Mark 1:1–3: “Wait… That’s Not Isaiah?” Why Mark Starts With a Textual Problem (Priene, Rome, Torah)

It begins very oddly for us—as modern readers—and I think a lot of people miss this.

I’m reading from the ESV version, but I’ll also use different versions. I’ll interweave different translations and words from the Greek and Hebrew, and so on, as we explore this.

But it starts with something very odd and very troubling to us as modern readers—especially if we’re actually approaching this and looking at it.

Here’s the opening:

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

The Problem in Verse 2

Now the problem is in verse 2—this portion that says:

“as it is written in Isaiah the prophet…”

and then it says:

“Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way…”

The issue is: that’s not Isaiah.

It’s actually closer to a quote that’s often attributed to Malachi. And Malachi, I would argue—and we’ll discuss this more fully—raises the question: why does it say Isaiah and then quote Malachi?

But I would even argue it’s actually quoting a passage from Exodus.

So that’s really the biggest question here:

What’s going on? Why does it say Isaiah, then quote something that I would say is from Exodus (with Malachi echoing that Exodus passage)?

A lot of translations and Bibles point to Malachi. So what’s going on?

Before we get to that, I want to unfold this from the perspective I’ll be using—what’s called the Second Temple period Jewish perspective. This whole wrestling and study that I plan to be doing is going to be from that perspective. I’ll bring in other perspectives too, but the attempt is: what’s going on from that early perspective?

So let’s break this down.

“The Beginning” — archē (Echoing Genesis)

Getting back to the first line: “the beginning.”

That word in Greek is archē, and it echoes the “beginning” in Genesis. So original hearers would likely have that brought back into their mind. Something is beginning here—echoing Genesis.

And it goes on:

“The beginning of the good news of Jesus…”

So let’s break this down.

“Good News” — euangelion (A Roman Imperial Word)

“The beginning of the good news of Jesus the Messiah”—the Moshiach in Hebrew.

That’s where we get the word Messiah, meaning “anointed.”

Or “the gospel of Jesus the Messiah,” or “Jesus Christ.”

Christ is “anointed” in the same way Messiah is “anointed”—Greek and Hebrew pointing to the same concept.

Now the phrase “good news”—that’s where we get the word gospel. In Greek it’s euangelion. That’s where words like evangelical come from. Euangelion = “good news.”

But for somebody in the Second Temple period living under Roman control or Roman occupation, euangelion is a very specific Roman word. It’s historically and culturally tied to great moments in the Roman Empire—tied to Caesar.

For example: announcing Caesar’s rule.

That word could be used for announcing victory or great peace—the pax, the great peace of that time. A moment after a battle, or after something major—something amazing for the empire.

It’s not just: “hey, good news.” It’s: this is something big.

We know this because we found a very similar phrase in the Priene inscription that dates back to 9 BCE, where it declares Augustus—the birth of Augustus. It literally uses the phrase “the beginning of the good news…” and uses that same word euangelion.

The great news happening in the world is the birth of Augustus.

So when Mark begins with these words, it’s not copying to compete. It’s an affront—a challenge to the authority of Caesar and the Roman Empire.

Which is the point and the hope for the Messiah, the Moshiach, in Jewish thought.

Moshiach—anointed one—is anointed to be king, and to challenge those who are oppressing Israel and the Jewish people. That was the concept: the Jewish concept of Messiah.

So in Greek: Christ. That’s where you get “Jesus Christ”—Christ, Messiah.

And it’s not his last name. It’s his title.

And it’s rooted in the Jewish understanding: the Messiah is to restore Israel’s kingdom. A hopeful restoration, but greater—like the time of David and Solomon.

That’s why at the beginning of Acts, when Jesus is about to ascend into the heavens, the last thing his disciples ask is:

“Wait a minute before you leave—is this the time you’re going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

And Jesus doesn’t say, “Nope, that’s not why I’m here.” He says, “Now is not the time. Here’s your job: go and spread this good news—this euangelion—to Judea… Samaria… and to the ends of the earth.”

Anyway—we’re not in Acts, we’re in Mark. Let’s stick with this for now. I just wanted to give that context.

But the assumption is written at the very beginning here, and what early Jewish hearers in the Second Temple period would have understood is extremely powerful—and also extremely dangerous.

Writing Was “Expensive” in the Second Temple Period

We also have to understand: in our day and age, writing is very cheap. Not cheap in the sense of worthless, but cheap in the sense of inexpensive.

We can pick up a pen and paper easily. We can text on our phones. Words are inexpensive.

That is not how to think of words written down during the Second Temple period.

Writing was expensive—especially for something like a gospel or a letter that would be copied and distributed.

The way to think of it is like a feature film: the cost, the intentionality, the choices, the editing, everything that goes into making it.

That’s how we should understand these writings. Every word is expensive. Every word is important.

So a lot of care went into this.

“Jesus” vs. “Yeshua” vs. “Joshua”

So we have: “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…” — archē echoing Genesis, and also echoing what is said of emperors and victories in the Roman Empire, but now applying it to Jesus the Messiah.

Jesus the Messiah, or in Aramaic/Hebrew: Yeshua.

And the closest English to Yeshua would actually be Joshua.

In the Greek Septuagint, Joshua is Iēsous in Greek—the same word used for Jesus in the New Testament.

So if you want exactness, Joshua is actually the better English choice.

So the question is: how did we get from Yeshua or Joshua to Jesus?

That’s history and tradition:

• Aramaic/Hebrew → Greek (Iēsous)

• Greek → Latin (Iesus, soft “J”)

• Latin → English (hard “J” = Jesus)

So: Yeshua → Iesus → Jesus.

“Son of God” — Ben Elohim

Then it says “the Son of God,” which in Hebrew would be something like Ben Elohim.

“Ben” is “son”—like Benjamin (“son of my right hand”).

Ben Elohim—Son of God—puts him in a very, very high place theologically.

And “Son of God” can be used on a number of levels from a Jewish perspective. On one level, all Israel are the children of God—sons of God.

But the way this is phrased here is a higher level, and that is the big question of disagreement between Jews and Christians to this day: Son of God—what level and what meaning?

I’m going to leave that there for now, because there’s a lot about this in the Gospel according to Mark.

But I do think having it here, right after the good news of Yeshua the Messiah—Ben Elohim, Son of God—is once again highlighting: this is a bigger deal than Caesar, especially in a world where Caesar is worshiped as divine.

Back to the Main Problem: “As It Is Written in Isaiah…”

So let’s get back to that first problem:

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet…”

…but how it wasn’t written in Isaiah, yet it says it was written in Isaiah.

What is going on?

The way modern readers read it is: “Isaiah the prophet wrote this quote.”

That’s not exactly how they would understand it.

The King James Version tries to solve that and doesn’t even say Isaiah—it says, “as it is written in the prophets,” because it knows it’s quoting more than one prophet. It sidesteps the problem.

But in the Greek, it does say “Isaiah.”

Then right off the bat:

“Behold, I send my messenger before you…”

This is often associated with Malachi 3:1, but I’d say Malachi is itself echoing Exodus 23:20:

“I send my messenger before you…”

In Jewish tradition, both of these had strong messianic associations.

And messenger isn’t just messenger—messenger is angel.

Why connect angel and messenger?

Because the word “angel” in Hebrew and Greek is “messenger.” That’s what angels do—they carry the message.

So in Exodus:

“I will send my messenger before you…”

That’s what the pillar of fire was in Exodus, the angel of God, leading Israel.

So there are lots of thoughts and ideas in the Second Temple period that would immediately be understood here. It’s calling Israel to listen to this messenger—almost as if it’s God speaking.

Then after that, Mark goes into Isaiah:

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness…”

Torah First, Then Prophets — A Second Temple Teaching Pattern

So you have what is very clear in Jewish tradition during the Second Temple period:

If you’re going to talk about things of scriptural importance, you read a passage from the Torah, and then you read a passage from the Prophets, and then you go into your talk.

Torah is the first five books of the Bible—the core text. The rest refers back to Torah. The Prophets refer back to Torah, and the Writings refer back to Torah and the Prophets.

That’s the way they understood their Bible.

Quick aside:

Jesus mentions “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms”—those are the three divisions:

• Torah (Law)

• Nevi’im (Prophets)

• Ketuvim (Writings, with Psalms as the biggest book)

That’s Tanakh: Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim.

Their order is a little different than ours. For example, in Jewish thought, 1–2 Kings is in the Prophets, while 1–2 Chronicles is in the Writings, near the end.

So if you want to look it up, look up Tanakh and how it’s ordered.

And this is why you can ignore the sermon idea that “Mark begins with Malachi because Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament.” That’s not how they thought at the time.

What Prophecy Means in Jewish Thought

This connects to what prophecy means.

Prophecy in Jewish thought is not future-telling like Greek oracles (like Oedipus Rex: “this is your destiny, you can’t escape it”).

That’s not Jewish prophecy.

Jewish prophecy is about the world being created through Torah—through the Word. That’s why John says:

“In the beginning was the Word…”

Torah reveals a reality that isn’t always obvious—like gravity.

You can’t see gravity. You only see the effects of gravity.

And prophecy is basically understanding that reality and saying: this will happen unless there’s a counteracting force.

That’s how Jonah is a prophet and not a false prophet. His prophecy doesn’t come true because repentance counteracted what would have happened.

So Torah is like gravity in the world.

Why “Isaiah” Might Mean “The Isaiah Scrolls / Prophets Section”

So getting back to Mark: it’s really saying the prophets wrote this, and it’s based on what came before it, which is Torah.

And sometimes they will refer to the section of scrolls they want to bring to mind by naming the largest scroll in that section.

So Isaiah might not mean only “Isaiah as in a single verse.” It may also function as shorthand for “that whole prophetic section,” with Isaiah as the major anchor—similar to how “Psalms” can stand for the Writings.

So sometimes Isaiah doesn’t mean literally “Isaiah only,” but “the Isaiah area of scrolls,” the prophetic section.

That’s the kind of thing we have to keep in mind when reading the New Testament.

So Mark is quoting a passage from Torah, and then highlighting a prophetic passage, and saying: this is the support for what I’m about to say, and what the rest of this gospel is about.

This Reads Like a Talk (And Early Tradition Says It’s Peter’s Sermon)

Why say it this way?

Because we know from the Second Temple period: if you’re going to give a talk about Scripture, you give a passage from Torah and a passage from the Prophets, and then you go into your talk.

You don’t have to quote the Writings.

So this is a talk.

And we know from early Christian tradition that the Gospel according to Mark was likely the sermon that was copied down, that was given by Peter—Saint Peter.

So here we can feel why they’re quoting it: messianic passages from Torah and from the Prophets, highlighting who this person is and why this good news is going to upend the Roman Empire.

That immediately catches your attention and puts you on edge right from the start.

And I think there’s a lot of support that Mark is the bare bones of Peter’s sermon.

Read Out Loud, Discussed Together

This is the type of approach that I want to take throughout this Gospel.

Sometimes we’ll go fast. Sometimes we’ll go extremely slow like this and barely get a couple verses—or a couple words.

These books were designed to be read out loud and discussed—kind of like what I’m doing, obviously different because this is a podcast.

So you have:

“The beginning of the euangelion… the great news… the incredible news… of Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus, HaMashiach, the Messiah/Christ, Ben Elohim, Son of God.”

People in the audience are hearing Hebrew Jewish tradition and hearing a challenge—an affront—to the power and oppression they feel under the Roman Empire.

And then it goes into the foundation: quoting a portion of the Torah, then a portion of the Prophets.

And please understand: in the Second Temple period, when they use one verse, it’s not meant to be only one verse. It’s the chapters before and the chapters after. It’s a central reference point.

Today we say “Exodus 23:20,” but back then they didn’t have verse numbers like we do. They used phrases from passages, and the idea was: you should know the surrounding context.

Targums, Aramaic, and Why This Matters

One reason we know they did this is because of the way they did translations into Aramaic—called Targums.

There are different types: Targum Jonathan, Onkelos, and others.

Some are a bit more literal, but many are explanatory. They add sentences, phrases, interpretations—so you understand the tradition around the passage.

These are important for us.

You’ll even find places where the Targums explicitly highlight the Messiah—flat out saying a verse refers to the Messiah.

And the same with “Word” language—memra in Aramaic—where modern sermons often run straight to Greek Logos, but I would argue the more likely immediate background for many hearers is Aramaic memra, especially as seen in the Targums.

(We can get into that later.)

Hebrew was the religious and scriptural language. Aramaic was the street language. Greek was academic and widespread. Latin was the empire’s language.

All these languages are mixing here.

Exodus 23:20 says:

“Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way… pay careful attention to him… obey his voice… do not rebel… for my name is in him.”

The Targums would expand and highlight messianic aspects understood at the time.

So when Peter—or Mark writing down this sermon—hits that, minds go back to all of that.

That’s why it’s used.

Where I’m Going With This

So I’m going to stop there.

I think you get an idea of how I’m going to be approaching this: wrestling.

This is not meant to be where I quote some Scripture and give a nice neat package.

I’m going to take it apart, and we’re going to wrestle with it. We’re going to have fun. We’re going to try to see it in its own way. We’ll dig into historical aspects and questions.

I encourage you to send messages, put comments down—things I can wrestle through and look at. Maybe I’ll bring them into the next episode.

I’ve also recently put out an app on the App Store called Biblocate. It’s free. It’s about locations. I want to bring in aspects of location because I think location is incredibly important in understanding what you’re reading in the Bible.

If you want to download it and see the Bible through the lens of locations: if you’re in Israel you can see how far you are from the location, get directions, see related scriptures. It’s fun.

I built it for myself when traveling to Israel with work.

It’s free on the App Store. I don’t have Android yet. I know a lot of Israelis use Android. I plan on doing it in the future—I just don’t know how soon.

If you download it now, it’ll be free for you forever if you download it now. I don’t know if I’ll charge in the future—but feel free.

Why the Second Temple Perspective Matters

The reason I really want to understand this from the Jewish, Second Temple historical perspective is because I believe when God wanted to present Joshua—the most accurate English name—to the world, it was very intentional: time, place, and a culture created over hundreds and hundreds (or thousands) of years—the Jewish people, Judaism.

There were many strains and sects. They’d been in exile and came back. Ezra and Nehemiah talk about them coming back, and then different groups emerge.

So we’re going to talk about Pharisees and Sadducees, what that means, and the different houses of the Pharisees—Hillel and Shammai—and a lot of that.

We’re going to have a lot of fun with this: seeing it from its own perspective and not trying to immediately pull neat lessons.

That’s what I want to do with our time.

Interact. Give me thoughts to wrestle with. Maybe we can do more and more of this together.

Anyway, thank you for listening, and I will be doing another one of these hopefully pretty soon.