“Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey.
–Mark 1:6
Mark tells the story of Jesus in a little over 11,000 words. That’s 7-8000 less words than Matthew and Luke. He is concise, intentional, and action-packed. This begs the question, why stop and tell us about the clothing and diet of John the Baptist?
Why Even Tell Us About John?
Doesn’t it seem a tad strange that Mark begins by saying, “this is the gospel of Jesus Christ…” then he proceeds to tell us about some guy named John? What is he doing here? There is no birth narrative. We don’t know where Jesus came from…but we know that he came on the scene at the same time as some strange dude baptizing people out in the wilderness? What is Mark doing by starting his gospel account out in the wilderness?
The wilderness was an empty, abandoned, wasteland. It was symbolic of the wandering Israelites—a place that was spiritually bankrupt. You don’t want to go to the wilderness. But Mark wants us to start there. Why?
Mark starts in the wilderness because it will be out of this emptiness that great hope is found. The wilderness is the place where our nakedness and vulnerability is fully exposed. It’s the place where we are stripped of our own efforts and resources and are forced to rely solely upon God. It is because of the pruning of the wilderness that it became a place of hope and new beginnings. The wilderness is also the place where Israel will find God’s love for them and rekindle their love for God. This is why around the time of Jesus there were many desert dwellers waiting upon God for salvation.
Mark tells us about John the Baptizer as a bridge to the prophetic hope of the Old Testament. He quotes from Exodus, Isaiah, and Malachi to place John as the fulfillment of this out of the wilderness time of renewal—where a prophet like Elijah would prepare the way for the Lord Himself. That’s why John appears at the beginning of Mark’s gospel.
Why Mention His Diet and Dress?
If John is in the gospel account to serve as a bridge to the Old Testament, it would do us well to walk across that bridge and make the connections that Mark is intending. Consider this one:
8 They replied, “He had a garment of hair and had a leather belt around his waist.” The king said, “That was Elijah the Tishbite.” 2 Kings 1:8
“Garment of hair” and “leather belt” are not the typical garb for prophets. Yes, Zechariah 13:4 speaks of “wearing a hairy cloak” in order to look like a prophet but there was no dress code. This isn’t to point to prophets its to point to a prophet; namely, Elijah. The leather belt certainly is pointing to Elijah.
Malachi 4:5 says, “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” If you have a guy that is out in the desert that looks like Elijah, is calling to repentance, and speaking of the coming of a Mighty One, wouldn’t your mind immediately go to places like Malachi 4:5? John’s garb is meant to call to mind the prophet Elijah.
But why tell us about the locusts and wild honey?
There has been a fair amount of ink spilled trying to figure out which type of locust John was eating, whether it was actually an approved diet, and if maybe it wasn’t locusts but rather a manna-like substance. I also read some postulate that it was a type of bean he was eating instead of a locust. But these prove fanciful. I don’t think we can definitely say which locust—but our guy was eating bugs.
There are also questions about what is meant by wild honey. The word itself could refer to the cultivated honey that you would get from bees, a type of tree sap, or even nectar from a date. Personally, I’m most convinced by it being a type of tree sap. But, that’s not significant to the interpretation of the passage.
Peter Leithart has an incredibly interesting take on this passage. He connects the locusts with the “demonically-dominated nations” and that John’s eating of the locusts is a way of showing the incorporation of these nations into the people of God. His suggestion is similar to others who have seen John’s diet as a prophetic gesture.
I think they are correct to see in John’s diet a type of prophetic gesture, but I’m not convinced of their specific suggestions. In my mind I think Mark is mentioning this to firmly entrench John into the wilderness. He mentions his diet because John was one who was living off the land. Locusts and wild-honey is what would have been readily available in the wilderness. It’s not necessarily ascetic, it’s simply to place him fully within the wilderness. And that is necessary to show John as the fulfillment of the Exodus, Malachi, and Isaiah forerunner to the Messiah.
Conclusion
Mark isn’t finished with the wilderness at the mention of John. He will have Jesus in the wilderness for his temptation. This too is intentional. God, through Mark, wants us to see that Jesus enters into the wilderness in order to redeem it. He enters into the place of our greatest shame, emptiness, brokenness, and he redeems it. This is why Mark is so adamant about having us see John as in the wilderness. It’s his way of tying us back to all of the hope of the Old Testament and eventually showing us how Jesus is the Great Rescuer.
Pointing to the diet and dress of John the Baptist seems like such an insignificant detail, but for Mark it fills out the landscape. It’s an important detail in showing John as the Elijah who was to come. But all of his work there is to ultimately point us to Jesus.
—
Photo source: here
