The passage opens with a statement of Christ's authority - the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Treating the Bible as the divine word of God, this has huge implications. Given the infallibility of the Bible, instantly we know that this Man is the Son of God, no less. Where this statement alone is blunt and offers no evidence, we remember that if we doubt the Bible here, then nothing in the Bible is trustworthy.
The next section describes John appearing in the wilderness, and his role in preparing the way for Jesus. He is described to preach a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. Where it was not a new concept, people from all Israel were going out to him to get this baptism.
So what makes John so special?
1. He has been ordained by God to prepare the way for Jesus - to bring about the message of repentance
2. He preaches of one greater than he is, who will baptise in the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of trinity, being a new testament "thing", was probably intriguing to the Jews, who had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Also, we know that prior to John, Israel went through 400 years of silence, so his emergence may be revolutionary to them.
So what's the implications for us here?
Firstly, the deity of Christ dictated by the infallibility of the Bible. Secondly, that we are baptised twice - once through the Holy Spirit, and once through water as a mark of repentance, like John did. This again brings me to the concept of baptism. Baptism doesn't give you forgiveness - repentance does. Being clear of this, we must be clear that only a repentant believer in Christ should be baptised. (yes, I'm against infant baptism)
Can we trust the Bible fully, even when it makes blunt statements with no evidences?
Are we baptised by the Holy Spirit, by water, by both or by none? If not, why not?
Comments
Post a Comment