First, I will ask, “Why was Jesus baptized?” It is interesting to watch graduate students wrestle with what on the surface appears to be a very simple question—after all, the event must have been important since it is either described or referenced in each of the four Gospels.53 It doesn’t take long for the students to begin speculating: “He did so in order to be an example to us.” This is the most common assertion.
The problem is that the NT never says that Jesus was baptized as an example for us. If this were the reason, then one might expect Paul to reference the baptism of Jesus as a model for Christian baptism. But he does not. I would go so far, in fact, as to say that none of Jesus’ disciples would have even thought that he was baptized merely as an example for them. Furthermore, if Jesus’ baptism primarily served as an example for us, then we might suggest that the Gospel writers would have preferred to omit this event. For, the writers of the NT could well have challenged the first Christians to be baptized in light of the fact that they themselves were baptized, or they could have appealed to the fact that Jesus commanded them to be baptized (Matt 28:18–20). There was no real need to affirm that Jesus was baptized. After all, the baptizing of Jesus with a “baptism of repentance” only raises questions. Why was Jesus baptized with a baptism of repentance when he was without sin? It may well have been easier to simply omit references to Jesus’ baptism. Yet, all four Gospels mention John the Baptist, and the Synoptics54 all have Jesus being baptized by him.
Another conundrum in the NT is: Why does Matthew’s Gospel note that the angel tells Joseph to name the child Immanuel (Matt 1:23), yet two verses later they name him Jesus? And, in fact, Jesus is never called Immanuel in the NT! Even more problematic is the fact that Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14 and claims this as the first of his five famed “fulfillment passages.”55 Yet, if Jesus is never named Immanuel then does this really constitute a fulfillment?
Thirdly, why are the first words in the Gospel of John, “In the beginning” (John 1:1)? This is a clear allusion to Genesis 1. But why does John cite Genesis 1 when there appears to be no overt reference to the creation account in the Fourth Gospel?
Finally, why does Matthew begin his Gospel with a genealogy? For most of us genealogies are something found in the OT. Why, then, does the NT begin with one? Many have suggested that Matthew draws a connection to David in his lineage thereby demonstrating that Jesus is qualified to be the king. Such is indeed true. But a closer look at Matthew 1:1–17 confirms that Matthew explicitly draws up his genealogy into three distinct sections, each comprising fourteen generations: “Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the time of Christ fourteen generations” (1:17). Yet, a problem arises when one compares the genealogy of Matthew with the corresponding genealogies in the OT56; for Matthew, in order to have fourteen generations in each segment, has had to omit names.57 Why did Matthew do this? Why was it important that he classified Jesus’ ancestry into three groups? And why was it important that they be delineated into groups of fourteen generations?
Only after we have sufficiently understood Jesus as the end times prophet58 who was announcing in his presence and his ministry the fulfillment of all of God’s covenant promises, can we begin to fully appreciate these and many other aspects of the life of Jesus. Furthermore, with a focus on Jesus as the end times prophet, not only do many aspects of the Gospel come to life, but only then can we begin to look at our mission as the people of God in an end times context.
The Story Is About Jesus and the Inauguration of the Eschaton
That the coming of Christ in the opening of each of the Gospels is closely viewed in connection with the OT is beyond dispute. Matthew’s Gospel commences with a genealogy that clearly serves to identify Jesus with the story of the OT.59 The Gospel of Mark opens with a composite citation of Isaiah 40:3; Exodus 23:20; and Malachi 3:1 that serves to identify the coming of John the Baptist as the herald of the promise coming of Christ.60 Luke’s opening two chapters contain a plethora of OT citations and allusions.61 And the Gospel of John begins by quoting Genesis: “In the beginning” (1:1). In each instance, the Gospels are connecting the narrative of Jesus with the OT story.
Upon closer examination, we note that the Gospel writers intended us to see the coming of Christ both as the fulfillment of the entirety of the OT story and as the inauguration of the end times.62 It is too simple, then, to merely state that John 1:1 alludes to the creation narrative in Genesis. Instead, John wants us to not only see Jesus in light of the creation narrative of Genesis, but also in terms of a new creation. That is, “In the beginning” not only serves to connect the story of Jesus with Genesis and the OT, but also in an eschatological—forward-looking—sense. Thus, with the coming of Jesus we have “in the beginning” a reference to the New Creation.
One may also read the Gospel of Mark in such a light as well. In his opening citation he references Isaiah 40:3; Exodus 23:20; and Malachi 3:1. Each of these verses employs the term “road/way” (Greek: hodos). This term occurs in Exodus 23:20 in connection with the exodus of Israel out of Egypt. Isaiah then picks up the term and applies it in the context of the end times return of God and his people in terms of a new exodus.63 The use of hodos in Malachi 3:1 then extends the end times dimension of the restoration of God’s people by associating it with the return of God himself to his temple.64 In citing these verses in the opening of his Gospel, Mark, then, is able to associate the coming of John the Baptist, and ultimately of Christ himself, with the theme of exodus and the return of the people of Israel from the exile. In fact, the coming of Christ and the return from the exile is itself the beginning of a new exodus.
That the new exodus in Mark 1:2–3 is focused on the end times derives from the fact that Mark presents the story of Jesus in terms of bringing to a climax the story of Scripture. Hence, Mark introduces Jesus as the one who proclaims, “The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15). Such an event is best described as “eschatological.” In light of this, we are justified in reading the Gospels, and the entire NT for that matter, from the perspective that Jesus is ushering in the eschaton (end times).
We must understand that the prophecies of the OT regarding the restoration of the people are inherently tied to what we tend to call the end times. To somehow separate the work of Christ in his first coming and the return of Christ to the extent that in his return he ushers in the end is to insert a break that the writers of the NT and the Jewish world at the time of Jesus would never have understood. That is, the prophecies that Jesus fulfills are part and parcel of the prophecies of the end times. It is true, as we see from the rest of the NT and the pages of history, that Jesus did not completely bring about the New Creation in totality—for sin and death remain. But to say that Jesus did not inaugurate the end times is to seriously misunderstand his mission. To say that the Gospels are eschatological and that they present the inauguration of the climax of the OT story does not mean that they are marking the completion of the end also. For we realize that evil, suffering, and death still exist. It is this tension between the continuing presence of evil and the present reign of Christ that has led to much confusion among many Christians in regard to eschatology and the end times.
Furthermore, many are hindered from understanding Jesus as the