John the Baptist and Jesus’ Ministry (1:2–13)
If the gospel is fundamentally connected with Jesus Christ, its origins actually predate his ministry and reach back to the Old Testament. Mark cites a fused text from Exod 23:30; Isa 40:3; and Mal 3:1 but attributes it only to Isaiah (v. 2). Sensing that there is an apparent contradiction here, later scribes changed the reading to “the prophets.” However, the early manuscripts should be followed and there is no need to think that Mark has blundered. Three reasons may be posited for this “limited” attribution. First, Mark is in good company, as many biblical writers understood prophecy as being related to the one ongoing story of God and Israel, or the world.42 So it is often assumed there is a theological force driving forward and unifying history. Earlier Scripture may then be regarded as contributing to the development of the same divine plot as later scripture, giving rise to the Jewish exegetical practice of linking texts containing similar subject matter (known in its Jewish form as gezerah shawah or analogy). Secondly, Mark singles out Isaiah because he regards him as the best exponent of the evangelical message of the Old Testament (i.e., Isaiah is the prophet of the gospel par excellence). What this implies is that we are given a hint as to how we may understand Mark’s concept of the gospel, and from this, the ministry of Jesus may therefore be better understood.43 Indeed, Isaiah is the only writing prophet mentioned by name in Mark’s Gospel. Thirdly, Mark wants to introduce John the Baptist as the predicted forerunner of Jesus Christ. John’s role dovetails best with the Isaianic prophecy of the voice in the wilderness. The citation of Isa 40:3 therefore prepares the reader for the next narrative development: a description of John’s ministry.
The use of Isa 40:3 is highly significant here. The Qumran community which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, appropriated it to explain its establishment in the wilderness (1QS 8:14; 9:19–21). It was there to prepare the way of God, signifying the imminent fulfillment of the great divine promise of restoration. The focus on this is not surprising, as Isaiah contains the powerful theme of a second exodus and a return of God to Zion to reign. When this is realized, there will be profound transformation in both flora and fauna, to the extent that the term “new creation” may be used (cf. Isa 65:17). In Mark’s hand, the same prophecy is used for signaling the imminence of divine restoration, but astonishingly he explicates it as the coming of Jesus Christ. The significance of this will be made clear as Mark’s narrative progresses.
The herald of the Isaianic prophecy is identified as John the Baptizer (v. 4). John’s characteristic practice is introduced together with a brief description of the way he is dressed (vv. 4–6). The reference to his attire is meant to evoke memories of the prophets (2 Kings 1:8; Zech 13:4), and also to confirm that John was indeed a desert dweller, dovetailing with the prophecy of the voice in the wilderness.
John is called “Baptizer,” implying that this was his characteristic activity and for which people remembered him, which Josephus the Jewish historian confirms (Antiquities 18:117–19). Mark explains the theological rationale for John’s baptism as being connected with repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Such forgiveness is ratified through the outward act of baptism for the repentant. This fits in with the conceptual background of the fused text used in 1:2–3: a people truly prepared for the advent of God must have genuinely turned away (i.e., repented) from their disobedience, and embraced the gracious overtures of God (i.e., forgiveness). Moreover, against the first century Jewish background and the evidence provided by Josephus, John’s baptism may also be understood as a call to join a new community. His use of the wilderness as the place of ministry could therefore have arisen from both practical and theological concerns, as the wilderness was the place that could fit crowds and was also evocative of Israel’s exodus traditions.
Based on the data above, scholars have speculated whether John was ever connected with the Qumran community, since there is a convergence of text, location, and practice. However, given the paucity of the evidence and some crucial differences in relation to how baptism was administered (mainly frequency and agency), it is best to leave the question open.44
Verses 7–8 summarize John’s message. The forerunner theme is further developed, but with the focus now on the coming one. He may also be known as “the stronger one,” perhaps harking back to the Isaianic idea of God as “the mighty one” (28:2; 49:26), or possibly his messenger (Isa 11:2). Whatever the case, this person is so mighty that John is unworthy even to do one of the lowliest tasks in society: to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals.
Significantly, this person will also baptize, but with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is connected with the OT end-time expectation of a great moment of cleansing, resulting in the renewal of Israel. This promise is often described with liquid metaphors (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 11:19; 36:26–27; cf. Ezek 37:14; Joel 2:28–29; and 1QS 4:20–22). Such metaphors show spiritual cleansing is an important concern of God. The upshot of all this is that the Spirit’s work may be regarded as “baptism.” The similar saying in Matt 3:11||Luke 3:16 adds the word “fire.” This may gel with what Mark is portraying, as fire is also an image for cleansing, albeit with the added notion of judgment.
Mark skillfully follows his description of John’s message with the public appearance of Jesus. Astonishingly, Jesus comes to be baptized by John! This may reduce Jesus’ status to being ordinary, but Mark prevents this by describing the divine portent that takes place at Jesus’ baptism: the heavens are rent open, the Spirit descends in the form of a dove, and the divine voice speaks, affirming Jesus to be his beloved son. The significance of all this may be unpacked as follows.
First, Mark uses the Greek schizō to describe what took place in the heavens. This is a graphic word, which speaks of “tearing asunder.” Mark uses this word only once more, in the account of the tearing of the Temple veil (15:38). The other Gospel writers use anoigō, which means “open,” so as to avoid suggesting violence was done to heaven (Matt 3:16; Luke 3:21). Mark knows the meaning of anoigō and uses it in 7:35. All this implies schizō is being used intentionally and not because Mark lacks the vocabulary. The reason for this may be that Mark is thinking of Isaiah. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the book of Isaiah is important to the composition of Mark’s Gospel. In Isa 64:1 the prophet pleads before God to rend45 the heavens and come down, so as to restore the nation of Israel. For Mark, Jesus’ baptism signifies God has answered this prayer.46 The long-awaited intimate involvement and restorative action of God has come to pass.
Secondly, the descent of the Spirit takes on the bodily form of a dove. The Greek syntax47 can mean either “the Spirit, appearing as a dove, descends” (i.e., understanding it adjectivally)48 or “the Spirit descends as a dove does” (i.e., understanding it adverbially).49 Since Mark describes Jesus as seeing something tangible, many commentators take the simile as adjectival.50 The image of the Spirit as a dove is remarkable in two ways. First, the description is a stable datum across all four Gospels, when they contain many variations in the accounts of Jesus’ baptism. The second is that this is a unique description of the Spirit, not even paralleled in the account of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Against all comers, this image of the Spirit has stuck in Christian art, but what does it mean?
Avian images have been used of the Spirit’s work of creation in the OT and Jewish literature (Gen 1:2; b. Hag. 15a; cf. 4Q521 1:6, where eschatological re-creation is in view). This theme does relate to the theological nuances of Mark’s description of the beginning of the gospel. However, why does Mark specify a dove? In the alleged parallels, a dove is never mentioned. Recently, it has been proposed that Mark is countering the Roman symbol of an eagle with the dove.51 There is much mileage in this but in our opinion it is still deficient, as it neglects the Jewish background. The dove often stands for Israel in Jewish literature (Hos 7.11; b. Ber 53b; b. Sab 49a), but never once is it used of the Spirit, with the possible exception of Targum to Canticles 2:12, where the voice of the turtledove is interpreted as the voice of the Spirit. Even so, it is clear that this parallel is not exact.
One possible solution is to regard the simile as a complex reference to the Spirit’s work of remaking Israel as having been devolved upon Jesus through his spiritual anointing and empowerment. After all, the Spirit is understood in the prophetic literature as the end-time gift that remakes