The first thirteen verses of Mark’s Gospel form a unit. The heading in verse 1 (“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”) is underpinned by the Scriptures (1:2-3). After that follows the short story about this beginning (John the Baptist and Jesus in 1:4-13). For practical reasons we divide this compact section into three parts in this commentary, since in this brief exposition many diverse topics are being addressed. By discussing the passage in this way, it will (as we hope) become apparent that it in fact concerns one section that is very much structured from verse 1 to and including verse 13.

The Heading (Mark 1:1)⤒🔗

The Gospel according to Mark begins with the words, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” The omission of the phrase “Son of God” from a number of Bible translations goes back to a single manuscript. In almost all manuscripts, however, we find these words, and they are included again in newer editions of the text.

The word “gospel” does not mean here what it will mean later: “book about the life of Jesus on earth.” In that case Mark could have simply written above his book: “Gospel of Jesus Christ.” But he adds the word “beginning” to it. And that word can hardly be intended here to indicate the beginning of the book, that is, the first line. It is unusual and also superfluous to say at the beginning of a book that it begins with the first line! The phrase, “the beginning of the gospel,” refers to something that follows. It amounts in some way or another to an announcement or a heading.

There are at least three reasons to regard verse 1 as a heading (see Feneberg¹ for a detailed discussion of the prologue of Mark).

1. Some commentators connect verse 1 to verse 4 and regard verses 2-3 as an announcement contained in parentheses: “As a beginning of the gospel (as was written in the prophets, etc.) John appeared in the wilderness.² In that case the verses 1-4 together form the heading to the story of 5-13 (about John and Jesus).
   The problem with this suggestion is that if verses 2-3 are an addition to verse 4, they cannot really precede it. Moreover in verse 1 Mark identifies Jesus with his double name, Jesus Christ. But he never uses it when he describes Jesus’ earthly life. Verse 1 thus gives the impression that Mark has not yet completely begun the history of Jesus, but first addresses his readers who have become aware of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The addition of the words “the Son of God” also suggests that there is no continuous connection from verse 1 to verse 4.
2. Others (inter alia, Arnold³) connect verse 1 to verses 2-3 and regard verse 4 as a new sentence: “The beginning of the gospel (was) as was written in the prophets (etc.). John appeared in the wilderness.” In that case verses 1-3 form the heading to the story of 4-13.
   Turner has pointed out that the drawback with this connection is that Mark does not normally omit the copula verb “was.”⁴ Therefore, the necessary addition of the verb “was” argues against this solution.
3. However, most commentators (inter alia, Lohmeyer,⁵ Pesch,⁶ Gnilka,⁷ Schmithals⁸) regard verse 1 as an independent sentence and verses 2-4 as a second sentence: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As written in the prophets…John appeared.” In that case verse 1 serves as the heading to Mark’s entire book. As a variant of this view we mention the belief that verse 1 forms the heading to the passage 1:1-15. In that case the heading in verse 1 extends to the beginning of Jesus’ preaching of the gospel in Galilee (1:14-15: Den Heyer,⁹ Lührmann¹⁰).

It is Arnold¹¹ who objects to this solution to the arrangement of verse 1 and verses 2-4 by pointing out that supporting evidence from Scripture (kathos) in the New Testament never precedes the topic for which the biblical quotations are raised (see Mark 9:13; 14:21). Thus, according to him verses 2-3 cannot be separated from verse 1 so that then they can be connected to the later-following verse 4.

What is common to the three solutions just discussed is that they interpret the word “gospel” as a reference to the totality of the good news. However, they differ on the question whether the word “beginning” refers to the first part of Mark 1 or to the entire book.

Since the aforementioned solutions are all subject to objections, it is worth considering whether verses 2-3 cannot be taken as a further explanation of the words “Son of God” in verse 1. If Mark, by referring to the prophet Isaiah, wanted to emphasize that Jesus Christ, about whom the gospel speaks, is the Son of God, the objection of Turner¹² mentioned under point 2 (the lack of the linking verb) disappears. And at the same time the objections of Arnold¹³ against a connection between verses 2-3 and 4 are met.

In the discussion of verses 2-3 it is apparent that they prophesy the divinity of the promised redeemer. In the description of John the Baptist the emphasis lies on his speaking about the divine highness of him who comes after him (vv. 7-8), and the short description concludes with the voice from heaven about Jesus “my beloved Son” and the angels who serve him in the wilderness. Mark gives an abbreviated perspective on the history of John the Baptist and the temptations in the wilderness, but he maintains the divine nature of Jesus as a dominant theme. All of this reinforces the idea that in verse 1 Mark added the words “Son of God” not as an abundant extension of Jesus’ titles but as a well‑considered theme. In that case it is not strange that he immediately supports the heart of the matter with an appropriate word from the prophets. Verses 1-4 can thus be rendered as follows:

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets: ‘Behold, I send my messenger before you; he will prepare your way. Loudly someone calls out in the wilderness: prepare the way for the Lord; make his paths straight.’
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and…”

The remaining question is in what sense verse 1 functions as a heading. Pokorny has rightly pointed out the connection between the beginning and end of the book.¹⁴
However, we do not take 16:8 as the end, but 16:9-20. That last section speaks about the preaching of the gospel in the whole world (16:15; see also 13:10; 14:9). The preaching of this same gospel by Jesus in Palestine could be characterized as the beginning of the promised preaching in the whole world (Heb. 2:3-4!). However, 1:1 does not speak of the beginning of the preaching of the gospel. Pesch, therefore, ascribes a different meaning to the word “beginning,” namely, “principle, foundational point of departure.¹⁵ Just as the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7 et al.), so according to him the history of Jesus’ life and death is the beginning (the ABC) of the gospel. In that way 1:1 can still remain the heading for the whole book. The problem with this interpretation of the word “beginning” is that the word “gospel” that is connected to it does not denote a virtue in which a process of growth can take place, but an indivisible whole (the good news) that is rounded off and complete, as such. Jesus’ work forms the content of the gospel; it is not its principle. We can refer also to Philippians 4:15, where the phrase “in the beginning of the gospel” refers to the coming of the gospel in Macedonia. Clearly, the word beginning was not reserved for the first preaching on earth by Jesus.

That leaves us with no other option than to interpret Mark 1:1 as introduction to the first section of chapter 1. The gospel of Jesus Christ (God’s Son according to the prophets!) began to be preached by John the Baptist. Mark, Peter’s interpreter, begins where Peter began in his sermon to Cornelius (Acts 10:37). The gospel begins with the baptism of John (Acts 1:22). The law and the prophets continued until John; thereafter the gospel began (Luke 16:16). He was the first person who was allowed to bring the good news of God’s Son, as the prophets foretold. Thus, we interpret verses 1-3 as the general introduction to verses 4-13. However, because of the way in which this introduction is worded, it can at the same time serve as introduction to the whole book. The gospel that begins with John (1:4-13) is the gospel of Jesus Christ, God’s Son (just as the prophets already promised).

The asyndeton at the beginning of verse 4 points to the beginning of a narrative.¹⁶

The Angel of the Lord as Trailblazer for God’s People (Mark 1:2-3)←⤒🔗

At the very beginning of his book, Mark inserts a reference to the Scriptures, which the other evangelists also know (Matt. 3:3; 11:10; Luke 3:4-6; 7:27). The quotations are introduced with the formula, “As it is written in the prophets” (KJV, 1:2a). It is not simply about one incidental prophetical statement, but about a message that was brought collectively by the prophets and that is reproduced with the wording of two passages from the prophets, namely, Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. By the broad nature of the introductory formula, the double quotation, and the placement of them at the beginning of the book, this reference to the prophets receives great emphasis.

Newer translations have the following introductory formula: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” That is also what a limited number of manuscripts have. This seems to overlook the quotation from Malachi and it would, therefore, have been replaced later by a more general formula. However, there are several places in the Gospels where the copyists left irregular references to the Old Testament undisturbed (e.g., Matt. 27:9). Therefore, it is questionable whether the copyists are at fault here. It is no less possible that the reference to Isaiah is an assimilation of Matthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4 that was introduced by an editor who regarded the reference to Isaiah in verse 3 as dominant. There is therefore no compelling reason to distrust the majority of the manuscripts on this point.

According to most commentators, the reproduction of Malachi 3:1 in Mark 1:2b is influenced indirectly by the text of Exodus 23:20. Indeed, Gundry wonders if the similarity with Exodus is perhaps greater than with Malachi.¹⁷ While in Malachi the Lord speaks about a person who is being sent “before me,” Exodus speaks of “an angel before you,” which Mark 1:2 also does. However, we should continue to regard this verse at the beginning of Mark as a reference to Malachi. This prophet (Mal. 3:1) speaks, just like Mark, about the preparation or construction of a way, whereas Exodus speaks about being guarded “on the way.” Precisely because both Malachi and Mark speak of a way that God builds between himself and his people, we can speak about a way before God’s face (Malachi), as well as a way before the face of the people (Mark). Although considered from two different aspects, in substance the topic is the same. God prepares a way between himself and his people. And just as an angel preceded the people on the way in the wilderness, so now an angel will prepare the way to God.

Malachi 3:1 clearly harks back to the angel during the time the people spent in the wilderness. In some Bible translations, this connection has been somewhat blurred. They speak of God’s “messenger” rather than “angel.” The translation of Mark 1:2 then follows this translation of “messenger” from Malachi (see also Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:27), departing from some of the older translations, which uses the word “Angel” (with a capital letter!) in all these places. This latter translation is certainly preferred. The Hebrew word in Malachi 3:1 (mal’ak) is the same as in Exodus 23:20 and other places and is translated there (also in newer translations) as “angel” (the “Angel of the covenant”). Moreover, the Greek word in Mark 1:2 (angelos) almost always means “angel” in the New Testament. Only once in a while is it used in the sense of “messenger,” and then the context makes clear that the reference is to a human messenger (Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:25). However, Mark 1:2 speaks about a messenger who comes from God, and that in connection to Malachi 3:1, and therefore we should use the translation “angel.”

To understand the quotation properly, we must take the background of Malachi 3:1 into account. In Exodus 23:20 the Lord promises the people of Israel that an angel will be sent before them to bring them to the place that the Lord has prepared. This messenger is not a human being and he is also more than a created angel. He has power to pardon or not to pardon sin (Exod. 23:21). Just as the people must listen to God, so they are admonished to listen to this messenger (this angel) of God (Exod. 23:21-22). This angel of the Lord is one with him but is nonetheless distinct from him. Already in Exodus 14:19 he is referred to as the “angel of God,” who went before the host of Israel. When he moved, the pillar of cloud also moved. From this verse it appears that the angel of God went before the people in (not as) the pillar of cloud and of fire. But the Bible also says that the Lord went before Israel in a pillar of cloud (Exod. 13:21). There is both a real unity as well as a diversity between the Lord and his angel. The exodus out of Egypt is ascribed to this angel (Num. 20:16). The “angel of his presence” saved Israel (Isa. 63:9). The Bible never speaks about this angel of the Lord in the plural. There are indeed “angels of God” (Gen. 28:12 et al.), but no angels of the Lord. This angel of the Lord is himself God (Zech. 12:8). In him the contours of the Son of God become visible. He who accompanied Israel is the Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). He is called an angel, that is, a messenger, because he was sent by the Father.

Exodus 32:34 and 33:2 do not speak about this angel of the Lord, but about another, a created angel, who after the sin with the golden calf, is given as leader in the place of the Lord. There seems to be a difficulty here: how can Moses say in Exodus 33:12, “You have not let me know whom you will send with me”? Had an angel not been spoken of recently? This messenger will go before the people and lead them into the land. However, Moses does not pray for a leader, but for someone who is with us. We follow Cassuto, who applies this prayer, with reference to Exodus 25:8 and 29:46, to the presence of the dwelling of God (the tabernacle).¹⁸ The plan for this dwelling of God in the midst of Israel had just been unfolded in Exodus 25–31. However, it is withdrawn. The people keep the escort of the angel, but that seems to be all. They now have to manage without the tabernacle that had been announced. But Moses’ intercession in Exodus 32–33 caused the Lord to relent, so that he did raise his tent in Israel and accompanied them. The distinction between the “glory of the Lord” in the tabernacle and the pillar of cloud upon it, is made clear in Exodus 40:34-38. Since Moses’ intercession concerned the establishment of God’s dwelling in Israel, his prayer does not exclude the likelihood that the angel whom God maintained already in Exodus 32:34 and 33:2 is the same as the angel of the Lord mentioned in Exodus 23:20.

Now when Malachi 3:1 speaks about “my messenger” (angel) who “will prepare the way before me,” this is connected to the preceding work of this angel or messenger of the Lord in the wilderness. This connection is often denied because when they interpret Malachi 3:1, exegetes often believe that it contains an allusion to the human precursor of the Messiah. Looked at from the point of view of the New Testament, they rediscover the person of John the Baptist in Malachi 3:1a. And since John the Baptist can hardly be equated with the divine appearance of the Angel of the Lord, it follows that the connection to Exodus is broken. But it is preferable to look at the matter from the point of view of the Old Testament. Then it is undoubtedly clear that the angel or messenger in Malachi 3:1a should be regarded as the Angel of the Lord, God himself but also distinct from the Lord. In Malachi’s time we hear the promise that this Angel of the Lord will act again. This time not to precede the people into a new land on earth, but to reconnect a sinful people to the holy God. This God comes to judge: the people that the Angel of the Lord once led into Canaan will perish there. The holy land has become a dead-end road for the unholy people! At that threatening moment, the Angel of the Lord acts again and now he constructs a road from the Lord to the people, and bridges the chasm that existed because of Israel’s sins. In that way this Angel of the Lord does bring the people to the destination already intended at the time of the exodus: the kingdom of God!

The parallelism between Malachi 3:1a and 3:1b also make it clear that 1a does not speak of a human precursor, but of the divine Angel himself. Exegetes who realize that 1a speaks of a precursor, do recognize that verse 1b refers to the Lord. After verse 1a (“Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way”), verse 1b supposedly speaks about the coming of the Lord (“And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts”). But there are many objections to the idea of a temporal succession within Malachi 3:1 (from precursor to judgment). There are decisive arguments to support the view that 3:1a and 3:1b speak of the same figure, one who must be distinguished from the Lord, but who is nonetheless divine (the coming Messiah or Angel of the Lord).

1. In verse 1b the Lord (of hosts) speaks about the coming of another figure who is distinguishable from him.
2. Both verse 1a and verse 1b speak about an angel. If the same word is repeated in the same verse, it stands to reason that the same figure is intended. The angel in verse 1a is the angel of the covenant in verse 1b.
3. Only in Malachi 3:5 does the Lord speak of his own coming in judgment (“Then I will draw near to you for judgment”). This coming follows after the refining and purifying work described in 3:2-4 by the angel announced in 3:1.
4. Malachi 2:17–3:18 considers whether there is still a God of justice. The answer is twofold. God is sending someone who (by a refining fire) will ensure that the sacrifice is again pleasing to the Lord (3:4). And then God the Lord himself will appear to remove the wicked (3:5) and to save the purified believers.

It is understandable that Christians, in light of the appearance of John the Baptist, understood the distinction between the forerunner (1a) and the Messiah (1b) in Malachi 3:1. But it is telling that older Jewish exegetes interpreted the messenger in verse 1a as an angel or as the Messiah, without drawing a distinction between verses 1a and 1b (cf. Verhoef). A very old Jewish interpretation of Malachi 3:1 maintains that this text speaks of the Angel of the Lord, who will bring deliverance in the end time (Ex. Rabbah 32, 9). However, already in the time of Hieronymus,¹⁹ Malachi 3:1a was interpreted to refer to John the Baptist. This requires a strange identification of the speaking subject. The “I” in “I send” is then emphatically thought to be Jesus, because he sends this messenger to prepare the way before him. But then one would expect verse 1b to have read, “And I will suddenly come to my temple.” But it does not say that. Even the opposite is true: since the Lord himself is speaking in verse 1b, verse 1a must also refer to a figure who proceeds before the face of the Lord and not to a figure who proceeds before the Messiah of the Lord. Moreover, if you accept that Christ is the subject of 1a, then there are tensions between Malachi 3:1a and the quotation in Mark 1:2. That is why others maintain that Christ is the speaking subject in Malachi 3:1a and that the Father is the speaking subject in Mark 1:2. But it is more likely that we must interpret Malachi 3:1a as referring to the Father as the speaking subject, who speaks about the Angel who is sent before him.

The several exegetes will no doubt have been influenced by Matthew 11:10 (and Luke 7:27). For it seems clear that the Saviour is there applying the passage in Malachi 3:1 to his forerunner, John the Baptist. This requires a detailed discussion of the exegesis of Matthew 11:10. For this we refer the reader to the discussion of this verse in the Commentary on Matthew.

If we interpret Malachi 3:1a as pointing to the coming of a redeeming and atoning Angel of the Lord and interpret Mark 1:2 to point to the same figure, we can connect this verse in a sensible way to 1:1. The gospel begins with John, but speaks of Jesus Christ, who is God’s Son. And the latter was already included in the promise of Malachi about a new coming of the Angel of Yahweh in person!

This resolves the problem that concerns many about the introduction to Mark (see the discussion of 1:1). Because they connect 1:2-3 with 1:4 (about John), the question that always arises is how the quotations from the prophets can refer to John. Suhl is of the opinion that Mark, as editor, does no more than laying the Old Testament next to the history of the Baptist in an explanatory way.²⁰ He does not think that the history of the Baptist is a fulfillment, but is simply analogous material. In his view, Matthew and Luke treat the material from the Old Testament more as a quotation of fulfillment and as a proof text. However, the problem raised by Suhl falls by the wayside when it is clear that we must connect verses 2-3 to verse 1. Such a connection would seem forced if verses 2-3 spoke about John. But it makes sense if the prophetic word of Malachi is quoted not as referring to the precursor of the Messiah, but as speaking of the Messiah himself. The Angel of the Lord, who is himself God, will be sent before the final judgment. Jesus explained to the crowd that he, as the one who follows the prophet John (who was the promised Elijah), is the promised Angel of the Lord (see the exegesis of Matthew 11:7ff.). Based on that teaching, Mark is now able to substantiate the title, Son of God (1:1b) with an appeal to Malachi 3:1a. For, in accordance with Jesus’ own instruction, the prophets had promised that no one other than the Angel of the Lord would come.

Malachi 3:1 was based on the Old Testament (messenger of the Lord, preparing the way). In the New Testament the Saviour is more often referred to as the Son of God. However, in the discussion about Jesus there are many reminiscences to the promise of Malachi 3:1. In particular, in the Gospel according to John the Saviour often points to the fact that he was sent and in Hebrews 3:1 Jesus is called one who was sent (apostolos). Jesus is “the way” (John 14:6) and Christians belong “to the Way” (Acts 9:2; 16:17; 18:25; 19:9; and other places; Heb. 10:20). The Father sent a person to prepare the way.

The second quotation (Mark 1:3) is taken from Isaiah 40:3. John the Baptist himself applied this text to his work when he was interrogated by a committee of priests and Levites (John 1:23). Matthew and Luke also quote the same passage from Isaiah in a brief description of John’s work (Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4-6). In Isaiah 40:1-11 the Lord promises that he himself will come as shepherd of his people. A voice in the wilderness shouts, “Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

The Hebrew text leads to the translation, “Listen, someone calls: prepare the way of the Lord in the wilderness; make level a highway for our God in the wilderness.” Gundry doubts the correctness of the emphasis in this text, and wonders if the translation of the Septuagint (supported by Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate, and rabbinical exegetes) does not mirror an older and better text.²¹ Supposedly the words “in the wilderness” are not connected to “prepare,” but to “calls.” Exegetically the difference is not that great; Bengel correctly points out that the listeners who are being addressed are there where the voice is, and vice‑versa.²² The point would be more significant if Isaiah 40:3 served in the New Testament as proof text to show that it was necessary for John to appear specifically in the wilderness. This is, however, not the main reason for the quote (see below).

From Isaiah 40:3 it appears that the coming of the Lord will be announced in one way or another. When John declares that he is that announcing voice, he is baptizing on the other side of the Jordan (John 1:28) and is not even in the wilderness at that point. Just as the “make straight in the desert a highway” does not refer to actual highways in the desert, so also the “wilderness” is a metaphorical reference to Israel’s desolate situation. This reality is illustrated by the place in which John appears (not Jerusalem, but the steppe). Therefore, in Matthew and Luke the statement that John preached in the wilderness (Matt. 3:1; Luke 3:2) is not followed immediately with the quotation from Isaiah 40, but those Gospels relate this prophecy only after they first relate how John announced “the nearness of the kingdom” (Matt. 3:2) or the “forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). It is he who may now proclaim (Isa. 40:3) the coming of the mighty Shepherd (Isa. 40:11), the one who atones for sin (Isa. 40:2). Thus, the most important reason for quoting from Isaiah 40 is not the place of John’s appearance (the wilderness), but the content of his proclamation. This is clear also from the fact that Luke gives the quotation in full and thereby emphasises the coming of God’s salvation as the most important point of interest (Isa. 40:3-5 in Luke 3:4-6).

Also in Mark 1:3 the whole emphasis falls on the word “Lord” (kurios): none other than the Lord himself is now coming! In this way the quotation of Isaiah 40:3 is connected seamlessly to Malachi 3:1. Jesus is the Son of God (Mark 1:1), the Angel of Yahweh (Mal. 3:1) already promised by the prophets (Mark 1:2a), the Lord whose coming is proclaimed (Isa. 40:3). The quotation from Isaiah comes last in Mark because in this way the evangelist connects it to the story about John, who now proclaims the coming of this Son of God in Israel (Mark 1:4-8).

John and God’s Son (Mark 1:4-13)←⤒🔗

Verses 4-8 and 9-11 (13) are usually discussed separately: a passage about the Baptist and a section about Jesus. But when you separate them, you fail to do justice to the fact that Mark has specifically aligned the two sections. The passage about the Baptist is not self‑contained but must be interpreted by what follows. The internal cohesion of Mark 1:4-13 becomes apparent from the following:

1. In verse 4, John is not being introduced to the readers. Mark presupposes that the readers know him. His intention is not to give an independent introduction about John the Baptist as such.
2. The use of the phrase “baptizing in the wilderness” and of the specific Christian word baptisma (baptism) in verse 4 shows that Mark presupposes that his readers know about Christian baptism. His intention is not to provide an independent description of “baptism.”
   a. Only a few manuscripts have a version of verse 4 that makes the following translation possible: “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, announcing a baptism…” (B 33 pc Ioannes ho baptizon en tei eremoi kerusson). This version (defended by Elliott²³)  can easily have happened to smooth out a somewhat strange expression: it is impossible to baptize in the wilderness (the baptism took place in the Jordan, not in the wilderness).
   b. Mark knows that the baptism of the people took place in the Jordan (Mark 1:5). But the call to be baptized was made in the wilderness and that is more characteristic for the concept of that baptism than the fact that the immersion had to take place for practical reasons in the nearby Jordan (cf. John 3:23 — John had to find a place with a lot of water).
3. While the name of John and the words about baptism are used as known information in verse 4, all the emphasis really falls on the penitential characteristic of this baptism. In connection with the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3, the wilderness denotes the desolate state of the people: they must leave home and hearth to be called to order by someone who dwells in the desert. And, as distinct from Christian baptism, this baptism is a sign of repentance and conversion. To be sure, it gives perspective on an anticipated forgiveness of sins, but it is not yet the sign of the acquired forgiveness in Christ (see below).
4. Verse 5 says nothing about the actual preaching to the crowds but confines itself to a global statement that all of the country of Judah and all Jerusalem went out to John. This exodus out of the holy city and out of the land to which the city belongs, leads to a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Again, the emphasis remains on the people humbling themselves. To what end?
5. Verse 6 is not a continuation of verse 5, but merely underlines it. John was also dressed simply and led a life of fasting (see below). The placement of this description of John’s clothing and food is strange. Why is it not found between verses 4 and 5 (cf. Matt. 3:4-5)? It is because in verse 6 Mark is not primarily describing people and events; instead, he characterizes them. Thus, this verse completes the sketch of verses 4-6. Everything points to repentance and confession. To what end?
6. Only in verses 7-8 does it become apparent why repentance was necessary. All the people are captivated by John but after him comes someone who is mightier. John speaks about him in a manner that exceeds human understanding. He himself could easily become a slave of the emperor, the highest personage on earth, and untie his sandals. How great then must the one be who is mightier, the one to whom the prophet John is less than a slave? He is God himself. Whereas John baptizes with water, he baptizes with the Spirit (see below). Only God can baptize with the Spirit. That is why John calls people to repentance, because the Lord himself is standing at the door (Isa. 40:3)!
7. After this passage, which must be understood as introductory (Mark 1:4-8), follows the central story in Mark 1:9-13. The beginning of verse 9 (“In those days”) can hardly be understood as an indication of a new pericope, for verse 9b connects to same action that was mentioned in Mark 1:5. Jesus “was baptized by him in the Jordan.” In Mark, the story about Jesus’ baptism (see below) does not follow a bit of history about the Baptist. Rather, it is the central focus in that time (of John the Baptist). Each piece fits with the next: the Spirit (1:8 and 1:10), God’s Son who comes (1:7 and 1:11), the sins that must be confessed and overcome (1:4-5 and 1:13), and the wilderness as the place where everything takes place (1:4 and 1:12-13).
8. The foregoing section is closed in Mark 1:14: “After John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee.” They name the two principal figures from the previous section, and thus Mark 1:4-13 forms a unit. That is why the suggestion that this section ends at Mark 1:15²⁴ is less likely.
9. Mark 1:1 (“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, God’s Son”) is a suitable heading for Mark 1:4-13. John teaches the people to expect their God, and the voice from heaven declares that Jesus is this Son of God. This connective element is no longer so explicit in Mark 1:14-15. There the next action is described, on the basis of the characterization in Mark 1:4-13. The gospel of the Son of God did not begin with his preaching in Galilee, but with his baptism by John and by the heavenly voice who pointed him out at that moment.
10. The appeal to the prophets in Mark 1:2-3 did not primarily support a reference to John, but to Christ. The section of Mark 1:4-13 as a whole fit those quotations very well. With a connection to Isaiah 40:3, Mark first speaks about a voice that announces the coming of the Lord (Mark 1:4-8). Thereafter, with a connection to Malachi 3:1, Mark speaks about the divine reference to and sending of the Angel who will prepare a way to God for the people (Mark 1:9-13).

After this survey of Mark 1:4-13 as a whole, we will now discuss a number of remaining points in the following verses.

In Mark 1:4 the question arises whether the expression “for the forgiveness of sins” now means that this forgiveness was received in and through baptism. Gould wonders how one can ever separate repentance and forgiveness.²⁵ And Thyen goes so far as to consider that, in the Baptist’s preaching, there was no more room for a messianic figure who was supposed to come after John, because he already preached so much about eschatological forgiveness in his original message and in that message as overrun by Christian interpretation.²⁶ Since John professed to confer forgiveness via baptism, he was only awaiting the judgment, according to Thyen. However, others regard the forgiveness of sins not as the content of John’s baptism but as the prospect that this baptism offers. The baptism in the Jordan promises a soon‑to‑come granting of grace and amnesty for the people, if they prepare themselves for it by repentance and by anticipating the arrival of Stronger.²⁷
We opt for this last opinion for the following reasons.

(a) God does not grant forgiveness unless people are penitent and confess their sins. But this penitence does not always lead directly and automatically to forgiveness.

(b) In and of itself, the expression “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” can indeed mean that baptism seals this forgiveness as a blessing that is now received by faith. But it can also mean that the baptism is directed toward that forgiveness, prepares for it, and promises it. Mark and Luke (3:3) both say that John proclaims a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew (3:2) writes that John preaches, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” From Matthew’s summary it appears that the repentance is directed to something other than what might now be received in the baptism. Since forgiveness of sins and entry into the kingdom of heaven are closely connected, it is likely that Mark also indicates an expectation of forgiveness. Then it is also understandable that he does say in the next verse (1:5) that people confessed their sins, but not that they now also received forgiveness. The prophecy of father Zechariah also merely stated that John would give the people knowledge of salvation. And that salvation consists of the forgiveness of sins through Christ (see the commentary on Luke 1:77-79). Nowhere in the New Testament is it said that John preached or dispensed “the forgiveness.” The dispensing of forgiveness (as a divine work) is ascribed to Jesus.

Luke 24:47 does not read “repentance to forgiveness,” but “forgiveness and repentance”: repentance and forgiveness is being preached in Jesus’ name (according to almost all manuscripts; only three have a different reading, probably under the influence of, for example, Luke 3:3).

In Acts 2:38 (“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”) Peter emphatically draws a connection with John’s promise of forgiveness and baptism. However, now it is a baptism in the name of someone else (Jesus Christ), about whom he has just preached that he accomplished the forgiveness promised by John for God’s people. That is why the expression “for the forgiveness of sins” in this context acquires the meaning, “So that you do indeed receive the forgiveness of sins that you looked forward to through John’s baptism when you let yourself be baptized in the name of Jesus.”

(c) The fact that John preached a “baptism of repentance” and that Christ now brings “the forgiveness of sins” is made very clear from a comparison of Acts 10:37 with 10:43, and of 13:24 with 13:38.

(d) In 1:4 Mark gives a brief summary against the background of his readers’ familiarity with the person of John and with the terminology of baptism. We must interpret his words in harmony with what we know from Acts about that terminology of baptism. Then Mark 1:4 means: John preached that the people had to come to repentance and conversion, should be immersed in the Jordan (like Naaman, the leprous Gentile!) in order to, in this way, prepare themselves with faith for the forgiveness of sins by the coming Lord, which was proclaimed by him (see Acts 19:4).

From Mark 1:5 it appears that the call to a baptism of repentance stirs up all the people. The phrase “all the country of Judea” refers not only to Judea (in 3:7, 10:1, and 13:14, Mark uses a geographical description, Ioudaia), but to the entire country of the Jews, of which Jerusalem is the capital (cf. John 11:55 for a similar juxtaposition of the Jewish country and the city of Jerusalem). The Jewish historian Josephus also mentions the revival under John the Baptist (see Christ on Earth 6.5). For Mark the most important thing about these gathering crowds is that through confession of their sins they are being prepared for the coming of God and his grace.

The description of John’s clothing and food in Mark 1:6 identifies him as a dweller in the wilderness. The Bedouins wear coats made of camel hair (not camel skins!) and leather belts. Their food consists of locusts and wild honey (although it is possible that meli agron means something else, namely, the sap of certain trees). The clothing is not characteristic of a prophet. But when a prophet (such as John appears to be; see vv. 4-5) wears wilderness clothes like this, it identifies him as a prophet of repentance. This connects John with someone like Elijah (2 Kings 1:8) and with other prophets of repentance (Zech. 13:4). Verse 6 does not give a reason to assume a direct and intentional reference to Elijah, for clothing and food are not legitimized by reference to the Old Testament. The comparison to Elijah can, therefore, be regarded only as being indirect. Furthermore, when Jesus speaks about John’s austere clothes and his fasting, he does not draw a direct connection with the figure of Elijah, but rather draws a connection to John’s appearance as a preacher of repentance, who calls the people to come to contrition (Matt. 11:18).

Most manuscripts contain the words kai en de (ho) Ioannes at the beginning of verse 6. A small number of manuscripts have simplified these words, by omitting de. If this word is maintained, however, the translation could read, “And John too was…” In this way it becomes even clearer that verse 6 is illustrative of the “baptism of repentance” and the call to confess sins.

In 1:7-8 Mark provides a broader description of the preaching that was called the preaching of “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” in verse 4. That brief reference already suggested that John’s baptism pointed forward toward something else (forgiveness). He provides a broader description of it in verses 7 and 8. After John comes “the one who is mightier” than he; Mark speaks with certainty about one person (the one mightier). This one comes after John or: behind him. The succession will be immediate and direct (“he comes,” not “he will come”). That is why John preaches like a herald, who announces (kerussein) the immediate arrival of the king. According to Pesch, “the one mightier” cannot be an indirect reference to God himself; in that case, the human references in verse 7 would have been avoided.²⁸ However, we can also put this differently: the concrete metaphorical language in verse 7 (about stooping down to untie sandals) indicates that the mightier one comes in human form with sandals on his feet. Nonetheless, he is more than a human being, since John hesitates doing even this slave labour for the mightier one. The one who is mightier than John is the man Jesus, who has been provided with sandals. His earthly sandals do not take away from the fact that he is entitled to divine adoration. John already knew from his father Zechariah that Jesus is the Lord who comes, the Angel of the Lord, the promised horn of salvation (Luke 1:69, 78). In his preaching John does not yet use the name of Jesus, but he does already mention the highness of his person.

In verse 8 John compares his own work with that of the mightier one who follows him. John baptizes with water (the aorist ebaptisa characterizes in a nutshell what John does). The verb (baptizo) means “to immerse, to submerge.” It can, therefore, also come to mean “to wash oneself” (Mark 7:4; Judith 12:7; 2 Kings 5:14) or “to be washed (by a slave)” (Luke 11:38). This also led to the formation of a noun: baptismos (“washing,” Mark 7:4). However, the ceremony performed by John is not called a baptismos, but a baptisma, a newly formed word that is a technical term for the “baptism” (of John and of Jesus). Although the immersion ceremony can be associated with “washing,” that is apparently not its main meaning. John’s work is also not identified with verbs that specifically describe “washing” (e.g., loutron, louo). This point is important because the verb “baptize” in verse 8 is used twice metaphorically in a certain sense for baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is unusual to connect the verb “baptize” (baptizo) with “Holy Spirit.” John does this in order to make a comparison between his own work and the work of the mightier one. The mightier one will baptize the people with the Spirit. The prophets contain a clear and repeated promise that in the end God himself will pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Joel 2:28-29; Ezek. 36:26-27; 37:14; Zech. 12:10). The stronger one comes to carry out this promise. In this context, the verb “pour out” or “lay on” is, however, replaced with “baptize” because of the parallelism with what John does. That can hardly mean “wash” here (John also did not “wash” people in the Jordan!), but must refer to the act of “immersion and causing someone to be submerged.” When God gives his Spirit, the sins are forgiven and they are overcome. He who comes must be God to be able to bestow the Spirit. His “immersion by the Spirit” will be the realization of what Malachi promised: the Angel of the Lord will prepare the way between God and the people (Mark 1:2). Mark also formulates verses 7-8 in such a way that expectations are raised and a concrete prospect is opened up, but without explicitly describing how that forgiveness comes and who will give this Spirit. The whole of Mark 1:4-8 ends with a colon that serves as an introduction to what follows.

In Matthew and Luke, “baptism with the Spirit” is linked to “baptism by fire.” Since Mark does not add those words, we should not interpret Mark 1:8 based on those words about “fire.” Their meaning is discussed in the commentary on Matthew 3:11-12.

In 1:9 Mark reaches the apex of his first part. This is marked by solemn turns of phrase that are not usual for this writer and that intentionally imitate the style of the Old Testament: “In those days…” After his preparatory sketch in 1:4-8, Mark finally comes to what he wanted to say about the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, God’s Son (Mark 1:1). The name “Jesus” in verse 9 is not further explained because it links up with the broader designation of the name in the heading above Mark 1:4-13 (namely, Mark 1:1-3). The brief statement that Jesus “came from Nazareth in Galilee” causes a sharp contrast with what follows. He sees the heavens torn apart above him, but he comes on earth from a totally unknown town in an outlying district. Jesus is also “immersed (ESV: baptized) in the Jordan by John.” The choice of words creates a striking parallel with the general description in Mark 1:5. But this parallelism also discloses a difference: while all people let themselves be baptized after confessing their sins (Mark 1:5), that addition is not used for Jesus.

Now it appears from Mark 1:10 that Jesus immediately came up out of the water. What is the significance of this information? That Jesus was indeed immersed, but that he then immediately came out of the water without the usual confession of sins.

In translations of this verse the word “immediately” is often connected to the verb “see” (“immediately he saw”). However, in the plea for this connection,²⁹ it is disregarded that Matthew too, without the possibility of another interpretation, speaks of “immediately after baptism going up from the water” (Matt. 3:16). In the second place, the connection with “saw” compels one to think that Jesus, “while he was [still] going out of the water” (anabainon, not anabas), immediately saw the heavens opened. But as he leaves the river, the focus is on the water, not on heaven. Jesus looks up when, on the bank of the river and following upon the immersion, he prays to God (see Luke 3:22 for the Spirit to descend during his prayer).

The significance of Jesus’ baptism (according to the oldest exegesis³⁰) is that he thereby demonstrates his solidarity with the people and with the announcements of John. But the manner in which the baptism is carried out (without a confession of sins) also demonstrates that among sinners he is without sin. That is confirmed from heaven. In a vivid way Mark describes how Jesus sees the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove. When Mark says that Jesus saw this, he does not rule out that John also saw it from the side (cf. John 1:32-34). Nonetheless, the description emphasizes that what was being seen was directed first of all to Jesus himself. The descent of the Spirit reminds us of the promise of the prophets that God’s Spirit will rest on the Messiah (Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1). That promise does not firstly concern the Messiah’s birth, but the work to which the Lord will call him and for which he will use him. The Spirit will liberate God’s people, and therefore descends on the Messiah, who is the instrument for that deliverance. We must therefore distinguish this descent from the Spirit’s work in Jesus’ conception and youth. The Spirit announces that God now comes to the people with the anointed Messiah.

The figure of a dove symbolizes the work that Jesus will do through the Spirit. The idea that the Spirit descended in the manner of a dove³¹ is incorrect: the form of the dove symbolizes the Spirit.³² There is no reason to think especially of Noah’s dove (whereby the olive leaf would be the sign of the Spirit³³): this dove does not return to Jesus, but descends from above, not with a sign of new life on earth but with the sound of a heavenly voice. That shows that the work of the Spirit is not the work of a bird of prey, but of the peaceful dove. This matches the tenor of Isaiah 11:6-10, 42:2-7, and 61:1ff. The Messiah comes to bring peace (cf. Acts 10:38). In this context it should not be forgotten that the dove, being a peaceful bird, is also the only bird that was included in the sacrificial service of the old covenant. Doves were caught in large numbers in the wilderness of Judah to be sold in Jerusalem. The dove is thus treated like the lamb. The Messiah will be a sacrificial lamb (Isa. 53:7). John the Baptist sees dove and lamb on the same level (see John 1:29-36). Since the Spirit descends from heaven, God shows a figure from the sky, namely, the dove. From what follows it will become clear that the Spirit did indeed come upon Jesus to sacrifice him for the people, for the temptations follow immediately afterwards through the prompting of the Spirit (Mark 1:12).

That the descent of the Spirit is a public event and not a personal vision of Jesus is apparent also from Mark 1:11. A voice came from the heavens; it is not an “echo of the heavenly voice in Jesus’ inner self,” but a sound that audibly comes from above and is directed at Jesus. Together with Gnilka et al. we must reject the Jewish bat qol notion.³⁴ The Jews believed that after the last of the prophets, God only let some kind of echo of revelation reverberate in some people. But what happened at the Jordan was definitely not such an internal echo of revelation.

The word from the heavens is handed down in virtually similar terms by all the evangelists: “You are [Matt. and John: “This is”] my beloved Son [John: “God’s son”; John also omits “beloved”]; with you [Matt.: “in whom”] I am well pleased.” This similarity in tradition points to a careful rendition: the declaration resembles different expressions in the Old Testament, and yet did not result in an assimilation of them (except in Luke 3:22, which in manuscript D reads, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”; cf. Ps. 2:7). This careful rendition shows that the words were not heard primarily as a quotation from the Old Testament, but as an independent declaration.

But isn’t the declaration at the same time an allusion to one or more Old Testament texts? If so, which ones? To Isaiah 42:1 (“Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights”) and to Psalm 2:7 (“You are my Son; today I have begotten you”)?³⁵ Or was the allusion to Psalm 2:7 added by a later editor who substituted the original word “servant” (pais) with “Son” (huios), as suggested by Gnilka?³⁶ Or perhaps the declaration does allude to Isaiah 42:1, but not to Psalm 2:7, because the word order in this psalm is different,³⁷ or because via wisdom literature a connection with Isaiah 42 is more likely?³⁸ In connection with this, Pesch (see also Gould³⁹) adds the comment that the word Son is not intended as a title but denotes a relationship.⁴⁰ In that case the expression “You are…” marks Jesus off from the person of John.

We believe that the voice from heaven does have Psalm 2:7 as point of departure, but not Isaiah 42:1, for the following reasons.

1. The word “Son” is dominant. The rest is a further definition of that word. Jesus is the Son and he is beloved. In Greek that usually means that it is the only son or daughter. Jesus is the Son, the unique, the only one. The words “with you I am well pleased” are apparently not central; they are missing in John. Nor is it necessary to attribute a strong contrasting effect to the end of the utterance, as if in the words “with you I am well pleased” Jesus were being compared with someone else about whom one might suppose, unjustifiably, that God had pleasure in him. Matthew uses a simple relative pronoun (“with whom I am well pleased”) and the words “with you” must be regarded as a continuation of the earlier words (“You are my beloved Son”). By these words (“with you I am well pleased”) the voice from heaven emphasizes that the silence about all the previous persons who were baptized was telling: they confessed their sins and did not earn God’s pleasure. But as Son of God, Jesus, who was guiltless, immediately came up out of the water, and God declares that he has pleasure in this own Son. He is the only Son and he is the only one in Israel in whom God can have pleasure. There is insufficient ground to find an intended reference to Isaiah 42:1 in the conclusion of the heavenly voice’s utterance. Of course, this does not eliminate the possibility that the choice of words here may have been influenced by the scriptural background. However, biblical word usage is not the same as an explicit text reference!
2. The word “Son” is an acknowledgement of what Jesus is. This is apparent from the addendum to 1:1 (“Jesus Christ, the Son of God”). Immediately after the baptism (in the wilderness of the temptations), Satan also used the designation “Son of God” as a title and characteristic of Jesus (Matt. 4:3, 6). The heavenly voice does not say that in God’s eyes Jesus is like a son, or that God calls him his son, but it says that Jesus is God’s Son.
3. The word “Son” is referential. Now John the Baptist did not at all give the impression that he sees himself as the “Son of God,” and therefore the heavenly voice cannot be explained as a choice of Jesus over the Baptist (“You and not John are God’s Son”⁴¹). Since John preached about the coming of someone with divine authority (Mark 1:7-8), we can regard the heavenly utterance as connecting to that preaching. John says, “He comes.” God says to Jesus, “You are.” But now the voice does not use a term that John had used. It does not say, “You are the mightier one.” That word identified the relationship between John and the one who was coming. But now God himself speaks and the relationship between God and the one who comes is that of Father and Son. That is why the voice identifies the Son as the mightier one who was coming and who is Jesus now. This new word, in combination with the high expectations about the coming of the Lord himself (the appearance of the Angel of Yahweh) reminds us of a homogeneous, unique declaration in the Old Testament. Psalm 2:7 speaks about someone who can declare that God spoke to him, “You are my Son.” The difference in word order does not prevent us from seeing a close connection between the two expressions. In Psalm 2:7 the addressee conveys what God said to him (“The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son”’). But in Mark 1:11 we read the same thing in the direct address by God to Jesus and God spoke to him at the moment that he united himself with the people in the baptism. In this situation the word order is changed because it is not an actual quotation, although in substance it is an identical statement (“And a voice came…‘You are my beloved Son’”).

Nowadays Psalm 2:7 is often explained as an adoption formula in which God adopts the king of Israel as his son.⁴² This has consequences for the exegesis of Mark 1:11. Through the connection with Psalm 2:7 the meaning of the term son in that Psalm qualifies the expression Son of God in the New Testament. The arguments against the adoption exegesis are as follows:

(a) The promise to David does say that God will be a father to his son and that the son will be a son to God (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 28:6) so that that son will say “my Father” (Ps. 89:26). But this promise does not include that God will beget a son for David of which it can be said unquestionably “You are my Son” (Ps. 2:7). These differences in formulation are completely clear — also in the Septuagint.

(b) Psalm 89 complains that because of God’s punishments for the sins of David’s house it seems as if God is not keeping his promises to David. In contrast, in Psalm 2 the union between God and his anointed is unconditional (as distinct from Ps. 89:30-32).

(c) The kings of David’s house do reign in Jerusalem, but over Israel or Judah. If Psalm 2 were to speak of a king of Judah, the expression that God has set that king “over Zion” would be inaccurate (Ps. 2:6).

(d) This holds true all the more because it does not say “over Jerusalem,” but “over Zion, my holy hill.” There was never a Jewish king of whom anyone dared to say that he reigned over the holy hill of Yahweh. It is true that in the prophets “Zion” can refer to Jerusalem as the city of the Lord, but even then “Zion” retains its special meaning as a reference to the domain of the temple where God is king (Ps. 48; 74:2; 84:7). It is the hill of Zion (Isa. 4:5, 10:12, 18:7, 31:4, Lam. 5:18). This is Yahweh’s domain. He will live there for ever and from this place he makes a horn to sprout for David (Ps. 132:13, 17). When Psalm 2:6 speaks of a king whom the Lord has set over Zion, his holy hill, it is clear that this verse speaks about a higher king, one with greater holiness than David, Solomon, or any of their descendants in the Old Testament.

(e) In Psalm 2:12 all who take refuge in the Son of God are called blessed. In the Old Testament taking refuge with someone is connected to Yahweh, in whom the people take shelter, and not to the Jewish kings who themselves also had to place their trust and help in Israel’s God and King!

Conclusion: Psalm 2 speaks prophetically about someone who is anointed by God, someone who is God’s own Son, and who reigns so closely connected with him over the holy hill that all peoples (who are already governed by him now, Ps. 2:2-3) can only choose between perishing or submitting (Ps. 2:12). This anointed One clearly rises so far above everything that David and Solomon represented that the readers of this psalm could do nothing but await this person in the future and meanwhile believe that he was present, though invisible, with God on his holy hill.

When the voice from heaven identifies Jesus as “God’s Son,” God thereby signifies that the invisible reality of the prophecy in Psalm 2 has now become flesh and blood in Jesus, who came from Nazareth and sided with God’s people. The continuation of this history will show the implications of this reality clearer and clearer.

In 1:12 Mark pays particular attention to the fact that Jesus was driven out into the wilderness. While Matthew (4:1) and Luke (4:1-2) mention the temptation in one breath with Jesus’ being led away, Mark mentions this fact separately before relating the temptations in the next sentence. This already prevents us from reading Mark 1:12-13 and an abbreviated account of the so called “history of the temptation” (for the relationship to the other Gospels, see Mahnke⁴³). In verse 12 Mark uses a remarkable verb. It says that the Spirit drove him out into the wilderness. (In the Old Testament ekballein is common for “driving out, removing,” while in the New Testament it is often used for the “casting out” of demons, or the “sending away” of people.) While all the people were led out of the wilderness to the Jordan, so that, after confessing their sins, they could return to their place of origin filled with expectation, Jesus is immediately (euthus) banished by the Spirit, as though he lacked permission to remain. This banishment of him who was just identified as the mightier one, who was to come for the forgiveness of sins, has to do with the atonement. It is as though the sins confessed by the people (Mark 1:5) are now already added to Jesus’ account. And he who had committed no sin (Mark 1:10), so that he could rise up out of the water immediately, is now immediately driven out of the country and into the wilderness. That place is important in the context of general confession of sins. Through John’s appearance the people came to an attitude of repentance, such as is prescribed for the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29, 31). Once a year a living being was sent into the wilderness for the collective sins of the people (Lev. 16:20-22). Aaron placed all the iniquities of the Israelites on the head of the goat and sent it away into unfruitful land, to the wilderness, where it was set free. Does the historical context of a collective repentance and the expectation of someone who will carry away the sins, in combination with the chosen verb, “drive out,” not remind us of a banishment because of the sins of all the people? What follows is connected to this.

In 1:13 Mark tells us what happened in the wilderness of banishment (for the history of the exegesis see Mahnke⁴⁴). Jesus was tempted by Satan for forty days in the wilderness. The way this is related emphasizes the duration of the temptation (cf. Luke 4:2); it was a very long period. But is also indicates that these temptations did not have any effect. Satan was given a full forty days to achieve his goal, but his efforts gained him nothing. Compare this to the short time span of the temptation of Adam and Eve. We are of opinion that the statement about a forty‑day period of temptation is positive in itself. This is significant when we ask the question whether the next two remarks, “he was with the wild animals” and “the angels were ministering to him” are also intended in a positive sense. Schmithals regards both as symbols of a regained paradise.⁴⁵ Peace with the animals is restored in accordance with the promise of Isaiah (11:6-9, 65:25). And the angels serve people again (Ps. 91:11-13). We also see a restored Adam.⁴⁶ But is the temptation not prettified in that case? Schmithals even interprets the first element (“into the wilderness”) positively. He suggests that in the wilderness people have freed themselves from worldly certainties and are in this way receptive to God that the temptations of the world no longer have any hold over them. However, the context does not at all support this modern typological explanation of what happens in the wilderness, especially because of the use of the verb “drove out” in Mark 1:12. But if the wilderness is regarded in a negative sense, does this then not mean that the wild animals are mentioned only in a negative sense, so that Jesus is now been delivered up to the wild animals in that desolate land. According to Cranfield⁴⁷ and Lane,⁴⁸ wild animals are the “furnishings” of a desolate landscape that is subjected to God’s wrath. Also, in the salvation promises of Isaiah 11 about the lion and the lamb there is no mention of the wilderness, only a coming together of feral and tame animals. According to Lane, even the service of the angels merely shows how the time in the wilderness had to be prolonged. In this discussion it is important to note that verse 12 has its own content and meaning. In contrast, the first element in verse 13 cannot be characterized as a stay in the wilderness as such, but rather as a forty‑day temptation. If we do not cut this description short, it retains the force already described above, namely, that Satan did not succeed even though he tried for a full and lengthy forty days. Therefore, it makes sense to expect positive descriptions in what follows. It would be superfluous to take note of the fact that wild animals dwell in the wilderness. It does not say there were wild animals, but that Jesus “was with (meta) the wild animals.” That can only refer to a peaceful handling of dangerous animals: Evidently, he is their master! The idea that Jesus is master of the wild animals makes more sense than a reference to the promise in Isaiah 11:6-9, in that text there is no reference to a wilderness, but it gives a picture of the salvation that the Messiah will bring (the weak and the strong will dwell together). In contrast, Mark 1 is about the Messiah himself and exclusively about wild animals. A reference to Psalm 91 is also inappropriate. That psalm speaks about angels offering assistance to weak believers, while Mark speaks about rendering service to a master (it is clear from Matt. 4:6-7 that Satan quoted Ps. 91:11-12 to Jesus but it was rejected by him).

In summary, verse 13 appears to show how Jesus, who was driven out to the wilderness by the Spirit for the sins of the people (v. 12), is the mightier one who is unassailable by Satan, and who is master over creation and Lord of the angels. Thus, Jesus is indeed shown to be the promised Angel of Yahweh, who will prepare a way to God for the people (Mark 1:2, 12) and who is himself the Lord (Mark 1:3, 13). He goes into the wilderness for the sins of the people and there he is shown to be the mighty one, God’s Son. That is how the gospel of Jesus Christ begins (Mark 1:1-3 above Mark 1:4-13)!