of the good news of God’s return to Zion, ending Israel’s exile and rooting out evil from the world. Mark’s use of euangelion may then be regarded as pointing to the fulfillment of these promises.
Two more words need to be explicated in the heading: “Christ” and “Son of God”. With regard to “Christ”, it is best to treat it as a title: Messiah. “Christ” is the anglicized version of the Greek Christos, which is in turn a translation of the Hebrew māšîah (anglicized into “Messiah”), which basically means “the anointed one.” In Jewish thought of the Second Temple period, the reference is often—though not always—to a royal figure from the line of David, who is expected to come to deliver Israel from her enemies (cf. 4QFlor 1:10–13, 18–19; Pss Sol 17:21–32).38 What is more important, however, is Mark’s use of the term, which means a firm decision can only be made when the whole work has been analyzed.
The connection between the term “Son of God” and Roman propaganda has been explained earlier but we note here two further things. First, it is not clear whether this phrase was part of Mark’s original text. Much has been discussed and there is no consensus.39 Assuming it is original, it will be instructive to explore its Jewish background. In its Jewish context, the “Son of God” is often used in relation to the concept of election, principally the choice of Israel as God’s special people, and the choice of the Davidic king as God’s vicegerent. This fits into the ancient concept of divine adoption, where someone or a nation is singled out as a god’s special love. For many Jews of Jesus’ day, the term when used on human beings did not mean he/she was divine, but the chosen ruler or king of Israel. The Qumran scrolls (4QFlor and 4Q246) offer clear evidence that this is so. Of course, the Christian Church could have poured new content into the title, based on their understanding of who Jesus was. That is, as Son of God he was not simply king but more than king. However, Mark has intentionally left the meaning unexplained in the prologue. He will clarify this as his narrative proceeds. Modern scholarship has often regarded this title as the key to Mark’s Christology.40
It remains for us to summarize what Mark has achieved with his heading. Mark has certainly introduced the key character, identified him with title(s) and indicated his importance with the correlate phrase “beginning of the gospel”. All this is indeed explosive because set in the first century Roman Empire, the terms such as “gospel” and “son of God” formed a significant part of the unifying propaganda of an Empire that comprised many subjugated kingdoms and peoples. These terms laud the ruling power, usually making reference to the one who was touted as the greatest among them all: Augustus Caesar. But Mark speaks of a different gospel and a different Son of God, who is none other than Jesus of Nazareth, hailing from what may be regarded as the backwater of the Empire, and belonging to a people often regarded as strange at best, or a pest at worst. In other words, right from the very start, the alert reader would perceive that a contrast—indeed, a contest—is being set up between Augustus Caesar and Jesus Christ, between Rome and the Christian Church.
Fusing the Horizons
Mark’s prologue was a shrill challenge to his society. What is striking in this challenge is the use of significant terms to flesh out the meaning of the Christian gospel. In other words, the potent content is given relevant packaging so that its power can be perceived much more quickly. Indeed, the packaging also hints at the contrast between the Roman gospels and the Christian gospel. One was plural, needing frequent re-enactments and connected with the might of this world; the other is singular, being the one true gospel, and is connected with the might of heaven but displayed, as Mark will show, in the crucified form of the Messiah. Popular and significant terms are thus being subverted by the Christian message.
Evangelistic endeavors in our world may take a leaf from Mark’s book. Too often the gospel is presented in a garb that comes from another time or culture. We must, instead, seek ways to use significant terms in our time and culture to present the gospel. The rich theological terms of yesteryears, or from a far country, would simply pass our generation by if we do not make the effort to connect. In this light, the gospel message is not a mantra to be repeated but a performance that needs creative re-enactments.
This does not mean we are merely repeating what is fashionable. Rather, we are to use it as contact points or for subversion. In this sense, while the gospel can indeed be quickly understood, it is still a challenging message, as it calls people to abandon old and entrenched patterns of thinking and living in order to embrace the new and liberating. Hence, gospel preaching cannot just be about packaging, important as this may be. The content is supremely important, for it is this that will ultimately subvert and transform. To reiterate what was adumbrated earlier: we need creative performances, but such performances are also to be re-enactments, following the plot but with different props.
Mark’s prologue indicates that the content of gospel preaching is to be informed by the story of Jesus Christ. This is the reference point. As such it serves as a challenge to how the gospel is being presented today. We may mention here, as an example, the weekly sermons of some churches where the focus is on how their members may be healthy or wealthy. God is presented as the doting, generous Creator and we are therefore fools if we remain sickly or poor. Such a counterfeit message contradicts Mark’s presentation of his central character and actually sounds more like the gospels of the Caesars.41 Such gospels certainly brought material benefit, but often only for a select group: the rich and powerful, the decision makers and the investors. Never mind the cries of the powerless many. Sadly, Christians may be complicit in such matters. As long as business or governmental schemes can enrich us, we are tempted to take them as God’s blessing, without considering whether they are moral or just. Any gospel preaching that takes our eyes away from Christ must therefore be treated with suspicion.
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
