Text and Exposition

I. PROLOGUE (1:1–13)

OVERVIEW

The first few paragraphs of Mark’s gospel serve as an introduction or prologue to the work as a whole. Yet there is considerable debate concerning its parameters. A few commentators (e.g., E. Haenchen, W. Schmithals) see the prologue as continuing only through v.8, since vv.1–8 summarize the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus first appears on the scene in 1:9. Others (e.g., C. E. B. Cranfield; W. L. Lane; R. H. Gundry; R. T. France) take the prologue through v.13, since these verses serve as a preview and introduction to Jesus’ ministry, which begins in v.14. Still others (e.g., J. Marcus; R. A. Guelich) consider the introduction to extend to v.15 because of the inclusio between the euangelion (GK 2295, “good news”) of 1:1 and the two occurrences of euangelion in vv.14–15. Either of the latter two suggestions makes good sense, since vv.14–15 form a bridge and transition from the introduction of the gospel to the Galilean ministry of 1:16–3:6. The prologue introduces the good news about Jesus (1:1), which is proclaimed for the first time in vv.14–15. We will treat vv.14–15 as the introduction to the next section.

Verses 1–13 can be divided into four parts, the heading introducing the beginning of the gospel as the fulfillment of Scripture (vv.1–3), the ministry of John (vv.4–8), the baptism of Jesus (vv.9–11), and Jesus’ temptation (vv.12–13).

A. The Heading (1:1–3)

1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2It is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,

who will prepare your way”—

3“a voice of one calling in the desert,

‘Prepare the way for the Lord,

make straight paths for him.’”

COMMENTARY

1 The first verse functions as a kind of title. It is not clear, however, whether it is intended to refer to the entire gospel, the prologue (vv.1–13 or vv.1–15), the ministry of John the Baptist (vv.1–8), or only the scriptural quotations in vv.2–3. All four make good sense contextually. Since v.2 begins with “just as” (kathōs), which normally links with the preceding sentence, the beginning must point at least in part to the scriptural quotations of vv.2–3. Mark seeks to show that the beginning of the gospel was in fulfillment of Scripture. These scriptural quotations in turn point to the ministry of John, the description of which follows (vv.4–8), and throughout the NT the beginning of the gospel is consistently linked to John’s ministry (Mt 11:12; Lk 16:16; Jn 1:6; Ac 1:22; 10:37; 13:24). At the same time, the whole book may be seen as “the beginning of the gospel” since it describes the origin of the message of salvation Mark and his community are presently proclaiming. It is also possible that in using the word archē (GK 794, “beginning”) Mark intentionally echoes the opening verse of the LXX (en archē, “in the beginning”; Ge 1:1; cf. Jn 1:1), from a desire that his readers realize his book recounts a new beginning, in which God reveals the good news of Jesus Christ. Taken in this way, the first verse would be not only a title for the entire book but also a claim to its divine origin.

The word “gospel” comes from the old English “godspel” (“good news”) and—as noted above—translates the Greek euangelion. The Greek word originally meant the reward for bringing good news but later came to mean the good news itself. It was used in the ancient world for announcements such as victory in battle or the enthronement of a ruler. An inscription celebrating the birthday of the Roman emperor Augustus speaks of “good news [euangelia] to the world” (TDNT 2:722, 724–25). In the OT, the announcement of God’s end-time deliverance of his people is sometimes referred to as “good news.” Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news . . . who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” (cf. Ps 96:2; Isa 40:9; 61:1). Jesus probably drew from this OT imagery when he began proclaiming “the good news” that the kingdom of God was at hand. God’s great day of salvation had arrived. The early church imitated this use when they identified as “gospel” the message of God’s salvation available through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians, one of the earliest NT books (ca. AD 50–51), that “our gospel [euangelion] came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction” (1:5). Here, as elsewhere, the euangelion is the proclamation of the good news about Jesus Christ.

Mark does not identify his book as “a gospel” (a particular literary genre); rather, his book recounts the beginning of the gospel, how the proclamation of salvation available through Jesus Christ came to be. The book is a written version of the oral proclamation calling people to faith in Jesus. Although Mark does not call his work a gospel, it appears to have been Mark’s use of the term that prompted the church to refer to such written accounts as “gospels.” “Mark’s book has come to be called a gospel because it contains the gospel—the announcement of the Christian good news” (Moule, 8).

In the rendering “about Jesus Christ,” the translators of the NIV have interpreted the Greek genitival construction as an objective genitive: Jesus is the object and content of the gospel. The other main interpretive option is a subjective genitive, “by Jesus Christ,” which certainly fits the near context, in which Jesus preaches the good news (vv.14–15). Some interpreters believe the genitive is intentionally ambiguous, with Jesus portrayed as both subject and object—the proclaimer and the proclaimed. This intention is possible, and the parallel “gospel of God” in v.14 suggests similar ambiguity. Jesus’ proclamation there is both from God and about God. Against such a dual reference is the linguistic reality that an author usually has one sense in mind when writing (unless there is an intentional pun). If a decision must be made, the evidence tips in favor of the objective genitive, since Mark has in view the whole Jesus event—his life, death, and resurrection.

“Jesus” is the Greek form of Joshua, which means “Yahweh is salvation” or “salvation of Yahweh.” It is the name revealed by the angel to Joseph before Jesus was born, and it was given as descriptive of his mission—“and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). “Christ” (christos) is the Greek word for “anointed,” behind which is the Hebrew māšîah., from which the English word “messiah” (“anointed one”) derives. By the time Mark writes, Christians were regularly using the term as a second name for Jesus (“Jesus Christ”), yet in Mark, where it occurs only seven times, the term always carries a titular sense, “the Messiah” (1:1; 8:29; 9:41; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32). The TNIV appropriately revises the NIV’s “Jesus Christ” to “Jesus the Messiah” (see comments at 8:29 for a fuller discussion of the title).

Some MSS omit the last phrase of v.1, “the Son of God.” A decision regarding its originality is very difficult from a textual standpoint. On the one hand, there are good reasons for including the phrase as original. (1) The evidence from the MSS is strong (see Notes at the end of this section). (2) The word’s omission may be accounted for by homoeoteleuton (a technical term meaning “same ending”), whereby a scribe accidentally omitted the two words huiou theou, “Son of God,” because the two previous words (Iēsou Christou) have the same endings. (3) Son of God is an important theme in Mark’s gospel (cf. 1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:36, 61; 15:39). The ministry of Jesus begins with the Father’s announcement of Jesus’ divine sonship at his baptism (1:11) and climaxes with the declaration of the centurion at the foot of the cross, “Surely this man was the Son of God” (15:39).

On the other hand, there is weighty evidence that the phrase is not original to the verse: (1) Some early texts lack it, and several early church writers omit it. (2) It is difficult to imagine how a scribe could have carelessly omitted the words at the very beginning of the book (long before copying fatigue set in). (3) A theologically astute scribe would have been aware of the importance of the title in Mark’s gospel and may have introduced it for this very reason.

The scales would seem to tip slightly toward the phrase’s original inclusion. Most English versions include it with a note alerting the reader to the alternative. Whether or not the phrase was original does not change the fact that “Son of God” is a critically important title in Mark’ s gospel. Taylor, 120, remarks, “Beyond question this title represents the most fundamental element in Mark’s Christology.”

2–3 Mark cites the OT to show that any true understanding of the ministry of Jesus—the beginning of the gospel—must be firmly grounded there. The verb translated “is written” (v.2) is in the perfect tense. It denotes completed action in the past with continuing results. “It was written and still is” is the sense. The frequency with which this tense of the verb is used by the NT writers to introduce OT quotations underscores their strong belief in the unchanging authority of the Scriptures.

In the KJV (cf. NKJV), “in the prophets” is read for “in Isaiah the prophet.” The MS attestation for this reading is very weak. It doubtless arose because the quotations that follow are not only from Isaiah but also include one from Malachi. The first part of the quotation in v.2 agrees verbatim with the LXX of Exodus 23:20a. The second part is from the Hebrew of Malachi 3:1 but differs from both the Hebrew and LXX in reading “your way” instead of “the way before me.” By this change in persons, allowance was made for a messianic interpretation of this passage. These two texts were similarly combined by the rabbis (cf. Exod. Rab. 23:20), who apparently identified Elijah (Mal 3:1; 4:5–6) with the messenger of Exodus 23:20.

The quotation in v.3 is taken from the LXX’s text of Isaiah 40:3, the only difference being the substitution by Mark (or perhaps he found the text already altered) of “of him” for “of our God.” This applies the statement to Jesus, since the antecedent is “Lord,” a title the early church used for Jesus.

Mark brings together these OT texts in a striking way. He probably found the Exodus text already combined with Malachi 3:1. The two passages occur together in the “Q” text Matthew 11:10//Luke 7:27, and, as noted above, were probably already linked in Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Exodus text originally referred to God’s promise of a messenger “to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared” (Ex 23:20), i.e., through the wilderness to the Promised Land. Malachi took up this Exodus text and gave to it an eschatological application with reference to a messenger (identified in Mal 4:5–6 as “Elijah”) who would go before the Lord to prepare God’s people for the great and dreadful “day of the LORD.” Mark goes further by linking a third text to this matrix—Isaiah 40:3. In its original context, this Isaiah text predicted a new exodus, the Lord’s glorious return to his people in their Babylonian exile to lead them in triumph back to the Promised Land. Isaiah depicts a voice calling for the preparation of the way “in the desert” for the coming of Yahweh to his people. Whereas the Hebrew text of Isaiah linked the desert to the preparation of a way, Mark follows the LXX in connecting the desert to the messenger. John the Baptist is the messenger in the desert who will prepare the way for a new and greater exodus deliverance, the revelation of God’s salvation in Christ.

So why does Mark identify the prophecy as coming from “Isaiah” if it is a mixed citation? Some suggest Mark was simply mistaken; others, that he is citing from a book of “testimonies,” a collection of OT texts that Christians used in their apologetic confrontations with Jews and God-fearers, and that three citations were collected under an “Isaiah” heading. A better solution is that Mark is thinking of the broader context of Isaiah and seeks to present the coming of Jesus as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s portrait of God’s end-time salvation. Rikki Watts (Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000]) sees Mark’s reference to Isaiah as part of an Isaianic “new exodus” motif that runs as a thread throughout Mark’s narrative. As the only editorial OT citation in Mark’s gospel, this opening text is programmatic for his gospel; it invokes the prophecies of the Isaianic new exodus as the conceptual framework for his whole work. According to Watts, “for Mark the long-awaited coming of Yahweh as King and Warrior has begun, and with it, the inauguration of Israel’s eschatological comfort: her deliverance from the hands of the nations, the journey of her exiles to their home and their eventual arrival at Jerusalem, the place of Yahweh’s presence” (p. 90).

Watts traces this threefold Isaianic scheme through Mark’s gospel. Isaiah’s themes of Yahweh-Warrior’s defeating Israel’s enemy and their idols, and his healing of the people through the ministry of the Servant, correspond to Jesus’ exorcisms of demons and healings in the Galilean ministry (Mark 1–7). In Isaiah Yahweh’s healing of “blind” Israel and his leading them along the new exodus “way” indicate Israel’s need to accept his wisdom as part of her deliverance. Similarly in Mark the restoration of sight in the new exodus “way” entails the “blind” disciples’ acceptance of the suffering Messiah (Mk 8–10). Finally, Watts seeks to show that just as the return from the Babylonian exile failed to live up to expectations, so Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem fails to achieve the anticipated glorious enthronement expected in Jerusalem. Instead of being welcomed, Jesus is rejected by the religious leaders and executed (Mk 11–16). The negative response to Jesus, along with their rejection of John, means that, in accordance with Malachi 4, Yahweh’s coming to his temple in Jesus is for judgment and a curse.

Another scholar who stresses the pervasive influence of Isaiah in Mark is Joel Marcus (see his The Way of the Lord). According to Marcus, Isaiah’s “Way of the Lord” is the critical metaphor for Mark’s account, with Jesus portrayed as marching through the wilderness as divine warrior, defeating his demonic enemies and establishing God’s reign. As noted in the Introduction (pp. 683–84), Marcus locates the provenance of Mark’s gospel in Syria during the period of the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Contrary to claims by the Jewish revolutionaries that God would bring in his kingdom through the destruction of the Romans, Mark presents Jesus as the true divine warrior who defeats Satanic enemies through his sacrificial death on the cross.

Whether the new exodus motif is the controlling one for Mark or merely one among many OT and Isaianic motifs Mark utilizes, it is clear that the citation here places not only the ministry of John but also the whole Jesus event under the banner of the prophetic fulfillment of Scripture.

NOTES

1 See Cranfield, 34–35, for ten possible referents for “the beginning.”

The difficulty in reaching a conclusion on the reading υἱοῦ θεοῦ (huiou theou, “Son of God”) is that the internal and external evidence seem to move in different directions. The transcriptional internal evidence (the tendency of copyists) would favor omission, since it is difficult to see how or why a scribe would omit the phrase. The intrinsic internal evidence (the tendency of authors) favors inclusion because of the title’s importance throughout Mark. The external textual evidence favors inclusion, since the title is found in the great majority of MSS. It is, however, missing from the important uncial Sinaiticus (), though a corrector has added it in the margin. The patristic evidence is difficult to evaluate, since the church fathers sometimes paraphrased or abbreviated their scriptural quotations. Origen omits the phrase, while Irenaeus includes it in two quotations, then omits it in a third. J. Slomp (“Are the Words ‘Son of God’ in Mark 1:1 Original?” BT 28 [1977]: 143–50) has a complete discussion of the evidence.

3 The urgency of the action is stressed by the use of the aorist imperative ἑτοιμάσατε (hetoimasate, “Prepare now!”). In the OT passage cited (Isa 40:3), κύριος (kyrios, “Lord”) refers, of course, to Yahweh. Here it refers to the Lord Jesus.

B. John Prepares the Way (1:4–8)

OVERVIEW

Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark has no nativity narrative. It is possible that the traditions concerning the birth and infancy of Jesus were unknown to him. More likely they were not useful for Mark’s purpose. His concerns are kerygmatic and theological; i.e., he wants to highlight the saving facts and their theological meaning for the church. Thus he immediately begins with the ministry of John the Baptist as the forerunner of the Messiah and the fulfillment of Scripture. This is precisely where Peter begins in his proclamation of the gospel in Acts 10:37: “You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached.”

4And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And this was his message: “After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

COMMENTARY

4 John appears suddenly, as “baptizing in the desert region.” The word erēmos (GK 2245, “desert,” “wilderness”) does not necessarily refer to dry, arid land, but means essentially uninhabited territory in contrast to the cultivated and inhabited areas. The specific reference here, however, is to the arid regions west of the Dead Sea. (Matthew 3:1 locates John’s ministry in the Judean desert.) This general area was the abode of the Qumran sect. It is possible that John came in contact with these people. He certainly must have known of them. What influences they exerted on him are not known. Perhaps his ascetic life and stern discipline were derived from them. However, neither his baptismal practices nor his great emphasis on ethical conduct and eschatological judgment seems to have come from them.

The wilderness is a significant location in Israel’s history. It was a place of deliverance and of revelation, as God brought Israel out of Egypt and made his covenant with them at Mt Sinai. It was also a place of testing and failure, as Israel repeatedly disobeyed God and so wandered there for forty years. The tradition of deliverance, together with predictions of an eschatological “new exodus” from Isaiah and the prophets (see comments at v.3), resulted in the expectation among some Jews that God’s final salvation would emerge from the desert. Josephus (J.W. 2.13.4–5 §§259–63; 6.6.3 §351) refers to various messianic pretenders and revolutionaries who gathered followers in the wilderness (cf. Ac 21:38; Mt 24:26). Such eschatological speculation was likely a factor in the choice by the Qumran community of a wilderness location near the Dead Sea (cf. Cranfield, 42).

The background to John’s baptism has been a matter of much debate. Some scholars have seen parallels to the ceremonial washings practiced by the Essenes and other Jewish groups. As an act of ceremonial cleansing, individuals would dip themselves into a miqveh, or immersion pool. At Qumran, such washings, like John’s, represented a turning from sin to participate in the eschatological community of God (1QS 5:13–14). Yet John’s baptism is different in that it appears to be a onetime event rather than a repeated ritual. Others have pointed to the Jewish practice of proselyte (new convert) baptism. This parallel would be particularly striking since it would mean John is telling his fellow Jews that they must repent and be saved just like Gentiles. He is calling the apostate nation to become the people of God once again. While this interpretation would fit well the message of John (cf. Mt 3:6; Lk 3:8), it is uncertain whether Jews practiced proselyte baptism in the first century.

Whether related to proselyte baptism or something else, John’s baptism was an appeal to the nation to repent. He was calling together the remnant of Israel to become the restored people of God. John comes preaching “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” “Of repentance” is probably a genitive of quality. It was a repentance-baptism John was preaching; i.e., the baptism indicated that repentance had already occurred or accompanied it. Metanoia (GK 3567, “repentance”) can mean to change one’s mind, attitude, and/or actions. Behind John’s use is probably the Hebrew šûb (“to turn back,” “return”), which in the OT often carries the sense of returning to God, reorienting one’s life to a relationship with him. The end result (eis, “for”) is the forgiveness of sins. God’s direct response to true repentance is forgiveness.

5 John’s preaching caused great excitement. Mark writes, “The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him.” The verb “went out” (exeporeueto) is in the imperfect tense and suggests that they “kept going out” to him. Although there is an element of hyperbole in Mark’s report, it nevertheless implies that John’s preaching aroused much interest and created a great stir. Jerusalem is at least twenty miles from the Jordan River and about four thousand feet above it. It was hard going down the rugged Judean hills to the Jordan and even harder coming back.

The message and popularity of John the Baptist is attested by Josephus, the only primary source reference to John outside the NT. Josephus describes a particular battle in which Herod Antipas suffered defeat, and then says rumors spread that Herod’s loss was a result of God’s judgment for his execution of John the Baptist. In this context Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2 §§116–17) briefly describes John’s ministry:

John . . . the Baptist . . . was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

Josephus’s account agrees in general with the Gospels, although he does not expressly refer to John’s eschatological message or to his role as forerunner of the Messiah. This omission is not surprising, since Josephus held pro-Roman and anti-Zealot views, as evidenced by his blaming the destruction of Jerusalem on insurrectionists and brigands who made messianic claims and stoked false eschatological hopes among the people. Josephus probably omits John’s eschatological message of coming judgment either because he was unaware of it or, more likely, because he found such teaching repugnant in view of the events surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction.

Based in part on Josephus’s account, some scholars have claimed that John’s message, while eschatological in focus, had nothing to do with Jesus; rather, he was expecting God alone to come and bring in the day of the Lord. It was later Christians, it is said, who transformed John into the forerunner of Jesus the Messiah. Yet the evidence suggests otherwise. John’s statement about being unworthy to untie the sandals of the Coming One (attested independently in the fourth gospel and the Synoptics [Jn 1:27; Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16]) suggests John was expecting a human successor. Similarly, John’s later doubts about Jesus are inexplicable unless he already had some messianic expectations concerning him (Lk 7:18–35; Mt 11:2–19). It is unlikely that the church would create an episode in which John (the herald and forerunner of the Messiah!) raised doubts about Jesus’ messianic status.

6 The appearance of the Baptist, clad in “clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist,” recalls the description of Elijah’s clothing (2Ki 1:8) and is intended to present John as a prophetic figure. He is more than an ascetic or holy man living in the wilderness; he is a prophet called by God to a message of impending judgment to God’s people. His food consisted of locusts and wild honey. In Leviticus 11:21–22, locusts are listed among clean foods. The Dead Sea Scrolls even provide instructions on how to eat them (CD 12.13–15). The wild honey is almost certainly bees’ honey and not, as has sometimes been suggested, carob pods or sap from various trees in the area. Like his clothing, John’s food reflects his simple desert lifestyle. He is “living off the land” without comforts or luxuries, a man dedicated wholly to God’s purpose.

7 Mark’s account of John’s message is very brief. Mark includes nothing of John’s pointed ethical admonitions to the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 3:7–10), to the crowds (Lk 3:10–11), or to the tax collectors and soldiers (Lk 3:12–14). Instead he focuses on the coming of the Stronger One (v.7), who will baptize with the Holy Spirit (v.8). So great is this Stronger One that John does not consider himself worthy even to untie his sandals. Removing someone’s sandals was a lowly task appropriate only for a slave. The statement is particularly striking in the light of a later rabbinic tradition that removing a master’s sandals was too low a task to require even of one’s Hebrew slave (Mek. Exod. 21:2). Another tradition states that while the disciple of a rabbi should perform all the duties of a slave for his master, the removing of his shoes is excepted (b. Ketub. 96a). John identifies himself as lower than a disciple and even a slave of the Messiah.

8 John next contrasts his baptism with that of the Coming One (v.8). John’s baptism is water baptism; that of the Coming One is Holy Spirit baptism. Again, the emphasis is on the superiority (this time in terms of ministry) of the Coming One to John. Water baptism is an external rite that cleanses the physical body. Spirit baptism involves true spiritual cleansing. Moule’s comment, 10, is to the point: “The Baptist evidently meant that the great Coming One would not merely cleanse with water but would bring to bear, like a deluge, the purging, purifying, judging presence of God himself.” While Mark’s readers would likely think of the dramatic episode of Pentecost as the primary fulfillment of this prophecy (Ac 2), its significance goes beyond that event. The OT prophets spoke of the coming age of salvation as the age of the Spirit, the time when God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15; Eze 36:26–27; 39:29; Joel 2:28–29). Spirit baptism, therefore, likely encompasses more than Pentecost by referring to the whole Jesus event, including the Spirit-empowered ministry of Jesus in healing, exorcising, raising the dead, and forgiving sins, and the Spirit’s inauguration of the age of salvation in and through the church.

While Mark clearly considers the Stronger One to be Jesus, there is also a measure of intentional ambiguity in the passage. In their OT contexts, Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 do not speak of the Messiah but of the coming of Yahweh for judgment and salvation. Furthermore, according to the OT it is Yahweh himself who will pour out his Spirit in the last days (Eze 36:26–27; 39:29; Joel 2:28). This ambiguity of referents appears to be Mark’s way of affirming that, in some sense, “the coming of Jesus is the eschatological coming of God” (France, 70)—a very high Christology indeed.

NOTES

4 Grant, 649, thinks that βάπτισμα μετανοίας (baptisma metanoias) is “a Semitism, meaning ‘a baptism which symbolized or expressed repentance.’”

6 The Hebrew phrase in 2 Kings 1:8, sometimes translated “he was a hairy man” (NASB), probably instead means “wearing a cloak of animal hair” (France, 69; so NIV, TEV, NAB, RSV, etc.).

C. The Baptism of Jesus (1:9–11)

OVERVIEW

Jesus likely began his public ministry sometime around AD 27, when he was about thirty years old (Lk 3:23). His childhood and youth were spent in Nazareth in Galilee (Mt 2:23; Lk 3:39), though Mark shows little interest in such details. He begins instead with two events that preceded Jesus’ public ministry: his baptism by John and his temptation by the devil. In Mark the baptismal narrative confirms Jesus’ identity as the Son of God and expresses the Father’s approval of his person and mission.

9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

COMMENTARY

9 “At that time” is a free translation of kai egeneto en ekeinais tais hēmerais (“and it came to pass in those days”) and represents one of the frequent “seams” or connecting links in Mark’s gospel. These seams are Mark’s way of putting together the stories about Jesus and often are helpful in probing into his theological concerns. From a narrative perspective, the phrase announces that a new scene in the drama has begun. It also carries an OT and Semitic sound recalling the biblical narratives of the past and suggesting the link between Mark’s story and its biblical roots.

Jesus comes to John from the tiny backwater village of Nazareth in Galilee. Nazareth is never mentioned in the OT, in the Jewish Talmud, or by Josephus, and most Judeans in the south probably would never have heard of it (France, 75; cf. Nathanael’s disparaging remarks in Jn 1:46). It seems hardly an appropriate place of origin for the messianic “Stronger One” whom John has been heralding. Yet here is part of the mystery that pervades Mark’s narrative. Jesus apparently comes out of nowhere, both in terms of details about his birth and background and in the insignificance of his origins.

10 The NIV does not translate the adverb euthys (“immediately,” “then,” “subsequently”) in this verse, since the temporal rendering of the participle “as Jesus was coming up . . .” already provides the sense of immediacy expressed through the adverb. As noted in the Introduction (p. 689), the frequent use of this adverb is characteristic of Mark and gives his gospel a certain breathlessness that drives the narrative forward.

Mark seems to suggest that only Jesus saw “heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove,” though he may have been so focusing on Jesus’ experience that he says nothing of John’s. Mark’s use of the verb schizō (GK 5387, “tear,” “rend”) to describe what happened to the heavens shows his graphic style of writing. The tearing open of the heavens is meant to signify a cosmic event. The language echoes Isaiah 64:1: “Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains would tremble before you” (cf. T. Levi 18:512: “The heavens shall be opened . . . the Father’s voice . . . sin shall come to an end . . . and Beliar shall be bound by him”). Matthew and Luke use the ordinary word anoigō (“open”). Mark’s point may be that what is torn open cannot be closed (Garland, 48). There may also be an intentional inclusio with 15:38, where the curtain of the temple is “torn in two” at the crucifixion. Just as the Father’s announcement of Jesus’ divine sonship will be echoed in the cry of the centurion at the cross (1:11; 15:39), so the tearing of the heavens at the baptism previews the tearing of the curtain veil (1:9; 15:38). Both renderings suggest access to God’s presence made available through the coming of Jesus.

The descent of the Spirit “like a dove” may mean the Spirit looked like a dove or more likely that the descent was similar to a bird’s flight. Whether there is symbolism here and what it means have been widely discussed. Some see an allusion to Genesis 1:2, where the Spirit “hovers” over the waters at creation. Jesus could be identified by Mark with the new creation. Others suggest an allusion to Genesis 8:8–12, where Noah’s dove represents God’s gracious deliverance after judgment.

Whatever else the descent of the Spirit on Jesus meant, it clearly indicates his empowerment for ministry as the Messiah. Isaiah 11 predicts the coming Messiah will be one on whom the Spirit of God will rest: “the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.” In Luke’s gospel this connection is made even clearer, with the Spirit’s descent identified as Jesus’ “anointing” as Messiah (i.e., “Anointed One”): “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me” (Lk 4:18; cf. 3:21–22; 4:1, 14).

11 The voice from heaven signifies the Father’s affirmation of Jesus’ person and mission. God’s words allude to two, and perhaps three, OT passages. “You are my son” comes from Psalm 2:7, where Yahweh (“the LORD”) announces the king’s divine sonship and legitimate rule from Mount Zion (cf. 2Sa 7:14). “With you I am well pleased” echoes Isaiah 42:1, where the faithful and suffering servant of Yahweh is identified as God’s chosen one. Finally, “whom I love” may represent an Isaac/Jesus typology from Genesis 22:2, where Isaac is Abraham’s only son “whom you love.” Abraham’s willingness to offer his beloved son would be analogous to God’s offering of his Son. If all three allusions are present, this single announcement makes the extraordinary claim that Jesus is the promised Messiah who will offer himself as a sacrifice for his people.

The main emphasis, however, is on the unique sonship of Jesus as God confesses Jesus to be his Son. From the perspective of the reader, the identity of Jesus is no secret. As Ernest Best, (The Temptation and the Passion [SNTSMS 2; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965], 168) writes, “The gospel is not a mystery story in which the identity of the main character has to be guessed; from the outset it is made clear who this is—the Son of God.” Yet from the perspective of the characters in the story, Jesus’ identity and mission will be revealed only gradually. As noted above, Mark seems to underscore that the baptismal voice was a personal experience between Jesus and the Father (“he saw heaven being torn open . . . ‘you are my Son’”; contrast Mt 3:17: “This is my Son”). In the episodes that follow, the spirit world is aware of Jesus’ identity, as demons repeatedly recognize Jesus as the “Holy One of God,” “the Son of God,” and the “Son of the Most High God” (1:24, 34; 3:11; 5:7). Human recognition does not come until Peter’s confession (“you are the Christ,” 8:29), yet Peter still fails to comprehend the suffering role of the Christ. In the end, only the centurion at the cross gets it right by seeing that it is through suffering and death that Jesus is revealed to be the Son of God (15:39).

The baptism underscores the Father’s approval of his Son. He knows the mission that has been given to the Son. At the very beginning of Jesus’ fulfillment of that mission, God states his confidence in him. Lane, 58, points out that “the first clause of the declaration (with the verb in the present tense of the indicative mood) expresses an eternal and essential relationship. The second clause (the verb is in the aorist indicative) implies a past choice for the performance of a particular function in history.”

The baptism of Jesus by John was a problem for some people in the early church. Why did Jesus submit himself to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? In Matthew’s account John is reluctant to baptize Jesus: “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” (Mt 3:14). Jesus replies, “It is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness” (v.15). “All righteousness” is probably a reference to God’s plan and purpose for Jesus. Part of that plan was the complete identification of Jesus at the outset of his ministry with human beings and their sin (cf. 2Co 5:21). He is also identifying with the ministry of John and with those who are responding to John’s call for repentance.

NOTES

11 “Whom I love” is a translation of ὁ ἀγαπητός (ho agapētos). Since seven out of fifteen times in the LXX ἀγαπητός, agapētos, translates the Hebrew , yāḥîd (“only”), some commentators translate it “only” here (cf. I. H. Marshall, “Son of God or Servant of Yahweh? A Reconsideration of Mark 1:11,” NTS 15 [1965]: 326–36). The verb εὐδόκησα (eudokēsa, “I am well pleased”) may be taken as a timeless aorist or perhaps as representing the Hebrew stative perfect. The meaning then would be that God is always pleased with the Son.

D. The Temptation of Jesus (1:12–13)

OVERVIEW

Mark’s account of the temptation is very brief. He devotes only two verses to it, whereas Matthew has eleven and Luke thirteen. No specific temptations are described, and no outcome is recorded. By omitting this information Mark probably wants to emphasize that Jesus’ entire ministry was one continuous conflict with Satan and not limited to a few temptations in the desert during a period of forty days. The narrative that follows will vividly describe this continuing engagement with Satan and his demonic agents. By opening his gospel with Jesus’ temptation by Satan and repeated encounters with demons (1:24, 27, 34), Mark sets the whole gospel in the context of a spiritual struggle between God and Satan, with cosmic and eschatological implications.

12At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, 13and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

COMMENTARY

12 Mark emphasizes the close connection between the baptism and the temptation by the use of his characteristic word euthys (“at once”). The submission of Jesus by his identification with humanity’s failure and sin at the baptism is continued by his subjection to the onslaughts of Satan. The same Holy Spirit who came on Jesus at the baptism drives him into the desert.

Mark uses stronger language than either Matthew or Mark when he says that the Spirit “drove,” “impelled,” or “cast out” Jesus into the wilderness (ekballō, GK 1675, a term often used of exorcism). The verb likely does not indicate that the Spirit acted against Jesus’ will, but rather reiterates the overwhelming presence of the Spirit in Jesus’ life and the urgency of the task ahead.

13 The forty days have symbolic significance and recall the experiences of Moses (Ex 24:18) and Elijah (1Ki 19:8, 15) in the desert. They are also analogous to Israel’s forty years in the wilderness, a time of testing and preparation. Although Israel repeatedly failed through disobedience and unfaithfulness, Jesus’ success—though not explicitly stated—is implied in the episodes that follow, where Jesus acts in the power of the Spirit to teach, heal, and defeat Satan’s demonic agents.

Among the Synoptics, only Mark makes the puzzling statement that Jesus was “with the wild beasts.” Some have suggested this note is meant to imply a return to Paradise, since Adam was with the animals in the garden of Eden. More likely the reference to wild animals portrays the wilderness as a place of barrenness and danger, thus heightening the fierceness of Jesus’ temptation experience. This perspective also fits better with Mark’s statement that the angels were ministering to Jesus. Such service was necessary because of the desolation and peril of the place.

NOTES

12 Since Mark most often uses ἐκβάλλω (ekballō, GK 1675] of the expulsion of demons (eleven times) and in this passage combines it with the vigorous word εὐθύς (euthys, “at once”), it ought to be translated by something stronger than the NIV’s “sent out.” “Force is certainly involved. There is no need, however, to infer resistance or unwillingness on the part of Jesus” (cf. Bratcher and Nida, 32).