Jesus the Christ - "Messiah" as a Title (Mk 1:1a)
Image
Read the series so far.
The Gospel of Mark is profound from the very first verse. It reads, “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”1 But first, a reminder about what this study is all about:
1. We’re looking at what the Gospel of Mark says about the Lord Jesus Christ, from beginning to end.
2. Then, we’re seeing if the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity makes sense of all this evidence (hint—it does).
As we move along in this study, the point is not to produce an exegetical commentary on the Gospel of Mark. The point is to simply take in evidence about who Jesus Christ is, and consider what this information says about Jesus in light of the Trinitarian definition of God. Because I’ve heard tell that a picture is worth a thousand words, we’ll use a nifty chart to summarize our findings as we mosey our way through the text.
Remember, we’ll be using this orthodox definition of the Trinity from James White’s excellent book The Forgotten Trinity:
Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit 2
This definition captures five important facts about the Trinity, and as we go along, we’ll be charting out how the evidence supports each one:
- Each Person is fully and completely divine3
- Each Person has always been co-equal,4
- Each Person has been around forever,5
- Each Person is, in some way, distinct from the others, and yet
- Each Person is, in some way, one with the others6
Now, onto the text!
Who Is the Messiah?
The evidence for God’s tri-unity is apparent from the very first verse in this wonderful book. Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This is the “beginning of the Gospel about Jesus the Messiah.” It’s easy for many Christians to forget that the word “Christ” is not a last name, like say, Fred Flintstone. It’s a title.7 It says something about who Jesus is, in the same way that “Sylvester the Cat” describes a long-suffering puddycat with a lust for bright yellow birds. This word “Christ” is not a name—it’s a title. What does this title mean?
It means “Anointed” or “Chosen One.” It means “Messiah.” This title refers to a very specific individual who was prophesied about in the Scriptures. Anybody who has read the Bible knows the Jews were expecting the Messiah. Jesus, for example, asked, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ,” (Mk 8:29). Peter believed Jesus was the Messiah (ὁ χριστός).
The Samaritan woman whom Jesus met at the well also had the same hope. “The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (the one called Christ); ‘whenever he comes, he will tell us everything,’” (Jn 4:25). Again, the woman used a title to describe this Messiah who, ironically, she was talking to (ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός). This Messiah was called “Christ.” Who was calling Him “Christ?” The Samaritan community was.
Even the apostate Jewish leaders were expecting this man to come on the scene. Remember, for example, what they asked Jesus at His trial. “Again the high priest questioned him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’” (Mark 14:61). The word has the article in Greek, because it’s a title (σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς). Sylvester the Cat. Tweety the Bird. Jesus the Christ.
Consider a few passages from the Old Testament which speak of this coming χριστὸς, this Anointed One. All of these passages should be familiar to the average Christian, but perhaps you never considered them from a doctrinal standpoint.
Psalm 2
We read, “The kings of the earth form a united front; the rulers collaborate against the LORD and his anointed king,” (Psalm 2:2). Who on earth is this “anointed king?” The word means “Christ” or “Messiah.” Whoever He is, the leaders of the pagan world are united again both Him and God Almighty. They seek to “tear off the shackles they’ve put on us,” (Ps 2:3). The Lord and His Anointed One are both binding the kings and rulers of the world.
The Anointed One is then described as the Lord’s king, who rules from Zion (Ps 2:6). More than that, He is God’s Son (Ps 2:3), a sentiment which God repeats at Jesus’ own baptism in the Jordan River (Mk 1:11). This Anointed King will have all the nations as His inheritance, “the ends of the earth as your personal property,” (Ps 2:8). He will dominate and destroy all evildoers who refuse to acknowledge His reign, breaking them “with an iron scepter,” (Ps 2:9). The rulers of the earth are warned to “do what is wise,” and “submit to correction! Serve the LORD in fear! Repent in terror!” (Ps 2:11).
It is clear this Anointed King is the instrument who will carry out the Lord’s wrath and rule over the world as His representative. He did not warn the rulers of this earth to serve Him, but “the LORD.”
His identity is surely no secret; the disciples explicitly identified Him as Jesus when they quoted this very passage in the Book of Acts (4:26). In that passage, Luke quoted the Septuagint translation exactly (κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτου). The word for “anointed” is the same title all the Gospels give to Jesus; the same title Mark just gave Him in the very first verse of this book—τοῦ χριστοῦ.
Psalm 110:
We can also turn our gaze to the precious passage from the Psalms, which even Jesus quoted from: “Here is the LORD’s proclamation to my lord: ‘Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!’” (Ps 110:1). Who is God speaking to here? Who is David’s “lord”? Why is this “lord” given the enormous privilege of sitting at God’s right hand? This is a privilege even the holy, pure and undefiled angels in heaven would never think of grasping for (cf. Rev 4).8
He is the Lord’s anointed King whose dominion extends from Zion and who will rule in the midst of His enemies (Ps 110:2). He is “an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek,” (Ps 110:4). He sits at God’s right hand and executes judgment against nations, kings and rebels, “he fills the valleys with corpses; he shatters their heads over the vast battlefield,” (Ps 110:6).
He is the King whom loud voices from heaven will praise, and say, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever,” (Rev 11:15). The title is rendered τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, His Messiah.
How does this survey about the idea of a coming Messiah help us understand the doctrine of the Trinity? It’s simple, really. Just consider what the Old Testament teaches us about the Christ from these two passages:9
- He is distinct from the LORD. The kings and rulers of the earth are united together against both the Lord and His Anointed. It is their shackles they seek to escape from, not His. The Messiah sits at the God’s right hand. It is Messiah’s kingdom which will be established.
- He is co-equal and divine. He does not worship the Father in heaven, but sits at His right hand. This is a privilege no angel can ever claim. Even Michael the archangel shrinks from directing rebuking Satan (Jude 9), yet David’s Lord sits beside God Almighty in heaven! He and God share the shackles which bind men to their authority and jurisdiction.
- He is eternal. He will reign “forever and ever.”
We can begin filling out this chart as follows:
Already, the false modalist view of God begins to run into serious problems when we see the clear distinction between God and His Messiah. Likewise, the Arian Jesus cannot simply be an angel or a created being, because He does not worship God from a position of inferiority (cf. Rev 4), but sits beside Him as a joint object of worship (cf. Rev 5:13).
As we go along, this chart will simply continue to grow, and the precious doctrine of God’s tri-unity will continue to unfold before our eyes. No Christian could ever exhaust the deep well of learning and study the Scriptures offer us about the Father, His dear Son, and the Spirit, who make their home in the heart of every true believer (Jn 14:23). May every Christian be stirred to know more about His God.
Notes
1 There is some uncertainty and hand-wringing in certain quarters about whether the phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ is in the original text of Scripture. The UBS-5 encloses it in brackets. The Textus Receptus and Byzantine Text include it, along with a genitive article.
2 This definition is from James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1998), 26.
3 Athanasian Creed, clause 15.
4 Ibid, clause 26.
5 Ibid, clauses 8, 21-23.
6 Ibid, clauses 3-6.
7 I believe the genitive Χριστοῦ is functioning in simple apposition to Ἰησοῦ. See also Mark L. Strauss, Mark, in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 60.
8 Actually, Satan and a whole bunch of angels did try to grasp for this privilege, but that’s another topic. And, yes, I take the 24 elders to be angelic beings, not representatives of the church in heaven.
9 So much more could be said about the prophesies of the Messiah that I almost feel criminally negligent for being so brief here. I hope readers can forgive me.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 66 views
Which do you believe:
- The Trinity is a product of the early ecumenical creeds and is not found in Scripture, or
- The Trinity is found in Scripture, and the Christiology of the early ecumenical creeds reflects a systematic formulation of what the Bible always and already taught
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Which do you believe:
- The Trinity is a product of the early ecumenical creeds and is not found in Scripture, or
- The Trinity is found in Scripture, and the Christiology of the early ecumenical creeds reflects a systematic formulation of what the Bible always and already taught
Obviously #2, but I can’t read that back into what Mark and his first-century readers understood about the term Christ. And, that is my issue with your whole article. Honestly, Tyler, I agree with you that Mark communicates Trinitarian concepts … just not with the term Christ in Mark 1:1.
Ok. Bye.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[T Howard]If not, why then should we read the Trinity into every NT mention of Χριστός?
Yes, I would argue that we should think of the Trinity whenever the NT mentions Christ/Messiah.
Isa 61:1 has the Spirit of the Lord God on the Messiah (i.e., anointed one) because of the LORD (i.e., Father) anointed “me” the Messiah.
We then see the Trinity in action, fulfilling this passage, at Christ’s baptism, when the Spirit descends on Jesus and the Father proclaims that Jesus is his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased.
Jesus being the Christ means that he is the Son anointed by the Father with the Spirit.
Wishing to dig a bit more, I quickly checked the treatment of the Trinity in the systematic theologies of Grudem, Erickson, Hodge, Berkhof, Strong, Ryrie, and Packer. NONE of these men in their discussion of the Trinity include an appeal to the title Christ (“Son of God,” yes. “Lord,” yes.). NONE of them reference Mark 1:1 as a Trinitarian proof text. They discuss the Trinitarian implications of the titles “Son of God” and “Lord,” but why no mention of the title “Christ”?
Yes, that’s an argumentum ex silentio. But, in this case, it’s very telling.
[T Howard]Wishing to dig a bit more, I quickly checked the treatment of the Trinity in the systematic theologies of Grudem, Erickson, Hodge, Berkhof, Strong, Ryrie, and Packer. NONE of these men in their discussion of the Trinity include an appeal to the title Christ (“Son of God,” yes. “Lord,” yes.). NONE of them reference Mark 1:1 as a Trinitarian proof text. They discuss the Trinitarian implications of the titles “Son of God” and “Lord,” but why no mention of the title “Christ”?
Yes, that’s an argumentum ex silentio. But, in this case, it’s very telling.
It’s, again, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and it’s a fallacy, along with the appeal to authority. I would agree if you would say that we ought to be very careful of novel interpretations, and that the bar is set higher if we cannot find theologians who have made that connection. It is not for no reason that Calvin, for example, proceeds from Augustine and the like. We can establish that a good portion of exegetical innovation is in service of heresy, and issue that warning. Got something new? Mind your p’s and q’s.
But that said, you’re coming very close to saying that if we cannot find it in the commentaries, it’s hasty exegesis or altogether flawed—that mindset shuts down Luther, Calvin, and our spiritual forebears completely. For that matter, you could even suggest that a consistent application of the methods you’re suggesting would have more or less shut down the Council of Nicea. After all, the Apostles did not (KJVO activists aside) use explicitly Trinitarian language in the New Testament, and we can’t find it in the Church Fathers, either…
Really, the place I’d look for an application of Mark 1:1 in the way Tyler does would be an obscure 1000 page book (in German or Latin of course) by an associate of Gerhard Kittel analyzing the word for “anointing”, all 500-1000 references in the New Testament, far more references in the OT, and then whatever references are in the classical Greek literature. Ordinary references with page limits? Not so much. And I’m pretty sure, in light of other uses of the word in the NT, that Kittel et al will tell you that something special is afoot when Strong’s #5547 is used.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]I would agree if you would say that we ought to be very careful of novel interpretations, and that the bar is set higher if we cannot find theologians who have made that connection.
Bert, that’s what I’ve been saying. In addition, I’ve shown that first-century believers (including Mark himself) most likely did not understand the title Christ in Mark 1:1 as having any Trinitarian connotations.
[Bert Perry] After all, the Apostles did not .. use explicitly Trinitarian language in the New Testament, and we can’t find it in the Church Fathers, either…
Both of these assertions are not true. It is exactly because the apostles (or their close companions) used Trinitarian language in their writings that the early church fathers had to work out the Trinitarian formulations we have today.
Sorry, but when you suggested over-exegesis, that implies not just telling people to be careful, but rather that there was something inherently faulty in the analysis. Those are two different things, don’t you think?
And in the same way, if we’re to interpret the formulation of Mark 1:9-11 as Trinitarian, how exactly do we deny that in verse 1? Mark probably wrote both passages within the same hour, after all. And really, even with that passage, you’ve got quite a bit of work to get to Nicea, which is what I’m getting at with why you don’t see Mark 1:1—Trinity! in all the commentaries. There are a lot of passages which hint at the component doctrines, and you simply can’t list them all.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Agreed completely. The question still remains: What did Mark’s readers (i.e. first century Jewish and Gentile believers) understand about the term Christ? Did they (or Mark) understand the term Christ to be laden with our current Trinitarian formulations?
There is no virtue in making biblical interpretation harder than God intended it to be. The logic is simple:
- Only the Bible is inspired and inerrant
- Therefore everything the Bible reveals on a subject is infallible information on that subject
- No other sources of information have that quality
- Therefore what Scripture reveals on the topic is vastly superior to journeys into “what the people at the time would have understood” and other Bible background information.
I don’t want to undervalue background studies and examining how the passage would likely have been understood, but its down the list a ways in value. There is no reason to pretend that the passage at hand is the only inspired word we have. That’s like stumbling across a dime on the car seat and doing your grocery shopping as though it were the only dime in your possession (ignoring the wallet full of bills.)
It’s good to step away from scholarly ideals sometimes and consider how God’s people are edified, which is the goal.
There is no “reading into” a passage if you can make a case for authorial intent being broader. And there is even less (as in zero) reading into a passage if you draw what you can from it then make inferences from other passages that complete our understanding.
Inerrancy means there will be no contradiction in other passages. Inspiration means there will be more too-important-to-ignore teaching in other passages.
It ain’t rocket science.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I don’t want to undervalue background studies and examining how the passage would likely have been understood, but its down the list a ways in value. There is no reason to pretend that the passage at hand is the only inspired word we have. That’s like stumbling across a dime on the car seat and doing your grocery shopping as though it were the only dime in your possession (ignoring the wallet full of bills.)
Aaron,
Tyler stated the following about this study:
- We’re looking at what the Gospel of Mark says about the Lord Jesus Christ, from beginning to end.
- Then, we’re seeing if the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity makes sense of all this evidence (hint—it does).
- I care about what Mark understood the title to mean.
- I care about what Mark’s mentors Barnabas, Paul and Peter would have understood the term to mean. We know what Mark’s mentors understood about the term, because we have their sermons, Their sermons teach (summed up in a systematic fashion), that there is only one God, and that Messiah is divine, eternal and distinct from the Father, and clearly prophesied about in the OT. Period.
- I care about what God intended to communicate to Christians when He had the Spirit move Mark to utilize that title. I’m assuming He meant us to understand what it meant from the OT.
Given Tyler’s statements above and the principles of historical-grammatical exegesis, it is necessary to understand what Mark as well as what his readers would have understood about the term “Christ.” Based on a broad scholarly consensus, neither Mark nor his readers understood the title “Christ” in Mark 1:1 to convey the Trinitarian formulations Tyler has proposed. Further, I find it interesting that theologians past and present don’t use the title “Christ” in their discussions or defenses of the Trinity. (I would think that if the title “Christ” was a Trinitarian “slam dunk,” theologians past and present would have at least mentioned it, given they do address the titles “Son of God” and “Lord.”)
Therefore, while I agree the gospel of Mark (and the Bible!) has much more to say about the Trinity, if we’re limiting our discussion to the Gospel of Mark and what Mark and his audience understood of the title “Christ,” then the assertion that Mark used the title “Christ” in Mark 1:1 to communicate the Trinitarian formulations mentioned above is over-exegesis.
In short, Tyler has the right doctrine, but he’s using the wrong verse to support it.
As an aside, Ben Witherington III has an interesting article about how Paul viewed the term “Christ” in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (see the article “Christ”). This helps answer Tyler’s second point about what Mark’s mentors Barnabas, Paul, and Peter would have understood.
For those who are interested, B.B. Warfield’s classic The Lord of Glory: The Designations of Our Lord in the New Testament is only $4.99 on Kindle. It’s a very good book.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The concept doesn’t come from Mk 1:1a alone. I’ll cast about for some better way of noting that on the chart.
My point is that the title “Christ” when applied to Jesus carries all it’s associated fright along with it. It’s used as an official title. What does that title convey about the Messiah, in light of the definition of the Trinity? The concept of the Messiah, just from Ps 2 and 100, conveys the idea that Messiah is divine and co-equal, eternal and distinct from the Father.
This is one reason why Trinity is an accurate systematic distillation of what the Bible teaches about who God is. Because we do have one God, and yet Jesus is presented as divine, co-equal, eternal and distinct from the Father. How is this possible? How can we reconcile these truths? This is why Christians believe in the Trinity.
For example:
- Say a co-worker doesn’t like me, and calls me an idiot
- I protest, “You’re saying I’m stupid!”
- He responds, “No, I’m calling you an idiot.”
- I refuse to accept this, “That’s what the title ‘idiot’ means, you fool!”
- He says, “I never called you stupid! You need to prove to me, from the immediate context of this single conversation, that I called you stupid. You can’t! Therefore, I wasn’t calling you stupid.”
- I scoff. “The title “idiot” carries the fright of it’s contextual meaning behind it. Our society understands ‘idiot’ to be an insult referring to mental acuity. Even the dictionary knows that! When you used the title, you were applying all the lexical and cultural baggage that comes with it directly to me. It’s ridiculous to claim that your use of the word “idiot” here somehow means something different than what you know it means.”
- Him: “Whatever, dude. I never called you stupid. What’s a ‘lexicon,’ anyway?” He walks away, snickering.
Titles matter. I doubt anybody thinks my fictitious co-worker has a valid argument. He used a derogative title. It’s freight has meaning. He used the title because of that meaning, and he used it deliberately. So did God. So did the Spirit. So did Mark.
My goal in this series is to simply:
- gather information about what Mark says about Jesus Christ
- seek to understand the implications of what he said in light of relevant passages
- hold this evidence in one hand, and the orthodox definition of the Trinity in the other, and see if the Trinity squares with all the facts about Christ we’ve gathered
The title “Christ” means something. God moved Mark to give Jesus the title. It has a clear OT meaning. It has Trinitarian implications, even if we’ve never quite thought about them that way. If you believe in orthodox Christology, then the title “Christ” has Trinitarian implications. What do the Scriptures teach about “the Christ?” How does He square with the “one God” we already know about from the OT? Is “the Christ” a second god, then? Is He just an exalted creature? Not at all; the facts about “the Christ” tell us that the title refers to somebody who is divine, co-equal, eternal and distinct from the Father. What do we do now!? The Trinity.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[pvawter]As I consider the elements of the chart in the article, I’m having a hard time seeing where Mark 1:1a speaks of Jesus’ divinity and equality with the Father, his eternality, or his distinctiveness from the Father and Spirit. It might be better to reference those concepts as having come from Psalms 2 & 110, rather than from Mark 1:1a alone.
I don’t know whether “my inspiration” meant it this way, but this is a great way of expressing the truth that to get to a lot of things in Scripture, we need to do a little more work than just a simple prooftext. For Mark 1:1, sure, we don’t make doctrine out of one verse if we can avoid it—that’s exegesis 101 if I remember correctly—but the use of “Son of God” and “Christ” in those verses will, when we combine it with other passages, tell us first of Christ’s deity (along with a LOT of other passages), and when we combine it with other doctrines like the oneness of God, and the deity of the Spirit and the Father, get us to the Trinity.
The trick here is that it’s a lot more work, and a lot less obvious, than prooftexting. And that is a good thing, as there are a lot of things where there are not just a few simple verses needed to get us to our doctrine.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
THoward: Tyler didn’t say he was aiming to study the Trinity using only Mark. You read “only” into his objective.
You also read “is proved by all this evidence alone” into “makes sense of all this evidence.”
Ironic.
Here’s where I’m sympathetic with what you’re saying, though: it would be a mistake to read each portion of Scripture as though the whole body of revealed information on the topic is necessarily contained in that portion. So I would not say with certainty that “Christ” in Mark 1.1 means everything revealed everywhere about the title. But there is nothing wrong with starting w/Mark 1.1 and teaching everything revealed everywhere on the topic to see how Mark’s revelation fits.
On the other hand, there is no way to know with certainty what the upper limits of authorial intent are in this example. Many believe Mark wrote after Matthew and was guided extensively by the apostle Peter. And there is the whole OT. It is entirely possible that Mark did use the term with everything we now know in mind. There’s just some uncertainty on that point.
But a broad study of a doctrine using a particular Gospel as a focus is not any kind of theological or exegetical malpractice.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion