Isaiah in Mark's Gospel
Morna D. Hooker
That the book of lsaiah was of particular importance for Mark seer115 clear, for he begins his 'Gospel about Jesus Christ' with a quotatior1 which he attributes to Isaiah. It is, moreover, the only 'editorial' quotation in the whole gospel, since the quotations he uses elsewhere are always attributed to one of the characters in the story, nornlally Jesus himself. Like Kom. 1:2 - but more specifically - it establishes straight away that the Gospel proclain~ed here was 'announced beforehand in sacred scriptures through his prophets'. This one quotation, in Mark 1:2-3, is thus the equivalent of all the 'hlfilrt~ent- quotations' in Matthew put together.' It would seem, then, that this opening quotation is understood by Mark to be programmatic: the key to understanding what this 'Gospel'
-
or 'Good News'-
might be is to be found in the book of Isaiah."It is all the more remarkable, then, that what Mark introduces as 'written in the prophet Isaiah' begins with words written elsewhere! The opening sen- tence
-
'Behold, I send my nlessenger before you, who will prepare your way'-
appears to be an amalgam of promises taken tiom Exod. 23:20 and Mal. 3: 1.This is even more surprising when we compare the Synoptic parallels to Mark 1 :3, since though both Matthew and Luke use this Exodus-Malachi quotation elsewhere (Matt. 1 1 : 10; Luke 7:27), the quotation from Isa. 40:3 is found here on its own (Matt. 3:3 and Luke 3:4, in both cases attributed to Isaiah). If Matthew and Luke were independently using Mark 1 , then they l~iust both have decided to drop the first quotation at this point because each of them was planning to use it in another context. This would suggest that they had already thought out exactly what they would be including later in their narratives.
Critics who argue that Mark used Matthew, rather than the other way round, see this passage as evidence that Mark, having decided to omit the story about
' It
IS, of' course, true that Mark. ilnllke Mmhew, IS u5111g xrrpturc hmadly, not to SIIOM tlou part~culr dctatk \wrc firlfillcd Cf Hugh Anderson. 'The Old rmcdmcnt tn Mark's (.rtrpcl'. In Jam- M Eflni, ed , Thr Lkc of the Old Iesratnmt rn tlte h m t atrd Otlrpr l-~snys Srudtc.; tn Ifc>nor ol
Will~am Fm~~klrn Sttneynnf (L)urham, NC I3uke Unt\rersto Pms. 1072). pp 2XO!-3t%
AEcd Suhf, De Funkhun der alrrestamrntlrrhrn drarr rrnd Ansprrlutrqor r1n I.larkrum*ttqrlrum (C;utmloh Gerd Mohn, 1965). denter the rrnporu~rce of 'fulttlrnent' for Mark, hilt 1gmrc-s the lmpornncc o f thtr opcntng quotannn
I S A I A H I N T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T
John the Uapt~st sendrng messenger5 to Jesus from prtcon, took the E x o d u v M , ~ l r c h ~ qilotatlorr h t n that story and jolned ~t to the words h r n Isa~ah.
Doth thew euplanatrons appear to envltage the evangeltsts porlng over docunrents and plectng them together \v~th sctcsors and paste. It seems more pn)bable that both quotations were already betng used In the pre-Markan tradtttorl to refer to John, and came to the evangellca ~ n d e ~ e n d e n t l ~ . ' All nradt* use of a tradttton q u o t n ~ g Isa 40 3, w h ~ l e Matthew and Luke knew of a different \tory in whlch J e ~ i ~ c referred to Exodus-Malacht. Further evidence that Isa 4 0 3 was an Important one In the early C h r ~ s t ~ a n communtty4 1s to be found 111 the fact that ~t IS used also In the fourth gospel, where ~t 1s once agatrr enlployed ofJohn the Bapt~st (John 1 :23).' It may well have been Mark, then, who was respon\tble for br~ngnrg the two quounons t ~ g e t h e r . ~
Why d ~ d Mark attrtbute t h ~ s 'nuxed' quotatton to Isa~ah! Was ~t a n~~stake!
I h d he, that IS, uztunre tlrat both halves of the quotat~orr must be h n l Isa~ah?
O r was ~t a 'delrberate' tn~rtake: In other words, was Isatah co lnlportant for h ~ r n that ~t ceenred nece\\ary to ectablish stratght away that the Good News .ibout Jesuq C h m t was the fulfilment of what had been prcmr~sed through l\at.~tr" T h ~ c questlor1 can be answered only by exanrtnlng the way 111 which he uses Ica~ah, rlot only In tlr~s pascage but elsewhere tn h ~ s gospel.X Before d o ~ n g tlrat, however, we nlu\t g u g e 18 ~ ~ n p o r t a n c e here
Ftrst, \ye need to remember th.tt the later chapten of lsalah (generally known a5 'Ilcutero-l\a~dh' and 'Tr~to-l\a~alr') rrlake h ~ c book the obv~ous source for pmclan1atmn.i about Cod's ecchatologtcal \alvat~on Moreover, what Mark set\ out to wrltc IS the 'Good New\' or 'Gospel', and the noun he uses (tbuyythtov) 15 related to a verb that 1s uced several tlnlcs In the later chapters of I\a~ah, where it 15 used of proclatrn~ng the good news of God'c rule.9 It has, to be cure, been ponrteci out that the noun ttself 1s not uced w ~ t h t h ~ c eschato- log~cal \ense rn the LXX, and attempts have therefore been made to d e r ~ v e C h r ~ \ t ~ a n lice ofthe tern) from the ~ n r p e r ~ a l cult, where the plural form 1s used
' (:ontparr\rm c~fMdrk 1: I-- 13 wrtil IL\ prrdllclr rn tile ottirr hwsprk , u p @ % s that Matrttcw and Luke u*cre rtot followrr~g Mark c Ic>rcly rt ti115 porrit, hut u n n s another, pdrauel, crddltlon.
Thc 115c of the opcniny vcncr of Isdrah 40 in the New Te.itarnmt is dru-u%xd hv Klync R.
\nt,tigra\~. 'Screams of Traditlorr Eri~ergtng fi,rn lsarah 40.1-5 and therr Adaptattorr in the New Ii~trrrtcrtt'.~S.Vl X (19XU). pp 24-45.
Ir IS pi,\\rt>lc, of coune. tlrat the atrtllor r>i tltc fotrnh gorpcl w s s here drawtrlg on orte of the
\ynoprrcr. rattler thrrt nrirrg rrt rndepcndcnt trrdrnon.
An rlterndtrve ~ s p l r i ~ a r i ~ ~ r t \uggett> that the t i r ~ t quotatto~t w.15 an carly glotr.coprcd Into the test of h,lrrk fnrrrt (2 7.77. Thrr u>lutrc~ri is fdvrrtrred by rome cornntcntntors. c . ~ . Taylor, 'fit ( h q w l 'ucordrnp ro Sr .$lark (Lolldon btac~t~rilart. 1952). p 153. .171cre a, 11own.cr. no tcsttlal cvtdcrrce to support till\ ruggrrttoo
- See r r r pdrttrrrlar Kikki E W~tt.i. Ldl'rh'r .%r' I l x ~ d l u urrd .ifark (WUNT, 2nd scrrn XN: Tiihtngen:
Mohr \reheck. IC)97), pp. XX-'A).
Ilecent Jtu.~ir~roo\ of this arc to he Cound rn Watts. . A ~ q r , Ikodus: and Joel Marcuc. 7hc C4ky qf'rlrr loni <Ihn,rol~y~ta/ 1;tc:fr:yriu 01. tlte Oiri 'I?~aatwtrr ~ r r rlu (;trspc-I (71 , b b d (Lour~ville: Wrrrrn~rtrtcr/John Knox. l'W2).
' Scc 40.0: 57 7.60-f,.hl 1
of 'good news' about the emperor. N o doubt those living in the Roman Empire would have nude that link, but the frequent use of the verb, which certainly has an Isaianic background, suggests that we should look for the origin of both terms in the LXX."' T h e fact that Mark claimed that the beginning of the gospel was 'as it is written in the prophet Isaiah' suggests that he was well aware that the prophet had proclailned 'good news'.
Secondly, it is worth noting why Mark needed to use the Exodus-Malachi quotation to introduce the lines h r n Isaiah. Matthew and Luke both begin their accounts ofJohn's missiori with a reference to him in the wilderness, and to the fact that he was preaching (Matt. 3:l; Luke 3:2-3): they then use the quotation ti-om Isaiah to back this up. Mark, however, bqqitr.~ with scripture,and since he has not yet nlentioned John, the first quotation, from Exodus-Mala- chi, serves to introduce him, and to explain who the 'voice crying in the wilderness'ic. The quotation h t i l Exodus-Malachi underlines the specific role ofJohn: his whole purpose is to prepare the way of the one who follows him. By beginning in this way, rather that1 by introducing Jolln by name, Mark ensures that his readers will imnlediately understat~d that John's only purpose is to point forward to thc one who follows hinl. Not surprisingly, then, in contrast to Matthew and Luke (Matt. 37-10; Luke 3:7-14),John's message in Mark consists of three pithy statements which concentrate our attention on the one who is so 11li1ch greater than he. The quotation G n l Isa. 4 0 3 is sandwiched between the wvords &on1 Exodus-Malachi and the description of John vv. 4-47 which identifies hirn as a prophet
-
and in particular the prophet Elijah (2 Kgs I:%), who was expected to return before the coming of the Lord (Mal. 4:s) - and so underlines the fact that the one for whom John has prepared the way is none other than 'the Lord':a voice crylog In the wllderne<<
-
'I'mpart. the wry of the Lord:
make h ~ s pathc strarght'
In Isa. 40.3, 'the Lord' wa,, of course, God h~nnelf. the LXX ( w h ~ c h Mark follows exactly, apart from subsntutlng 'hlr' for 'our God' at the end) used the word ubp~oc, here l r i place of the dlvtne nalne Mark, ~t would seetli, has ldentified 'the Lord' of Isa~alr 40 wlth Christ, for by the end of Mark 1 8 all eyec are focused expectantly on the one who comes after John, and 111 w 9-
11 Jecus not only appear? on the scene, but a addressed by the heavenly voice as God'$ beloved Son, and I\ revealed to Mark'$ readerc as tile one In who111 God's holy Sptrtt IS at work.
Althougl~ Ica. 40.3 IF lriterpreted by M x k as berng fulfilled ln John the Baptst, therefore, ltr real slbmlficance - like that ofJohn hlrnself- 15 to polrlt to the one who follows hlm, anci to Infor111 uc that tn Jesuc the wlvat~on promised
'
For further d ~ u u s ~ o l t of ti115 Isrue. ,cc Watt.i. \nu I~odrc\, pp 'I(r-')YISAIAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
rn Isa~ah has arrived It 1s in the light of thrs text, therefore, that Mark wshes us to read hlr narrative
Before we turri to the rest of Mark's gospel, however, we must cons~der what these intmductory quotation\ tell us about the message ofJohn. When he appean, in v 4, he prepares the way of the Lord by pmclarmrng a baptlsm of repentance for the forgaveness of sins It is noticeable that Mark, unlike Mat- thew and Luke,does not preserlt John as a prophet ofjudgement: the Baptist's message 1s entirely posrnw, and indeed is echoed by Jesus h~mself 111 1.15. God ogers the forgiveness of stns to those who repent, and nothing IS aid In these introductory verses about the fate of those who refuse to d o so. Nevertheless, the promlsed forglvene$s requrres repentance The fact that Mark's account of the ministry of Jesus begrns, In 1 14, w ~ t h the words 'After John had been handed over', indrcates straight away that riot everyone has welcomed his proclanlatlon, and that the comlng of the Lord will inevrtably mean judgenient, as well as \alvation
O t h w Clear Quotations of lsaialz
The therrle of repentance and forgiveness is echoed in the next clear quotation of scripture, in 4:12. This quotation, too, is fkonl Isaiah, although this time Mark gives no hint of its source. It occurs in 4: 12, in the brief comment about the purpose of parables which links the parable of thc Sower (4:l-9) with its interpretation (4:1.3-20). Mark tells us here that before explaining the parable itself,Jesus told his disciples why he taught the people in parables. It was
In order that thr). trray look and look. yet percerve nothlng; that thty may hsten and hrtcri, yet understarid nothlng Otherwr.ie they nright turn and be forgrven
The saying ruelf, together with the setting (a pr~vate explanation to Jesus' disciples), bears the hallmark of teaching enlar~atlng fro111 the early Christ~an community The quotanon 1s from Ita 6.9-10, though it 1s by n o means exact, since the order of 'seerng' and 'hearing' hac been reversed, and the first part o f v 1 0 has been on~itted Mark'\ version shows n o clear dependence o n erther the Ma5oretic text or the LXX or the Targum The rntraductory 'ivu cuggests, however, that Mark intended his readers to undentand these words as a quotation
"
Although the quotatron rairec consrderable theological d~fficultres, rts mean- ing for Mark seerrls clear Jews taught in parables In order that his hearers should not understand and respond to hrs teach~ng. Thrs harsh statement appears to clash wwth what Mark tell5 us elsewhere about Jesus' proclanlation
I Although M ~ t t h m has a <r)rng slnuiar to Mark 4 12.1 (Matt 13 13,cf Luke 8 10). he f o l l m ~t wth
J clcar cxtat~on of I n (t 9-10 It lcetiu that he rrcogxnzcd the allnuon, but lfid not regard the uvdc
L( I( qitotdtron Mdtthew and Luke ma) weU be using a 'Q' tndrnon at thlr potnt. rather than tc~Uowlng Mark
o f God's b n g d o m . Indeed, in 4:33-34, he explains that Jesus taught the people 'the word, as they were able to hear it', and that he invariably used parables to d o so. These parables were a challenge - one could m p o n d to their message or ignore it
-
and the so-called 'parable of the Sower' is in fact a parable about parables. Sandwiched between the parable itself and its explan- ation, this quotation h m Isaiah 6 offers an explanation as to why so much of the crop had failed-
in other words, why so many of Jesus' fellow-Jews had failed to respond to his message. Since God was omnipotent, the fact that men and women were apparently unable to see and hear the offer of salvation must be part of his purpose. Just as the call of Isaiah was interpreted, after the event, as a call to prevent men and wonien responding to his message, so Jesus is depicted as preaching in parables in order to conceal his message. Mark 4:11- 12 reflects the early Christian community's attempt to deal with a probleni that left its mark elsewhere in the New Tc3tament - above all in Romans 9-1 1.T h e sanie verses troni Isaiah 6 are quoted in John 12:40 and Acts 28:26-27, which are concerned with the same problem.
Set as it is in a pivotal position in this collection of parables - which is Mark's first rilajor section of Jesus' teachirig - this quotation reminds us that seeing and hearing the Good News which Jesus is proclairning and enacting is not enough: it need5 to be perceived and understood. The salvation which the Lord brings must be grasped: those who have not turned again and repented d o not receive the forgveness prornised by John, and so are not ready for the coming o f t h e Lord announced in Isa. 40:3. Although the quotation's function is negative, however, the reference to 'turning' and to 'forgiveness' points to the h c t that the primary purpose of the Lord's conling is to bring salvation.
The third clear quotation in Mark is once again fraln Isaiah, and this time it is introduced as a prophecy of lsaiali concerning the 'hypocrites' whom Jesus is here addressirtg (7:&7). These are 'the Pharisees and some of the scribes, who have come from Jerusalem' (7: 1) and who are criticizing him because of his disciples' failure to observe the traditions of the elders. T h e form of the text is closer to the LXX of Isa. 29: 13 than to the Hebrew, which would be less appropriate here, since it is concerned solely with the contrast between wor- ship with the heart and with the lips. Jesus' comment in vv. 9-13, which contrasts divine and human commandments, picks up the accusation in the final line of the LXX:'*
This people honours m e with their lips.
but their heart n far from me.
In vain they worship me.
teaching hunlan precepts as doctrines.
'"t u urrdouhtedly true. 2s Watts. Arm* Iixodtu, pp 216-18, has argued, that the rehgrour authoriun' concern wrth pet5 regulatmtu was rlro ~nterfcrrry, wrth thetr w n h r p ofGod, whrch LS thc mara thenie of the Hebrew text of Isarah Ncverthelcxc, the specrfic apphcauon of the passage rn the Markrn context - to the prrorrty berng grveti hy the relrgrour leaden to huriun trad~ucm -requires the LXX venion rather than thc Hebrew
ISAIAI-I IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The qilotatlon 1s not only rntroducrd wtth the words 'as ~t a wrttten', but a ascrtbed specifically to Iw~ah, as In 1 2 Thts offen some support to the sugges- tlon noted earher that Ismah was of partrcular Importance to Mark In contrast to that ~ntroductory quotatlon, however, what we have here (as In 4:12) 1s a saving whlch condemns God's people for thew fa~lure to respond to bun.
those who worship wtth thelr l ~ p s but not them hearts are not ready for the connng of the Lord The words of Isa~ah pronounce judgement o n the rel~gloils leaders of Israel, who oppose the teachlng and practlce ofJesus. Isa~ah announced the connng of the I ord (Mark 1 2-3), but he also announced that ins people would fall to respond to h ~ m (4 12) or worstnp h ~ m whole- heartedly, because they were more concerned wlth t h e ~ r own teachulg than w ~ t h God's ~ o m ~ n d n d ~ n e ~ ~ t t (7 ( ~ 7 ) O n e ofthe ~nevttable results of the Lord's c onllng 1s judgement
Mark 7 1-23 appears to be a collection ofdlfferent sayings w h ~ c h have been brought together at some stage The first few verses (1-5) descr~be the tncl- dent which provokes the I'harlsees' crltlclsrn of the dtsc~plec, and vv 6-8 provrde Jesus' first response to that t r ~ t ~ c ~ s r n , based on Isa 29 13 The quota- t ~ o n I\ then echoed, rather clums~ly, In v 9, whlch ~ntroduces an example of the way In w h ~ c h the I'har~ceec 'abandon the conimandrnent of God and hold to human tradltlon' (v 8). uslng n+o more b~bhcal quotations (vv 9-13) The part~cular exarnple seerns to have no obv~ous relevance to the matter of hand- wd'rlnng. and may well have orlg~nallv been part of a dlffsrent dlspute The relevance of lsa 20 13 to the a r p n l e n t 1s brought out better by Matthew, who tells LI\ that Jesus threw back the accusation brought by h ~ s opponents; he places Jesus' d~scuss~on of what 'Motes' s a ~ d and what 'you' say before the Isalah quotation, whlch he uses to effect as the punchhne of the ~ncldent.
The spec~fic example glven of the way In whrch Jesus' crlt~cs abandon the commandment of God 111 favour of human t r a d ~ t ~ o n IS the comn~andment to honour one's father and mother, glven through Moses (Exod. 20:12 and 21 17) Jews accuses then1 of allow~ng the commandment to be set aside by declar~ng goods to be 'corban', or dedicated to God by a11 oath The human trad~tlon can hardly be the refilsal to break a vow, slnce the ~rrevocable nature of oaths 1s also a d l v ~ n e c o n ~ m a n d ~ n e n t (Nun1 30 2, Deut 23 21-23) It must therefore be the r u l ~ n g that the vo\v takes precedence over one's duty to father dnd lnother Jesub' attltilde IS sllrnlar to the judgement exprewd In the thlni century AI) In the Mlshnah (Ned 9 1 ) . where the honour due to father and Inother IS s a d to overrule all vows T h e fact that thls 1s spelt out rn the M~shnah suggests that someone had at some suge argued the opposite, and that the d~spute w ~ t h the Jewish rehg~ous authorlnec descr~bed 111 Mark 7 1-
13 - whether thts tnvolved Jesuc h~rncelf or h ~ s later followers - was therefore a pots~ble one
Follow~ng t h ~ s arg~lment about the d~vlrle colnnxandrnent and h u m m trad-
~tlon,Jesus 15 s a d to have surnn~oned the crowd (Mark 7 14) In order to glve a cet ond, quite dtfferent, answer to the questlon regadtng hand-wash~ng. He
now declares that what enters the mouth does not defile, only what leaves it (v.
IS), a saying that is then esplained, privately, to the disciples (vv. 17-23). The saying in v. 15 seems a far more apposite response to the criticism levelled at the ciisciples than the sayings in w. 6-8 and 9-13,'hnd may well represent an earlier tradition.14 It is possible that w. 6-13 have been inserted into the story at some stage. If Mark himself was responsible for the somewhat clunlsy intro- duction of these verses here, it may have been because he thought the lsaiah quotation of particular importance, as showirtg, once again, that Israel's failure had been foreseen by the prophet. We have n o way, however, of knowing whether or not Mark was responsible for introducing it here.
A brief quotation from lsaiah occurs in the description of Gehenna in Mark 9:4X: it is the place where 'their worm never dies, and the fire never goes out'.I5 The words are taken frottl the final verse of Isaiah, and are close to, but not identical with, the LXX. This time, the words are used as a warning to the disciples themselves, not as a comment about 'those outside' (4:11-12) or about Jesus' critics (7:6-7). Even Jesus' followers tleed to be o n their guard lest they stumble and fall. Like the original words in Isaiah, this warning ofpossible destruction sta~ids in sark contrast to the pron~ise of reward, which is described in Mark in terms of entering into life (9:43, 45) or entering the Kingdom of God.
The next plain quota ti or^ of lsaiah occurs in 11 :17, in the story of the so- called 'cleansing o f the temple'. Whatever the nature of the original incident, it is clear that for Mark the event is part ofJcsus' judgement on Israel for her failure to worship God aright. The words of Isa. 2 9 1 3 might well have been used appropriately here, but instead Mark quotes a positive text h r n Isa. 56:7
-
'my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'. These words were originally part of God's promise regarding his temple, but in Jesus' mouth here they become a condemnation, because the temple is not a house of prayer for all the nations but - in the word5 ofJeremiah - has been made 'a robbers' den' Uer. 7 : l l ) . The Greek, both of the quotation from lsaiah and of the phrase from Jeremiah, agrees exactly with the LXX, but since this provides an accurate translation of the Hebrew, we camlot be certain that Mark was using it.'"Debate about the rneani~lg of this incident continues unabated: is it a 'cleansing' or a 'sign of future destruction'? The answer may well be that Jesus himself intended it to be the former, but that Mark, writing afier the event, saw
"
C f also Luke I 1 1 7 4 1 . whir h lulks cr~trcam ofJesus' tarlure to wash hetow eatulg w ~ t h a u y o g about the 'oumde' dnd the 'rnsde''* Fee. e g Joel Marcus. Mdtk 1-8 (AB, New York, etc Douhleday. 1999). pp 4 4 7 4 8
'"he d m rlpaon n found three nnln lo sonle MSF (AS w 44.46 and 48). hut the shorter \erston n ahno\t certa~nl) orrgnal