JETS SA/1 (March 1991) 43-57

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK
JAMES R. EDWARDS*

In a mere fifty-three words in Greek, Mark relates the story of Jesus'

baptism (Mark 1:9-11). The brevity of the story, however, is dispropor-
tionate to its significance for Markan Christology, for beneath this terse
account lies a wealth of OT and intertestamental imagery, drawn upon to
indicate that in Jesus the inbreaking of the eschatological kingdom has
arrived. The baptism functions as the cornerstone of Mark's Christological
understanding—a stone that is not undressed, as we shall see.
Mark introduces Jesus abruptly in v. 9. Kai egeneto1 provides a transi-
tion into the story; "Nazareth of Galilee" gives Jesus a history and setting;
"in those days" anchors the event to the period of John the Baptist's
ministry (summarized in vv. 4-8). According to Mark, the first event of
Jesus' public ministry was not something he did but something that hap-
pened to him—namely, his baptism by John,2 which prefaced his public
ministry.
The significance of the baptism is signaled by the events surrounding it.
Mark switches from the aorist tense (v. 9) to a present active participle
(anabainön, v. 10) to draw his readers into the impending drama. Coming
up from the water Jesus experienced three things that in Jewish tradition
signified the inauguration of God's eschatological kingdom: The heavens
were opened above him, the Spirit descended on him, and the heavenly
voice spoke to him. These three events—rending of heaven, descent of the
Spirit, voice of God—indicate the inauguration of God's eschatological
kingdom. Their concurrence at the baptism indicates that Jesus is the
inaugurator of that kingdom.
Two passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs witness to the
eschatological hope echoed in the baptism. Referring to the messianic
priest (18:2), T. Levi says:

* James Edwards is professor of religion at Jamestown College in North Dakota.

1
In Mark here and at 2:23; 4:4, 39; 9:7(!), 26. The first six words in Greek are Hebraisms; see
E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (MeyerK 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
1951) 20 η. 4.
2
Ebaptisthë, the Greek passive rendering of the Aramaic tëbal, means "being immersed" or
"immersing oneself"; see J. Jeremías, New Testament Theology (New York: Scribner's, 1971) 51.
Eis ton Iordanën is the same as en tQ Jordan? (v. 5 above). Luke 3:21 links Jesus' baptism with
"all the people." Mark associates Jesus' baptism with the populace (v. 5) but heightens his
profile (vv. 9-11). In distinction from Matthew, for whom John the Baptist plays a significant
role (Matt 3:14-15; see A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1959] 86-91),
Mark mentions John only as the mediator of baptism (v. 9).
44 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

The heavens will be opened,

and from the temple of glory sanctification will come upon him,
with a fatherly voice, as from Abraham to Isaac.
And the glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him.
And the spirit of understanding and sanctification
shall rest upon him [in the water].
For he shall give the majesty of the Lord to those who are his
sons in truth forever (1&6-8).3
A second passage refers to the messianic king and reads:
And after this there shall arise for you a Star from Jacob in peace: And a
man shall arise from my posterity like the Sun of righteousness, walking
with the sons of men in gentleness and righteousness, and in him will be
found no sin. And the heavens will be opened upon him to pour out the spirit
as a blessing of the Holy Father. And he will pour the spirit of grace on you.
And you shall be sons in truth, and you will walk in hisfirstandfinaldecrees
(T. Jud. 24:l-3).4
Although the exact provenance of the Testament of the Twelve Patri­
archs is undecided,5 of significance for our study is the clear mention of the
three eschatological signs: opening of heaven, descent of the spirit, heav­
enly voice (absent in the Testament of Judah). Since the three signs are
present in Mark 1:9-11 we cannot fail to see in them interpretive keys to the
meaning of Jesus' baptism.

I. THE RENDING OF HEAVEN

Immediately coming out of the water, Jesus "saw the heavens rent"
(Mark 1:10). Matthew and Luke cast the phrase into the passive voice,
thereby diluting Mark's vigor and lessening Jesus' involvement in the
6
event. In Mark, Jesus sees (eiden) the event, but in Matthew and Luke it
simply happens above him. Jewish literature is familiar with the opening
of heaven as a sign of revelation and/or bestowal of divine blessing.7 "O
that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down," reads Isa 64:1 (63:19
LXX). The rending of heaven at the baptism thus signifies that a period of
grace has begun.

3
Except for "[in the water]/' reasons for a supposed Christian interpolation in the passage
are wanting; contra G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (New York:
Macmillan, 1973) 263 η. 64.
4
For both passages see J. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden
City: Doubleday, 1983), 1. 795 and 801 respectively.
5
H. C. Kee suggests a composition by a hellenized Jew sometime following the publication of
the LXX in 250 B.C. (see Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 1. 777-778), although he admits the
possibility of R. H. Charles' view (APOT 282,314) that the prophetic, priestly and kingly roles in
the Testaments may refer to John Hyrcanus (137-107 B.C.).
6
Matt 3:16, ëneochthësan hoi ouranoi; Luke 3:21, aneOchthënai ton ouranon.
7
Ezek 1:1; 2 Apoc. Bar. 22:1; 3 Mace 6:18; Τ Levi 2:6; 5:1; 18:6; T. Jud. 24:2; NT, John 1:51; Acts
7:56; Rev 4:1; 11:19; 19:11.
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK 45

Many Jews in the second temple period apparently believed that the
Spirit had ceased to speak directly to people until the endtime.8 The ab-
sence of the Spirit quenched prophecy, and God spoke to the faithful only
in a distant echo, a bat-qôl ("daughter of a voice"). The opening of heaven
at the baptism thus inaugurated the long-awaited return of God's Spirit.9 A
period of God's grace had begun. In Jesus, God was present in the world in
an unparalleled and consummate manner.
Especially significant is Mark's schizein10 ("to tear, rend"), which Mat-
thew and Luke soften with anoigein ("to open"). Schizein is the proper
rendering of qärac ("to tear") at Isa 64:1, although the LXX (63:19) renders
it with the less forcible anoigein, which doubtless accounts for Matthew's
and Luke's wording at the baptism (see Herrn. Vis. 1.1.4). Schizein is
noteworthy for two reasons. First, it is the Greek word that translates the
Hebrew of T. Levi 18; T. Jud. 24, which we cited earlier. Since schizein
occurs infrequently in the LXX,11 Mark's use of the word is probably a
conscious reference to those two passages. Moreover schizein is often asso-
ciated with cataclysmic events: Moses dividing the waters of the Red Sea
(Exod 14:21), Moses cleaving the rock (Isa 48:21), the Mount of Olives being
rent asunder on the day of the Lord (Zech 14:4). Mark employs the term
with similar impact at the baptism. Schizein appears but twice in his
gospel, once at the baptism and once at the rending of the temple veil at the
crucifixion (Mark 15:38). In both instances Jesus is revealed as the Son of
God. The splitting of heaven prefaces God's pronouncement of Jesus' di-
vine Sonship, and the splitting of the temple curtain occurs at the climax of
the gospel when the centurion confesses Jesus as the Son of God.

8
Ps 74:9; T. Benj. 9:2; 2 Apoc. Bar. 85:3; 1 Mace 4:46; 9:27; 14:41; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1:41; see
Jeremías, New Testament Theology 80-81. See also Str-B, 1.126: "Als die letzten Propheten
Haggai, Sacharía, u Maleachi gestorben waren, entschwand der heil. Geist (Geist der Prophétie)
aus Israel, so dass sie sich jetzt der Bath-Qol bedienen" (see further Str-B, 1.127-134; 2.128-134).
Qumran was an exception to this belief, however. F. Greenspahn ("Why Prophecy Ceased," JBL
108/1 [1989] 17-35) maintains that this belief is overexaggerated. He argues that the rabbis did
not deny the presence of the Holy Spirit in second temple Judaism but only that they were
ambivalent toward it, partly to defend their authority from being challenged by Christianity.
9
A. Feuillet, "Le baptême de Jesus d'après l'évangile selon St. Marc (1:9-11)," CBQ 21 (1959)
469-470; F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1963) 343. Some suggest that the rending of heaven permitted
the divine voice to speak rather than the Spirit to descend. But this is doubtful since the bat-qôl
is heard elsewhere in Jewish tradition apart from the rending of heaven (2 Apoc. Bar. 13:1; Mark
9:7; John 12:28; Rev 1:10). G. Richter ("Zu den Tauferzählungen Mk 1,9-11 und Joh 1,43-34,"
ZNW 65 [1974] 48-49) argues that the purpose of the rending was so that Jesus could see heaven.
Even the passages Richter cites, however, argue for more than a vision of heaven. Mark 1:10
does stress seeing (eiden; ëkousthë [O, 28, 565, geo1] suggests a later development of hearing
also), but the object of sight was the Spirit as well as the open heaven (i.e. Jesus saw not only
heaven opened but also the Spirit descending from it).
10
On schizein see Feuillet, "Le baptême" 471; I. Buse, "The Markan Account of the Baptism of
Jesus and Isaiah 63," JTS 7-8 (1956/57) 74; C. Mauer, "Sc/u*ö," TDNT, 7. 962.
11
OT, eight times: Gen 22:3; Exod 14:21; 1 Sam 6:14; Eccl 10:9; Isa 36:22; 37:1; 48:21; Zech 14:4.
NT, nine times: Matt 27:51; Mark 1:10; 15:38; Luke 5:36; 23:45; John 19:24; 21:11; Acts 14:4; 23:7.
For references in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha see C. Mauer, "Schizö" TDNT, 7. 959-960.
46 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

II. THE DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT

At the baptism Jesus saw the Spirit descend "as a dove." For those Jews
who believed that the Spirit had withdrawn (and with it prophecy), the
return of the long-awaited Spirit was a quintessential event. The baptism
does not mean that the Spirit has returned in a general sense but speci-
fically on Jesus (eis auton), anointing him uniquely as God's Son. All four
evangelists focus the return of the Spirit on Jesus. 12
Scholars used to assert that the absolute use of "the Spirit," and its
equation with a dove, were unknown in Judaism and therefore were of
hellenistic origin.13 They suggested that Mark's topneuma (Mark 1:10; so
also John 1:32) has been reworded by Matthew (pneuma theou, Matt 3:16)
and Luke (to pneuma to hagion, Luke 3:22) to suit Jewish sensibilities.
Jewish literature, of course, is full of instances where the Spirit of the Lord
comes upon people to equip and empower them for a given task.14 Above all
it was believed that in the eschatological age the Messiah would possess
the Spirit.15 For example, "God made him (Messiah) powerful in holy
spirit" (en pneumati hagiç, Ps. Sol. 17:37). In the following chapter the
Messiah is anointed "in wisdom of spirit" (en sophia pneumatos, 18:7).
Especially important is Isa 11:1-3, which is echoed in 1 Enoch 49:3; 62:2:
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.

12
Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32-33. Richter ("Tauferzählungen" 56) believes that
only the descent of the Spirit is the central point of the baptism and the oldest stratum of
tradition (i.e. John 1:32-34). But surely one must account for John's polemic against the Baptist
and his sect (1:20!) as an influence on his account of the baptism. A confession of divine Sonship
is present in John—indeed, stronger than in the synoptics (ho huios tou theou, 1:34)—but from
the mouth of the Baptist rather than God (but see 12:28). What more effective means could John
have employed to convince his readers, Christian and "Baptist," that Jesus—and not J o h n -
was Messiah, than to put the supreme Christological pronouncement (houtos estin ho huios tou
theou) in the mouth of the Baptist himself? The descent of the Spirit and proclamation of
Sonship are thoroughly anchored not only in the four gospels but also in Gos. Eb. and Gos. Heb.,
although in the latter the proclamation comes from the Spirit rather than from the Father. See
also Assumption of Isaiah 6:6, where the "voice of the Spirit" spoke to Isaiah and Hezekiah.
13
R. Bultmann (The History of the Synoptic Tradition [New York/Evanston: Harper, 1963]
249-251) and P. Vielhauer (Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament [München: Chr. Kaiser, 1965] 191,
205-206) both quote Dalman's statement in The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh: Τ and Τ Clark,
1909) 203: " I n Jewish literature it is so unheard of to speak of 'the Spirit' (hdrûah) when the
spirit of God is meant, that the single word 'spirit' would much rather be taken to mean a demon
or the wind." Schlatter (Matthäus 91) calls to pneuma Christian rather than Palestinian.
14
Exod 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 6:34; 13:25; 1 Sam 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23; Isa 11:2; 42:1;
61:1; 63:11,14; Zech 4:6.
15
E. Schweizer, "Pneuma," TDNT, 6. 384.
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK 47

This was a vital text for the rabbis of Jesus' day because they equated the
Spirit that moved over the waters at creation with the Spirit that would
come upon the Messiah at the endtime.16
Mark's baptismal account then clearly agrees with the function of
God's Spirit in Jewish thought. Moreover there is an absolute use of the
Spirit in T. Jud. 24:2: "And the heavens will be opened upon him to pour out
the spirit as a blessing of the Holy Father" (see also 1QS 4:6). There is no
need to attribute Mark's absolute use of "the Spirit" to hellenistic thought.
Rather, it reflects his faithfulness to the imagery and terminology of the
eschatological signs of the Testament of Levi and the Testament ofJudah.
Portraying the Holy Spirit as a dove—whether in form, sound, or man-
ner of flight—remains without exact parallel in Jewish thought.17 In the
Bible the dove symbolizes simplicity and innocence (Matt 10:16), recon-
ciliation and peace (Glen 8:8,12), and the faithful in Israel (Pss 55:6; 68:13;
74:19; Hos 11:11).18 In Philo the dove symbolizes the wisdom and word of
God. Judaism did not normally liken the dove and the Holy Spirit, but
there are a few exceptions. In Gen 1:2, for example, the Spirit brooding over
the water is seen as a dove (b. Hag. 15a). The Targum on Canticles reads:
"The sound of the turtledove which is heard in the land is like the sound of
the Holy Spirit of salvation." Likewise, in Ber. 3a the sound of the divine
voice, the bat-qôl, is likened to the cooing of a turtledove.19 Mark's state-
ment that "the Spirit descended as (hös) a dove" is obviously a simile; he
does not say that the Spirit was a dove. Two of the three passages above
liken the Holy Spirit to the sound (cooing) of a dove, but that is scarcely
Mark's meaning. "The Spirit... descending" (Mark 1:10, to pneuma . . .
katabainon, accusative) is still the object of "saw" (eiden), and this implies
form, or perhaps manner of flight. The earliest interpreters regarded it
thus. Luke 3:22 expands the simile to "bodily form" (somatikç eidei). Gos.
Eb. says that Jesus "saw the Holy Spirit descending in the form (en eidei)
of a dove."20 The descent of the Spirit "as a dove," therefore, is best
understood as a visible form.21
16
See Lohmeyher, Markusevangelium 25-26. That Mark has the Holy Spirit in mind is
certain, for "the Spirit" (v. 10) refers back to "Holy Spirit" in v. 8.
17
Str-B: "Dagegen tritt der Gedanke, dase der Adler oder die T(aube) oder sonst ein Vogel das
Symbol des göttlichen Geistes sei, nirgends hervor" (1.124); "Jedenfalls gibt es in der älteren
Literatur keine Stelle, in der die Taube klar u. deutlich ein Symbol des heiligen Geistes wäre"
(1.125). See, however, Richter ("Tauferzählungen" 46 n. 13), who thinks this judgment too
categorical.
18
Rabbinic literature often associated the symbol of the dove with Israel; see Str-B, 1.123.
Note that Hosea 11 is also an important sonship passage in the OT.
19
See the material gathered in Str-B, 1.123-125; cf. also Lohmeyer, Markusevangelium 22-23;
E. Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium (4th ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950) 9.
20
Quoted in Epiphanius Pan. Haer. 30.13.7-8. A quotation from Justin Martyr (Dial. 88.3) is
identical to Mark's hös peristeran, whereas in 88.8 he adds "in the form of a dove" (en eidei
peristeras).
21
So Klostermann, Markusevangelium 9; Lohmeyer, Markusevangelium 21; Richter, "Tau-
ferzählungen" 45; but Jeremías (NT Theology 52) understands it to mean "with a gentle
sound."
48 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Mark 1:10, along with the other evangelists (Matt 3:16; Luke 3:22; John
1:32), emphasizes that the object of the Spirit's return is to descend (kata-
bainein) on Jesus. Only at the baptism is the Spirit linked with katabai-
nein. Its closest OT parallel is Isa 63:19 (LXX): katebë pneuma para kyriou.
Elsewhere we read of angels, the Son of Man, or the Lord descending, but
only at the baptism does the Spirit descend, signifying Jesus' empower-
ment for ministry and his uniqueness as God's Son. The other evangelists,
relying presumably on Isa 42:1 (edöka to pneuma mou ep' autori), record
that the Spirit came "upon him" (ep* autori). But Mark says the Spirit
entered "into him" (eis autori), intensifying the union of the Spirit and
Jesus. 22 Jesus was thus filled with the Spirit and completely equipped for
ministry. A later apocryphal account said, "The whole fount of the Holy
Spirit descended on him."23
The other evangelists stress the objectivity of the signs at the baptism,
but Mark, who says that only Jesus saw the first two signs and was alone
addressed by the heavenly voice, stresses the meaning of the event for
Jesus. 24 Mark of course does not think of the baptism as only a subjective
experience of Jesus. The baptism is different from other Biblical call stories
or visions. 25 Mark's emphasis on seeing and hearing, and the lack of
mention of an inner experience of Jesus, 26 leave no doubt of the objectivity
of the story: An eternal power has acted, God has sent his Spirit and has
himself spoken; Jesus is now God's Son incognito.21
As the object of God's favor Jesus is the eschatological consummator,
but the descent of the Spirit also links him with God's people. The dove, as
we have noted, was often a symbol for the faithful in Israel. Alighting on
Jesus, the Spirit designates him as the new Israel, binding him to God's
people. Luke especially emphasizes a corporate sense for Jesus' baptism
(Luke 3:21). Feuillet, noting the references to the servant who suffers for
others in Isaiah 40-55, also recognizes the corporate sense of the baptism:
"Jesus' submission to a rite not made for him joins his cause with that of

22
Hahn, Hoheitstitel 301 η. 5: "Das eis auton ist ganz konkret zu verstehen und darf nicht
abgeschwächt werden." See also Isa 63:11. Gos. Eb. intensifies Mark by reading eiselthousës eis
auton (Epiphanius Pan. Haer. 30.13.7-8).
23
Gos. Heb.: "Descendet super eum fons omnis Spiritus Sancti" (quoted from Jerome Comm.
in Isa 11:2).
24
The poorly attested ëkousthë (ν 11; 0,28,565, geo1) was probably added to correct perceived
subjectivist leanings in Mark's account with an audible voice.
25
E.g. Jeremiah's call (Jer 1:5-19), Peter's vision (Acts 10:10, egeneto ep' auton ekstasis),
John's vision (Rev 1:10, egenomën enpneumati). For a discussion of the differences see A. Feuil-
let, "The Baptism of Jesus," TD 14 (1966) 210.
26
Bultmann (Synoptic Tradition 247-248) says, "There is not so much as a word about the
inner experience of Jesus Matthew and Luke are quite right to take Mark's story as the
description of an objective happening." Schlatter (Matthäus 92) says, "Zur Vision und Mystik
ist der Vorgang das volle Gegenteil."
27
V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (2d ed.; London: Macmillan; New York: St.
Martin's, 1966) 160; E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (Richmond: John Knox,
1970) 37-38; Klostermann, Markusevangelium 9; R. P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972) 128. Feuillet ("Baptism" 210) says the baptism is like "the
vision at the transfiguration which the Gospels clearly indicate is visible to the three apostles
who witness it."
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK 49

other men."28 Mark may imply what Paul later taught in Rom 8:29, that
Jesus is the "firstborn" among God's eschatological people.29

III. THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN

The final eschatological sign and the climax of the baptism is the
declaration from heaven: "You are my beloved Son; in you I am well
pleased."30 Mark and Matthew signal this climax by the syntax of v. 11:
The voice (phone) is no longer the object of "saw" (eideri), as are the first
two signs. It is in the nominative case and the subject of what follows.31
The rending of heaven and descent of the Spirit were seen by Jesus, but the
heavenly voice speaks to him: "You are my beloved Son; in you I am well
pleased." Only here and at the transfiguration (excepting John 12:28) do
we hear direct divine discourse to Jesus, and in each instance God ad-
dresses him as "my Son."
The closest Jewish analogy to the voice from heaven is the bat-qôl.
Prophecy in the Spirit was regarded as direct discourse between Yahweh
and his people, but following the withdrawal of the Spirit God spoke only
occasionally through a bat-qôl, a distant echo or "daughter of a voice."32
This phenomenon is absent in the OT, but it occurs occasionally in the
intertestamental literature (2 Apoc. Bar. 13:1-2) and more frequently in
rabbinic literature. The bat-qôl varied from exhortation to admonition and
often expressed divine pleasure and confirmation.33
28
Feuillet, "Baptism" 208-209. For Feuillet ("Le baptême," 472-473) the descent of the Spirit
was an epoch-making event In addition to the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod 14:21-29) and the
Jordan (Josh 3:16; 4:15-19), he believes the baptism is a third and final sequel to these epochal
events, in which God, in the manner of Isaiah 63-64, gives his Spirit to create a new people.
29
See B. Gerhardsson, "Gottes Sohn als Diener Gottes: Messias, Agape und Himmelsherr-
schaft nach dem Matthäusevangelium," ST 27 (1973) 76.
30
Schweizer, Mark 40: "The focal point of the whole story is the voice of God which designates
Jesus as the 'Son.' "
31
Thus necessitating a full stop between vv. 10 and 11. Luke's account (Luke 3:21-22) differs
from Mark and Matthew. "Heaven," "the Holy Spirit" and "voice" are found in parallel form,
subjects of the aoriet infinitives "to be opened," "to descend" and "to come." Thus Luke does not
accentuate the voice as do Matthew and Mark. Other aspects are also unique to his account.
Luke omits the name of John and says that Jesus was baptized with "all the people" (soo too
Gos. Eb., which combines many details of the first three evangelists). This emphasizes Jesus'
identification with humanity. Luke also replaces some of the Hebraisms of Matthew and Mark
with classical expressions (e.g. egeneto, genitive absolutes, infinitives, and "heaven" in the
singular rather than plural). Luke heightens the profile of the Spirit: Not merely "the Spirit"
(Mark), nor "the Spirit of God" (Matthew), but "the Holy Spirit" descends bodily (sOmatikQ) on
Jesus. Luke links the baptism to Jesus' Messiahship in a way that Matthew and Mark do not
(see A. George, "Jesus Fils de Dieu dans l'Evangile selon Saint Luc," RB 72 [1965] 187; Hahn,
Hoheitstitel 318). Finally, Luke portrays Jesus in prayer when the Spirit descends (see also Luke
6:12; 9:29!; 22:41). The Christian rite of baptism may have exerted some influence on Luke's
account at this point; see Jeremías, New Testament Theology 51-52; Bultmann, Synoptic Tradi-
tion 253.
32
See Str-B, 1.125-134.
33
Vermes (Jesus the Jew 206-210) attempts to argue on evidence of the bat-qôl that Jesus'
Sonship was analogous to famous rabbis who were considered sons of God. He says, "It was a
firmly held rabbinic conviction that saints and teachers were commended in public by a
heavenly Voice. Furthermore, when such a commendation is directly accredited to God, the
50 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

It is doubtful, however, whether Mark has a bat-qôl in mind at the

baptism. He records that "a voice came from heaven," whereas most rabbis
regard the bat-qôl as an impersonal omen—for example, "a bat-qôl went
out." Nor do we find the bat-qôl accompanied by an epiphany in Judaism
as we do at the baptism.34 Above all, the voice at the baptism is neither an
echo of a transcendent utterance nor a return of divine prophecy. It is the
voice of the Father speaking personally to Jesus in filial intimacy.35 No
prophet ever heard what Jesus hears. Along with the previous signs, the
voice launches the eschatological age with Jesus as its archetype.
The climax of the baptism is contained in the words "You are my Son."
Jesus is not called a friend of God as was Abraham (Isa 41:8), nor a servant
of God as was Moses (Deut 34:5), nor an apostle of God as was Paul (Titus
1:1), nor one of the prophets. He is called a "Son"—beloved and pleasing to
God. We need to consider what this means.
The words from heaven are normally understood to combine Ps 2:7
("You are my son") and Isa 42:1 ("my beloved in whom I am well pleased").
Psalm 2 speaks of the enthronement of the king, thus revealing that Jesus
is the royal Son of God. Isa 42:1 introduces Isaiah's first servant hymn and
hence designates Jesus as the servant of Yah weh. Scholars who argue for
the priority of Ps 2:7 tend to accept an adoptionist understanding of Jesus'
Sonship, whereas those who argue for Isa 42:1 normally envision a func-
tional understanding of servanthood (as opposed to Sonship carrying meta-
physical connotations). Both positions have merit, but neither alone nor
combined do they do full justice to Mark's understanding of the baptism.

IV. THE SON AS SERVANT

It is often argued that the Greek pais (Isa 42:1), which translates the
Hebrew cebed, can mean either "son" or "servant." Dalman notes that in
Wis 2:13-18 pais (2:13) and huios (2:18) occur together and that the back-
ground for both is the servant typology of Isaiah 40-55. 36 It is suggested
that huios ("son") developed from an original pais at the baptism either
because of a development in Christology or because pais needed to be
avoided in a hellenistic milieu.37 It is further argued that "my chosen"
(bèhîrî), rendered by eklektos in the LXX, could also be rendered by "be-
loved" (agapëtos), as it is in Matt 12:18; Luke 9:35; John 1:34 (textual
variant). Finally, it is argued, the phrase "my soul delights" (rüstäh napëî),

person in whose favour it is made is alluded to as 'my son'." By no means was every bat-qôl a
commendation; some were reprimands and condemnations (e.g. Git. 56b; B. Mes. 85b). Nor were
many rabbis addressed as "my son." The story of Hanina that Vermes quotes (Ber. 17b) is the
only example in seven pages of quotations in Str-B. At any rate, the evangelists do not envision
a bat-qôl at the baptism but a direct word from God.
34
Lohmeyer, Markusevangelium 22.
35
See also Hahn, Hoheitstitel 341.
36
Dalman, Words of Jesus 276-280; C. Mauer, "Knecht Gottes und Sohn Gottes im Passions-
bericht des Markusevangeliums," ZTK 50 (1953) 25 ff.
37
Jeremías, "Pais," TDNT, 5. 701.
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK 51

which in the LXX reads "my soul received him" (prosedexato auton he
psyche mou), can equally be translated by "pleased" (eudokeiri), as the
38
baptismal accounts, and particularly Matt 12:18, evince. According to
these arguments the dominant idea (and to some extent the wording)
behind Mark 1:11 stems from Isa 42:1.
But the case for ρα/s-Christology at Mark 1:11 is far from watertight. In
itself pais means either "son" or "servant" (better, "child"), but at Isa 42:1
c
it means "servant." According to Zimmerli ebed occurs 807 times in the
39
MT, but in only one instance (Deut 32:43) is it translated by "son" (huios).
Thus the servant idea controls the semantic field of pais: Where pais means
both "son" and "servant" as in Wis 2:13-18 it must derive from the Greek
40
text of Isaiah and not from the Hebrew. This makes it much more difficult
to argue that pais evolved to huios. In Matt 12:18, the only NT passage that
quotes Isa 42:1, pais is not replaced by huios even though the text supplies
agapëtos and eudokein in conformity with our previous argument. These
two alterations likely resulted from the influence of the baptismal narra-
tive.41 At any rate the author of Matthew did not confuse pais and huios,
nor is there any evidence that the wording of Mark 1:11 ever read pais
instead of huios.42 Arguments to the contrary are hypothetical.43 Hadpais-
Christology foreshadowed huios at the baptism we would expect more
emphasis on pais in NT Christology.44

V. THE SON AS KING

This web of argumentation does not deny that the servant motif plays a
role at the baptism but only that it plays the sole or dominant role. The first
part of Mark 1:11 (sy ei ho huios mou) is identical (other than word order)
with Ps 2:7 (LXX huios mou ei sy), and this demonstrates that the enthrone-
ment of the Israelite king is a leading referent of Jesus' divine Sonship. In
the OT, divine sonship terminology was first applied to Israel (Exod 4:22-
23). But in the course of its history Israel failed to live up to the filial
relationship and obedience inherent in its sonship. A narrowing process
then begins to occur—not of the ideal of sonship but of the parties to whom
it is applied. During the monarchy the king becomes the representative of
Israel and is called "son of God" at his coronation (Ps 2:7), thereby receiv-
ing authority from God to subdue the enemies of his reign. Other psalms
38
For a thorough review of these matters see I. H. Marshall, "Son of God or Servant of
Yahweh?—A Reconsideration of Mark 1.11," NTS 15 (1965) 326-332.
39
W. Zimmerli, "Pais" TDNT, 5. 673 ff. Marshall ("Son or Servant" 329) argues that this
exception vanishes because the LXX followed a different text, since found at Qumran.
40
Marshall, "Son or Servant" 329 n. 4.
41
Ibid. 333; Schweizer, "Huios," TDNT, 8. 367-368.
42
Marshall, "Son or Servant" 332; Vielhauer, Aufsätze 191; M. Hengel, The Son of God
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 66.
43
See Bousset, Kyrios Christos 97; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Chris-
tology (New York: Scribner's, 1965) 30.
44
Schweizer, "Huios" TDNT, 8. 368. On the use of pais in NT Christology see Marshall, "Son
or Servant" 330-332.
52 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

help define his royal sonship further: He is handsome (Ps 45:2), happy
(45:8), blessed (21:6). He receives his life from God (21:4), his throne is
eternal (45:6), he rules the nations (2:8; 18:43), he is the high king of the
earth (89:29).
In the course of time the monarchy suffered the same fate as the people
of Israel had earlier: It failed to live up to the ideal of sonship, and the
narrowing process progressed further. Finally, at the baptism the ideal of
sonship is identified with one person: Jesus. He is Israel reduced to one.
The filial intimacy and obedience of the Son are now centered fully and
purposefully on Jesus. Chief among Jesus' attributes as God's Son is his
authority to identify his cause with God's, and not only to speak for God
but to speak as God. This powerful stewardship of God's might to accom-
plish God's will not only dominates the meaning of divine sonship in
Psalm 2 but also plays a critical role in Mark's portrayal of Jesus. It is this
authority that Jesus receives at the proclamation: "You are my beloved
Son."
It is of course true that the baptism is concerned with the endowment of
the Spirit in the manner of Isa 42:1, "I put my spirit on him" (edoka to
pneuma mou ep' auton). This theme is also present in Psalm 2 (although to
a lesser extent than Isa 42:1), for it designates the king as the Lord's
"anointed" (v. 2). Nevertheless the purpose of the baptism is not simply to
convey that Jesus was empowered by the Spirit for ministry but to convey
who was empowered. The clear echo in the baptism of the three eschato-
logical signs from T. Levi and T. Jud. designates Jesus as the fulfiller of the
eschatological kingdom, thus linking him with royal expectations. The
Gospel of the Ebionites, interestingly, also recalls royal sonship imagery
from the OT: "You are myfirstbornson [Ps. 2:7; Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9], who
reigns forever" [Ps 89:19].
In connection with this, "beloved" deserves further consideration. Pro-
ponents of pa/s-Christology maintain that agapëtos as well as eklektos
may translate the original bahar. Although this occurs when Isa 42:1 is
quoted in Matt 12:18, it is the only instance in Scripture where bahar is
rendered by agapëtos.45 This probably indicates that Matt 12:18 has been
influenced by the baptismal account rather than the reverse. Two further
observations weaken the link between "beloved" in the divine proclama-
tion and "my chosen" (bèhîrî) in Isa 42:1. First, "my chosen" is an indepen-
dent subject, whereas in the divine proclamation "beloved" is adjectival.
Gos. Eb. subtly changes the synoptic wording to enforce this point.46
Second, C. H. Turner's comprehensive study of agapëtos huios in Greek
literature suggests that the proper translation is not "beloved son" but

45
Bahar occurs thirteen times in the MT, and in each instance the LXX translates it by
eklektos.
46
Note the shift of the mou in an otherwise verbatim quotation, bringing "son" and "beloved"
into unity: sy ei ho huios mou ho agapëtos (Mark); sy mou ei ho huios ho agapëtos (Gos. Eb.;
similarly Gen 22:2).
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK 53

"only son." 47 The LXX seems to confirm this by rendering yahîd (twelve
times in MT) with agapëtos (Gen 22:2,12,16; Prov 4:3 [agapan]; Jer 6:26;
Amos 8:10) as well as with monogenes (Judg 11:34; Pss 22:20; 25:16; 35:17;
68:6 [monotropos]).

VI. THE ONLY SON

This leads us to search for a more compelling antecedent of agapëtos

than Isa 42:1. The strongest possibility is surely the Abraham-Isaac
typology. The similarities between Genesis 22 and the voice at the baptism
surpass, in fact, their near-identical wording (ho huios sou ton agapëton,
Gen 22:2, 12,16), for Abraham's love is echoed in the familiar quotation
from T. Levi 18:6:
And from the temple of glory shall come upon him sanctification,
With the Father's voice from Abraham to Isaac.
Abraham's intimate love for Isaac appears to have offered Mark, along
with the tradition before him, a clear reference for understanding the
heavenly voice at the baptism. The divine proclamation expresses the
steadfast love of the Father for the Son as well as their essential unity.
Other NT writers (Heb 11:17-19; Rom 4:24; 8:32) and early Church fathers
(Barn. 7:3 onward) saw the sacrifice of Isaac as a préfiguration of the
sacrifice of Jesus, and this is also true of extra-Biblical sources (Josephus,
intertestamental literature, targums, Philo, the rabbis). The sacrifice of
Isaac was regarded "as the one perfect sacrifice by which the sins of the
people of Israel were forgiven."48 There can be little doubt that Genesis 22,
with its twin motifs of filial intimacy and sacrifice, formed a field of
signification within which to understand Mark 1:11.
We may summarize the foregoing by saying that the divine proclama-
tion, "You are my Son," is more than a functional designation. It relates
not only to Jesus' doing but to his being. It must first be communicated
who Jesus is in relationship to God before his suffering servanthood will
have any ultimate, salvine meaning.49 Above all, it is from his oneness
with the Father that Jesus derives his radical authority (exousia) to forgive

47
C. H. Turner, "Ho Huios Mou ho Agapëtos," JTS 27 (1926) 113-129. "From Homer to
Athanasius the history of the Greek language bears out, I venture to say, the argument... that
agapëtos huios is rightly rendered 'only Son' " (p. 129). In addition to the hellenistic background,
Turner investigates its OT antecedents (Gen 22:2; Judg 11:34; Prov 4:3 [agapan]; Jer 6:26; Amos
8:10; Zech 12:10; cf. also Tob 3:10) to show that the term is practically synonymous with
monogenes, "only." Athanasius (Oratio IV Contra Arianos, c. 24), Eusebius (six passages) and
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 4.5.3) also use the terms interchangeably.
48
See E. Best (The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology [Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University, 1965] 169-172) for an excellent review of the influence of Genesis 22 on the
baptismal accounts. Best is followed by many scholars on this point. See W. R. Stegner, "The
Baptism of Jesus: A Story Modeled on the Binding of Isaac," BR 1/3, (1985) 36-46.
49
Klostermann, Markusevangelium 9; J. Bieneck, Sohn Gottes als Christusbezeichnung der
Synoptiker (Zürich: Zwingli, 1951) 60; G. Schrenk, "Eudokeö" TDNT, 2. 740-741.
54 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

sins (Mark 2:5), to accept sinners (2:15), to call tax collectors into disciple-
ship (2:13), to heal the sick (1:40-41) and cast out demons (1:24), to recover
the true intent of the Sabbath (2:28), and to challenge the entire oral
tradition (7:1-13), the temple (11:12-20) and the Sanhédrin (14:61-62). It
was no coincidence that when Jesus was confronted by a delegation of the
Sanhédrin asking "In what authority (exousia) do you do these things?" he
drove his questioners back to his baptism by John (11:27-33). What Jesus
does as God's servant ultimately has meaning only because of who he is as
God's Son.
It is clear, then, that Psalm 2 and Genesis 22 provide a background for
understanding the baptism of Jesus. Let us consider the servant passages
of Isaiah again briefly and conclude with a look at Exod 4:22-23. The
second half of the divine proclamation, "in you I am well pleased," al-
though not identical to Isa 42:1, surely recalls it.50 The main problem lies in
the transition from prosdechesthai ("to receive, welcome") in Isa 42:1 to
eudokein ("to be pleased with") in Mark 1:11. There are indications, how-
ever, that this transition was not uncommon in the tradition. Theodotion,
Aquila and Symmachus read eudokein instead of prosdechesthai (LXX).
The targum renders bahar (to choose) by Ditreci ("to be well pleased with")
at Isa 43:10; 41:8; 44:l-2. 51 The third-person construction of rastah (MT)
and prosedexato (LXX) does not correspond with the first-person construc-
tion of eudokësa in the baptismal record, but that simply may be due to a
free rendering of the MT.52
Highly significant, however, is the use of eudokein. Stronger than all
other expressions of God's affection (e.g. hairetizein, eklegesthai, prosde-
chesthai, thelein), eudokein accentuates God's favor toward his people
(2 Sam 22:20; Pss 43:3; 146:11). Whether eudokësa means that God's favor
rests on Jesus beginning at the baptism or sometime prior to it is less
certain.53 At any rate eudokein designates Jesus as the object of God's
favor and love, irrevocably chosen to fulfill the role of the servant as God's
eschatological anointed one.
The second half of Mark 1:11, then, clearly reflects the suffering servant
motif of Isaiah. Servanthood is the means by which Jesus is to make his
divine Sonship known. Divine sonship is rightly expressed through suffer-
ing servanthood.54

50
Isa 42:1 (LXX), prosedexato auton hë psychë mou; Mark 1:11, en soi eudokësa.
51
Dalman, Words of Jesus 277. If Matt 12:18 is not influenced by the baptismal account, it too
is an example of such a transition.
52
Marshall, "Son or Servant" 335. Marshall says that napëî is a circumlocution for the first
person singular, e.g. Job 30:25 (p. 335 n. 2).
53
Taylor (St. Mark 161) and Cranfield (Saint Mark 56) call the term a "timeless aorist,"
indicating God's eternal pleasure in Jesus. J. H. Moulton (A Grammar of New Testament Greek,
1. Prolegomena [3d ed.; Edinburgh: Τ and Τ Clark, 1908]), on the other hand, renders it "I have
just set my favor" on him. Both conclusions, however, rest more on dogmatic than exegetical
considerations. The aorist form alone argues for neither position. See Lohmeyer, Markusevan­
gelium 24 η. 1; Schrenk, "Eudokeö" TDNT, 2. 740-741.
54
Mark 1:11 finds an intriguing parallel in Isa 49:3: Doulos mou ei sy, Israël, kai en soi
doxasthësomai. Israel is God's servant who will be glorified; Jesus is God's Son in whom he is
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK 55

Thus far our investigation suggests that the kingly office of Psalm 2, the
fatherly love and filial obedience of Genesis 22, and the suffering servant of
Isaiah 42 and 49 are the motifs against which the divine voice is to be
understood. There remains one further consideration, and that is Yah weh's
announcement that Israel is his firstborn son (Exod 4:22-23). Paul Bret-
scher has examined the connection of this text with the baptism.55 His
reconstruction of the verbal similarities between Exod 4:22-23 and Mark
1:11 is less than compelling, but he successfully demonstrates a thematic
relationship between the two passages.
In two respects his thesis compares favorably with ours. First, the idea
of divine sonship began as a corporate image in Israel, and the baptism of
Jesus includes this corporate sense. At the baptism of Jesus God is creating
a new people. We noted in connection with the descent of the Spirit that in
Judaism the dove frequently symbolized Israel. The alighting of the dove
upon Jesus would then designate him as the new Israel, the one in whom
God forms a new people, the "firstborn among many brethren," to use
Paul's terminology (Rom 8:29). Second, Exod 4:22-23 defines the nature of
the Father-son relationship between God and Israel. In calling his people
into existence, God first defines who they are in relation to him and only
subsequently calls them to worship and serve him. This aligns with our
understanding of the divine proclamation at the baptism. The Father first
clarifies Jesus' relationship with him and only consequently commissions
Jesus after the image of the servant of Yahweh.

VII. IS MARK i : i l ADOPTIONIST?

Did Mark understand Jesus to become the Son of God at his baptism, or
did the divine proclamation confirm an existing relationship? Many schol-
ars believe that the early Church worked backwards to the idea of Jesus'
préexistence. Briefly stated, the argument runs that the earliest stratum of
the kërygma, as it is represented in Acts 2:36, 13:33, or Rom 1:4, implies
that Jesus was first exalted to the status of Son of God either at the
resurrection or ascension. This understanding was subsequently trans-
posed onto Jesus' earthly life and ministry by the early Church, resulting
in such passages as Luke 1:32-35; John 1:1-2; Phil 2:6-7; Heb 13:8; Rev 1:8.
One must exercise caution in reading too much into texts with an
adoptionist ring. Rom 1:3-4, for example, although often cited as evidence
of early adoptionist Christology, scarcely means that Jesus received the
status of Sonship at the resurrection. Rather, it was at the resurrection that

pleased. The theme of hiddenness in Isa 49:1-6 is important for an understanding of Jesus'
ministry. The Son accomplishes God's will through hiddenness. His hiddenness is essential, for
self-disclosure would destroy his work. Refusing to use his filial relationship with the Father for
his own advantage, the Son divests himself of his rightful prerogatives and in hiddenness treads
the road of suffering and death. The Son expresses his filial unity and obedience by taking on the
role of a doulos, "hidden in the shadow of [God's] hand" (Isa 49:2), allowing God to glorify
himself and accomplish his purpose through a humble, powerless servant.
55
P. G. Bretscher, "Exodus 4:22-23 and the Voice from Heaven," JBL 87 (1968) 301-312.
56 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

he received the rightful honor and glory that he had not known as Son of
God in (his earthly) humiliation.56
In the gospel of Mark, at any rate, the resurrection is not related to "Son
of God." The proclamation of divine Sonship comes at the outset of Jesus'
ministry and concludes at the centurion's confession at the cross (Mark
15:39). The only question that remains is whether Mark's baptismal ac-
count is to be understood adoptionistically. There is little in the divine
proclamation to support adoptionism.57 The voice says "You are my Son,"
not "You have become my Son." If one recalls the vigor with which Paul
advanced the préexistence of Christ (e.g. Phil 2:6-7) it would not seem very
likely that Mark, Paul's disciple, would argue for adoptionism at the bap-
tism.58 Nor is the declaration of divine Sonship at the baptism Mark's first
mention of the subject. If one accepts the originality of "Son of God" in 1:1,
as I am inclined to do, then one has Mark's personal testimony that Jesus
is the Son of God.59 Finally, Luke's story of the annunciation (Luke 1:32-
35) evinces that he, the one evangelist who might imply adoptionism (see
the western reading at 3:22), rejected an adoptionist Christology. Moreover
the Church fathers, many of whom accepted the western reading at Luke
3:22, rejected adoptionist Christology as well.60

56
The evidence for and against adoptionism in Rom 1:3-4 is rather evenly divided until we
consider the meaning of "in power." I strongly suspect that "in power" was a Pauline addition to
an existing confessional formula. First, "power" and "in power" are characteristically Pauline
(Rom 1:16; 15:13,19; 1 Cor 5:4; 15:43; 2 Cor 13:4; Phil 3:10; 1 These 1:5). Second, "in power" breaks
the otherwise uniform parallelism of the structure. Moreover it is probable that "in power" is to
be understood adjectivally to refer to "Son of God," not adverbally to refer to "appoint." Thus
Cranfield is right in saying, "The meaning of the first six words of this clause then is probably
'who was appointed Son-of-God-in-power' (that is, in contrast with His being Son of God in
apparent weakness and poverty in the period of His earthly existence)" (The Epistle to the
Romans [ICC: Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1975-1979], 1.62).
57
I can see only two possible arguments for adoptionism at Mark 1:11. First, Mark and Luke
cast the divine proclamation in the second person as an address to Jesus; only Matthew renders
it in the third person, as an announcement to those present. Matthew's wording corresponds
with the heavenly words at the transfiguration and 2 Pet 1:17. Gos. Eb., incidentally, includes
both renderings—i.e. the second person addressed to Jesus and the third (to John the Baptist).
See Epiphanius Pan. Haer. 30.13.7-8. But neither the more objective third person nor the more
subjective second person suggests that Jesus became Son of God at the baptism. At the most he
might have become aware of his divine Sonship then. Second, if one were to accept Luke's
textual variant, "Today I have begotten you" (Luke 3:22), the idea of adoption would be difficult
to avoid. But this is a very poorly attested western reading derived from Ps 2:7; see TCGNT136.
58
M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1966) 10-11. See Schweizern
comment (Mark 358): "There is no indication that Jesus was any other than the Son of God in
the fullest sense from the very beginning."
59
The manuscript support for huiou theou in 1:1 in terms of sheer number, diversity and
weight of witnesses (e.g. B, D), favors its inclusion (Sinaiticus notwithstanding). Moreover it can
be demonstrated that the entire prologue stems from Mark's hand and that "Son of God" is
Mark's most important title for Jesus (e.g. Mark 15:39). "Son of God" rightly belongs in the
prologue.
60
Lohmeyer, Markusevangelium 23; J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York:
Harper, 1932) 51-55; L. Legrand, "L'arriere-plan neotestamentaire de Le 1,35," RB 70 (1963) 167;
Β. M. F. van Iersel, 'Der Sohn* in den synoptischen Jesus Worten (2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1964)
88-89.
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK 57

The baptism of Jesus does not imply adoption. Rather, it defines the
uniqueness of the Father-Son relationship. The baptism presupposes Jesus'
Sonship, but it initiates his public ministry. Jesus does not become God's
Son at the baptism. He already is the Son of God who at his baptism
embarks upon his eschatological office as the Messiah, the servant of the
Lord. Rengstorf aptly says, "Die Gottesstimme setzt nicht erst Jesu Sohn-
schaft, sondern setzt sie voraus."61

VIII. CONCLUSION

It is sometimes assumed that "Son of God" is synonymous with "Christ"

at Mark 1:11. This is supported primarily by the targum of Isa 42:1, which
identifies the servant of the Lord with the Messiah.62 We have shown,
however, that Jesus' messianic role as servant of the Lord (Isa 42:1; 49:3) is
but one of several referents of the divine proclamation and is contingent
upon eschatological kingship (Ps 2:7) and filial intimacy and obedience
(Genesis 22; Exod 4:22-23). At the baptism "my Son" is not accompanied
by christos (as in Mark 1:1) but by agapëtos, an adjective describing a filial
relationship. Jesus is God's anointed, God's Messiah, only because he first
is the Son who is cherished by the Father and pleasing to him. The status
of Sonship therefore precedes the function of Messiahship.63
At the baptism the heavenly voice declares first of all who Jesus is:
God's Son, who as such is anointed and equipped with God's Spirit to
express hisfilialstatus in terms of servanthood—indeed, suffering servant-
hood. The baptism signals the confirmation of Jesus' Sonship and the
commencement of his servanthood.
61
K. H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Rup-
recht, 1965) 27.
62
Str-B, 1. 630; 3.17; Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition 248.
63
I. H. Marshall, "The Divine Sonship of Jesus," Int 21 (1967) 99-100: "Jesus is the Messiah
because he is the Son of God rather than vice-versa. Sonship is the supreme category of
interpretation of the person of Jesus in the Gospels and messiahship occupies a subordinate
place.... Jesus was confirmed as the Son of God in carrying out the tasks of the Messiah and
Servant of Yah weh." T. W. Manson (The Teaching of Jesus: Studies in its Form and Content
[Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963] 103-104) expresses the idea this way: "With the vision
and voice at the Baptism . . . Jesus receives an assurance, the essence of which is contained in
the declaration, 'Thou art my Son.' What is given here is not a task to be performed or a message
to be delivered, but a status and a relationship. At the very outset it is indicated that the central
thing in his ministry will be what he is rather than what he says." See also Taylor, St. Mark 162;
Rengstorf, Lukas 59-60; E. Lövestam, Son and Savior (ConNT 18; Copenhagen: Ejnar Munks-
gaard, 1961) 92-93,110; Bieneck, Sohn Gottes 48,60-62.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.