“Safely through the waters”–A Pastor’s Thoughts on the Gospel of Mark (Matthew Claridge)

[Editor’s note: To read previous articles in this series on the gospel of Mark, click here.]

We have surveyed the three major themes of Mark’s Gospel in Mk. 1.1-3: Biblical Theology, Gospel Centrality, and Discipleship Ministry. The first two of these are developed in a big way in the following verses of Mark’s prologue as John the Baptist takes the stage. These verses on the ministry of John break down into two sections: John’s activity (4-6) and John’s message (7-8). This functional division may be better approached in terms of their theological significance: 1) the Demands of John’s Baptism, and 2) the Promise of Christ’s Baptism. We’ll just look at the first of these this week.

The Demands of John’s Baptism

The activity of John suggests obvious parallels with the Isaianic quote heading Mark’s Gospel. John resides in the wilderness and his call to repentance in preparation for the “Day of the Lord” all point to John as the fulfillment of the scout bringing tidings of the Lord’s approach. The ethos of his ministry certainly recalls something straight out of the pages of Kings, Malachi, Isaiah, and the entire prophetic tradition. His provocative preaching style and peculiar lifestyle has made him a lightning rod for the masses. But beyond the obvious points of contact with Isaiah 40, a mystery stands out: namely, the purpose and function of John’s baptism. What is it? What connection does it have with his ministry as the “forerunner of the Lord”? How is it connected with “repentance for the forgiveness of sins”?

It’s tempting to move swiftly past John here and get on to the main attraction. Certainly, Mark hasn’t given John much of a prominent place in his Gospel, in contrast with the other accounts. Indeed, we might assume we are familiar enough with the concept of “baptism” that it need no further comment. But this would gloss over the fact that what John was doing down by the Jordan was a radically new thing in biblical history. Why did John see fit to employ this particular ritual in his message of preparation? We must to pause and seriously consider the significance of John’s baptism because it must bring into sharper relief the “gospel of Jesus Christ” (v. 1).

Thoughtful readers have tried to explain John’s baptism in terms of current practices of his day. For instance, when Gentiles desired to become members of the Jewish faith they were often required to undergo a kind of baptism. Another option has been to tie John’s baptism to OT ceremonial washing rituals. John’s baptism certainly possesses superficial similarities to these other Jewish practices, but the differences (no time to discuss here) are great enough to demonstrate that we are dealing with something altogether new. Or, perhaps, we could say that John’s baptism taps into something far deeper and older than any of these other lines of explanation.

Two NT passages point us in the right direction, 1Pet. 3.20-22 and 1Cor. 10.1-2. Both of these passages contain significant difficulties for the interpreter, but the point that needs to made is clear enough. In 1Pet. 3, Noah and his family experienced a “baptism” when they were brought safely through the waters of God’s global flood. Similarly, in 1Cor. 10, Paul compares the Israelites’ journey through the Red Sea to a kind of “baptism.” For these NT author’s, baptism is clearly to be identified with something altogether different from “proselyte baptism” or “ceremonial washing.” The question is: why is baptism related to these two OT events? What is the point of comparison?

To answer that question, we need to start at the very beginning, in Gen. 1.1-2 in fact. Here, the first moments of creation are envisioned as a process whereby God creates livable space by putting boundaries to the seething seas and boundaries to a host of other created entities (day vs. night, creatures producing only after their seed, etc.). Chaos is subdued and order reigns through a series of hierarchical relationships ending with the enthronement of Adam, YHWH’s lieutenant governor. This background in creation explains the logic of the global flood YHWH sends in Gen. 6. The global scope of Adam’s rebellion has spiritually returned the world to chaos (cf. Jer. 4.22-23). In a flair of poetic justice, YHWH literally returns to the world back to pre-creation chaos, turning it back into the primordial static of an un-ordered “stuff.” It is as if God has reset the clock back to Gen. 1.1. But there is one significant difference, YHWH brings one family through the cataclysm. Noah forms the link of continuity with that older, antediluvian world, saved by the skin of his teeth.

The same basic themes are present in Israel’s Red Sea crossing. YHWH holds the waters at bay while his family passes safely through the midst of the sea only to bring the crushing waves back down on the heads of Pharaoh’s satanic army. God’s flood represents again God’s judgment against the arrogance and wickedness of Egypt. These historical events may very likely have been the catalyst for the enduring image in Scripture that flood waters serve as a metaphor for God’s judgment. In Scripture, the overwhelming, drowning flood come to typify the experience of being buried under God’s wrath (Ps. 66.6, 10-12; 88.7, 16-17; Jonah 2).

It is this background that I believe informs in large part John’s baptismal practice. For John, no less than Peter and Paul, baptism is first and foremost a coming under the damning judgment of God and for John’s followers in particular, it signifies an acceptance of God’s judgment on their sin. It was a physical reenactment of their acknowledgment of sin and acceptance of what it truly deserves. Nonetheless, it could not entirely signify the experience of God’s wrath because the whole point of undergoing baptism was to avoid it. So why be baptized? Wasn’t a simple confession of sin sufficient? Why go through this ritual in the first place?

The key here comes from the covenantal context of Israel’s faith. Jer. 34.18-20 is very helpful in this regard. This passage describes how the Lord plans to collect on the oaths Israel made with him. In ancient Near Eastern treaties, it was common during the ratification ceremony (similar to vows taken at a marriage ceremony, though in a much more happy context!) to perform some grotesque dismemberment of an animal as a way of saying: “if I do not abide by my vows, you may do to me what I have done to this animal.” A similar ritual is performed in Gen. 15 when the Lord divides an animal and passes through the halves as a confirmation of his oath to Abraham.

A similar thing is happening, I contend, in John’s baptism. As a participant went under the waters of the Jordan they were making a covenant oath: “May the Lord bury me under his wrath if I do not follow through with my repentance.” The act of baptism was a symbol of what would literally happen to them if they did not bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Although I believe there are profound differences between John’s baptism and NT baptism after the resurrection (cf. Acts 19.1ff), nonetheless, Peter captures this dynamic when he describes baptism as an “appeal to God for a good conscience” (1Pt. 3.21). This is exactly what the candidates for baptism were doing at the Jordan, they were making an “appeal to God for a good conscience,” an appeal or oath that they would clean up their act, live lives in keeping with God’s covenant demands, laws, and moral requirements.

John’s baptism was therefore not a joyful occasion, as it is within a New Covenant context. Their baptism was meant to hang over their heads motivating them to produce “fruit in keeping with repentance” through fear and the prospect of imminent wrath. This was, after all, a baptism of repentance and reminds us of the ancient practice of the “water ordeal.” The water ordeal has taken many forms in history. In some medieval accounts, a person accused of witchcraft was sown into a hide skin with a rock as a partner and tossed into a river. If they managed to escape and bob back to the surface, they were innocent. If they drowned then they must have been guilty. Though perhaps not as extreme or as literally enforced, John’s baptism is not far removed from this thought-world. What’s missing from John’s baptism, among other things, is faith. In John’s baptism, the people were not so much entrusting themselves to God’s mercy but vowing to get their act together.

This deep sense of unease is clearly suggested by John’s austere and harsh approach. John was quite severe with those who would be baptized emphasizing that whoever wants to be baptized better consider the consequences (Lk. 3.7-14). Indeed, his location and lifestyle is meant to evoke the ministry of Elijah who likewise lived on the fringes of society denouncing apostate Israel. This is the symbol of judgment not salvation. He is demanding repentance or else!

Everything about John and his ministry evokes the demands of the Law (Gal. 3.10). He was, after all, the last spokesman of the Old Covenant heralding the end of the age. His role as the last spokesman of the OT explains the last question John’s baptism raises: why was baptism the chosen method for symbolizing the people’s oath? Why wasn’t cutting a calf in half the chosen method as it was in Gen. 15 and Jer. 34?

The answer lies in John’s eschatological expectations. In fulfillment of Malachi 3 and 4, John sees himself as the prophet of doom on the eve of the world’s end. He fully expects that when the Lord returns he would immediately separate the goats from the sheep and recreate the world anew (Lk. 3.9, 17). Baptism, then, is perfectly suited to convey this sense of finality. It ties into a very primal image going all the way back to the creation and Noah’s flood because that is exactly what God is about to invoke. The people were vowing to clean up their act in anticipation of doomsday. By such an oath, they were hoping to rise above the flood and flame that would bury all in the ashes of the old age.

How then did John’s baptism prepare the way for Christ? It reminded the people of the deadly, precarious position they were in. In desperation and fear, they take the oath of baptism in the hopes that this will motivate them to change their ways. More than anything, it prepared them to hear the good news of the gospel. Mark only records one saying from John, but it is the most important, marking the end of the Old Age and the beginning of the New Age in a way no one even dreamed was possible. We will take up that message next week.

Matthew Claridge is an editor for Credo Magazine and is Senior Pastor of Mt. Idaho Baptist Church in Grangeville, ID. He has earned degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is married to Cassandra and has two children, Alec and Nora.