The beginning of the gospel in Mark 1

The gospel lectionary reading for the Second Sunday in Advent in this Year B is Mark 1.1–8. This is a slightly odd choice, since in a few weeks’ time, for Epiphany Sunday, we will be reading Mark 1.4–11, which goes on to include the brief account of Jesus’ baptism.

Four years ago, before all the Covid lockdowns, I went with my family to see a film—the final episode of the nine main instalments of the Star Wars saga, the Rise of Skywalker. I confess that I wasn’t really gripped by it, not least because I had a constant feeling of déjà vu. Just about every interesting scene appeared to be lifted from one of the previous films! It turns out that this was deliberate; this site lists 31 references to earlier episodes and related computer games based on the franchise. The whole creation was, in large part, a homage to the earlier elements of the franchise.

But where that (for me) made the film a little dull, in this week’s reading it does the opposite. The background allusions actually add energy, excitement and weight to the text, and they are essential to understand in order to grasp the impact of the events that are related. (Within narrative criticism, this is known as metalepsis; the author describes things by borrowing language from another context in order to help the reader make connections between the immediate situation and what what previously narrated.)

The scriptural texts cited in the previous verses are a combination of Ex 23.20 (‘I am sending my angel/messenger ahead of you…to the place I have prepared’), Mal 3.1 (‘I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me’) and Is 40.3 (‘A voice of one crying in the desert prepare the way for the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God’). In effect, Mark is presenting us with the text of Isaiah, read through Malachi, as a reference back to Exodus. Allusions to the return from exile are offering with overtones of the exodus, which is not surprising, since the return from exile is indeed a kind of second exodus—God powerfully leading his people out of oppression, through the desert, to the land of promise.

Mark’s use of these texts set up three sets of expectations. The first is what we might now call Christological: the preparation is for the coming of the God of Israel, but this now becomes preparation for the one who is coming after John the Baptist, who thus embodies the presence of God amongst his people. The second relates to the identity of John himself: Mal 4.5 goes on to identify the one doing the work of preparation as a returning Elijah, and we see numerous further Elijah motifs in the following verses. The third is eschatological: this Elijah figure will be sent ‘before that great and terrible day of the Lord’, and this sits within widespread Jewish anticipation of an eschatological Elijah figure coming to prepare God’s people and usher in the longed-for messianic age.

The simple phrase ‘John appeared…’ thus signifies the long-awaited fulfilment of this promise of hope as God comes in redemptive judgement to his people.

The idea of baptism, administered by a third party, appears to be novel. Gentile converts to Judaism (proselytes) had to undergo a ritual washing as part of their initiation, but this signified a change of ethnic affiliation, and here John is baptising Jews who remain Jews. Ritual washing in the miqveh was practised at Qumran and in connection with the temple, but only began around this time, was self-administered, and was a repeated action where John is offering a once-for-all action in preparation for the coming of God.

But there is a sense in which the people of God are very familiar with the idea of passing through water as preparation for the action of God. They passed through the waters of the Red Sea as preparation for journeying in the wilderness (hence Paul’s language of ‘baptism in Moses’ in 1 Cor 10.2); they then passed through the waters of the Jordan to enter the Promised Land; the psalmist is rescued through the deep waters of death by God (eg in Ps 18.16); and in returning from exile God has rescued them as they ‘pass through the waters’ (Is 43.2). This multiple significance was captured rather nicely in the prayer over the water in the ASB 1980 Baptism service (sadly emaciated in the Common Worship service).

John’s baptism is offered as a sign of ‘repentance’, of turning back to the way of God after having strayed, and anticipates Jesus’ own preaching about the right response to the kingdom in Mark 1.15. (It is often suggested that the Greek term metanoia has a sense of ‘thinking again’ because of its etymology, but words do not always mean what their etymology suggests, and in the LXX it is used to translate shuv meaning a literal or metaphorical turning around and changing direction.)

The description of ‘all of Judea and all Jerusalem’ is hyperbolic, but it does point to John leading a significant popular movement, so it is not surprising that Herod Antipas, who ruled not only the northern region of Galilee but also the region of Perea, east of the Jordan, could feel threatened by John’s actions.

John is baptising in the Jordan, a location laden with historical significance for the people of Israel, since it is through the Jordan that they crossing, following the ark of the covenant and led by Joshua, when first entering the promised land. And it was at the Jordan that Elisha succeeded Elijah in his prophetic ministry. Thus the Jordan signifies a place of transition and change, as Mary Ann Beavis notes (Paideia commentary, p 34):

[This is] a sort of running of Israel’s history backwards: the people of Judea flock back to the river where they had crossed into the promised land in the time of Joshua. For Mark, the baptism offered by John is a new turning point for Israel, an event as portentous as the crossing of the Jordan.

Mark’s brief description of John again highlights the Elijah motif, since he is clothed like Elijah (2 Kings 1.8) in a manner which appears to have become the signature of a prophet of God (Zech 13.4). I was taught by William Barclay that akris that he ate could be interpret as carob nuts rather than locusts, but I am not sure there is any evidence of that. Locusts are listed specifically in Lev 11.22 as insects that are permissible to eat; thus John, whilst trusting for God’s provision in the desert and eating what is there, is still obedient to the commands of Torah.

The language of ‘one coming after me’ is used elsewhere of discipleship—so, for example, when Jesus rebukes Peter, the language of ‘getting behind me’ is exactly this language of following. But John (and Mark) appear to understand this in a merely temporal sense: John is preparing the way for one who will soon follow. The language of a ‘stronger one’ again has echoes of the Elijah/Elisha narrative, since the succession of Elisha was marked by his receiving a ‘double share’ of the spirit of Elijah, enabling him to perform greater works (2 Kings 2.9). There appear to be significant parallels between the ministries of Elisha and Jesus:

  • they are both prophets who go about amongst the people;
  • they help the poor and needy;
  • they minister primarily in the north regions of Galilee
  • they are prodigious wonder workers;
  • even after death, they perform miracles (see 2 Kings 13.20–21).

(For later exultation of Elisha, see Sirach 48.12b–14)

Yet the comparison between Elijah and Elisha pales against the contrast between John and Jesus. To untie the thong of someone’s sandal was the work of the most humble of servants, and John is not even worthy to do that for Jesus. Elisha was described as the ‘son of Elijah’ but Jesus is soon declared to be the favoured son of God. ‘The one who comes after John will be a mighty agent of God who will inaugurate the end times’ (Beavis, p 35).

The opening phrase of Mark 1.9 is one of the few occasions when Mark uses kai egeneto, rendered by the AV as ‘And it came to pass that…’ which rightly highlights the connection with Old Testament narrative. (Technical note: the Greek and the AV English are very rigid translations of the ‘vav-consecutive’ construction in Hebrew, where the letter vav, which elsewhere means ‘and’, is used to turn the verb into a narrative past tense. Modern ETs rightly simply interpret this as a narrative past, but the AV translated each word, thus creating this slightly odd scripture phrase ‘and it happened that…’) The effect is that Mark is deliberately making his narrative sound scriptural.

Jesus stands out from the crowd immediately. He apparently comes on his own, rather than with a retinue, and is a northerner in this southern crowd. In contrast to Matthew, who includes a detailed exchange concerning John’s objection to Jesus baptism, and the Fourth Gospel which completely omits reference to the baptism itself, Mark appears unembarrassed to associate Jesus with a ‘baptism of repentance’. He is more concerned to see Jesus associated with this movement of the people in eager anticipation of this eschatological work of God.

Contrary to all artistic depiction, what happens next occurs immediately after Jesus has ‘gone up out of the water’, in other words, once he has left the river and is on the bank once more. But it does happen ‘immediately’ or, in the language of the AV once more, ‘straightway’. This is one of more than 40 uses of the term in Mark, and it is especially characteristic of Jesus’ ministry in the first half of this gospel. John has come to make ‘straight ways’ in the wilderness for Jesus, and Jesus acts in the power of God bringing healing and forgiveness ‘straightway’.

Come and join Ian and James as they discuss all these issues and their implications for preaching—and for life.

Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.

Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

4 thoughts on “The beginning of the gospel in Mark 1”

  1. Good article. I was preaching about the start of Jesus’s ministry this last Sunday. Wish I had read this before.

    May the Force be with you..

  2. I feel that both the Baptist and Mark are setting forth the Divine order as Moses did. In Psalm 103:7 we read these words: “He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the children of Israel.”

    “Notice the difference! His “acts” were made known to the entire nation; but His “ways” only to Moses. His “acts” were His mighty deeds—signs and wonders wrought by His mighty power. All the people of Israel saw the miracles which God performed for their deliverance and preservation.”
    J. Leland Earls
    John thus saw the Holy Spirit and heard the voice of God. the *Way* of God
    Jesus was not just an action man but a man of order “for thus it behooves us to fulfill all righteousness” as reason for John to baptize Him.
    Thus also The Way made known to Joshua; the Priest had to carry the ark {the representation of Christ} into the waters of Jordan [unlike the Red Sea crossing.] which prefigures Jesus standing in the Jordan.
    Consider also the ark in the time of Saul and David and the abuse or wrong way to carry the Ark
    In the time of Saul the ark was not consulted (I Chron. 13:3).

    “Saul represents, in type, the old order of man-controlled churches which are a result of the desires of the people; as did Aaron and the golden calf :and what the people “ask for” God gives, so that they might learn by experience the folly of their own desires and ways…. Uzza was the victim of inexcus­able ignorance of God’s Word.
    God spoke through Jeremiah thus: “Cur­sed be the man that trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart departs from the Lord.” (Jer. 17:5).
    ….David of failing to walk in God’s ways resulted in Judgement David said, “The Lord our God made a breach [against] us, for that we sought him not after the due order.” (I Chron. 15:13). J. Leland Earls

    AND a word to to those today who are as sly as foxes, priests and church.
    Hear the words spoken through Ezekiel the prophet: “Son of man prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say you to them that prophesy out of their own hearts. Hear the word of the Lord; Thus says the Lord God; Woe to the foolish pro­phets, that folIow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! O Israel, your prophets are like foxes in the deserts. You (prophets) have not gone up into the gaps (breaches), neither made up the hedge (wall) for the house of Israel TO STAND IN THE BATTLE OF THE DAY OF THE LORD.”
    ,,,,, and one built up a wall, and, lo, others plastered it with untampered mortar (or, as the Berkeley translation puts it, “plaster it over with whitewash”). Beloved, this is a hard word, but it is true.
    Preachers as a whole (there are notable exceptions), whether they realize it or not, are engaged to a great degree in a big job of whitewash of the man made walls (systems) which have been erected before them, and of which they have become an integral part. The Lord God has com­missioned us to “say to them which plaster it with untampered mortar (whitewash), that it shall fall: there shall be an over­flowing shower; and you, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall [tear] it [down] (a picture of the JUDGMENT which is coming).
    May God show us His Way and may we have the gumption to walk in it.
    I have quoted. J. Leland Earls at some length as his paper on the Ways of God is lengthy and quite superb, I encourage it to be read to great profit@

  3. For the madness and sadness of our Bishops see @
    Rave in the Nave at Canterbury: if the Church of England doesn’t know what its cathedrals are for, can we have them back? The Goat herders will no doubt please the Gay lobby.


Leave a comment