Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ.
Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ,Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου,
ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου·
φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ,
Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου,
εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ,ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
The beginning of the Gospel about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.1
Just as it is written by Isaiah the Prophet,2Look: I send my messenger before you,
who will prepare your way;
a voice of one crying in the wilderness,
“Prepare the way of the LORD,3
make his paths straight.”…so4 John was baptizing5 in the wilderness, and preaching a baptism of repentance for forgiving sins.
Mark 1:1-4
In a modern context, what constitutes a “quote” is fairly straightforward. The sine qua non of a “quote” is the exact words of one author included in the work of another. Usually this is also included with quotes around the section quoted, and someone may be very angry with you if the content within those quotes is left without proper MLA citation. In ancient literature, however, it is rarely as simple as that. Outside of the Scriptures, one example where this is “tricky” is in exegesis of the Church Fathers: how do you know when a specific Father is citing a text, paraphrasing a text, or alluding to a text? And so the same with Scripture.
This is important to know. Knowing this fact will make you a better reader of both the New Testament, as you will be able to understand precisely what an author is doing with the text cited, and also of the Old Testament, as a guide to interpreting it in its intended fashion. Furthermore, there is a certain apologetic value in knowing this. It can be understandingly troubling to see a quotation, marked off with quotation marks in an English Bible, only to turn to the quoted location to find it substantially different. Is this a “misquote”?
The above quote is right at the beginning of the prologue to Mark’s gospel. And he starts it with a justification of John’s, and ultimately Jesus’, ministry through a quote of the prophet Isaiah. However, there’s more going on here than what first meets the eye, and it was selected as a wonderful example of some of the things which go on when a New Testament author goes to cite something from the Jewish Scriptures. This example specifically will be unpacked, but others could be as well along the same lines.
The Textual Situation
It may be surprising if I say that nowhere else in your Bible does the above text appear as presented by Mark, not even in Isaiah. The portion which does originate from Isaiah’s pen is the latter half of the quote, beginning with “a voice…” The text quoted is Isaiah 40:3. The quote is substantially from an ancient Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures common among Jewish antiquity, colloquially known as the “Septuagint”6 (LXX). However, even when compared with this translation as reconstructed, it does not have precisely the same wording:
φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὴν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν
A voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the LORD, make the paths of our God straight!”
Isaiah 40:3 LXX (emphasis added)
Where the Septuagint reads “our God,” the New Testament reads “his.” So, not a massive change, nor any shift in meaning, but it is nevertheless not an exact quotation.
The former part of the quotation, verse 2, is actually a mashup of two verses; the first is Exodus 23:20, again from the Septuagint:
Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ἵνα φυλάξῇ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, ὅπως εἰσαγάγῃ σε εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἥν ἡτοίμασά σοι. οὐ γὰρ μὴ ὑποστείληταί σε, τὸ γὰρ ὄνομά μού ἐστιν ἐπ’ αὐτῲ. ἐὰν ἀκοῇ ἀκούσητε τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς καὶ ποιήσῃς πάντα, ὅσα ἄν ἐντείλωμαί σοι, και φυλάξητε τἠν διαθήκην μου, ἔσεσθέ μοι λαὸς περιούσιος ἀπὸ πάντων τὼν ἐθνών· ἐμὴ γάρ ἐστιν πᾶσα ἡ γῆ, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον.
“And, look: I am sending my messenger before you, so that he may keep you in the way, when you enter into the land which I prepared for you. For he will certainly not shrink back from you, for my Name is upon him. If you listen attentively to my voice and do everything which I command you, and you keep my Covenant, you will be more special to me than all the Gentiles; for the whole earth is mine, but you will be my priests-kingdom and a holy nation.”
Exodus 23:20-22a LXX
Don’t be shy to question at this juncture, “what does this have to do with John the Baptist?” In time, my friend, in time!
The second verse used in this mashup is Malachi 3:1, but, surprisingly, the Septuagint does not appear to be Mark’s source. Here’s the Septuagint’s rendering:
ἰδοῦ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου, καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρό προσώπου μου, καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἥξει εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ κύριος, ὅν ὑμεῖς ζητεῖτε, καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης, ὅν ὑμεῖς θέλετε· ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ.
Look: I am sending out my messenger, and he will oversee the road before me, and suddenly the LORD will come into his own Temple, whom you seek; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, look: he comes, says the LORD Almighty.
Malachi 3:1 LXX (emphasis added)
Rather, Mark seems to have incorporated something closer to what is called the Masoretic Text (MT), or the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament:
הִנְנִ֤י שֹׁלֵ֙חַ֙ מַלְאָכִ֔י וּפִנָּה־דֶ֖רֶךְ לְפָנָ֑י וּפִתְאֹם֩ יָב֨וֹא אֶל־הֵיכָל֜וֹ הָאָד֣וֹן ׀ אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֣ם מְבַקְשִׁ֗ים וּמַלְאַ֨ךְ הַבְּרִ֜ית אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֤ם חֲפֵצִים֙ הִנֵּה־בָ֔א אָמַ֖ר יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָאֽוֹת׃
“Look: I am sending my messenger, and he will prepare a way before me,7 and, suddenly, the Lord will come to his Temple, whom you are seeking; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you are desiring, look: he comes”, says יהוה of Armies.
Malachi 3:1 MT (emphasis added)
What seems to have happened is this language of the messenger preparing God’s path prior to the Day of the Lord is being adopted from the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Malachi 3:1, and being interpolated back into Exodus 23:20. This “messenger of the covenant” is later in the chapter revealed to be Elijah the Tishbite:
הִנֵּ֤ה אָנֹכִי֙ שֹׁלֵ֣חַ לָכֶ֔ם אֵ֖ת אֵלִיָּ֣ה הַנָּבִ֑יא לִפְנֵ֗י בּ֚וֹא י֣וֹם יְהֹוָ֔ה הַגָּד֖וֹל וְהַנּוֹרָֽא׃
“Look: I myself am sending to you Elijah the Prophet coming before me on the great and fearful day of יהוה.”
Malachi 3:23 MT
So, that has been a lot of data, but hopefully it has been somewhat understandable in determining where precisely Mark 1:2-3 came from. The gist is this: Exodus 23:20 from the Septuagint and Malachi 3:1 from the Masoretic Text were mashed together and juxtaposed with Isaiah 40:3 from the Septuagint, and all with a few minor tweaks.
Why would Mark have done This?
I think the immediate question which the modern reader is prone to ask in this situation is whether such activity constitutes a “misquote” of the Old Testament. Certainly the above section shows that this use of the Old Testament is no accident, so perhaps “misquote” is the wrong word. But the essential question remains: is such behavior misusing the Old Testament text, mashing quotes together willy-nilly, taken from different places and even language sources, as if the very words the Spirit of God spoke by the Prophets were no more valuable than a scrapbook, and then to call the whole thing “Isaiah”?
This quote clearly bothered some ancient interpreters, so such a question is not completely off-base. Some copies of the New Testament which survive from antiquity actually don’t read “just as it was written by Isaiah,” but instead, “just as it was written by the Prophets,” given the hybrid nature of the quote. For more information on that, see footnote 2.
The answer is, of course, no: Mark had very good reason for doing what he did. The truth is that oftentimes when there are substantial differences in a New Testament quotation and the Old Testament text (and also in cases where the Old Testament quotes itself with differences, but that is for another time), often the quote is intended to be interpretive. By this, I mean that the way the quote is worded guides the reader to interpreting that verse in a specific way for the literary purposes of the specific author in a succinct manner. Mark has a point to get across, and this verse applies to his point. So, he words and frames his quote in a specific way such that his point hits correctly; and the precise way in which he does it reveals an intimate knowledge of the prophetic message of the OT.
As an analogy to common experience, it is a common assertion in Christian circles that God loves everyone, citing John 3:16. However, John 3:16 does not say “God so loved every human being.” Rather, it says “God so loved the world.” However, most wouldn’t say that I am misquoting John 3:16 when I say that “God loves everyone.” Rather, I am interpreting what “the world” means by my quote. This is analogous to what is happening in Mark, and which happens sometimes in these OT quotes.
So What does Mark’s Quote Accomplish?
All of my explanation rests on the idea that Mark has some goal in presenting his quote this way. And, ultimately, this should be the guiding question for looking at these quotes: what is the author trying to communicate here? I think that it is a good starting-point to ask what is happening in the Exodus passage, then move to the Malachi passage, from which then the New Testament’s usage and application may be explained.
In Exodus 23:20, Christian commentators have often identified this “messenger” as Jesus Himself, who guides the people into Canaan, and in Whom God’s Holy Name rests. I, with some trembling, am going to say that this is almost certainly incorrect. In some older commentaries, the argument is primarily that God’s Name rests on this messenger — a dignity too high for anyone else. However, I think that for the “Name” to rest upon someone means to bear His authority. And, as such, it is incorrect to say that such a thing is “too high” for someone non-divine, since angels or prophets who speak on God’s behalf do bear His authority without “becoming divine,” or something like that.
Rather, I think the primary referent for this “messenger” is probably Moses, the “highest” of the Prophets, who “speaks with God as a man does his friend,” who is the primary administrator of justice among the people. God gave Moses to the people so that he may keep them in His way, as a Covenant mediator. Through Moses’ ministry, the people will be brought into the land of promise.
Now look at Malachi 3:1. It is of first note that the language in this passage is strikingly similar to that of Exodus 23:20. This is no accident. Malachi 3:1 is, in a sense, expanding and re-applying Exodus 23:20. The context of Malachi, far from the period of the Exodus, is post-Exilic. The Temple has been re-built, but it is nothing but disappointing. God’s promises of a Davidic King to reign over all the nations have not come true. And, it is in this context that the Lord speaks through Malachi about a new Exodus, with a new messenger, even greater than the first one. After him, the Lord Himself will come to fill His Temple on that promised Day of the Lord finally come. So, in using this same language as the Exodus passage, Malachi frames the Exodus account as typological and eschatological of a new, greater Exodus to come. And, this time, that messenger will be Elijah the Tishbite. This, by the way, is the big reason why I think the messenger in Exodus 23:20 is a prophet, and not Jesus: because when Malachi interprets Exodus 23:20, he interprets it to be a prophet.
It is in this interpretive tradition that Mark is writing. In “mashing” these two passages together, Mark8 shows that he is very aware of the fact that this line of thought develops across the Hebrew Bible, and he interprets Exodus 23:20 eschatologically through the lens provided by the prophet Malachi in Malachi 3:1. Insodoing, he forcefully makes the point that the new “messenger of the Covenant,” John the Baptist, who acts “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” is here: and, after him, comes a New Exodus with a New Covenant ratified by the Lord Himself, of which he is the covenant-messenger.
All of this, packed into this masterful citation, is affixed to the quotation of Isaiah. The purpose of doing this is to provide an interpretation of whose voice is crying in the wilderness. The “voice crying” is one of a herald, that covenant-messenger, announcing the coming of the God of Israel and the Day of the Lord. So, we may characterize this as “relevant background information” for understanding Isaiah’s prophecy. Isaiah adds the detail that this covenant-messenger is in the wilderness, which will be a motif throughout Mark 1, both at the beginning of John and Jesus’ ministries. This helps interpret the rest of the chapter, providing context for the wilderness motif itself. It is intricately linked to this idea of a New Exodus, anticipated by John but began by Jesus. And this provides a handy grid for interpreting some of the events of this passage. John and Jesus’ baptisms are likewise linked to the New Exodus (though John’s, only in an anticipatory sense), as is the gift of the Spirit associated with baptism (cf. Isaiah 63:11-12, which helps explicitly to frame both baptism and the gift of the Spirit in New Exodus language). But, this post is not a commentary on Mark 1. It only focuses on the quote (which, admittedly, is the core and foundation of Mark 1).
Pragmatically, of course, the way this citation works implies that Jesus is the God of Israel, יהוה, being the one Whose way John prepares within Mark. This is significant since sometimes it is argued that Mark’s gospel does not portray Jesus as God. At a popular level, this is an important argument within the influental work by Barth Erhman, textual scholar and counted-apologist, How Jesus Became God. However, the divinity of Jesus is clearly implied here if the details of the quotation are taken seriously, which clearly Mark is interested in doing.
That all being said, I do not think it is therefore incorrect that Mark calls this citation “by Isaiah.” It has been established above that Old Testament citations are interpretive; by affixing these other texts, Mark is interpreting Isaiah, by bringing in other significant information to guide his readers as they interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Christ’s coming. Certainly, if this were a paper for a modern composition class, Mark’s teacher might cross off in red pen verse 2. But this is not a modern document, and this is not a modern composition class. We must accept that the standards of what constitutes an accurate “quote” were different in this time period. And, by the standards of the biblical authors themselves, who certainly were not above such activity, Mark’s activity passes as a faithful quote of Isaiah — just an interpretive one, which brings in other details to help the reader.
Conclusion
Drawing to a close, it is important to remember that this situation in Mark 1 is not isolated. There are other quotes of the Old Testament within the New which are quite interpretive, and they each have their own peculiarities. A grid for the precise interpretation to all of these cases has not been provided, since such is not expedient, and probably not possible. Each text must be taken on its own and examined independently, asking questions about why the author might have done what he did. Sometimes it’s as simple as Paul remembered a different translation one day than he did the previous (compare his citations of “You shall not muzzle an ox while he is treading out the grain”: 1 Timothy 5:18, 1 Corinthians 9:9). But, sometimes, plumbing the depths of what’s going on with the textual sources can be quite rewarding, as here; I find it fun either way, as it gives a little glimpse into the biblical composition process. A good commentary will point these things out when they happen.
The Gospel
The New Testament’s almost constant use of the Jewish Scriptures reminds us that Jesus is the center of the entire counsel of God: it really is His story. Now, that doesn’t mean, as happens in some preaching sometimes, that it is appropriate to lazily just see Jesus somewhere on the page where you can fit Him in. Sometimes it takes work to see what’s going on, as it did here. But, nevertheless, the whole story is really about Jesus, that Messiah came into the world to save sinners. May we rest in Him. Amen.
Bibliography / For Further Reading
- Tanakh. Sefaria. Accessed [03/02/2025]. https://www.sefaria.org. This is a great site for accessing resources related to the Hebrew Bible, as it has the whole text of the Old Testament (Tanakh) along with some good resources, such as Rashi’s commentaries and the Targums. Translation mine.
- The Greek New Testament. 5th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014. Translation mine.
- Septuaginta. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Translation mine.
- The phrase “the Son of God” is missing in one incredibly significant manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus, although it was later corrected by a scribe. This identification of Jesus as the Son of God here is, however, almost certainly original, as it is nevertheless not lacking external support in the manuscript data, and Mark’s gospel is itself structured around two confessions that Jesus is the “Son of God” (ch. 8: Peter; ch. 15: the Centurion) making the identification here internally very appropriate as the immediate introduction of what will be thematic to Mark’s gospel later. ↩︎
- Many manuscripts read “by the Prophets,” including the very significant Codex Alexandrinus. This is likely, however, a motivated change (given the hybrid nature of the following quote), and thus “by Isaiah” ought to be taken as original. ↩︎
- “LORD” and not “Lord” was chosen here since the idiom of the LXX is that most of the time when κύριος is used anarthrously, the Divine Name (יהוה) is intended. And the Masoretic Text likewise has the Divine Name here. ↩︎
- This “so,” added in translation, is intended to bring out the fact that the Isaiah quote is not part of a distinct sentence from John’s activity within the Greek text. John’s activity continues the same thought without as much as a full-stop. ↩︎
- “John the Baptizer was in the wilderness” in many manuscripts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Such a reading may very well be original. I, however, lean towards the original reading being as translated above, since the change of the participle “baptizing” to an appellation for John by the addition of the article seems natural for one usually referred to as “the Baptist” (βαπτιστης). Furthermore, I would have expected “Baptist” here if this were an appellative. ↩︎
- This name is not wholly accurate, but it’s what’s stuck and should be used for the sake of talking the same language as everyone else. The name (“seventy” in Latin) originates from a legend, recorded in an apocryphal text called “The Letter of Aristeas,” which recounts seventy-seven (!!) translators which produce a translation of the Pentateuch (!!) for the Library of Alexandria. Through a game of telephone, the number of translators got truncated to seventy, and the Penteteuch became the whole Hebrew Bible. Some scholars prefer the name “Old Greek” for the ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, but I prefer to stick with the traditional naming, since more know what a “Septuagint” is than an “Old Greek” is. ↩︎
- The difference between “overlook” and “prepare” in Hebrew is a difference of vowels, not of consonants. Therefore, the Septuagint translator interpreted the consonants differently according to a different vocalization of the Hebrew text. ↩︎
- Or, perhaps his source. There is some discussion in the commentaries about whether the author of this gospel prepared the quote himself or got it from a “quotebook.” I think the former is probably correct, since the specific wording of the quote ends up determining Mark’s language within Mark 1. This quote, just as it is, seems to have been selected intentionally to fit Mark’s narrative. ↩︎