referent:

“A voice is calling, ‘Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.’”

Mark prepares the reader/listener, first for John the Baptist (1:4ff) and then the eventual “sudden” appearing of Jesus in judgment at the temple in Jerusalem (see my paper on Mark 12).  Interesting, this appearing at the temple comes first in parable form as deed in Jesus cursing the fig tree and over turning the tables in the temple courts and then in prophetic word (and eventual reality) as He spoke of its destruction (Mark 13).

The similarity between Isaiah 40:3 is obvious.  Commentators, however, note the verbal similarities between Malachi 3:1 and Exodus 23:20, which are probably not unintentional or casual, but mark a typos or fulfillment in Malachi of the implications of failing to actualize the convent stipulations given in Exodus.  Israel, and in particular its leadership (of which most of the accusations, threats, warnings, and cross-examination of chapters 1 and 2 are leveled at), had refused to return to Yahweh as they returned to the land.  Simply—they wanted the land and its promises, without its Righteous, Ruler, and king.

The broken covenantal stipulations provoking the promises “preparer of the way” and for the appearance in judgment at the temple is given in the context of the Malachi reference:

“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 3:5).

This is cause for the appearance-judgment.  A blend of what we see as idolatry and disregard for the marginalized make for the basis of the judgment—continuous breaking of covenant stipulations (i.e., Exodus) and for not restoring justice and God’s reign (i.e., Isaiah) provokes the promise of judgment.

I have refrained here from surveying the litany of charges against Israel, again, mostly toward the leaders, that form the courtroom allegations in Malachi 1 and 2.  You would note that most of the charges and arguments surround false-worship and a disregard for the social dynamics of living under the covenant. 

More on Isaiah 40 and Mark introductory comment and Old Testament citation at the beginning of his gospel…

---

There are two final connections worth noting for both the introduction to Mark’s Gospel and to his parables in chapter 4.

It should not surprise us that the Isaiah context in chapter 40 also incorporates the issue of idolatry.

    As for the idol, a craftsman casts it,
        A goldsmith plates it with gold,
        And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.
    He who is too impoverished for such an offering
        Selects a tree that does not rot;
        He seeks out for himself a skillful craftsman
        To prepare an idol that will not totter (Isaiah 40:9-10)

Exiled Israel had adapted to the nation’s structures, that is, the socio-economic realm (i.e., the public realm).  We heard of this in the early chapters of Isaiah, where in numerous places the prophet warns, scolds, and condemns Israel’s ties with the economic powers and principles of the nations around them (Isaiah 1-5).  Although targeted at Israel’s trading away God’s socio-economic laws that express His rule and reign, the consequences are felt among the poor and needy, which elicits God rebuke (1:17ff).  Isaiah 40 is a further indication that God’s judgment of Isaiah 6 upon Israel’s idolatry is cause for them to be in exile for the very reasons describe in the text.  Idolatry is not simply the worship of things—idols, carved stone or wooden statues—it is the incorporating of a social and economic life lived apart from God’s rule and reign.

Idolatry is a twin edged sword-which will be taken up at a later time.  However, it is enough to say here that “in exile” of course Israel had to adapt to its surroundings, but it was the lack of confronting “the powers” in light of God’s rule and reign that made them like the goiim, the Gentile world.

Second, the whole situation—the idolatry of the exiles, the world around them, and “survival” in the world—is described in agricultural terms.  As an example we hear in verse 24:

    Scarcely have they been planted,
        Scarcely have they been sown,
        Scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth,
        But He merely blows on them, and they wither,
        And the storm carries them away like stubble (v 24).

This is reminiscent, again, of the charges leveled against Israel in the chapters before Isaiah 6.  As an example we hear in chapter 1, verses 28-31:

    But transgressors and sinners will be crushed together,
        And those who forsake the LORD
        will come to an end.
      Surely you will be ashamed of the oaks which you have desired,
        And you will be embarrassed at
        the gardens which you have chosen.
      For you will be like an oak whose leaf fades away
        Or as a garden that has no water.
      The strong man will become tinder,
        His work also a spark.
        Thus they shall both burn together
        And there will be none to quench them (Isaiah 1:28-31).

Although most of those making commentary on the agricultural backgrounds of the parables in Mark 4 center their comments on the contemporary farming of Mark’s day, they overlook the connection to judgment, idolatry, and redemptive language utilized by the very Old Testament contexts referents utilized by Mark himself.  Furthermore, elsewhere in Isaiah we hear creation language describing the transforming the desert, or the re-creation of garden-like language as well (cf. 41:17ff; 42:16f; 43:20).

---

Next, comments on the Malachi referent and then some summary remarks and implications for interpretation of Mark and His chapter 4 parable…

As sketched in the previous post (2b), Isaiah forms the majority portion to the Old Testament being referenced in Mark 1:2-3.  Isaiah (A) forms the bookends (A B A), with a blend of the texts from Exodus (B) and Malachi (B) sandwiched in between.  (We will get to Malachi in the next after the Isaiah reference).  I take up Isaiah now because of its place in redemptive revelation—I started with Exodus, for it marks the foundational document based on the history of Israel’s exodus out of Egypt; Isaiah hinges redemptive history within judgment-promise of exile and redemption-promise of deliverance from exile, chiefly framed within exodus-imagery (as well as creation-imagery, but that’s for discussion at a later time), culminating in a restored Jerusalem/Zion/New Heavens-New Earth through a Servant-Warrior-Messiah; and finally Malachi, where God promises judgment on the exilic leadership who, although returning to the land of Israel and to Jerusalem, chose not to fulfill/obey the Isaianic promises of a restored Israel/Jerusalem, thus, God would return Himself from exile by “suddenly appearing” in the temple and bringing about judgment/destruction.

Isaiah 40:3

“A voice is calling, ‘Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.’”

The connections to the Isaiah text are obvious.  First, Mark attributes the citation to him (Mark 1:2).  Then the “voice” in Isaiah, similar to the citation, calls for the way (τὴν ὁδόν) through the desert/wilderness (cf. also Mark 1:4).  Mark picks up this phrase (τὴν ὁδόν) as programmatic benchmarks to his narrative in which he shows Jesus and the disciples moving toward Jerusalem (on the way).  The heading in Isaiah 40 signals an era of “comfort” after the exile narration in the previous chapters, indicating the time had come (in words of promise) that Yahweh was about to bring deliverance for those in exile.  The day had arrived (in eschatological, prophetic promise).  The imagery here is common to the ancient world of Isaiah, reflecting the ceremonial procession of Babylonian deities.  A herald would call out to prepare for the victor of the people to return.  Here Yahweh is returning to His people.  Mark utilizes this to “begin” his Gospel story about Jesus Messiah, the Son of God (Mark 1:1).

A few contextual items are relevant for our understanding of Mark and of the importance of the parables in chapter 4.  All “flesh” shall see the glory of God’s arrival (v 5) and the fulfillment of the announcement is guaranteed, because God’s word is sure and has dominion over the grass-like, withering peoples and realm of mankind (vv 6-8).  Interestingly we also find the word good news, or gospel (εὐαγγελίον) used in reference to this event:

    Get yourself up on a high mountain,
        O Zion, bearer of good news,
        Lift up your voice mightily,
        O Jerusalem, bearer of good news;
        Lift it up, do not fear
        Say to the cities of Judah,
         “Here is your God!” (v 9).

This is an obvious referent and link to Mark’s gospel, especially since he ties the arrival of Jesus Messiah to the “Gospel of God” (Mark 1:14; cf. Isaiah 40:9d).  Similarly we see a connection to Jesus in Isaiah’s reference to God’s arrival, for He is the one who comes “with might” (LXX, μετα ισχυς) to demonstrate His reign, dispensing His “reward” and “recompense” (Isaiah 40:10).  Immediately after the “heading” and its Old Testament referent, Jesus is referred to by John the Baptist as the “mighty one” (ὁ ἰσχυρότερός).  This has significance for both the “Beelzebul” confrontation (Mark 3:22ff) and for understanding the Isaiah 6 referent in the explanation of the “Sower who sows” parable in Mark 4.

Here we are connected to the “Beelzebul” conflict Jesus has with the Jerusalem leaders in Mark 3, just before He renders the Word of parable (which ironically is both reward and judgment (cf. the Isaiah 6 citation in the explanation of the parable, Mark 4:12ff).  Jesus is the “stronger man” who binds strongman Satan (τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ) (cf. Mark 3:22-27).

Additionally, we find the link is made between Isaiah’s God-arrival event and Mark’s connection to the Spirit with Jesus.  The Spirit marks Jesus’ arrival, thus signaling the promise of the inauguration of the Isaianic promise (cf. Isaiah 40: 13, “Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as His counselor has informed Him?” and Mark 1:8, 10).

---

More on Isaiah 40 and the opening of Mark’s Gospel and its bearing on understanding the parables of Mark 4 in tomorrow’s post to this thread).

“Compared with the past, faith today influences culture less.  Compared with the past, culture today influences faith more.” ~Os Guinness

Here is a breakdown of the Mark 1 reference to “Isaiah the prophet” and its corresponding Old Testament citations.

 A. ref to Isaiah               “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
 B. ref to Exodus/Malachi   “BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER
                                     AHEAD OF YOU,
                                     WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;
 A. ref to Isaiah                THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN
                                     THE WILDERNESS, ’MAKE READY
                                     THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE
                                     HIS PATHS STRAIGHT’” (1:2-3).

The references, as mentioned in the previous posts to this thread, are from Exodus 23:20, Isaiah 40:3, and Malachi 3:1.  This sandwich made by the Isaiah reference structure (A-B-A) will be significant as we move forward at hearing the context Mark is developing.