During the first few chapters of Mark, Jesus performs many miracles.  The language used during the description of these miracles makes Jesus sound like a Messiah, but it doesn’t say he is the Messiah just yet. When a man had a demon “Jesus rebuked him, saying ‘be silent, and come out of him!’ And the unclean spirit…came out of him,” (Mk. 1:25-27).  He could also heal people, for example: “Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and the told him about her at once. He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her..,” (Mk. 1:30-32).  Not only had Jesus power over demons and sickness, but also over the weather, “He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, ‘Peace! Be still!’ Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm,” (Mk. 4:39).  

            While Mark doesn’t call Jesus the Messiah in these first few chapters, the amount of miracles stuffed into such little text is pretty obviously Mark hinting that Jesus is the Messiah.  But even if you overlook that and still think Mark has no opinion about Jesus’s status, later on when Jesus askes his disciples “’But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’”  So, Mark chooses to include this as an “in case you don’t get it yet”, Jesus is in fact the Messiah.

            Why didn't Mark just tell us who Jesus was?  Why didn’t Jesus just tell us who he was?  Because you would be more convinced if you made the decision yourself.  By Mark not narrating he is the Messiah and by showing Jesus as “a suffering servant” it forces you to make you own mind about Jesus’s true status.  This genius writing style was crucial to help kick up Christianity in the time it was a new religion.

            I believe that Yancey did not share his opinions of Jesus but simply rediscover the ideal of Christ.  I believe this because skeptical after reading our two chapters, I read more of Yancey's work and found that his approach is to disregard everything everyone says about something and claim the opposite if there is sustainable evidence.  While I support this for politics, it is probably not the place for religion.  Nonetheless it is interesting.

            Yancey goes so far in his book that he even dares to say the Virgin Mary was disappointed to carry Jesus, an unwanted baby.  Yancey says, “No wonder the Jewish teenager Mary felt greatly troubled: she faced the same prospects even without the act of passion.”  This is incredible because he is literally comparing Jesus to an unwanted pregnancy.  I don’t think that he really believes this, I think that he is simply trying to find another way to look at the Bible.

            While most of what Yancey proposes is completely original and most likely just theoretical, Yancey also uses classic atheistic doubts throughout his book.  For example, Yancey writes: “For just an instant the sky grew luminous with angels, yet who saw that spectacle?”  He is pointing out that fact that of course there is no way to be 100% certain that this event happened which makes it inherently untrue.

            From this, it would be fair to assume Yancey does not see Jesus as a deity and is likely an Atheist.  However, he also accredits Jesus for a great many things.  One of the things he accredits Jesus for is the way we approach God.  He wrote, “Those of us raised in a tradition of informal or private prayer may not appreciate the change Jesus wrought in how human beings approach deity.”  He then indirectly says that this is better than the approach of fear Muslims and Jews take in approaching their God and the sacrifices required for reaching out with the Hindu Gods.

            I do not believe that Yancey is an Atheist and I do not believe that he is promoting anything.  I think he is simply explaining Jesus and the bible without sugarcoating it for either side.  That means he says it how it is.  Just because one doubts God does not mean he/she does not believe in God.

            To me, Yancey’s view showed in the book entirely comes from the pure historical fact and analyzing the Bible.  Yancey even said, “whatever you may believe about it, the birth of Jesus was so important that it split history into two parts.”  I feel this shows that in his writing he is explaining Jesus in the religion to provide Christianity to those who completely overlook it, and to provide a little doubt for those who don’t analyze for themselves.

            Mathew describes Jesus as the Sovereign King.  He emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the Savior and has been sent by his father (God) in order to lead his kingdom.  Reading Mathew first is an interesting experience because everything you thought you knew about Jesus gets confirmed.  I like to say that it is the “politically correct” Gospel!

            After finishing the book of Mathew, I read Mark.  Mark showed Jesus as a servant to all humanity.  He explained how he would serve humanity until it would lead to his death.  The massive difference in these two depictions of Jesus is a lot to take in at first.  I personally liked Mark’s depiction of Jesus.  While people might think that Mathew’s Jesus is the glorified one, I believe Mark’s is.  The fact that only other people think Jesus belongs on a throne means the world to me.  Also, the fact that Jesus would donate his life for the advancement of humanity is a great thing.  To me, these two values showed Jesus’s true character and gave me my real opinion of Jesus.  When asked for a favor by even people who wanted nothing but Jesus’s power, Jesus listened and responded: “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”‘What is your request?’ he asked.  They replied, ‘When you sit on your glorious throne…’

 (Mark 10:35-37).  This shows how Jesus took humanity seriously and looked to help nonmatter what.  It also shows Jesus didn't really care about things like the throne as he later said “God has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.” (Mark 10:40).  This proves that Jesus is indifferent about the throne and his duty is clearly to be the servant to humanity.

            Overall, the book of Mark largely shaped my opinion of the NOT self-acclaimed Sovereign King because it showed Jesus’s true role in the world.  In my opinion that is more glorifying than giving him a ton of titles.