Mark 1:10

‘And coming up out of the water straight away he saw the heavens cleaving in half and the Spirit as a dove descending on him, and a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”.'

Here we have brought home to us Jesus' self-awareness at His baptism. As He ‘comes up out of the water', (either by rising from its depths or by walking towards the bank, depending on how John baptised), He is aware of activity in heaven. The idea of the heavens being opened (anoigo) as indicating heavenly activity was a regular one, but not in the vivid way in which Mark renders it (skizo). Perhaps he intends us to link it with the rending of the curtain in the Temple in Mark 15:38, another dramatic moment of divine revelation. Or it may be that Mark has in mind Isaiah 64:1 (in the Hebrew), ‘O that You would rend the heavens and come down'. For Isaiah 63-64 has a number of connections with the passage here. In Isaiah 63:11 the leaders of Israel came up out of the water (the sea) when God put in the midst of them His holy Spirit, and Israel were then led through the wilderness (Isaiah 63:13), only to fail in the end in their response to God's Kingly Rule (Isaiah 63:19). So Mark may well have intended us to see that God was now rending the heavens as Isaiah had pleaded in expectation of a better result.

‘The heavens cleaving in half.' This does not refer to a physical gap appearing but simply indicates that there was some unusual and dramatic activity in the heavens, resulting in this case in the fact that something other worldly was seen there.

‘And the Spirit as a dove descending on him.' He was conscious of what seemed like some kind of physical presence (Luke specifically confirms this when he speaks of ‘a bodily form like a dove' - Mark 3:22), which reminded Him of a dove and descended on Him, in the same way as the Spirit would descend on the coming King (Isaiah 11:1), the coming Servant (Isaiah 42:1, compare Matthew 12:17) and the coming anointed Prophet (Isaiah 61:1). In John's Gospel we learn that John the Baptiser was also aware of these things (John 1:32). What the crowds were aware of we are not told. The words, ‘ This  is my beloved Son' in Matthew might suggest that the crowds also heard the voice, but again it may have been seen as spoken only to John the Baptiser. All would have taken place in Aramaic so that both representations are reasonable translations into Greek. To Jesus, ‘You are My beloved son', to John ‘this is My beloved son'. (The Aramaic may well have been simply ‘My Beloved Son'. The pronoun, as it so often was, would have to be understood).

So in His baptism Jesus identified Himself with the repentant people and received God's mighty empowering (compare Luke's ‘full of the Holy Spirit' - Mark 4:1) and seal of approval, while John received confirmation that this was indeed the One Who had a unique relationship with God and will drench men in Holy Spirit (John 1:33) like refreshing rain (Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 55:10).

‘As a dove.' Not literally but in impression. It reminded those who saw it of a dove. It is possible that the picture was intended to connect with the Holy Spirit hovering like a bird over the coming creation (Genesis 1:2), the symbol of a coming creative work of God, this being linked in Mark's mind with the dove who brought back the symbol of the olive leaf to the ark in the time of Noah, which demonstrated that God was in mercy allowing man to begin anew in a new creation (Genesis 8:11). It was a symbol of mercy and hope and new life. It may even connect with the fact that in the Song of Solomon the dove is a description of ‘the beloved' (Mark 2:14; Mark 5:2; Mark 6:9). And we may well connect it with Jesus words about the ‘harmlessness of doves' (Matthew 10:16), the point being that He had not come as a warrior Messiah (see also Matthew 21:5). But it is a mistake in saying this to suggest that it differentiated Him and His preaching from that of John in that John was somehow more judgmental and fierce. Jesus' words could be even more fierce than John's and John's fierceness is often overemphasised. As with Jesus he was ‘fierce' with those who deserved it, while his heart was compassionate towards the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

‘And a voice came from the heavens.' The Rabbis spoke of a ‘bath kol', (daughter of a voice), a distant voice that filtered through from God as He spoke in the heaven of heavens, but was inferior to the direct word of God to the prophets, but this was no bath kol, this was God speaking directly and firmly, authenticating Jesus' mission. The heavens had been opened. He was fully involved in what was happening.

‘You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.' This echoes Psalms 2:7, a Psalm originally reflecting the adoption of the Davidic king by God, and Isaiah 42:1, words spoken to God's coming Servant to the nations. By it God confirms that Jesus is the true Son of David, the expected Messiah, and God's faithful Servant. Note that the empowering of the Spirit was promised both to the coming king (Isaiah 11:2) and on the coming Servant (Isaiah 42:1) and anointed Prophet (Isaiah 61:1), and it was part of the Messianic expectation among the Jews. But the words go deeper than that for they reveal Jesus as God's own beloved Son in a way never suggested of the Davidic kings.

In Psalms 2 the original reference was to the king of Judah as adopted by God, probably at his coronation and possibly in a yearly renewal ceremony. It expressed the confidence that the Davidic kingship, chosen and adopted by God, would one day rule the world as His chosen king. Psalms 2:7 is literally, ‘you are my son, today have I begotten (i.e. adopted, made my son) you'. However the change to ‘beloved' reflects the fact that Jesus was not adopted like the others but was unique. It practically reflects the same idea as the ‘only begotten' - it is used in LXX to indicate Abraham's ‘only son' and Jephthah's ‘only daughter' - but was especially suitable as distinguishing Jesus from the earlier Davidic kings, as the One Whom God essentially and uniquely loved, His only beloved Son (compare Mark 9:7; Mark 12:6).

The quotation from Isaiah 42:1 links Jesus with the Servant of Isaiah. We should especially consider here Matthew's quotation from Isaiah 42:1 which also contains reference to him as ‘beloved'. Initially referring to Israel, and then to the faithful in Israel (Isaiah 49:3) who would restore ‘Jacob' and ‘Israel' (the peoples of Judah and Israel), and bring the nations to God, the Servant narrowed down to a unique prophetic figure who would suffer at the hands of His enemies who refused to hear him (chapter Isaiah 50:3), and who would be offered up for the sins of God's people (chapter Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12). While not directly linked with the Davidic kings he had royal qualities (Isaiah 52:13), and Jesus later linked Himself with this suffering Servant (Luke 22:37) as well as claiming to be the Messiah (explicitly in John 4:25 in a place where the title was not misleading to the hearers), the Son of David, and the suffering Son of Man.

So Jesus became aware that the moment when He must reveal Himself as Son and Messiah and Servant of God had arrived. His mission of service, and suffering, and royal authority must now begin. And this inevitably resulted in His going apart into a quiet place to consider all the implications involved. How human this revealed Him to be, yet how divine.

‘And straightway.' This is the first occurrence in Mark of a constantly repeated word, 'euthus. It means ‘immediately, straight away', but it is at this stage more a literary device to move the action on quickly and to connect different passages than an indication of time specifically. It is especially prevalent in Mark 1:9 to Mark 2:12 where it rapidly takes us through, and connects together, Jesus' initial activity, doing it in one smooth forward movement.

Excursus: Was John's Baptism A Ritual Washing?

It is suggested by many that John's baptism was intended to be seen as a ritual washing. But while the faith of Israel encouraged ritual washing, such washing was only ever preliminary. It was never seen as directly cleansing, for it is regularly followed by the statement ‘and shall not be clean until the evening'. Thus it was not seen as being itself the ‘cleansing' agent. It merely washed away the earthiness of man preparatory to his approach to, and waiting on, God for cleansing. What cleansed was the waiting on God in obedience, and in the end the shedding of blood. For in Old Testament times water was not so much looked on as being for washing. It was rather what fed the ground and was life-giving, and was what satisfied the thirst of men.

Seeming exceptions to this suggestion that water does not indicate ‘cleansing' found in Psalms 51:2; Psalms 51:7 probably refer to washing in ‘blood sprinkled water', for it is paralleled by ‘purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean' which is a sacrificial reference. He is there speaking of being ‘washed' in blood sprinkled water. Hyssop was used to sprinkle water purified with the ashes of a sacrifice, which was ‘a sin offering' (Numbers 19:9; Numbers 17-19). So David probably has in mind being ‘washed' in the ‘water for impurity for the removal of sin', which was water containing the ashes of sacrifice, and was  sprinkled  to remove uncleanness. Notice in Numbers 19:19 how the careful distinction is made. First the person is cleansed with the sprinkling of the ash-connected water, for the removal of ceremonial defilement, then they wash their clothes and bathe themselves in ordinary water, then they wait for the evening when they become clean. Water is not itself seen as directly ‘cleansing', it follows atonement and, removing earthly taintedness, prepares for cleansing.

So in the Old Testament the washing and bathing simply with water is carefully separated from the idea of cleansing, and seems to have more to do with becoming physically made ready to meet God, as a result of the removing of their earthiness and earthly odours. It is preparatory to cleansing. It is rather the water sprinkled with the ashes of the heifer which removes the ceremonial defilement and this is connected with the sin offering. Ezekiel also connects the sprinkled ‘purified' water (seen as purified with the ashes of the heifer) with the purifying of Israel in a passage connected with the coming of the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:25). Notice there that God will use ‘clean water', i.e. water that has, as it were, been cleansed.

Josephus sees this distinction between physical washing and spiritual cleansing clearly. He too misunderstood John's baptism (as possibly did some Pharisees, the extreme ritual cleansers, but see comment below) and said of John that he was ‘a good man who bade the Jews to cultivate virtue by justice towards one another and piety towards God and come together for baptism; for immersion, he said, would be acceptable to God only if practised, not as an expiation for specific offences, but for the purification of the body, when the soul had been thoroughly cleansed by righteousness'. By this the baptism is degraded into an outward ceremony which washes the body after it has been truly cleansed rather than as being an essential element in the cleansing by righteousness. Josephus rightly recognises the secondary nature of ritual washing, and wrongly associates it with John's baptism. (We must always remember that Josephus has a propaganda aim. He writes so as to ingratiate the Jews with their Roman masters).

But the baptism of John was central, not secondary. Attention was centred on it. It was the focal point of his ministry. And it was closely connected with repentance and admission of sin and its consequent forgiveness. It was hardly likely then that it indicated a mere ritual activity after the main event. It rather represented the very source of the life that produced righteousness.

Because of these difficulties reference is often made to proselyte washing, the initial washing which a proselyte to Judaism underwent on entering Judaism. But while that was sometimes, in passing, given a more significant meaning by one or two later Rabbis, that too was from all points of view a ritual washing, a leaving behind of the ritual defilement of the Gentile world. And there the proselyte washed himself, whereas it appears that here John administered the baptism (‘baptised by John'). Indeed to wash Jews in this way would have raised an outcry of which there is no evidence in the account. While the Pharisees questioned his right to perform a significant ceremony, they did not cavil at it by saying that such a baptism was intended only for Gentiles. Rather did they see it as an ‘end of the age' event connected with the Messiah, Elijah or the Prophet, all expected figures of the end times (John 1:25). This fits well with their seeing it as signifying the idea of the pouring out of the Spirit at the end of the age.

Indeed the difference is significant. All Jewish washings were carried out by the person themselves. It was they who prepared themselves. All concentration was on their efforts. But John's baptism was not self-administered. It was done by another in God's name. It looked away from men's own actions to God.

A better comparison might be Isaiah 1:16. ‘wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well.' But this does not refer to ritual washing. Isaiah had for the time being ‘done away' with ritual (Mark 1:11). It is a command to become clean in life, and ‘washing' is there a picture of the activity involved in a practical getting rid of sin. This would certainly partly fit John's position, but it will be noted that it was still to be self-applied and such an idea is not taken up by John. Indeed,  unless we do connect it with the fruitfulness he describes, then he seemingly gives no indication of the significance of his baptism, something which would surely be quite remarkable. But if his baptism is a picture of the outpouring of Holy Spirit, of the pouring out of spiritual rain which produces fruitfulness, he explains it quite clearly. ‘I drenched you with water, He will drench you with Holy Spirit', the first the symbol the second the reality.

This is further confirmed by the fact that later on baptism will be seen as a dying/rising again event, dying in Christ and rising with new life in the Spirit, a concept regularly connected in the Old Testament with the rain pouring from the heavens (e.g. Isaiah 44:1). And Peter specifically excludes the idea of removal of the defilement of the flesh from the significance of baptism (1 Peter 3:21). It is even questionable whether the words of Ananias to Paul, ‘arise, and be baptised, and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord' (Acts 22:16) directly connects the washing with the baptism. The construction of the sentence separates the two, making them two distinct actions, and rather connects the ‘washing' with the following phrase, the ‘calling on the name of the Lord' (see Jeremiah 4:14), although he would no doubt make a connection between the two. It is also significant that he uses 'apolouo, which signifies washing by natural means (Job 9:30 LXX), not the louo which means ritual washing. He has in mind verses such as Isaiah 1:16 not ritual washing.

Had Ananias meant that the baptism directly symbolised the washing he would surely have said, ‘Arise and be baptised, washing away your sins (rather than ‘and wash away your sins'), and call on the name of the Lord'. But as mentioned Ananias in fact may well have had Isaiah 1:16 in mind where ‘washing' means turning away from sin. However, whatever the case there, there is no other place where washing and baptism are closely connected. In Titus 3:5 it is ‘regeneration' that is seen as ‘washing' while in Ephesians 5:26 the washing of water is with the word. Thus in Acts Ananias may have had primarily in mind response to the word and the regenerating activity of God.

So the emphasis of the New Testament, when thinking of baptism, was not that it washed men, removing ‘dirt' (even spiritual dirt), but that it fed their souls giving refreshment and life. It represented a pouring out on them of spiritual rain, so that out of their innermost beings might flow rivers of living water (John 7:38). It gave them life and made them life-giving in the same way as rain does the earth and drinking water does to men.

End of Excursus.