Study of Mark's Gospel Part 2 (continued): More on John the Baptist

⁵ People from the whole Judean countryside and all of Jerusalem were going out to him, and he was baptizing them in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins.

There is definite hyperbole (exaggeration for literary effect) in these verses, as it is highly unlikely that every single person in Jerusalem and the Judean countryside came to see John. The purpose of the hyperbole is not so much to point out that John’s ministry was popular, as is it is to show that countless people were ready for repentance and forgiveness. In other words, by telling us that huge crowds were accepting John’s baptism, the author indicates that John was doing his job (as stated in the quotation in verses 2 and 3); namely, preparing the way for the forgiveness of sins that would come through Jesus by getting people ready to hear the message.

I want you to keep this verse in the back of your mind because I will revisit it later as one of the ways that the author will show how Jesus surpasses John the Baptist (another being the actual ability to forgive sins, rather than just preaching repentance).

It is not known exactly where Mark has John baptizing. It had to be a wilderness place on the Jordan River accessible to people from Judea and Jerusalem, but the Jordan River stretches for more than 60 miles between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee. The “traditional” site of Jesus’ baptism is east of Jericho and north of the Dead Sea, within a short travel distance of Jerusalem and in the region of Judea. However, if this is even close to the location Mark had in mind, there will be repercussions for Jesus’ decision to focus his ministry in Galilee (as we will see at the end of this study). Another possible site places John’s ministry in the region of the Decapolis, significantly closer to Galilee but much farther from Jerusalem and Judea. It would still be feasible that people would travel from Judea to be baptized by John, but they would have to travel through Samaria to get there. Another possible explanation is that John moved his ministry, baptizing up and down the Jordan River, and Mark, in his brevity, simply used a city and region that his audience would have known without need for explanation.

⁶ John wore a garment made of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.

Hopefully as you read through this study, you will also be learning ways in which to critically examine a Gospel narrative. Recall in the introductory post my assumption that the Gospels are intentional. Because of this assumption, I work from the idea that the details inside the Gospels were included for a reason. As a general rule, then, any time you see a specific detail mentioned in a Gospel that seems strange or out of place to you, stop for a moment and ask “why?” Mark makes his statement about John’s dress and diet so briefly and changes gears so quickly that we can be tempted to pass by this sentence without giving it any thought. He does not take time to explain what, if any, significance there is to John’s clothing or eating habits. However, he does mention it, and it is a strange detail if you think about it, so we are left to pause and wonder, “Why does it matter (to the author or the audience) what John wore? Of all the foods John could have eaten, why are those two mentioned? Why does the author give no explanation at all about these details?”

I emphasized in the introductory post that Mark was most likely written to a primarily Roman Gentile audience. This doesn’t mean that there was no Jewish presence in his church community. The Jewishness of Jesus (and the characters surrounding him) is not downplayed in the Gospel. In fact, Mark does an excellent job of presenting his message in a way that appeals to both a Jewish and Gentile perspective. Jesus can be viewed in both the light of a Jewish Messiah (but redefined as the “suffering servant” who dies for mankind) and a Greco-Roman “divine man” (but surpassing any of them because of his suffering and death). As can John the Baptist:

In a Jewish context, the details about John’s clothing would have placed him as a prophet in the mold of Elijah. Elijah was described in 2 Kings 1:8 as a “hairy man” with a leather belt tied around his waist (The NIV translates the phrase as “a garment of hair”). Elijah’s “mantle” (his outer -- possibly “hairy”-- cloak), passed on to Elisha after Elijah was taken to heaven, became symbolic of a prophet’s ministry. Zechariah 13:4 states: “...on that day each prophet... will no longer wear the hairy garment of a prophet...” Mark clearly has John the Baptist working within this tradition, wearing a hairy garment and leather belt and preaching repentance, an image that would have immediately resonated with a Jewish audience as following the Elijah archetype.

John’s food choice, however, has no connections with Elijah at all; so why the locusts and honey?  Since Mark gives no clarification at all as to why John eats what he eats, this is an example of not being able to know what the author had in mind when he was structuring this part of the narrative. There is an explanation, but it involves a lot of conjecture and speculation about authorial intent. This explanation has John working within the tradition of OT prophets who delivered God’s messages with symbolic actions rather than words (e.g. cooking over a dung fire, marrying a prostitute, walking around barefoot and naked, shooting an arrow, tearing a garment, breaking a pot). As such, locusts could be symbolic of either God’s judgment (Deuteronomy 28:38), or the Gentile enemies of Israel (described as locusts in Judges and Jeremiah). Honey brings to mind the Promised Land (flowing with honey) or God’s promise of provision (Psalm 81:16), or possibly Ezekiel’s scroll (that tasted as sweet as honey and contained God’s words to his people). Thus the locusts and honey could be symbolic of God either covering his judgment with provision and promise, or God’s inclusion of the Gentile nations in his provision and promise. But again, this is pure speculation, because there are absolutely no clues inside of the Gospel text explaining the reason for John’s diet. It could also have been something as straightforward as John decrying the material wealth and extravagance of the religious authorities by rejecting comfortable clothes, living in the desert, and eating only food he could find in the wilderness (i.e. by God’s provision).

In a Greco-Roman context, John’s actions could have placed him in the mold of the ascetic Greek and Hellenistic philosophers, who were known for their eccentric behaviors and dress, their rejection of material goods and wealth, and their criticisms of society. To give a few examples, Socrates is said to have worn the same clothes every day, no matter the season, and to have stood still, lost in thought, for days on end, neither eating, drinking, or sleeping. Diogenes (the founder of Cynicism) lived in a barrel, regularly wore no clothes, and is said to have walked around Athens in broad daylight holding a lantern, searching for “a genuine man.” Zeno (the founder of Stoicism) was known for eating food that didn’t require cooking, drinking only water, and wearing thin clothes despite the season. All three of these philosophers were also extremely vocal critics of the societal customs and morals of their day, calling for people to change their ways.

Thus to both a Gentile and a Jewish audience, John’s actions could have had significance. But Mark does not dwell on John’s appearance. Instead, he mentions it and then pushes forward to the message, indicating that although it is a detail that helps to characterize John in some way for the audience, it is also not where the author wants to focus. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not John the Baptizer, the voice in the wilderness. In the Gospel of Mark, John is more of a plot device to allow Jesus to enter the narrative than he is a developed character (as he is in the other Gospels):