The Fulfillment of Scripture in the Gospel According to Mark

(avg. read time: 7–15 mins.)

Mark does not quote Scripture nearly as often as Matthew, the latter of which we covered last month. For all the parallel text Mark has with Matthew, there are some interesting similarities and differences, including in texts that are quoted for pointing to fulfillment in both. And there are even cases of Mark referring to Scripture where the parallel in Matthew does not (but not always for the purpose of pointing to fulfillment).

As I have noted in other entries in this series, I am focusing here on explicit Scripture references where something is said to happen in accordance with Scripture, and Scripture may or may not be directly quoted to this effect. I include both conditions because not every Scripture quote contributes to the theme of fulfillment, and some fulfillments are linked to texts that are not explicit quotes. For each instance I proceed in the following steps. First, I identify the text. Second, I examine the form of the Scripture reference, including whether or not it agrees with the LXX/OG when it is a quote. Third, I identify what is said to fulfill Scripture. Fourth, I consider whether the use of Scripture in some way resonates with the original context the text is taken from. Fifth, I seek to determine what kind of fulfillment or use of Scripture each instance constitutes.

Mark 1:2–3

Mark 1:2–3 features a composite quote of Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3 (with some resonance of Exod 23:20 as well). The text of 1:2 favored by NA²⁸ introduces this quote as being written “in Isaiah the prophet.” While I have typically been satisfied with comparing this composite citation with an instance of Matthew doing something similar, there is actually good reason to support the majority reading of “in the prophets.” This is something James Snapp has examined in detail in a four-part series.

In any case, both of these texts represent agreements among the Synoptics and against the LXX/OG (as well as other Greek versions). Particularly, Mark and the other Synoptics differ from the LXX in the verbs used for sending and preparing in Mal 3:1 (though the Synoptic parallels do not appear in the same context as here). The agreement is closer in the case of Isa 40:3, but Mark and the other Synoptics differ with the LXX at the same point in referring to “his paths” as opposed to “the paths of our God.” The fulfillment of both texts is the coming of John the Baptist and his ministry.

For reasons I have gone over in the post on Matthew, the larger context of both of these texts is likely evoked in their uses. This applies also in Mark, although because of the placement he has not prepared the reader for these connections to the extent that Matthew and Luke have. But the eschatological tenor of his Gospel amplifies the volume of the evoked text (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). This use is presented as a direct fulfillment of prophecy.

Mark 7:6–7

The text is a reference to Isa 29:13. It is a slightly condensed equivalent of the LXX/OG that omits the clause “approaches/draws near to me with their mouths,” and the third-person pronoun is missing. The last line also differs from the LXX/OG in the placement of διδασκαλίας (which agrees with Matt 15:9). It is a case of pattern fulfillment that is fulfilled by the response to Jesus. As with Isa 6, as described elsewhere, there is a broad similarity between the context of this use and the original context of the text, since it was addressed to rebellious Israelites. One could describe the fulfillment as a kind of moral typological fulfillment or something similar rather than historical or eschatologically focused typology (see here). Or it could be considered a kind of homiletical application wherein a text is found that describes the audience appropriately, and thus they are said to fulfill that pattern.

Mark 9:12–13

This is an interesting case that we cannot apply most of the steps of this analysis to. But it is a case where Mark refers to something being written in Scripture, which is without direct parallel in the parallel text in Matthew. To highlight this, I will draw from one of the many, many tables I have composed for my Gospel synopsis commentary (see here for more).

Only Mark’s version mentions these things being written about the Son of Man and Elijah (or John the Baptist). The reference to Elijah may have Mal 4 in mind, or both Mal 3 and 4 (given the opening of the Gospel), but it is left as a generalized allusion. The reference to the things written about the Son of Man is also generalized as foreshadowing his suffering and rejection. In both cases, Jesus is directing his disciples to the Scriptures for understanding what is about to happen to him and what has already happened to John. These are like the general references to Scripture I noted in my analysis of Luke 24 that function similarly. And as I noted there, it is not necessarily that no specific texts were in mind (and Isa 53 is often noted as a reference here), but there may have been a number of them that could be invoked, and a specific one was not included here. At the same time, the larger point is that the larger story of Scripture led up to these events, and it is in fulfillment of the larger scriptural narrative that Christ’s crucifixion and the other major gospel events—as well as lead-up events like John’s fate (see here for more)—happened.

Mark 12:10–11

The use of Ps 118:22–23 here is one I have explored elsewhere. This is another relatively rare case in which there is agreement both between Mark and the other Gospel authors in the precise wording of the Scripture quote, as well as between all of them and the LXX/OG. This may be due to the association of this text with this parable being something of a fixed point of tradition. As with Acts 4:10–11 and 1 Pet 2:7, this text is presented as fulfilled by the major gospel events.

The text presents an encapsulation of the larger gospel story, as the narrative dynamics of both texts resonate with each other. As I have noted in the previous link (and here as well), v. 22 in particular encapsulates the larger story of the psalm, and so we can see how it connects with its larger textual context in its use here. This text has been fulfilled in that the narrative dynamics have been actualized in Jesus. Whether this is best described as typology or perhaps as more of a narrative fulfillment apropos to the eschatological events—something like a more specific equivalent of the general references to Scripture—is less clear, though I am inclined to think it is the latter.

Mark 14:27–28

I have noted this text in my review of Zech 9–14 in the Gospels, as it is a use of Zech 13:7. The quote does not follow the LXX/OG, despite how short it is. One of the major differences that follows the Hebrew as opposed to the Greek is referring to a singular shepherd instead of multiple shepherds. Another of the major differences is that Mark uses a different verb referring to the sheep being scattered after the shepherd is struck. The use of this verb does agree with a minority reading among LXX manuscripts, however. Yet another difference is that the opening verb is a simple future, whereas the LXX presents it as an imperative. The fulfillment of this text will come with the scattering of the disciples when they abandon Jesus. Though the connections are more allusive in Mark’s version, I have noted elsewhere that other parts of Zechariah are referenced or evoked in this context, so we can see how this text resonates with that context. One of those ways is, in fact, the promise of restoration after Jesus’s resurrection, which links this text with the promise to the remnant in Zech 13:8–9 that follows the correspondent in Mark 14:27. This is presented as a direct fulfillment of prophecy.

Mark 14:21, 49

I will reiterate here what I said previously and in the case of the Matthean parallels. These texts involve general appeals to Scripture, and thus most of the steps will not be applicable to them. Jesus is pointing forward to what will soon happen to him and emphasizing that what will happen has already been written. Indeed, he states that he is acting for the purpose of fulfilling what is written, and that his betrayer’s actions will also redound to that purpose. The fulfillment is most directly applied to Christ’s forthcoming condemnation, suffering, and death, as well as, by implication, his resurrection and exaltation, but no specific text is cited. We are dealing with some of the many generalized references to Scripture in the NT, as I have noted in my analysis of such in Luke 24. And as I noted there, it is not necessarily that no specific texts were in mind, but there may have been a number of them that could be invoked, and a specific one was not included here. At the same time, the larger point is that the larger story of Scripture led up to these events, and it is in fulfillment of the larger scriptural narrative that Christ’s crucifixion and the other major gospel events happened.

Mark 15:28

The final text of interest raises some text-critical issues that we need to deal with. Most translations today either put it in brackets or in the footnotes while omitting it from the main text. The Nestle-Aland text simply omits it from the main text, relegating it to the footnotes, as did Westcott-Hort, Tischendorf, and others before them. The associated UBS text even rates the omission with an “A” rating for confidence. Tregelles’s text keeps it in the main text, but it is placed in brackets. John Burgon, on the other hand, insists that the text is original, and there is no need to remove it.

Is the case against it really so overwhelming? Bruce Metzger summarizes it as follows:

The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text lack ver. 28. It is understandable that copyists could have added the sentence in the margin from Lk 22.37, whence it came into the text itself; there is no reason why, if the sentence were present originally, it should have been deleted. It is also significant that Mark very seldom expressly quotes the Old Testament.¹

The following Greek manuscripts lack it: א (4th), A (5th), B (4th), C (5th), D (5th), and Ψ (8th/9th). One might technically add 059/0215 (4th/5th) here, but the manuscript is quite fragmentary, including at this crucial point, so it is unclear if it was actually omitted. (In my opinion, it looks as if there is not sufficient space if it would have taken approximately two lines in the scribe’s handwriting.) Additionally, X (10^th), a minority of minuscules, multiple lectionary texts, one Old Latin ms (k), the same singular Old Latin ms lacking the ending of Mark, lacks Mark 15:28, as does the Syriac Sinaiticus, some Bohairic mss, and the Sahidic mss. The testimony against it is not insignificant, but it is a distinct minority. Not many extant patristic sources interacted specifically with Mark 15:28, as opposed to the Isaianic text it is citing, and so it is unsurprising that we have no comments directly from the early centuries about its (in)authenticity.

If you have been reading this Substack long enough (or you have at least read my synoptic comparisons), it should come as no surprise that I am unimpressed with the claim that this sentence is “from” Luke 22:37. While they both refer to the same text, the references are in markedly different contexts (the Last Supper in Luke vs. the crucifixion in Mark), so it is not as if a text was more closely conformed to its Synoptic parallel here, as sometimes happened in Gospel mss. The parallel is posited solely on the basis of them referencing the same four words from Isa 53:12. If we extract those four words, here is how the texts compare:

Mark 15:28 καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα …

Luke 22:37 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦτο τὸ γεγραμμένον δεῖ τελεσθῆναι ἐν ἐμοί, τό· … καὶ γὰρ τὸ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλος ἔχει

This is not exactly the most compelling parallel, especially since Mark’s remaining six words, despite featuring rather common terms like the article and the opening conjunction, feature only one absolute similarity with Luke: the extremely common opening conjunction at the start of Mark’s sentence and the start of Luke’s second sentence.

The last point is neither here nor there, as Mark obviously does expressly quote the OT, including in instances not referenced in this post because they are not uses meant to point to fulfillments (e.g., Mark 9:48; 12:30–31; see here for more). The penultimate point is perhaps the strongest argument, but Burgon (in the link provided above to The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels) posited that this was due to lectionary developments in which readings ended at v. 27, even in texts where v. 28 was present (77–78). This fits with arguments for the authenticity of the pericope adulterae of John 7:53–8:11. Here, as there, it is simply a question of how early these developments occurred. Considering the reading would be used for Good Friday, it is not unreasonable to think that such divisions as this text was subjected to would have been among the earlier developments, but it is still difficult to determine exactly when they began.

What about the case for its Markan authenticity? The Greek manuscript support is overwhelming in number, but not as many of the mss per se are of comparable age, besides P (6th), Σ (6th), 083 (6th/7th), and numerous other witnesses from the eighth century onward. (N lacks the relevant portion of Mark 15:23b–33 altogether and W lacks 15:13–38.) Versional evidence also weighs heavily in favor of the inclusion of this sentence, including Old Latin (minus the exception), Vulgate, Syriac (minus the exception), Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and most Bohairic mss. Some of these versions were circulating in a time approximating or preceding the earliest witnesses for omission, and the geographical distribution of these witnesses far exceeds the witnesses of the alternative.

While there are not many patristic witnesses who interacted with the Markan text, as opposed to the Isaianic reference, there are still a few to work with here. One is, of course, Jerome by implication of his work on the Vulgate, which includes the verse (for more on the significance of his witness, see relevant portions here and here). A second is the earlier Eusebius of Caesarea, whose work most likely preceded the earliest extant manuscript of this portion of Mark. He mentions Mark 15:28 in his commentary on Isaiah (Comm. Isa. 53:12).² A third witness is his pupil, Eusebius of Emesa, who shows awareness of this Isaiah text being used in multiple Gospels in their passion narratives, but he does not directly quote the use of the prophet in either case (Homily on the Sufferings and Death of Our Lord). A fourth witness is Victor of Antioch in his commentary on Mark. Their testimony vitiates some of the significance of the earlier mss not featuring this text.

As indicated above, there is no strong internal evidence against this reading. If anything, the non-specific introduction to the Scripture quote fits the Markan tendency, and it serves as further support for the majority reading of 1:2. The exceptions among the witnesses that omit the text altogether may well be explicable by accidental lectionary corruption, which may have been replicated in multiple generations of transmission.

As already noted at multiple points, the text referenced is from Isa 53:12. Despite being only four words, it is not clearly dependent on the LXX/OG. The preposition differs, and that in turn influences the difference in case for “transgressors/lawless.” The extremely common conjunction and the verb are identical. The differences are explicable by Mark or his source for the quote independently rendering the Hebrew phrase differently and perhaps more precisely. The fulfillment is identified in the context as Jesus’s crucifixion with criminals, as well as by his overall treatment in a fashion whereby he is reckoned among the transgressors. The use of Isa 53 elsewhere, especially in reference to Jesus’s death, should also make clear that the larger context is being evoked for its resonance with Jesus’s death (as an example in Mark alone, Isa 53 is often linked with Mark 10:45 as well as 14:24). Obviously, this is presented as a direct fulfillment of prophecy.

1. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, corrected ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), 119.

2. Joseph Ziegler, ed., Eusebius Werke IX: Der Jesajakommentar, GCS (Berlin: Akademie, 1975), 339.