This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday of Advent. In the previous post we considered some questions that are posed by the very beginning of Mark’s gospel. In the previous post we considered the meaning of the words of Mark 1:1 – “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God – taking on the Marcan intent of “beginning” and “gospel.” Now we consider the phrase “Christ the Son of God.”  A phrase too familiar to us. But what did the listeners of the 1st century hear, consider, and conclude?Question 3: What was meant by “Christ”? Is it a title? Is it part of Jesus’ name?

• The Greek christos is used to translate “anointed” or “Messiah.” It might have made sense to a Greek audience. But it would be hampered by its first century usage to refer to wrestlers who had “greased up” before their match to make it more difficult for their opponents to gain a tactical hold on them during the match.
• The uses of “Messiah” or “anointed (one)” in the OT do not help much in understanding Jesus as Messiah.
• The word is used of “the anointed priests” (Leviticus 4:3, 5, 16, 6:22; 2 Maccabees 2:10)
• The word is used of the king. (Throughout 1 and 2 Samuel)
• The word is used of Cyrus, the Persian King (Is 45:1)
• The word is used of the prophets (Ps 105:15; 1 Chr 16:22)
• Often, in the Psalms, it refers to God giving victory to a king (his “anointed”) (2:2; 18:50; 20:6; 132:17?)

Would the Jews have understood the term “Christ” to refer to a conquering king? an anointed priest? a prophet? What seems to be widely accepted by scholars is that there was no one single understanding of “messiah” by first century Judaism – certainly not as modern day Christians understand the term.

Question 4: What is meant by “Son of God?”  This phrase (two words in Greek huiou theou) is missing in many ancient manuscripts – which is why you often see the phrase in parentheses. When Biblical scholars consider such things, normally shorter readings are to be preferred over longer ones. It is more likely that copyists would add to a text rather than to delete. However, the omission of these words might be explained by an oversight in copying. The first six words in Greek all end with “ou,” so a copyist may have jumped to the last “ou” before he should have.

It’s also noted that the Greek of these opening verses do not have a definite article (“the”). The same is true when the centurion could be confessing: “Truly, this man was a son of God” (15:39). The demons, however, declare: “You are the Son of the God” (3:11) and “Jesus, (a) Son of the Most High God” (5:7). In contrast, definite articles are always found in the phrase: “the Son of the human”. A grammatical argument can be made for supplying “the” in the phrase “Son of God.” I present this bit of grammar so that we might understand how Mark’s first readers/hearers might have understood the phrase.

If it were Greeks hearing this for the first time, I would think that their reference would be to their mythological children of gods. For example, Hercules was a son of the god Zeus and the human mother Alcmene.

A Jewish audience, based on Psalm 2, might think that “a son of God” (v. 7) was a king. Note also that “anointed” (christos in LXX) is used in v. 2.

These words do something to the hearers. They create a picture in their minds from their own experiences of someone called “Son of God.” It is likely that this picture at the beginning is a wrong one –  and Mark will seek to change it through his story.

Image credit: Pexels + Canva, CC-BY-SA 3.0