Was "Thou art my beloved Son" addressed to the Spirit and not Jesus?

[Giuseppe]

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

(Mark 1:10-12)

The "immediately" (εὐθὺς) implies that the going to wilderness is a direct effect of the voice from heaven. So, if the "beloved Son" meant in that voice was the mere man Jesus, then the spirit would have had more kindness towards him instead of tossing him (ἐκβάλλει) as if he was a passive ball. Therefore the absence of kindness about Jesus by the Spirit is a strong clue that the "beloved Son" was just the Spirit and not Jesus.

Apparently the mere man Jesus is superior in comparison to John insofar only he "saw the heavens opened". But even he is blind because what he saw after was apparently a mere dove, without knowing that that dove was the Spirit himself, the Christ and therefore the true Son of God.

If the Spirit was more sincere with the his human recipient, the latter would have seen the Spirit as the Spirit pure and simple, and not masked as a mere dove.

[davidoliversmith]

I don't agree that going into the wilderness is a direct effect of the voice from heaven. To me going to the wilderness is the direct effect of being infused with the spirit. It's the spirit that drives (casts, or throws as you point out) Jesus into the wilderness. Kai euthys (and immediately) is used in Mark about 30 times and in all but two of those (I think) it denotes a new hemistitch in the chiastic structure. Every pericope in Mark has a chiastic structure (See my book "Unlocking the Puzzle"). Some times it's difficult to discern where one hemistitch ends and the next begins, but "kai euthys" is used to signal a new hemistitch in many cases. The baptism of Jesus made him God's adopted son as described by Paul in Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:15. Paul describes Christian baptism as "receiving the spirit of adoption" (Rom 8:15) and "God sent forth the spirit of his son" (Gal 4:6). Paul says when we're infused with the spirit we cry "Abba, Father." In Mark Jesus doesn't cry "Abba, Father" until the garden of Gethsemane, when he finally accepts God's injunction to be crucified. The "beloved son" is a quote from Gen 22:12 when Abraham is told to sacrifice Isaac (Abraham is told to sacrifice his son as God sacrifices his son in the gospels). Mark is clearly adoptionistic and his Jesus is an ordinary man who becomes an adopted son of God with baptism. At his baptism Jesus didn't see a "mere dove" as you put it, he saw the spirit that like a dove flew down from heaven and lighted on him. I would say that Mark is following Paul that baptism results in adoption by God and that after baptism Jesus, the man, is God's adopted son. That's why the voice calls Jesus his beloved son AFTER the spirit descends on him.

David Oliver Smith

[Giuseppe]

I don't agree that going into the wilderness is a direct effect of the voice from heaven. To me going to the wilderness is the direct effect of being infused with the spirit. It's the spirit that drives (casts, or throws as you point out) Jesus into the wilderness. Kai euthys (and immediately) is used in Mark about 30 times and in all but two of those (I think) it denotes a new hemistitch in the chiastic structure. Every pericope in Mark has a chiastic structure (See my book "Unlocking the Puzzle"). Some times it's difficult to discern where one hemistitch ends and the next begins, but "kai euthys" is used to signal a new hemistitch in many cases. The baptism of Jesus made him God's adopted son as described by Paul in Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:15. Paul describes Christian baptism as "receiving the spirit of adoption" (Rom 8:15) and "God sent forth the spirit of his son" (Gal 4:6). Paul says when we're infused with the spirit we cry "Abba, Father." In Mark Jesus doesn't cry "Abba, Father" until the garden of Gethsemane, when he finally accepts God's injunction to be crucified. The "beloved son" is a quote from Gen 22:12 when Abraham is told to sacrifice Isaac (Abraham is told to sacrifice his son as God sacrifices his son in the gospels). Mark is clearly adoptionistic and his Jesus is an ordinary man who becomes an adopted son of God with baptism. At his baptism Jesus didn't see a "mere dove" as you put it, he saw the spirit that like a dove flew down from heaven and lighted on him. I would say that Mark is following Paul that baptism results in adoption by God and that after baptism Jesus, the man, is God's adopted son. That's why the voice calls Jesus his beloved son AFTER the spirit descends on him.

the problem with this view is that, if from a hand it explains very well the continuity with Paul, from the other hand it doesn't explain why, according to Irenaeus, for the original readers of Mark, only the human Jesus suffered while the spiritual Christ remained impassible.
A mere man who suffers is far from being adopted as Son of God. This is separationism, not adoptionism.

[Ethan]

Mark 1:10 - περιστερὰν (Feminine)
Mark 1:11 - φωνὴ (Feminine) *Περσεφόνη

Mar 1:11
And there came her voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my only-Son, in whom I am well pleased.

ἀγαπητός - beloved, of an only son

In Genesis 22:2, Isaac is referred too as a "Only Son" יחידך/ἀγαπητόν and yet Abraham had other sons.
and ἀγαπητός synonym with αδελφιδος/בר דויד, "Son of David".

[davidoliversmith]

Giuseppe wrote:

"it doesn't explain why, according to Irenaeus, for the original readers of Mark, only the human Jesus suffered while the spiritual Christ remained impassible."

Irenaeus was wrong. He was writing in the late second century. Matthew and Luke had rejected Mark's adoptionism and made their Jesuses the son of God from birth, not adopted. Irenaeus was trying to harmonize all the gospels.

David Oliver Smith

[Giuseppe]

Irenaeus was wrong. He was writing in the late second century. Matthew and Luke had rejected Mark's adoptionism and made their Jesuses the son of God from birth, not adopted. Irenaeus was trying to harmonize all the gospels.

Ok, thanks. That is surely a possibility to consider.

[lsayre]

If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, and the same in essence, then why did Jesus even need to have the Spirit descend upon him, let alone drive him (like a car?) into the wilderness? What could one member of the godhead benefit from being infused by another, if the 3 are fully co-equal in every way to begin with, and always have been, and always will be? I wonder if Arius argued this in his defense at the Council of Nicaea?