The Gospel of Mark Project

The Messenger in the Wilderness

2007-11-11T13:11:00.000-08:00

Mark 1:2-3
One of the first things to notice about this passage is that only a portion of it is drawn from the book of Isaiah. Verse 2b is from Isaiah 40:3, but verse 2a is probably based on Malachi 3:1. This raises the question of the author's motivations for including another passage. It could have been a simple mistake or he may have wanted to augment the Isaiah quote with additional information since the passages are similar. It is notable that the Malachi reference is removed when the same passage in Isaiah is cited in both Matthew and Luke.

This passage is a little confusing in that it could be interpreted that Jesus is the messenger in Isaiah based on its connection to Verse 1. Verse 1 makes no mention of John the Baptist and emphasizes Jesus as the proclaimer of the gospel, but immediately after this quotation the text jumps to John the Baptist in the wilderness. Matthew and Luke solve this ambiguity by a more obvious linkage to John.

The wilderness was understood by the Jewish people as a place of preparation. This is largely derived from the stories of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness before they were allowed to enter Canaan. The wilderness was a place of austerity, obedience, and contemplation, but it was also a place of expectation that had the potential for encounters with the living God.

These 'wilderness people' living in a post-Exile world were waiting for the good news even if they were not sure who would deliver it. Someone had to come to lay the groundwork and set the stage for the inauguration of the kingdom, and John the Baptist and Jesus fulfill this vocation in different ways. The Isaiah and Malachi passages summon images of Hebrew prophets like Elijah and Moses, and in fact both Jesus and John the Baptist were compared to Elijah during their lifetimes.

Introduction

2007-11-10T10:10:00.000-08:00

Mark 1:1

This verse sets the stage for the entire Gospel of Mark. It summarizes in one sentence fragment what the good news (i.e. the gospel) is. The gospel can be found in the person of Jesus Christ, Son of God, who is the definitive revelation of God to man. What we know about Jesus through the mystery of the Incarnation determines much of what we limited human beings can understand about God.

The verse reads more like a subtitle than part of the actual text itself. Now we should explore the meanings of the individual phrases in this verse. We will want to be careful to think of them in terms familiar to the first century readers of this Gospel instead of superimposing our own later Christian meanings upon the text.

For example, the term 'Jesus Christ' is used today as if 'Christ' were a mere surname. This is a common mistake that decouples Jesus from his Jewish context. Christ is Greek for 'Messiah' (which means 'anointed one'), so the correct interpretation of this phrase is 'Jesus, the Messiah.' The Jews interpreted the word 'Messiah' to designate a future king descended from David who would come to rescue them from Roman tyranny and inaugurate the kingdom of God in Israel. It is an interpretation ripe with both religious and political implications.

Christians understand this term in a similar way in that Jesus of Nazareth was 'the' Anointed One of God and the Saviour of the world. Much of the political dimension of the term 'Messiah' has been lost as different layers of abstraction were laid on top of the original meaning over 2000 years, but the general idea of liberation is still there. Normally that comes through as the concept of freedom from the tyranny of sin and death.

The term 'Son of God' is also worth exploring. When we see this phrase in the Bible we almost reflexively assume that it is speaking in terms of high Christology as stated in the Nicene Creed, but at the time of Mark's composition that idea was still in its embryonic stages. People were still struggling to understand who Jesus really was and what his mission as Messiah constituted for the world, so we should not immediately assume the author was speaking in formal Trinitarian terms. 'Son of god' or 'son of a god' was a common term around the first century that was used to indicate people who were believed to have special divine powers and authority. Augustus Caesar in particular is one example of this usage of terminology.

That being said I want to clarify that I do affirm the Nicene Creed in its entirety. When it comes to Christology I believe that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God and was both fully divine and fully human. I just choose not to make Mark 1:1 fit that exact mold from a historical perspective.

Welcome Aboard!

2007-11-10T09:47:00.000-08:00

This site is intended to explore the Gospel of Mark from the perspective of an amateur theologian. Since I am an Episcopalian some of the content will be projected through an Anglican lens, but my goal is for the site to be useful to a wide variety of Christians. All questions and comments are welcome here.

Why Mark? I have always been fascinated with the Gospels and Mark in particular seemed like the easiest place to start. I will be using the NRSV for most of my articles, but you might see me refer to other translations as well if it helps to clarify things. Those of you who are familiar with N.T. Wright and Robin Griffith-Jones will see their influence here as their writings have been particularly useful to me for understanding who Jesus was and is.

So welcome aboard and I look forward to your comments!