Mark 1

CHAPTER I

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, GOD’S SON

The Introduction

Mark 1:1

1 Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, God’s Son. These words must be considered the title of the entire Gospel of Mark. That is why ἀρχή is without the article (R. 793 and 795), and why no verb appears. Εὐαγγέλιον is used in its original sense, not as meaning a book, but as the glad news of salvation, the substance of the saving truth. The genitive “of Jesus Christ” is objective: the glad news which tells about Jesus Christ. This is exactly what Mark’s Gospel presents, telling about Jesus’ person, teachings, works, death, and resurrection. Εὐαγγέλιον may, of course, have a subjective genitive such as τοῦΘεοῦ or μου or ἡμῶν: the gospel which God offers or I or we.

Some regard “of Jesus Christ” as subjective: the gospel preached and taught by Jesus Christ. But when this is regarded as a subjective genitive, the title does not fit the book, for this presents far more than merely what Jesus taught; in fact, the words and teachings of Jesus are not presented with any fulness in this Gospel. There is little teaching until toward the end so that those who misread the title charge Mark with drifting away from the theme with which he started. To make such a charge against a man like Mark is evidence that Mark’s title has been misunderstood.

Once the title is properly understood, we shall not attempt to restrict it only to the introduction to the Gospel or to the first chapter alone; we shall readily see that it covers no less than the entire Gospel of Mark. The ἀρχή is “the beginning” of the glad news concerning Jesus, etc. Other meanings of ἀρχή such as “origin” do not fit. Mark considers this beginning of the gospel to start with the work of the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus and to extend to his resurrection and glorification.

“Beginning” connotes continuation, and this would be the glad news concerning the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and concerning all his blessed work in the world, ending with the consummation of the gospel at the last day. Mark uses “beginning” in the stricter sense, as starting with Jesus’ assumption of his Messianic office. Hence he leaves out the birth and the childhood of Jesus, which Matthew and Luke include. Not that Mark considers the early history of Jesus as being of no special value to the Gentile readers for whom he writes; he merely does what the other evangelists also do, who also leave out of their accounts much that is certainly of great value. Each settled on a plan and used the material that accorded with that plan.

“Jesus” is the Savior’s personal name (Matt. 1:21), Yehoshu’a or Yeshu’a, “Yahweh is help or salvation,” meaning “the one through whom Jehovah brings salvation.” The addition Χριστός, a verbal from the ceremonial verb χρίω, the Hebrew “Messiah,” “the Anointed,” is here not an appellative: “the Christ,” but a second personal name (R. 795) denoting office, thus simply “Christ.” He was Jesus from his birth (Matt. 1:25) and became Christ at the time of his anointing with the Spirit (1:9, etc.). The textual evidence for the apposition υἱοῦΘεοῦ is entirely too strong to discard these important words; the τοῦ before Θεοῦ is quite doubtful though its omission does not affect the sense in any way.

A modernistic view makes “God’s Son” only a synonym of “Jewish Messiah,” each term being only a variant of a Jewish category of thought, and both no longer commonly understood or used today. Mark is, however, writing, not for Jews, but for Gentiles, and for them he uses both Χριστός and υἱὸςΘεοῦ. The effort is vain to reduce the true sense of either term, in particular also that of the latter. Son of God means here what it does throughout the Scriptures: the eternal, co-equal, essential Son, the second person of the Godhead. The glad news which Mark proposes to put into writing deals with a Savior who is no less great and adequate than this Son of God.

Mark’s title cannot be extended to include v. 1–3. A statement so long and of such a kind would certainly not be a title; nor would it at all fit this Gospel. Some have no title at all but construe v. 1 with ἐγένετο in v. 4, making v. 2, 3 a parenthesis. They read: “As a beginning of the gospel … there came John,” etc. But Mark nowhere else writes a sentence that is so involved. If it was his intention to say that the gospel began with John, and that this occurred according to prophecy, a much simpler form of words would have been in place. The remark that καθώς is never used to begin a sentence is refuted by Luke 6:31. All that can be said is that καθώς is not often used thus, which is due to the nature of the word and its meaning.

Mark 1:2

2 Even as it has been written in Isaiah, the prophet,

Lo, I commission my messenger before thy face,

Who shall prepare thy way;

A voice of one shouting in the desert,

Make ready the way of the Lord,

Make straight his paths!

there came John, the one baptizing in the wilderness and heralding a baptism of repentance for remission of sins.

Mark begins his Gospel with a short account of the Baptist. With his work the gospel itself began. And this is the only place in the entire Gospel in which Mark on his own account introduces an Old Testament quotation. He introduces it with the standard formula γέγραπται, “it has been written,” the perfect tense connoting that what was once written still stands to this day. Mark mentions only the prophet Isaiah as the source of his quotation, yet its first part (v. 2) is quoted from Malachi 3:1, and only the second part (v. 3) from Isaiah 40:3. This is used by opponents as ammunition for attack.

Some commentators say that Mark’s memory was at fault, and that, failing to look up his Old Testament, he thought that all the quoted lines were from Isaiah; perhaps, having Matthew’s Gospel, he merely copied 11:10 and 3:3 but failed to note that 11:10 is not in Isaiah. But no difficulty is solved by casting reflections on the holy writers.

Certain texts substitute “in the prophets” for “in Isaiah, the prophet,” and thus remove the difficulty, but the latter reading has the weight of evidence in its favor. We feel constrained to admit that Mark knew what he was writing when he named only the one prophet. By this means he indicated that he laid the greater stress on the words quoted from Isaiah; and, indeed, the form of this prophet’s words makes them most valuable. The words cited from Malachi are added because they are of a like nature. If Mark had actually made a mistake as claimed, any number of his first readers would at once have pointed it out to him, and he would have made a correction. The point of the whole quotation is that God sent John as the forerunner of Christ, and that thus the gospel of Jesus Christ really had its beginning in John as had been promised already in the Old Testament. The prophecy of Isaiah is especially clear, describing John so that no one could fail to recognize him when he appeared.

The quotation from Malachi is based on the original Hebrew, not on the LXX. The translation is usually called “free,” but it is not at all free; it does vastly more than to give the general sense of the original. The translation is interpretative, and the interpretation is most exact and is preserved, therefore, also in Matt. 11:10 and in Luke 7:27. Jehovah is speaking to the people of Israel who are expecting “the Lord” (Ha’adon), “the Messenger of the Covenant” (Maleach Habberith), i.e., the Messiah. Jehovah promises that he himself will come to his people, but in the person of the Messiah, this “Lord” and “Messenger of the Covenant.” A clear distinction is thus made between the two divine persons: Jehovah and the Messiah through whom he will come. God was in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19), yet they were two persons.

Now the promise was that Jehovah would send a messenger before the face of the Messiah, who should prepare the way for him. This ἄγγελος was the Baptist, the immediate forerunner of Christ. His mission was to prepare the way for Christ. And Luther rightly says that this preparation was spiritual, consisting in repentance and the remission of sins. The relative ὅς with the future of the verb denotes purpose, R. 960.

What Jehovah originally addressed to the people of Israel is in the quotation addressed to the Messiah himself. This is the interpretative feature. “Before thy face” refers to the face of Jesus Christ, God’s Son in v. 1. It is plain, indeed, that what was told Israel concerning the forerunner of the Messiah applied most directly to that Messiah himself and is thus most properly also represented as being spoken to him. The compound preposition πρὸπροσώπου is translation Greek, reproducing the Hebrew. We should get rid of the idea that quotations must always repeat the words of the original in mechanical fashion. The Scriptures always quote with exactness as to sense, and the sense, even when the words are repeated unchanged, is the real purpose of any quotation.

Mark 1:3

3 Without a break Mark continues with the highly dramatic words of Isaiah. No interpretative translation is needed here, so here the Hebrew and the LXX are reproduced, except that in the former the parallelism of the poetic lines requires that we combine “in the wilderness prepare” while the translation combines “one shouting in the wilderness.” Since both the preparation and the voice are in the wilderness, this difference is immaterial. The words are like a tableau: “Voice of a crier!” qol qore (status constructus), the two words, both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, are like an exclamation. Delitzsch writes: “The person disappears in the glory of his calling, receding before the contents of his cry. The cry sounds like the long-drawn-out trumpet blast of a herald.” In the same dramatic way we are placed out “in the wilderness.” It is useless to claim that the “voice” of Isaiah 40:3–5 is only a type of the Baptist. Mark applies it to the Baptist himself; so do Matt. 3:3 and 11:10; likewise the Baptist in John 1:19–24: “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” etc.

The restoration of their homeland to the Jews after the Babylonian captivity was only a minor part of God’s grace to them. The fullest measure of that grace did not appear until the Messiah came; and with that full measure Isaiah comforted his people long in advance of that blessed day. That day dawned with the arrival of the Baptist.

Since a great stretch of desert lay between Babylon, where Israel was held in exile, and their homeland Palestine, it is useless for commentators to think of the desert between Egypt and Palestine and of the Lord’s coming through this desert to deliver his people from Pharaoh’s bondage. But this wilderness or desert in which the voice resounds is really used figuratively by Isaiah; it pictures the hindrances and the obstacles which separate Israel from Jehovah. Hence, figuratively, a road must be prepared through them, on which Jehovah may come to his people to deliver them. Though Babylon is a grand inhabited city it is pagan and is thus pictured as a wilderness in which Jehovah’s people are lost. All this was symbolized in the Baptist when the Messianic deliverance began; he was ordered to shout in the literal wilderness near the Jordan.

Once the moral and spiritual import of the prophet’s imagery is noted, the shouting of the voice, namely the Baptist’s call to prepare the Lord’s way, will also be understood. The wilderness and its obstructions are in the hearts of the people; there the Lord’s way is to be prepared. In Isa. 40:3, 4 mountains and hills are to be leveled, etc. To make a way through them is a task that is utterly beyond human power. That is exactly the impression intended.

Strictly speaking, only the Lord himself can construct a way through such obstacles. When, nevertheless, he orders men to build this way, the obvious sense is that they can do this only by the power and the grace which the Lord himself bestows. That is why the Baptist cried, “Repent!” Impenitence raises the mountains of obstruction; repentance opens the way for the Lord. True repentance is wrought by the Lord’s own law and gospel, in which his power and his grace are active. “Make ready the way of the Lord!” Luther writes: “Such preparation is spiritual; it consists in the deep conviction and confession that you are unfit, a sinner, poor, damned and miserable with all the works you are able to do. Where this conviction is wrought the heart will be open for the Lord’s entrance with his forgiveness and gifts.”

Mark 1:4

4 The man thus pictured by divine prophecy came in due time just as God had said. Ἐγένετο, trat auf, “came,” reports the historical fact. The articulated present participle ὁβαπτίζων is descriptive (R. 891), and the tense describes John as being engaged in baptizing. Matt. 3:1 has the noun βαπτιστής, “the Baptist.” While baptizing was distinctive of John and thus gave him an additional name, his work in general was that of a prophet, more specifically of a herald, sent of God to the nation. That is why Mark adds κηρύσσων, “acting as a κῆρυξ or herald,” as one who with a loud voice announces what his superior has ordered him to announce. When we translate this word “preaching,” the original meaning of the participle must be held fast. Preaching in the Biblical sense is merely to announce clearly and distinctly exactly what God in his Word orders us to announce.

We dare not change the message by alteration, by omission, or by addition. The preacher is not to utter his own eloquent wisdom but is to confine himself to the foolishness and the skandalon of the gospel.

“In the wilderness” (Matthew adds “of Judea”) indicates the locality of the Baptist’s activity in a general way. The Fourth Gospel specifies more closely regarding the first period of the Baptist’s work that it was carried on “in Bethany beyond Jordan” (“Bethabara” is a wrong reading.) The most probable site is the northern ford near Succoth, the same by which Jacob crossed from Mahanaim. This region is called desert because it was never inhabited except later on by ascetics like the Essenes and the hermits who sought seclusion. With the feminine adjective τῇἑρήμῳ supply χώρᾳ, “the desert place.”

John worked under an immediate call from God like the old prophets; Luke 3:2 states that “the word of God came” to him. His preaching and his work were directed by immediate revelation. Moreover, John was born as a member of the Jewish tribe to which priestly functions belonged, and thus no Jew questioned his authority to perform such functions, i.e., to teach and to administer religious rites. He chose the desert country, not voluntarily, but as directed by God.

The Ghor or ravine through which the Jordan flows is dense with wild growth and unfit, because of the excessive heat, for ordinary habitation; and the adjacent upland, whether level or rugged, is also undesirable wilderness. This wild region was chosen by God for the Baptist’s work in order to take the people away from their ordinary occupations and interests in order the more to fix their minds and hearts on their spiritual condition and the saving message of his great herald. This wild region called to mind the desert wanderings of Israel for forty years, when their unbelief had shut them out of the promised land for so long a time.

Mark summarizes the Baptist’s message: he preached βάπτισμαμετανοίαςεἰςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν. Note the absence of the articles, which certainly stresses the meaning of the nouns (R. 782). The genitive μετανοίας is descriptive and characterizes the baptism which John preached. It was a baptism that was connected with repentance. In his preaching he set that feature forth with all due clearness. That meant that repentance alone fitted a person for this baptism; hence we also see John refusing to baptize the impenitent.

In μετάνοια and the verb μετανοεῖν we have one of the most important concepts of the New Testament, the Hebrew nicham, “repent by changing the mind,” and shub, “to turn,” or to be converted. Μετανοεῖν means originally “to perceive or see afterward” (μετά), i.e., when it is too late; “to change one’s mind” and thus “to regret” and “to repent.” But the Scriptural use of the term added a spiritual depth that was far beyond the thought of secular writers. The word referred to that religious change of the heart which turns from sin and guilt to cleansing and forgiveness by God’s grace.

A synonym of μετανοεῖν is ἐπιστρέφειν, with this difference that the former looks both backward toward the regretted sin and forward toward the accepted pardon while the latter looks more to the grace received. The assertion that the word repentance meant less in the Baptist’s mouth than it meant afterward in the mouth of the apostles, in particular that it did not include faith in the Messiah, is answered by John 1:8: “The same came for a witness to the Light, that all men through him might believe”; by Luke 3:18, where the Baptist’s preaching is called εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, “to preach the gospel”; and by the fruits of this repentance which are such as only faith in the Redeemer and forgiveness of sins are able to produce.

The Baptist is often ranked with the Old Testament prophets, but in v. 1, etc., we see that Mark regards him as belonging to the ἀρχὴτοῦεὐαγγελίου, “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” In the Smalcald Articles Luther calls the Baptist “the fiery angel St. John, the true preacher of repentance,” Concordia Triglotta, 487, 30. “Repentance” and “to repent” are at times used for contrition alone, generally when faith is also mentioned; and again for contrition plus faith, i.e., for conversion in its entirety. For the former compare 1:15; Acts 20:21; Luke 24:46, 47, where the narrower sense is indicated; for the latter, our present passage and Luke 13:5; 15:7, where the wider sense is apparent. This latter is well described in Concordia Triglotta, 259, 29 and 35.

The expression “baptism of repentance for remission of sins” must be read as a whole. This baptism which John proclaimed and administered was connected with repentance and resulted in remission of sins. Luke 3:3 reads in the same way. Ἄφεσις is one of the most blessed words in the Bible; it is derived from ἀφίημι and means “sending away.” The sins are taken from the sinner and are sent away so far and in such a way that even God will not find them on the day of judgment: as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103:12), like a writing blotted out (Isa. 43:25), cast into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19). Can there be sweeter words than these for any poor sinner? What is sent away are the sins, ἁμαρτίαι. The plural spreads them out in their number, heaps them up in their mountainous mass. When we meet the singular to indicate sin in general we have a collective, the vast content of which must be unfolded in order to have it properly understood.

Ἁμαρτία means “a missing of the mark,” namely the mark set by the divine law, a mark which God must hold us to meet fully and perfectly. Sin thus entails guilt; and while we may speak of the two separately, they are actually never separated. The instant we sin we have guilt, and guilt cannot exist where sin is absent. Sin and guilt entail punishment, and this follows the guilt as surely as the guilt follows the sin. When the sins are sent away, all their guilt and punishment leave us likewise.

The force of the phrase εἰςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν which modifies βάπτισμαμετανοίας is to make remission of sins the result of the baptism of repentance. Every such baptism bestowed remission upon the person baptized. Note that βάπτισμα is the objective sacrament administered upon the person, and μετάνοια the subjective condition necessary in the person to receive the gift (remission) in the sacrament. Speaking Scripturally, it is impossible to conceive of any repentant sinner being baptized by John without release from his sins. But many take the words in a different sense: John preached and practiced a baptism which “obligated to repentance” and by this obligation promised remission when the Messiah would appear. The contention is that this baptism did not itself bestow remission.

Dogmatic and not linguistic considerations produce interpretations of this kind. The simple descriptive genitive μετανοίας cannot be made to convey obligation, and an interval of time cannot be inserted before the phrase with εἰς. Suppose a person received John’s baptism of repentance and then died before the Messiah came, would he die without remission and be forever lost? John baptized only those who repented and confessed their sins and turned all others away, and all who were thus baptized received remission in their baptism. Hypocrites, who did not repent, only increased their guilt.

Robertson 595 is reluctant to make εἰς in our passage denote aim and purpose. He turns the matter over to the interpreter without himself stating what he thinks εἰς means linguistically. We may very well regard this phrase as expressing aim and purpose, but it must be a purpose that is realized in the baptism of repentance itself, not one to be realized at some later time and by some other means or by no means at all.

What is back of these refusals to accept Mark’s words as they read is, in most cases, the idea that baptism is only a symbol and thus bestows nothing, being only an act of obedience on our part (law) and not an act of God bestowing grace (gospel). In addition, not a few consider John’s baptism to be different from Christ’s, John’s conveying no grace and remission while that of Jesus does. On this point Acts 2:38 is decisive, where εἰςἄφεσιντῶνἁμαρτιῶνὑμῶν is used regarding Christ’s baptism exactly as the εἰς phrase is used regarding John’s. Jesus himself continued John’s baptism (John 4:1, 2) and eventually instituted this baptism for all nations. In essentials John’s and Christ’s baptisms are the same. The Baptist’s was administered on the basis of the revelation made at that time; that of Jesus on the level of his completed work.

The Baptist’s made followers of the Christ to come; that of Jesus followers of the Christ already come. Thus the baptism of John was preparatory for Israel alone, Christ’s permanent for all nations. Only in this way was the one merged into the other. The remission bestowed by them was identical.

Mark 1:5

5 And there was going out to him all the country Judea and all the Jerusalemites and were being baptized in the river Jordan by him, confessing their sins.

This is briefer than Matthew’s statement (3:5), and Judea and Jerusalem are reversed. This is a fine example of how the oral tradition was transmitted, which was not by any means always verbatim; many other examples appear in the following pages. Matthew adds the country around Jordan (Transjordania). Galilee might have been added. In Matthew 11:7, etc., Jesus speaks to the Galileans about John, and the first disciples of John were from Galilee. Mark proceeds from the country to the capital, but the latter he designates according to its inhabitants.

The excitement spread even to the proud Jerusalemites. The two imperfect tenses ἐξεπορεύετο and ἐβαπτίζοντο are in descriptive narrative which is compared by R. 883 to a “moving-picture show.” Streams of people were constantly going out to John, and large numbers of them were being baptized.

The verb ἐβαπτίζοντο indicates nothing whatever regarding the mode which John employed in baptizing. Nothing regarding the mode can be obtained from the phrase ἐντῷἸορδάνῃποταμῷ, “in the river Jordan,” for which v. 9 has εἰς, with no difference in meaning, R. 525. This ἐν is merely locative (R. 524), stating where the baptism took place; it denotes place (R. 586) and nothing more.

The readiness with which the multitudes submitted to John’s baptism is explained by the fact that purificatory rites by the application of water were not new or strange to the Jews; and these rites were not performed by immersion, Lev. 14:7 and 27; Num. 8:7; 19:13; Heb. 9:13; also Exod. 19:10; Lev. 15, entire chapter; 16:26 and 28; 17:15; 22:6; Deut. 23:10. These were washings, rinsings, and bathings, but never an immersion. The Jews expected that when the Messiah came he would use some purificatory rite such as this; see the question on this point put to the Baptist by the Pharisees in John 1:25. Instead, then, of seeking to explain “were being baptized” by reference to some mode that is supposed to have been used in the church at the time when Mark (or Matthew) wrote, we must explain the Baptist’s mode by comparison with the rites with which the Jews were conversant since the days of Moses. Since none of these were immersions, immersion was not the mode used in either the Baptist’s or Jesus’ baptism.

All lexicons agree that βαπτίζω denotes any mode of applying water. It is hopeless linguistically to restrict it to one mode to the exclusion of all other modes, and that a mode for which Jewish practice furnishes no evidence. How could immersions be made on the desert journey; and how in a city like Jerusalem, where the water supply was always a problem? But did the Baptist not have the river Jordan? If his baptisms were immersions, then, since the number he baptized was estimated as being between 200, 000 and 500, 000 in the brief period of a little over a year in which he labored, he must have lived an almost constant aquatic life. We have not the slightest evidence that he used his disciples as his assistants when he was baptizing.

When this was done by Jesus (John 4:2), it is stated. Moreover, the Baptist later on baptized at Ænon (John 3:23), the very name of which was “Springs.” The πολλὰὕδατα, literally “many waters,” rivulets flowing from these springs, made the place suitable for his work, not by furnishing water that was deep enough for immersions but by providing water for drinking purposes, a great necessity when many people are gathered together. Of course, from these “waters” he could pour or sprinkle when he was baptizing.

Yet down to the most recent commentary the view persists that the Baptist immersed. This is plainly a case of uncritical exegetical traditionalism. It is well illustrated by Zahn who admits the absence of any indication of mode in the words and yet, when he tries to imagine how the Baptist baptized, speaks of Vollbad. Some connect John’s rite with the baptism of Jewish proselytes, but they fail in two points. There is no evidence that the baptism of Jewish proselytes was more than a washing like the other well-known Jewish rites; moreover, this rite regarding proselytes is not mentioned anywhere until the second century, and no man can show that it was practiced at the time of the Baptist. We may add also that nowhere does it appear that the Baptist thought he was making proselytes of the Jews whom he baptized; they remained the Jews they had always been.

Even R. 592 dissents from Blass in finding motion in βαπτίζω and in thus reading ἐν and εἰς with this motion. The grammarian allows his Baptist dogmatics to mislead him.

Those who translate ἐβαπτίζοντο as the middle voice “got themselves baptized” on the basis of the Aramaic verb which is active speak as if they have actually seen this Aramaic verb in Matthew and in Mark. Since ὑπό regularly names the agent after a passive, Mark’s (and Matthew’s) Greek verb is undoubtedly passive. The effort to put an active meaning into it (by way of the middle voice) has a purpose back of it, namely that “the rite was not intended to have any definite effect on the new recruits” (note this designation). “Baptism was not something that was done to them, it was something that they did; they professed themselves to be fit and proper members of the new order.” This makes Mark (and Matthew, too,) say the opposite of what he actually says. It changes the gospel of baptism into a law of baptism—we do something in baptism, not God. It is at most a symbol that we receive, nothing actual and real. But all the Scripture passages regarding baptism are to the contrary.

When Jesus speaks to Nicodemus regarding John’s baptism he tells him that this works regeneration, the new spiritual birth, John 3:5. No man works his own birth, it is wrought in him by the Spirit. Peter, like the other apostles who had been baptized by the Baptist, states that baptism “saves,” 1 Pet. 3:21. Paul does the same in Titus 3:5 by calling baptism “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

The Baptist demanded true repentance for his baptism. This is inward, unseen, in the heart; yet it always manifests its presence by an honest confession of sin. So Mark describes those who were accepted for baptism as “confessing their sins.” The present participle states that this open and penitent acknowledgment of sin accompanied every baptism that was performed. This makes the claim specious that, if the confession was a requisite for baptism, the participle should be an aorist. Since the main verb is durative, the added participle must also be durative; for both the verb and the participle describe customary actions. The Baptist first preached repentance, and then all who were moved to repentance confessed and were baptized, and this went on from day to day.

We thus recognize the subjective preparation consisting of repentance with its accompanying confession, both wrought by the Baptist’s preaching; and the objective sacrament, administered at God’s command by his authorized agent, bestowing God’s gift of grace and pardon. Thus the subjective need, realized in repentance and confession, was met by the objective satisfaction of that need—the distressing sins were removed.

Mark 1:6

6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and a leather girdle around his loins and was eating locusts and wild honey.

Mark reports exactly what Matt. 3:4 does, but the wording is Mark’s own. Δέ continues the account about John. Living and working in the wilderness, John dressed and ate accordingly. Mark uses two participles with ἦν. With ἦν he puts the Baptist before us, telling us how he “was” at that time, and the participles describe him. We sacrifice the difference in tense in our translation. The first is a perfect: ἐνδεδυμένος, “having been clothed,” with a present connotation, still so clothed. From the start he wore “camel’s hair.” Artists often present this as being the actual hide of a camel; but it was a long, loose robe (ἔνδυμα, Matt.) woven from camel’s hair, a garment of coarse texture like the coverings of the very poor.

With this rough robe there naturally went a leather girdle to hold it at the waist, ὀσφύς, singular: “loin,” for which we always use the plural “loins.” The girdle kept the robe from flapping apart and made it possible to tuck it up for rapid walking. Made of common leather, the girdle, too, was cheap. We may take it that this camel’s hair robe was John’s only garment. No sandals are mentioned.

From Zech. 13:4 we know that “a rough garment” or “a garment of hair” was the usual dress of a prophet and was used even by false prophets in order to deceive. In 2 Kings 1:8 King Ahaziah recognizes Elijah when this prophet is described to him as “an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins.” Since Elijah prefigured the Baptist in the stern preaching of repentance (Mal. 4:5; Matt. 11:4; Mark 9:11, 12; Luke 1:17), this similarity of dress cannot have been accidental. In this very wilderness Elijah made his last appearance. The very appearance of John was thus a stern sermon. It was a call to all those who made food and drink, house and raiment their chief concern in life to turn from such vanity and to provide far more essential things. John was a living illustration of how little man really needs here below—something we are prone to forget.

In drawing people out into the wilderness after him John made them share a bit of his own austere life. Men left their mansions, offices, shops, their common round of life and for a time at least gave their thoughts to higher things.

Four varieties of locusts were allowed as food, Lev. 11:22. They are still eaten by the poor and in times of famine, being abundant in the spring and often coming in great swarms. The wings and the legs were torn off, and the bodies were dried or roasted or ground up and baked, seasoned with salt, and could be kept for a long time. Palestine was famed for its wild bees and honey, especially in the wilder regions. Ἄγριον with μέλι prevents us from thinking of any sweet prepared by men or of sweet exudations from leaves. The abundant natural wild honey is referred to.

The Baptist’s mode of life marks him as a Nazarite (Luke 1:15), and up to the time of his preaching he must have lived like a hermit (Luke 1:80). In this respect he was the antithesis of Jesus (Matt. 11:18).

Mark 1:7

7 And he heralded, saying: There is coming one stronger than I after me, the latchet of whose sandals I am not fit, having stooped, to unloose. I on my part baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

Mark reports the heart of the Baptist’s preaching, his great proclamation concerning the coming Messiah. We have already been told (in v. 4) about his preaching “a baptism of repentance for remission of sins.” This was in preparation for the great Coming One, whose early arrival he now announces. John’s chief work was to make the Savior’s coming known. It is noteworthy that in this proclamation the Baptist, like Jesus afterward, avoids mention of the title “Messiah,” evidently because of the political ideas the Jews had connected with this term. Against all such unspiritual and worldly expectations already the Baptist contended.

Mark uses the significant verb ἔρχεται even as Matthew has the participle ὁἐρχόμενος. “He comes” and “the One Coming” are standard expressions for the Jewish expectation of the Messiah; they are based on Old Testament statements such as Gen. 49:10, “until Shiloh come.” Mark makes the verb emphatic by giving it the first place in the sentence.

The Baptist announces the divine greatness of the Coming One and thus arouses the expectation of his hearers to the highest pitch. He calls him “one stronger than I,” ὁἰσχυρότερόςμου, from the noun ἰσχύς, which refers to the personal possession of power. John thus implies that he, too, is ἰσχυρός, “strong,” the divine strength of the Word having been given to him. The force of this comparison of the Messiah with himself is clear from Luke 3:15, etc., “all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not,” they thought that he was perhaps great and strong enough for that. But by his comparison John denies all such thoughts. He denies it a second time in John 1:26, 27.

The people must elevate their expectation to a power and a strength that are far above anything they saw in John. However highly they thought of John, he was only the herald and forerunner of the Coming One, who was to appear “after me,” ὀπίσωμου, really “behind me,” but here referring to time, “after me.”

How much greater this Stronger One will be is brought out by the relative clause: “the latchet of whose sandals I am not fit, having stooped, to unloose”; αὐτοῦ after οὗ is pleonastic, R. 722. It was the humblest slave’s or servant’s task to unfasten the straps that held the master’s or the honored guest’s sandals to the feet, to take them away, and to clean them of dust. Matthew refers only to carrying the sandals away, Luke and Mark to untying them, but Mark adds the touch of the servant’s stooping down to do this. This is a concrete expression for the greatness of the Coming One—John is as nothing compared with him. How great, then, must he be? The answer is: the Coming One is God’s own Son. John’s words are no self-abasement, no Oriental extravagance; as a prophet, filled with the Spirit, he speaks absolute truth.

Mark 1:8

8 With this difference between the persons corresponds the difference in their work. John makes this plain by another comparison. Since he is appointed to baptize he places his baptizing over against that act of the Coming One which can also be called a baptizing. John baptizes with an ordinary sacrament, in connection with common water; God’s Son will finally crown his great redemptive work by baptizing in connection with the Holy Spirit. We usually translate ἐν in these two statements by “with” as if means were intended. But the Spirit is not a means for baptizing like water; hence, since both ἐν must have the same force, the sense must be “in connection with” water, “in connection with” the Holy Spirit.

Matthew adds “and fire” and thus points more clearly to the fiery flames at Pentecost. A divinely appointed man may apply water in a sacrament; only the Son of God can pour out the Holy Spirit, and even he only after completing his redemptive work and then ascending to heaven.

John describes his own strength by saying: “I on my part (emphatic ἐγώ to contrast with Christ) baptized you with water.” This was the power that God had put into his hands. It marked him as the forerunner of Christ. It is unwarranted to stress ἐνὕδατι to mean “with nothing but water” so that John’s baptism becomes nothing but a symbolical sprinkling with water or, as some assert, immersion in water. To claim that because Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, John’s baptism was devoid of the Spirit is to draw a false conclusion. As the Spirit wrought all spiritual effects throughout the Old Testament, so he wrought in both John’s preaching and his baptism, and in all gospel preaching till the day of Pentecost, from which day on his presence, power, and gifts flow out in wholly unrestrained measure and over all the earth.

The distinction is not: before Pentecost no Spirit; after Pentecost the Spirit. If this were true, no soul could have been saved before Pentecost. The true distinction is: before the actually completed work of redemption the limited preparatory work of the Spirit; after that the superabounding fulness of the Spirit. The idea that even our present baptism is nothing but water, a mere sign and symbol without the Spirit, only a confessional act and work of obedience on our part; and that the only baptism that gives us the Spirit is the so-called “baptism of the Spirit,” by which the Spirit is supposed to seize a man suddenly, without the use of divine means (suddenly converting him by this seizure and later on by another sudden seizure totally sanctifying him), is a fanatical conception which casts aspersions upon the very means of grace by which the Spirit does come to us and substitutes for these means (Word and sacraments) human emotions, imaginings, and dreams by which the Spirit never comes.

The Coming One, John says, “shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Note the aorist ἐβάπτισα to describe John’s past work and the future βαπτίσει to indicate Jesus’ work to come. On these two works we have Jesus’ own commentary: “John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and not many days hence,” Acts 1:5. Also v. 8: “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you,” etc. Peter also reports how the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and the Gentiles with him, “as on us at the beginning,” i.e., Pentecost. He adds: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” Acts 11:16. The miraculous outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost is the supreme work and thus the final great mark of the Messiah.

None but the Son, who had gone to the Father (John 16:7) after completing redemption, could thus send down the Spirit. This Stronger One, who was to show his might by thus sending the Spirit miraculously, was also miraculously pointed out to the Baptist and by no less a sign than the descent of the Spirit upon him “as a dove” (v. 10), John 1:32–34.

Mark abbreviates the testimony of the Baptist. He is content to describe the greatness of the Coming One by pointing to his work of grace in sending the Spirit and saying nothing about his work of judgment (Matt. 3:12).

Mark 1:9

9 And it came to pass in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately while going out of the water he saw the heavens being rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove coming down on him; and a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my Son the beloved; in thee I was well pleased.

From the Baptist’s general work Mark proceeds to the inauguration of Jesus into his office as our Savior. Here Mark is again very brief, Matthew’s account is much fuller and more detailed in every way. Other instances of this kind occur so that we must not let Mark have all the praise for adding details; some of it evidently also belongs to Matthew. Καὶἐγένετο followed by a finite verb is due to the LXX and Hebraic influence, R. 1042. Here it draws attention to the time when the great event occurred, namely “in those days” when the Baptist was at the height of his activity. Then Jesus “came from Nazareth of Galilee,” where, until he reached the age of thirty, he had lived in complete retirement with his mother and the other members of his household.

We know nothing very definite about Jesus (on the name see v. 1) during this long period. He probably worked at his father’s trade, which was that of a carpenter. Since in Palestine the houses are built of stone, carpenters made only the wooden fittings and all kinds of wooden utensils. Jesus quietly dropped these manual labors; ἦλθε is enough, “he came,” namely to John in the wilderness. Many from Nazareth had already preceded him and returned with their reports of John’s work. Jesus did not go at once, he waited until the time was ready for his purpose, until his hour came. For his Gentile readers Mark adds “of Galilee” so they may know where Nazareth lies.

Mark merely reports the fact: “and was baptized (historical aorist) by John in the Jordan.” Only the weighty καὶἐγένετο and the connection with what follows the baptism show that, while this baptism of Jesus resembled all the other baptisms, it was something far greater and more significant. The view that, by being baptized by John, Jesus only showed his willing obedience (God having ordered John to baptize), and that Jesus (though not needing baptism) submitted to it, makes the baptism nothing but a formality and misapprehends what John’s baptism really was. It was not law but gospel, not a demand to obey but a gift of grace to accept and to retain as such. Jesus in no sense accepted John’s baptism as obedience to a law, and a law that was useless in his case; and in no sense as receiving grace and pardon since he is, indeed, sinless. Jesus was baptized by John because he regarded this as the right way in which to enter upon his great office. He, the Sinless One, the very Son of God, chose to put himself by the side of all the sinful ones, for whom this sacrament of John’s was ordained.

He thus connects himself with all of John’s baptisms, for it is his mediation that makes these baptisms truly efficacious for sinners. In thus by his own baptism joining himself to all these baptisms of John he signifies that he is now ready to take upon himself the load of all these sinners, i.e., to assume his redemptive office.

It was thus also proper and right that Jesus should come of his own volition and offer himself voluntarily for this great office and not wait until he would be called or until it would be laid upon him. This office, especially insofar as it involved the sacrifice upon the cross, had to be assumed voluntarily. Note ἦλθε, he came of his own accord. Shortly after his baptism Jesus is called the Lamb of God, which refers directly to the sacrifice. Jesus himself calls his suffering a baptism in Luke 12:50 and elsewhere. These are rays which illuminate the character of the act that occurred when John baptized Jesus.

We must not put too much into Jesus’ baptism. Luther presents the view (Erlangen edition 19, 2, 482, etc.; 20, 457; and elsewhere) that in his baptism Jesus acted as our substitute. Loaded with the world’s sin, he buried it in the waters of Jordan. Following Luther, some go so far as to say that what Christ obtained for us by his baptism is now conveyed to us by the means of grace (Word and sacraments)—as though salvation was already fully secured for us by Christ’s baptism. Luther’s view strains the evangelists’ words by attempting to give to Christ’s baptism the same significance that is attached to the baptism of the sinners who flocked to the Jordan: Christ came with the sins of others and had them washed away, the others had their own sins removed. This results in a double removal of the same sins.

The claim that the law required of priests and of teachers that they be thirty years old and be consecrated by a religious washing and anointing can be substantiated only in the case of the Levites (Num. 4:3) and would make the whole transaction regarding Jesus, including the anointing with the Spirit, nothing but a legal ceremonial observance. It was something vastly higher. The modernistic view has Jesus come to John just as others did, to enroll himself among the servants of the new kingdom and to submit to “the same ritual” as the rest. This changes the king himself into one of his servants.

Many other views had best be forgotten. We select two minor thoughts that should be preserved. One is that Jesus honored John’s baptism, which he certainly did, but only incidentally, by using John’s ministration for a far higher purpose. The other is that Jesus intended to sanctify the water for the sacrament which he himself would afterward ordain for all the world. Concordia Triglotta, 736, 21.

Mark writes only ἐβαπτίσθη, and Luke only the participle βαπτισθέντος, and Matthew has even less: “Then he permitted him.” The mode used for the act of baptism is not indicated. The Holy Spirit seems purposely to withhold a mention of the mode. If the mode were such a vital thing, then we may certainly conclude that the Holy Spirit would, at least in this most vital case, have indicated it to us with sufficient clearness; but he does nothing of the kind. Yet a number of writers think that John always immersed and most certainly immersed Jesus. Compare the discussion on ἐβαπτίζοντο in v. 5. Wohlenberg, in Zahn’s commentary, finds immersion in the preposition εἰς, das εἰς deutet auf irgendwelchen Untertauchungsakt. But the grammars indicate that no preposition denotes motion, that where motion exists it is always indicated in the verb.

This εἰς is static and has the same meaning as ἐν. In v. 5 we have ἐβαπτίζοντοἐντῇἸορδάνῃποταμῷ, and in exactly the same sense we now have ἐβαπτίσθηεἰςτὸνἸορδάνην. Note the confusion in B.-P., 207, both regarding εἰς and regarding ὄνομα. To make εἰς “goal or means” is unwarranted; and to try to conceive of carrying a person into the ὄνομα or name is impossible, even with the explanation that the power of the name passes over to the person baptized. It is astonishing how the old immersion idea persists in spite of all the new light that the ostraca and the papyri have furnished on the meaning of ἐν and εἰς in the Koine. Equally astonishing are the explanations which these prepositions, especially the latter, have received to justify the traditional view of immersion.

We add some recent illuminating findings. All the ancient pictorial representations of the baptism of Jesus as well as of other baptisms—with not a single exception—show other modes, never immersion; see Clement F. Rogers, Baptism and Christian Archæology, Oxford, Clarendon Press. This layman, starting with the prevalent assumption that he would find evidence for immersion, collected all the ancient pictorial representations of baptism. When he found no immersion anywhere he changed his view and published his book with the pertinent drawings. Even the ruins of ancient baptisteries showed that these were too shallow to have made immersion possible.

Even when he was lying flat a person could not have been immersed. We are nowhere told of witnesses to Jesus’ baptism, but it would be unsafe to conclude that none were present.

Mark 1:10

10 Εὐθέως is a favorite word of Mark’s; it states what “immediately” followed the baptism. Hence also the use of the present participle ἀναβαίνων, “while going up.” The descent of the Spirit occurred after the baptism had been completed, while Jesus was walking up onto the bank of the river. We should not picture it as the artists do, as though it occurred while Jesus was being baptized or while he was standing knee-deep in the water. Matthew 3:16 has ἀπό, Jesus went away from the water; Mark has ἐκ, Jesus went up out of the water, and R. 597, 577, 561 state that this means that Jesus had been in the water. But this is far from saying that Jesus had been under the water. Matthew’s ἀπό must be taken together with Mark’s ἐκ; neither refers to the baptismal act as such; neither puts Jesus under the water; both speak of what followed the baptismal act.

Jesus stepped out of (ἐκ) the water onto the bank and walked away from (ἀπό) the water up the bank. This is all that the prepositions say. Immersion as the mode of Jesus’ baptism cannot be proved by either of them. The most that ἐκ implies is that Jesus had stood in the water at the edge of the river.

Mark reports only the fact that Jesus saw the heavens as they were being rent asunder and the Spirit as he was in the act of coming down upon him. Matthew says more and adds the exclamation “lo” to emphasize the miracle. By his baptism Jesus gave himself to the work of sin-bearing; by the anointing and by the voice from heaven the Father accepted him for this work. The two acts thus constitute a complete whole. We should not separate them although they are distinct and not to be mixed or confounded. Some are inclined to do this when they speak of the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus as though this were a feature of his baptism, which it was not.

The application of this feature to our baptism, namely that in the same way through our baptism and in it the Spirit comes to us with his regenerating grace, is wrong. He, indeed, does come to us, but upon Jesus he came, not in and through the baptism, but after it.

Matthew states only the fact: “the heavens were opened,” he uses the historical aorist; Mark puts it more vividly as if he were repeating the narration of Peter who, unlike Matthew, was most likely present at this baptism: Jesus “saw the heavens in the act of being rent asunder and the Spirit as a dove in the act of coming down upon him.” The two present participles picture the actions as they occur. What Mark describes is certainly not a mere vision that Jesus had, something that was viewed only by his mind. Εἶδε refers to the sight of the eyes, not to an impression (Eindruck) in the inner consciousness with no objective reality outside of it.

The plain facts of what occurred here should not be weakened by talking only about a new relation that was established between Jesus and the Father. The truth is: no new relation was established; what happened was an act of God, that great act by which he inaugurated Jesus into his mighty office of Prophet, High Priest, and King. The speculation about something occurring in the heart of Jesus, die innere Erregung seines Geisteslebens, of which the text says nothing, even when this is coupled with the outward phenomena, like all other human speculations only darkens the facts that occurred.

The ideas that the heavens just happened to brighten above Jesus, or that a thunderstorm caused flashes of lightning are rationalistic speculations. Ezekiel (1:1) saw the heavens opened; Stephen likewise (Acts 7:56); compare also Rev. 4:1; Isa. 64:1. “Heaven opens itself which hitherto was closed and becomes now at Christ’s baptism a door and window so that one can see into it; and henceforth there is no difference any more between him and us; for God the Father himself is present and says: ‘This is my beloved Son.’” Luther. The heavens did not remain open, and it is an insertion into the text to say that a new mysterious intercourse now began between Jesus and the heavenly world. The idea back of this is that Jesus received a heavenly intimation for every act that he performed just as the old prophets did. We are not told what became visible when the heavens were suddenly opened as we are told in the cases of Ezekiel and of Stephen. We may say that the heavenly glory became visible, and that Jesus, John, and any others who were present beheld its radiance. Mark, however, focuses everything upon Jesus; but compare John 1:32–34.

Out of the open heavens the Spirit came down upon Jesus. Mark writes only τὸΠνεῦμα without adding Θεοῦ, the sense being the same. When we see from John 1:29–34 with what clarity the Baptist spoke of what his eyes, too, saw here beside the Jordan, the mistaken view of those is apparent who deny that the Old Testament revealed the Trinity to the Jews or claim that it revealed the Trinity only dimly and imperfectly. All the Baptist’s hearers understood him. Later on the Jews object only to the claim that the man Jesus should call himself God’s Son; they never raise the issue that God is only one person and cannot have a Son. It is specious to raise the question as to how fully the Baptist and the Jews themselves grasped the reality of the three divine persons and then to rate their knowledge as low as possible.

Because of his very nature the Spirit, like the Father and the Son ἄσαρκος, is invisible, but God never had any difficulty when he wished to appear to the fathers. The question as to why the Spirit chose the form of a dove has often been asked. Luther thinks of its friendliness, being without wrath and bitterness, the Spirit desiring to show that he has no anger toward us but is ready to help us to become godly and to be saved. Others point to purity, innocence, and meekness as being symbolized by the dove. It is easy to go off into all kinds of fancies by picking up cues here and there regarding the word “dove.” Gen. 1:3 is the only place in which an expression that is somewhat analogous occurs concerning the Spirit. We may content ourselves by saying that the dovelike form intended to convey the graciousness of the Spirit.

Note the wording ὡςπεριστεράν, “as a dove,” and Luke 3:22, “in a bodily form, as a dove.” The ἐπʼ αὐτόν is elucidated by the fuller statement in John 1:32, 33: the Spirit “remained upon him,” did not return whence he came. The Spirit was a permanent gift to Jesus. As his conception “of the Spirit,” so was this coming of the Spirit as a gift; it pertained to the human nature of Jesus, it equipped and empowered that nature with all that it needed to carry out the work of redemption. In his deity the Son was of identical essence with both the Father and the Spirit, nor could the Spirit be given to him. But in his human nature, which he had assumed in order by it to work out our redemption, he could and did receive the Spirit.

The coming down of the Spirit upon Jesus is the anointing prophesied in Ps. 45:7: “God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows,” i.e., the prophets. Isa. 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach,” etc. (Luke 4:18). Acts 10:38: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” The prophets received some of the gifts of the Spirit; Jesus, lifted far above them for an infinitely greater task, received the Spirit as such. What power thus filled him we see when he is now led up of the Spirit to be tempted, and when he returns in the power of the Spirit into Galilee to teach there in his wonderful way and to work miracles. Luther writes: “Here he begins rightly to be Christ,” namely the Anointed One, and was thus inaugurated into his entire Messianic office as our Prophet, High Priest, and King.

Rationalism thinks that an ordinary dove happened to flutter over Jesus as he left the water’s edge. Many prefer figurative interpretations or assume a double vision, namely that what Jesus and the Baptist beheld in their spirits was also symbolized for their eyes and their ears so that they actually saw and heard. When this is put into elegant language it may sound psychological, but it is a denial of the facts described. As the shepherds actually saw and heard the angels, so Jesus and John and others saw and heard what occurred when the Spirit came down and the Father spoke from above.

Mark 1:11

11 The evangelists let us recognize the voice by what it says. Out of the open heavens the voice sounded just as the form of the dove descended. The one was as real to the ears as the other was real to the eyes. The fact that the Baptist heard it he indicates in John 1:34 when he declares: “This is the Son of God.” Mark and Luke record the Father’s words as being directly addressed to Jesus: “Thou art,” etc.; Matthew has the third person: “This is my Son,” etc. By using the third person Matthew indicates that the words spoken to Jesus are meant also for all others just as this is indicated in John 1:34. Some distinguish between “my beloved Son” as referring to the eternal Godhead of the Son before the incarnation and “in thee I was well pleased” as referring to Christ in the flesh. But the reason for such a distinction is too obscure. “Thou,” as well as Matthew’s οὗτος, refer to the God-man as he stood on the riverbank.

In what sense the Father meant ὁυἱόςμου cannot be in doubt. This Son is the second person of the Godhead. Note the article with the predicate: ὁυἱός, which makes the subject and the predicate identical and interchangeable, R. 768. Unless we see the God-man in Jesus, it would be beyond comprehension why the Father should call from heaven that this is his Son, the Beloved. Throughout the Scriptures this Sonship of Jesus is in a class absolutely by itself and infinitely above all other sonships. They who deny the deity of Jesus may settle accounts with the Father and with the declaration he here makes.

The verbal adjective ὁἀγαπητός is added by a second article. This makes the verbal a kind of apposition and, in fact, a climax to ὁυἱός, R. 776. The weight of the statement rests on this verbal, on Jesus, the Son, being the Beloved. Like most verbals, ἀγαπητός is passive with the Father as the agent. The verb ἀγαπᾶν, from which this verbal is derived, denotes the highest type of love, that which is coupled with full comprehension and understanding and is accompanied by corresponding purpose. When it is used, as here, with reference to one who is worthy of that love, ἀγαπᾶν includes the completest and highest manifestation of this love; such manifestation is often impossible when the sinful world, enemies, and unworthy persons are the objects.

The verb φιλεῖν indicates the love of affection, and while it is also proper as expressing the love that exists between the Father and the Son, it expresses far less than ἀγαπᾶν. It cannot be used at all when the object is unworthy. God can love the foul and stinking world in the sense of ἀγαπᾶν, understanding all its foulness and purposing to remove it; but he cannot love it in the sense of φιλεῖν, like it, press it to his bosom. The Father loved Jesus by comprehending all that Jesus was doing and with the purpose of seconding his every act.

“Thou art my Son,” etc., is a declaration concerning the work on which Jesus is entering. It predicates far more than that the Son ἄσαρκος is the Son and as such the Beloved from all eternity. That would need no announcement, nor would it be connected with the baptism through such an announcement. This declaration deals with the Son ἔνσαρκος, with the Son as incarnate in Jesus, and with him as now entering upon his office and work. It thus proclaims who this humble person Jesus really is: “my Son,” and voices the Father’s love for him for now proceeding to do the Father’s will in this great work.

Some regard ἀγαπητός as being equivalent to μονογενής, “the Only-begotten,” and assert that this is the fixed meaning of this term. The evidence adduced, however, amounts only to this that an only son was at times also called “the beloved” (son); thus in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, which is the chief proof offered. The main objection to this interpretation lies in the sense attributed to μονογενής, namely that in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 this term refers only to the human birth of Jesus, that thus only he was “the Only-begotten.” This interpretation thus denies that “Only-begotten” states the generatio æterna of the Son in his divine nature as the church has always held. From all eternity the Son was the Only-begotten; and when that Son, now incarnate, came to carry out of his own free will the Father’s redemptive plan, the Father called him the “Beloved.”

To this the Father added “in whom I was well pleased.” This clause is not an exposition of “the Beloved” by saying only about the same thing. Our versions suggest this idea, but they disregard the aorist tense εὐδόκησα by translating “in whom I am well pleased.” R. 768 labors to justify this translation by making this verb a gnomic aorist or at least a timeless aorist used in the present. But such grammatical constructions are due to the idea that the verb must refer to the present. The fact is that here we have only a simple historical aorist. The tense “I was pleased” becomes clear when we understand that the verb, εὐδοκεῖν, when it is employed with reference to persons, often has an intensive sense and is aqual to ἐκλέγεσθαι and αἱρετίζειν, “to select or choose for oneself.” The good pleasure expresses itself in the choice. See C.-K., 253.

Thus “in whom I was well pleased” really says: “I was well pleased in choosing him.” The clause goes back to the moment when God selected his Son for the redemptive work, and when that Son accepted that work. The aorist is plainly historical. The mighty fact of the heavenly selection of the Son who now stands incarnate at the Jordan, ready of his own will to begin the work, is thus announced with the Father’s supreme pleasure in having made the choice. That is why the Father now sends his Spirit upon Jesus. How much all this meant to Jesus is readily understood.

The eternal Son is the Father’s Elect for the great task. This Son, now incarnate and presenting himself for the task, is thus “the Beloved.” Upon the human nature of this Elect and Beloved One the Spirit himself is bestowed for the great task. All this might have transpired between the Father and the Son without other witnesses. But it took place so that the Baptist and all of us might know. Thus, in what took place beside the Jordan we have one of the clearest and completest revelations of the Trinity: the Father speaking from heaven—the Son standing incarnate at the Jordan—the Spirit as a dove descending out of heaven. Yet here, too, we have this revelation only in a limited degree, only insofar as these three divine persons are engaged in our redemption and salvation.

The deeper mysteries of the Holy Trinity remain hidden from us. God is, as it were, compelled to reveal this much in order that we may know how our salvation is wrought. Even this much of the Trinity is beyond mortal comprehension. Its revelation has only the one purpose indicated and was never intended to answer the curious questions which rationalistic intellects (not hearts) may raise. The church has called this the economic Trinity, the revelation that is concerned with the economy of our salvation.

Mark 1:12

12 We have three accounts of the temptation in the wilderness. Mark’s is only a brief summary. It is impossible for Matthew to draw on Luke, or Luke to draw on Matthew, judging from the way in which each writes his narrative. The idea that Mark presents the original tradition out of which the longer accounts of Matthew and of Luke were elaborated is cancelled by the other idea of the critics that Mark is the one who brings the detailed touches which Matthew especially is thought to lack. In the case of this narrative the reverse holds true. The fact is that even while he abbreviates Mark adds touches that neither Matthew nor Luke has. What he wrote so briefly is plainly an independent product.

And immediately the Spirit drives him forth into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by Satan, and was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him.

The temptation of Jesus followed at once upon his baptism. All three synoptists agree that it was brought about by the Spirit. Matthew and Luke have a milder verb: Jesus “was led” into the wilderness by the Spirit; Mark uses a more drastic verb, ἐκβάλλει, the Spirit “drives him out” into the wilderness. The tense is the historical present which pictures the action with vividness. The idea is not that Jesus was forced against his will, or that he was reluctant to go and thus had to be driven. The intention is rather the opposite. The strong urge of the Spirit met the consent of Jesus. He did not go into this temptation against his will.

But more is brought out by the verbs which the evangelists use: Jesus did not throw himself into this temptation of his own accord when, according to human judgment, at the beginning of his ministry he might have been wise to avoid such a decisive conflict. We often rashly put ourselves into temptation. Jesus was brought into his by his Father’s Spirit. This means that his temptation had to occur, and occur at this very time. It was God’s will to have his Son’s ministry begin with this mighty battle against Satan in person and with the resultant victory. Jesus’ baptism took place in the wilderness; when the Spirit drives Jesus “into the wilderness,” this wilderness must be some distance from the Jordan.

If the observation is correct that ἡἔρημος is used in the LXX to designate the wilderness beyond the Jordan in distinction from ἡἔρημοςτῆςἸουδαίας, we may assume that the temptation occurred in the Transjordanian wilderness. But none of the traditional sites deserves to be taken seriously.

Mark 1:13

13 Mark, too, reports that the stay of Jesus in the wilderness extended over forty days, but he says nothing about the fasting during these days, he only hints at it by mentioning the final angelic ministrations. Mark informs us that Jesus was tempted by Satan throughout these forty days. The present participle πειραζόμενος after ἦν does not denote purpose: “in order to be tempted,” and thus does not restrict the temptation to the three attacks at the end of the forty days. Also Luke has this present participle: πειραζόμενοςὑπὸτοῦδιαβόλου. Since Luke has it after ἤγετο, if he had intended to express purpose and thus refer only to the three fully recorded temptations, he would have had to have either the infinitive or still better a purpose clause. So Mark and Luke agree that Jesus endured the temptation of Satan during the entire forty days.

This caused him to forget all about food. He gained no breathing spell whatever to allow his mind to return to the wants of his body. It is not necessary to assume that Jesus also did not sleep during the forty nights; that would surely have been mentioned if it had been the case.

We have no revelation regarding this continuous temptation prior to the final three attacks. The supposition that it was so severe and of such a nature that human language is unable to convey what it was is certainly wrong, for we should then have a full description of only the minor assaults of Satan, which is certainly not the case. When thinking about the long days of temptation the ὑπό phrase used by the three evangelists must be kept in mind. This is the preposition used with the personal agent with passive verb forms. Satan alone caused this continuous temptation. None of it arose from the thoughts and the desires in Jesus’ heart about either his Sonship or his Messiahship.

Deductions from temptations that arise in our own sinful thoughts and desires are utterly fallacious in giving us the inwardness of the temptation experienced by the sinless Son of God. The fact that the hunger was not felt for just forty days, no more and no less, cannot be considered accidental. We meet other periods of precisely forty days in the Scriptures so that it seems as if some mysterious law underlies this number.

The verb πειράζω is really a vox media, “to try,” “to test,” “to put to the proof.” It obtains its sinister sense from the context, and because this is evil in so many cases, πειράζω has its dark connotation “to tempt,” and ὁπειράζων means “the tempter.” “By Satan” Jesus was put to a mortal test. Σατάν is from, the Hebrew Satan, and Σατανᾶς from the Aramaic Satana’, meaning “adversary,” literally, “one lying in ambush for” (M.-M.). Satan is the personal name of the mighty angel who is the head of the hellish kingdom; he is also called ὁδιάβολος, “the slanderer,” transliterated “the devil.” Here Satan struck in person; when he was going against Jesus he did not entrust the issue to any lesser agent. As regards the existence of the devil we need not waste time in bringing in the volume of Biblical evidence which reveals the devil as the fallen angel Satan, the author of sin, the head of the hellish kingdom, forever opposed to God and devoted to man’s eternal ruin because of this opposition. Consult the details in C.-K., 187, etc. If no devil exists as he is described in the Bible, then the entire Bible is false, and man himself is turned into his own devil.

Mark alone states that Jesus was “together with the wild beasts,” and he even makes a separate statement of the fact. Two directly opposite views are taken regarding this statement of Mark’s. Stressing μετά to mean “in company with,” Jesus is thought to be happily surrounded by all these beasts, many of them ferocious in their nature. Paradise is reproduced around Jesus, a small counterpart to Adam. The other view is that these wild animals prowled around Jesus and more or less endangered him. And Mark sets these dangerous animals in contrast with the blessed angels who finally ministered unto him.

Nothing whatever in Mark’s account suggests Paradise and Adam; the wilderness and the wild animals recall Moses and the desert wanderings. It is inconceivable how paradisical conditions could surround Jesus while he was subjected to Satan’s temptation. Hence we take the latter view regarding these wild animals. Jesus was utterly alone for forty days. Instead of friendly company or any face or voice to cheer him he had only the devil near him and ferocious beasts to threaten him.

Mark implies the victory of Jesus in all the temptations of Satan when he states at the end that “the angels were ministering unto him,” διηκόνουν, the descriptive imperfect; Matthew has the same word. Satan had left, completely defeated. The verb διακονέω denotes service freely and voluntarily rendered for the benefit of the person concerned. We may be quite sure that this angelic service included food and drink for the hungry body of Jesus. In Ps. 78:25 manna is called “angels’ food.” We have no reason to think that the angels were sent to protect Jesus from Satan, whom Jesus himself had ordered to be gone; or to shield him from the wild animals, which had left Jesus untouched for forty days. The contrast is, however, plain: first nothing but the company of wild beasts, now the blessed company of ministering angels. In their ministry some include solatium, augmenting the victory of Jesus, and helping him celebrate the triumph.

The accounts of Jesus’ temptation are no parable, no myth, no legend. To accept either of the latter two would make this portion of Scripture a human invention. Then other portions may be of the same empty nature, and we should be at sea about any and all portions. Some think that the three final temptations recorded by Matthew and by Luke are only embellishments that are attached to Mark’s account, which is regarded as the original. The three final temptations, therefore, never occurred. But Matthew wrote before Mark did, which fact already answers the embellishment idea.

Some postulate a dream or a vision. No dreams and visions are reported in the case of Jesus, and where such means are used in the case of others, the Scriptures plainly say so. A dream or a vision victory over Satan would be no actual victory. Communications are received by men in dreams, though not from Satan, but battles are not fought by means only of dreams or visions.

A late idea is that the entire occurrence was mental. Jesus fought out the battle with the spurious and perverted Messianic ideal of the Judaism of his day in a long, inner, mental struggle. The radical version of this view makes everything mental, even the wilderness, and, of course, the devil, the wing of the Temple, the high mountain, the beasts, angels, etc. Instead of dreaming it all or having it come in a vision Jesus just thought it all. But if this is true, then the entire temptation rose out of the mind and the heart of Jesus himself and had such a hold on him that he wrestled with it for forty days. Ethically this is monstrous.

The pure and holy heart of Jesus is incapable of producing satanic thoughts, incapable, too, of dallying with them for an instant, to say nothing of forty days—or were these also merely mental? If the entire temptation was only mental, the evangelists certainly did not present it thus.

A less radical view compromises. The devil and the wilderness are real but not the Temple wing or the high mountain. The stones are real, and Jesus is to make them real bread, but he is not really to leap from the Temple wing to any real rocks below—he is to do this only mentally. He is given to see no real kingdoms, no actual glory, although he is to snatch at these unreal gifts by a real act of worship. This mixture is made because men want the story in such a form that they can imagine it. The evangelists describe realities throughout.

They also seem to have a proper conception of what the devil is able to do. Even their psychology is sane and sensible. Satan is able to present thoughts to the mind of Jesus and suggest acts to his will, both only by means of words, Jesus instantly rejecting both the suggested thoughts and the acts. Satan is not able to invade the mind of Jesus without words, making Jesus think things by mere volitions of Satan’s will. The latter assumption lays Jesus’ mind open to Satan so that the most horrible results are evaded only by the commentator’s dicta to the contrary.

Probably the worst tangle of all results from the assumption that the temptation of Jesus must have been like ours also in this respect that Jesus might have been brought to a fall. It is usually presented in this form: if Jesus could not have fallen, his temptation was not a real temptation (meaning like ours); yet it is presented in the Scriptures as being real, hence Jesus might have fallen. These conclusions would be sound if Jesus could be placed on a level with us believers in our present state or with Adam and Eve in Eden or with the angels prior to Satan’s fall. But all the Scriptures attest that Jesus was not merely “a son of God” but the Son of God, the incarnate second person of the Godhead. God cannot fall into sin. This is absolutely true of all three persons. Only by means of the kenosis, which empties Jesus of the Godhead and leaves him nothing but man, could a fall into sin be possible for him.

Neither the Father nor the Spirit could be tempted by Satan because both are only God. The Son could be tempted because he became man. He alone of the three persons, by assuming our human nature, could suffer human hunger and could thus be asked to still that hunger in a sinful way. He alone, by his human nature, was made dependent on his Father and could thus be asked to abuse his dependence by a false trust in his Father. He alone, in his human nature, faced the cross and could thus be asked to evade it and to follow an easier course. Temptation was possible for Jesus only from the side of his human nature.

The verb πειράζειν means to try or test. The greatness of the strength tested changes nothing about the reality of the test to which it is subjected. The strain applied is just as real when the strength endures it as when the strength is too weak to endure it. Jesus as the Stronger stood unmoved under all the force that Satan, the strong one, could bring to bear against him. Was it possible that the Stronger should go down before the strong in a test of strength? Thus the test or temptation was real in every way and no illusion.

We see this more readily when we think of the test made, not by immoral solicitation, but by suffering. Jesus alone could endure the penalty in suffering and death for the world’s sin. When the test was made, the outcome was not in doubt for a single moment. Yet the agony and the death were real though Jesus bore them triumphantly.

Part One

Jesus Proves Himself to Be the Christ, God’s Son, by His Mighty Teaching and Deeds, 1:14–8:26

The body of Mark’s Gospel begins with Jesus’ approaching the height of his ministry, which occurred in Galilee. Mark thus omits what occurred between the temptation of Jesus and the arrest of the Baptist. The time between these two acts comprises about a year and a half. John’s Gospel, in chapters two to five inclusive, gives us an account of this first half of Christ’s ministry. Mark begins with a comprehensive statement concerning the preaching of Jesus throughout the land of Galilee, where the great “beginning of the gospel,” which Mark intends to set forth in his book (v. 1, the title), took its start to be completed in Jerusalem in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus. When the title of Mark’s book is properly understood and thus the purpose of his writing, we shall see why he begins when Jesus was near the height of his blessed work in Galilee.

Mark 1:14

14 Now after John was delivered up Jesus came to Galilee, continuing to herald the gospel of God and saying, The season has been fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Be repenting and be believing in connection with the gospel.

Matthew (3:12, etc.) has the same date as Mark for the great activity of Jesus in Galilee: the imprisonment of John. He adds the ancient prophecy which foretold this work of Jesus and gives us practically the same summary of the Lord’s preaching. The details about John’s arrest are not introduced at this point; Mark reserves them for the full account of John’s death in 6:17, etc. Only the general date is indicated here, when Jesus made Galilee the chief scene of his work. In both Mark and Matthew the gap between the temptation and the great work in Galilee is left unfilled, which is due to the plans of these writers. This gap in their accounts is, of course, no contradiction of the Fourth Gospel which reports some of the incidents omitted by Matthew and by Mark. The verb παραδοθῆναι, “was delivered up,” hardly justifies the conclusion that as in the case of Jesus so in that of John some traitor betrayed him into the hands of Herod Antipas.

Mark states only that Jesus went to Galilee, ἦλθεν, being satisfied with the mere fact of his going there. Matthew has ἀνεχώρησε, “he withdrew,” which, however, does not mean withdrawal from danger. Jesus did not flee to Galilee to escape a fate similar to that of the Baptist. Herod Antipas, who had imprisoned John, was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, and thus Jesus was no safer from him in Galilee than John had been near the Jordan. What both Mark and Matthew intend to convey is that Jesus retired to Galilee. Instead of courting the fullest publicity in Jerusalem, the great center of the Jewish world, Jesus transferred his main activity to Galilee, the Jewish province that was farthest removed from the capital and in many respects looked down upon by the proud inhabitants of the center. It was not fear but wisdom and prudence that dictated this decision of Jesus; it best conserved the interests of the work he had come to do.

The two present participles κηρύσσων and λέγων are durative and tell us what Jesus did all along in Galilee: he proclaimed as a herald (see on v. 4) the gospel of God. We have met εὐαγγέλιον in v. 1 as referring to the glad news regarding our salvation. What this meant for Galilee Matthew describes for us when he pictures the spiritual condition of Galilee in the words of the prophet (Matt. 3:14, etc.). Here was light at last for this land of darkness and the hope of life for those sitting in the shadow of death. The genitive “of God” is subjective: the good news that God sends. We may also make it the genitive of origin: the good hews that comes from God.

Mark adds a summary statement of this glad news, and we see at once that it is a repetition of what the Baptist announced when he still preached, compare Matt. 3:2. John and Jesus preached the same thing. When the voice of John was hushed in prison and soon afterward in death, his message went on, and that more effectively even, through Jesus.

Mark 1:15

15 Καιρός is a season, a brief period of time that is marked in some special way, while χρόνος is merely time running along day after day irrespective of what takes place in it. Jesus says: “Fulfilled has been the season,” with the emphasis on the verb, the perfect tense implying that the season is now filled full and remains so. The figure is that of a vessel into which the days are poured until the vessel is full to the top. The thought is that the time has now fully arrived for the spread of the Messianic gospel. John said the same thing in v. 7 when he proclaimed that the Stronger One was about to come. He was now here. For him the season of waiting was now at an end.

The next clause defines and explains the foregoing: “Near has come the kingdom of God,” again with the emphasis on the verb which is placed forward for this reason. The perfect again has the present connotation: this kingdom is now near. The idea is not that it is still a little way off, still has to be waited for for a while; but it is so close to the hearers of Jesus that they may enter it at this very moment. How they may enter is, therefore, told them in the very next words: by repentance and faith.

“The kingdom of God” is the supreme concept of the New Testament. Matthew uses it a few times, otherwise he employs the expression “the kingdom of the heavens.” Both expressions mean the same thing, the distinction being merely formal. The two genitives “of God” and “of the heavens” may be considered genitives of possession: the kingdom which belongs to God and to the heavens. But it is hard to keep out of the former the subjective idea: the kingdom which God rules; and out of the latter the qualitative idea: the kingdom whose very nature is that of heaven. The plural “of the heavens” is a translation of the Hebrew shamayim; this is natural to Matthew who wrote for Jewish readers, but in Greek and in English both are used: “the heavens” and “heaven.” It is idle to bring in the seven heavens in explaining the plural. No one can decree that we should not think of Dan. 2:44 and 7:14 in conceiving of this heavenly kingdom of God.

This grand Biblical concept cannot be defined by generalizing from the kingdoms of the earth. These are only imperfect shadows of God’s kingdom. God makes his own kingdom, and only where he is with his power and his grace is his kingdom; earthly kingdoms, which are many and various, make their kings, often also unmake them, and their kings are nothing apart from what their kingdoms make them. So also we are not really subjects in God’s kingdom but partakers of it, i.e., of God’s rule and kingship; earthly kingdoms have only subjects. In God’s kingdom we already bear the title “kings unto God,” and eventually the kingdom, raised to its nth degree, shall consist of nothing but kings in glorious array, each with his crown, and Christ thus being “the King of kings,” a kingdom of kings, with no subjects at all.

This divine kingdom goes back to the beginning of time and rules the world and shall so rule it till the consummation at the end of time. All that is in the world, even every hostile force, is subservient to the plans of God. The children and sons of God, as heirs of the kingdom in whom God’s grace is displayed, constitute the kingdom in its specific sense. The kingdom is in them. This kingdom is divided by the coming of Christ, the King, in the flesh to effect the redemption of grace, by which this specific kingdom is really established among men. Hence we have the kingdom before Christ, looking toward his coming, and the kingdom after Christ, looking back to his coming—the promise and the fulfillment to be followed by the consummation—the kingdom as it was from Adam and in Israel, as it is now in the Christian Church, the Una Sancta in all the world, and as it will be at the end forever.

With this understanding of the kingdom, that where the King is and rules with his power and his grace there the kingdom is, we see what Jesus means when he says that the kingdom “has come near.” Jesus has come, and by the revelation of himself with power and with grace as the Messiah and by the completion of his redemptive work he will stand forth as the King of salvation from heaven and will enter by faith into the hearts of men, making them partakers of his kingdom. Since the kingdom is present in Christ, the King, all men should long to receive this kingdom. The way to this Jesus now states.

It is repentance and faith. Jesus repeats the Baptist’s call μετανοεῖτε, Matt. 3:2; compare Mark 1:4. As regards baptism note John 4:1, 2; besides, many of Jesus’ hearers had been baptized by the Baptist. The concepts μετανοεῖν and μετάνοια are explained above in v. 4; here, however, we take “repentance” in the narrow sense as contrition and sorrow of the heart for sin, πιστεύειν follows as being distinct from μετανοεῖν and thus names faith as the addition to repentance. While we distinguish between contrition and faith and define each separately, both are always wrought in the same instant and are always found together. The idea is never that contrition appears only at the start, and that faith then continues on and on.

Luther, already in the first of his famous 95 Theses, has taught us that contrition is something that is renewed daily. So here both imperatives are durative presents, the one to continue as long as the other. Basing on Rom. 6:4, Luther writes: “The old Adam in us, by daily contrition and repentance, should be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts.”

The concept πιστεύειν is commonly analyzed to consist of knowledge, assent, and confidence, with special emphasis on confidence. This description of believing is fully satisfactory for ordinary purposes. But the verb is used with some differences by the sacred writers. C.-K., 908 find that it contains acknowledgment, from conviction of the saving revelation, taking and accepting the facts just as they are; next attachment, giving of self for communion; finally confidence, full of trust and certainty, complete reliance, coupled with sure hope in the God of salvation and in Christ. In no instance of the use of πιστεύειν is any one of these three wholly omitted.

Our passage is the only one in the New Testament in which this verb is used with ἐν and a neuter object τῷεὐαγγελίῳ; with a personal object it is used only rarely as in John 3:15, 16. This little preposition has caused much discussion and has received various interpretations. The common one is: believe in the gospel; others are: in the domain of the gospel, i.e., wherever and whenever you meet the gospel; or on the basis of the gospel. None of these meets the case adequately. Deissmann insists on a closer interpretation of ἐν (Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu,” 46) as denoting sphere, i.e., believe under the influence and in the power of the gospel, which we seek to convey by translating “in connection with the gospel.” This is the original force of ἐν as C.-K., 907, R. 540, and Moulton agree. Jesus came preaching the gospel; his preaching, as it were, placed men in the gospel so that, surrounded by it and touched in their hearts by its constraining power, they should believe it, give it the acknowledgment, attachment, and confidence it deserves.

Mark 1:16

16 Jesus goes about in Galilee, preaching the gospel; but he does not go alone. Mark tells us how he called certain ones to follow him as disciples and future apostles. So Jesus has a company with him as he moves from place to place. More than this, Jesus is training these men so that the heralding of the gospel may be multiplied and spread far and wide. The preaching that Jesus is doing these others are to take up in due time; for this purpose Jesus begins to give them the special and necessary training. The narratives of Matthew and of Mark are in closest agreement, yet we must also note the differences in the wording.

The one did not copy from the other. Since Matthew wrote before Mark he had received the account, just as Mark had it when he wrote, from the four witnesses who were concerned in the narrative. Mark heard Peter tell the story over and over again.

And passing along by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, engaged in throwing their net around in the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, This way, after me! and I will make you to become fishers of men! And immediately, having left the nets, they followed him.

Although it is only a lake of moderate size, one of its regular names is Sea of Galilee. Jesus is pictured as passing along the shore, apparently alone. Simon and Andrew are introduced in the simplest manner. They are brothers, and in stating the relationship the name Simon is repeated whereas the pronoun “his” brother would suffice. But Mark repeats the name Simon, having in mind the latter’s narration of the incident. These brothers are fishermen, and we see them in the midst of their work. This would not be the place where they kept their boats and prepared their nets as it was in Luke 5:2, but somewhere along the shore where fishing could be successfully done. In v. 19 Jesus walks on to the place where Zebedee kept his boats.

In narrating this incident Matthew states that Simon was also called Peter. In the narrative which Mark heard from Simon this added name of his would naturally be left out. Luke 5:1, etc., records a different incident although some identify these two instances. Luke speaks of a multitude on the shore, but Mark has Jesus alone. Jesus is walking, not standing. Luke has the brothers disembarked and washing their nets, Mark has them busy casting their net. These differences already show that Mark and Luke are narrating different incidents, to say nothing of what follows in each case.

The attachment first formed at the Jordan (John 1:35) had associated these brothers together with four others with Jesus as his disciples who followed him as the Messiah, who had been pointed out as such to them by the Baptist, of whom Moses and the prophets had written, the Son of God and the King of Israel. They had followed Jesus at that time only because of their personal interest, and this did not preclude a return to their old occupation as fishermen, especially when Jesus remained at Capernaum and in the immediate neighborhood. What happens now is an advance upon this personal attachment; it is a call to apostleship to be followed presently by a formal installing as apostles, 3:13, etc.; Matt. 10:1, etc. It is thus that we find these brothers ἀμφιβαλλόντας, “engaged in throwing their ἀμφιβλήστηρον or casting net about, now on this, now on that side of the boat,” as professional fishermen. A σαγήνη is a dragnet, and a δίκτιον a net of any kind.

Mark 1:17

17 Thus Jesus saw them and issued his call to them. The adverb δεῦτε, used as the plural of δεῦρο, has the force of an imperative, R. 1023: “Hither!” or “This way!” and “after me” states that Jesus is going on and that Andrew and Simon are to follow him. The volitive future ποιήσω really states the purpose for which this call was issued, and this purpose is the chief thing. Hence we should not think of a command to follow Jesus and then a promise as to what Jesus will do. Also, the verb δεῦτε is not the equivalent of a conditional clause with ἐάν as R. 940 (on Matt. 4:19) would have it: “If you come after me, I will make,” etc. No “if” of any kind appears in the call. This call is a gracious expression of Jesus’ will and purpose, and the adverb “hither” is merely incidental.

The call is couched in transparent, figurative language that is adapted to these fishermen who were even now busy with their task. “I will make you fishers of men” means that Jesus will train them for a far greater work than the one they have been doing thus far, namely the work of winning men for the gospel and salvation. This call is not issued for the purpose of having them join Jesus for their own sakes as was the call which John 1:35, etc., reports. This call assumes that these two had already followed that other personal call, were already disciples and believers, already knew the gospel and the work of spreading its salvation. This call is for the sake of others, ἄνθρωποι, “men” who were in sore need of salvation. Note that the term is universal and not restricted to the Jews.

A grand prospect is opened for these two brothers. Their previous attachment to Jesus had prepared them so that they were ready when this call came. But not yet were they ready to go and to catch men. Their call was to enter upon an intensive course of training and to be made ready for this work. This training Jesus will now begin with them. Because of the wording this call has often been identified with Luke 5:10: “from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” But only the imagery of the two calls is similar.

The call recorded by Luke comes later, follows a miracle after preaching to a multitude from Peter’s boat, and is addressed to Peter alone. The call recorded by Mark (and Matthew) is preliminary and without addition, that to Peter in Luke’s Gospel has the addition that by the miracle of the great catch of fish tremendous success is promised to the fishers of men.

Mark 1:18

18 Andrew and Simon obeyed the call at once. They stopped work, left boat, net, and fish on the shore, most likely in the hands of helpers, and followed Jesus for the schooling they were now to receive for a far greater calling.

Those who identify Luke’s account with that of Matthew and of Mark object to regarding these as two incidents and state that the disciples could not twice have left all; we are told that if after the first call the disciples went back to their ordinary former work they would not have been apostles. But neither Matthew nor Mark says that the disciples left all or even left their old work for good and all. What they did was to leave their nets and to follow Jesus, thus signifying their prompt acceptance of his great call. We may be quite sure that Jesus did not intend that they should give up their property by abandoning it. And while Jesus remained in Capernaum they could certainly, without prejudice to the call they had accepted at the first invitation, occasionally earn a little by engaging in their old work. Even after the resurrection of Jesus seven of the disciples worked a night long at fishing. John 21:1, etc.

Mark 1:19

19 And having walked forward a little he saw James, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother, and them in the boat, repairing the nets. And immediately he called them; and having left their father Zebedee in the boat, together with the hired men, they followed after him.

The two pairs of brothers were some distance apart. Jesus “saw” the second two as he had seen the other two. The first two are called from actual fishing, the second two from repairing their nets. Καὶαὐτούς brings out the similarity, “them too” Jesus saw “in the boat.” But there is a difference: the first two were engaged in casting their nets, the other two were engaged in repairing their nets. The two durative participles ἀμφιβάλλοντας and καταρτίζοντας are intended to match. What we know of Andrew and of Simon in their relation to Jesus applies to James and to John. James is distinguished from others who also bore this name by the mention of his father Zebedee. But the name James is not repeated as is the name Simon in v. 16.

Mark 1:20

20 The call to James and to John is identical with that issued to the other two. They respond with the same alacrity. Matthew states that Zebedee was in the boat with his sons. We infer this from Mark’s account when he says that the sons left their father in the boat. We have every reason to assume that Zebedee consented to the action of his sons and thus, like his wife Salome, displayed a fine character. This is the only place where we meet him personally.

It seems that he did not live very long after this incident. Mark alone adds the phrase “together with the hired men.” It is a fair conclusion that the family possessed means, and that Zebedee’s business was of some proportions. We have other hints to this effect. While Zebedee was thus not left alone in his work, the fact that his sons left their father’s prosperous business shows how devoted they were to Jesus. So Matthew, too, left his publican’s office and well-paid position. Compare Matt. 19:27–30.

Mark 1:21

21 And they go to Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath, having gone into the synagogue, he went on teaching. And they were dumbfounded at his teaching, for he was teaching as having authority and not as the scribes.

The plural εἰσπορεύονται includes the four disciples who had just been called. Capernaum adjoined the lake, and the call of the disciples must have occurred along the shore, some distance from the city. Peter had a home in Capernaum, and Jesus had transferred his home from Nazareth to Capernaum early in his ministry. To a large extent he made this city the center of his Galilean activity. We should construe “immediately on the Sabbath” and not connect “immediately” with the entry into Capernaum. The four disciples were perhaps called on a Friday and went to the city with Jesus that day.

Then on Saturday Jesus promptly went to the synagogue. This may have happened on Friday evening, at the worship that was held when the Sabbath began at dusk. The plural τὰσάββατα means “Sabbath” just as does the singular; the plural matches the designation of the festivals which also had names in the plural. Capernaum was large enough to have several synagogues; “into the synagogue” does not necessarily imply that it had only the one.

Jesus “went on teaching,” the imperfect ἐδίδασκε describing this activity. It goes without saying that the rulers of the synagogue requested Jesus to instruct the people just as they invited the sopherim, the professional scribes learned in the law, to teach when they were present at a service. The imperfect tense is open and leads us to expect an aorist to tell us how the matter ended.

Mark 1:22

22 This aorist follows and is made quite emphatic by its forward position: “and dumbfounded were they at his teaching.” The verb is very strong; the people were struck as by a blow, ἐκπλήσσειν, ausser sich bringen, betaeuben. They were actually dumb with amazement. Matthew has the same expression in 7:28, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount. Note the psychology—as long as Jesus spoke, every eye and every ear were fixed on him in rapt attention, dreading to miss a single word. But when the voice that held them spellbound became silent, the tension was relaxed, and amazement swept over the hearers. What produced this effect was the διδαχή of Jesus.

This word may mean the act of teaching (active) or the doctrine taught (passive); C.-K., 293, here think of the latter although the manner of Jesus’ teaching cannot well be dissociated from the substance of what he taught. Mark does not mention what Jesus taught; he has already summarized this in v. 15.

What impressed the hearers about the teaching of Jesus was the fact that “he was teaching them as having authority and not as the scribes.” The ἐξουσία is the authoritative power that filled this wonderful teacher. The deity of Jesus revealed itself in all that be said, whether he spoke directly concerning himself or not. It shone forth with overwhelming force in this instance; and the periphrastic imperfect ἦνδιδάσκων conveys the thought that the present instance was by no means an exception—this was the way in which he kept teaching right along.

The contrast with the teaching of “their scribes” was pronounced: “at once erudite and foolish, at once contemptuous and mean; never passing a hair’s breadth beyond the carefully watched boundary line of commentary and precedent; full of balanced inference, and orthodox hesitancy, and impossible literalism; intricate with legal pettiness and labyrinthine system; elevating mere memory above genius, and repetitions above originality; concerned only about priests and Pharisees, in Temple and synagogue, or school, or Sanhedrin, and mostly occupied with things infinitely little. It was not indeed wholly devoid of moral significance, nor is it impossible to find here and there among the debris of it a noble thought; but it was occupied a thousandfold more with Levitical minutiæ about mint, and anise, and cummin, and the length of fringes, and the breadth of phylacteries, and the washing of cups, and platters, and the particular quarter of a second when the new moons and Sabbaths began.” Farrar. To this day it is hard to conceive the arid dreariness of the teaching of the scribes. Some of the “talks” in the pulpits of today on anything save the διδαχή and the λόγοι of Jesus, without a bit of meat for the soul, are the continuation of the deliverances of the old Jewish scribes. How Jesus pitied the people who were getting nothing for their souls we see in Matt. 9:36–38.

Mark’s statement regarding the power of the Lord’s teaching is identical with that of Matthew, but Matthew places his statement at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, and Mark has it at the end of the teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Critics conclude that one must have copied this statement from the other, or both from some other document, each evangelist inserting it where he thought best. But ἦνδιδάσκων in both Matthew and Mark point to the Lord’s teaching as always being full of such power and authority and thus always in sharp contrast to the scribes. This fact the oral tradition expressed in the fixed statement we meet in Matthew and in Mark, which, therefore, they could append to any teaching of Jesus they report.

Mark 1:23

23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he yelled out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus Nazarene? Thou didst come to destroy us! I know thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God.

After Jesus was through teaching, and while astonishment still held the people, εὐθύς, “all at once,” a demoniac burst into the synagogue. Mark calls him “a man with an unclean spirit,” but Luke “a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil.” Ἐνπνεύματι in Mark is explained by ἔχωνπνεῦμα in Luke 4:33, but ἐν itself means that the man was “in connection with” the demon.

The tendency is strong among modern commentators, even of the better sort, to deny the reality of demoniacal possession as it is recorded in the Scriptures. The demoniacs are supposed to have been people who were afflicted with some mania, an unbalanced condition of mind, were perhaps lunatics or epileptics. But what is gained by such an assumption? As regards the great miracles wrought upon these persons, they remain, whatever the affliction under which these unfortunates suffered. These explanations, however, run foul of something that is far more serious. Either Jesus knew or did not know that these were not demoniacs.

If he did not know their real condition, we have a Savior who was as ignorant as the people of his day. If he did know that these were not devil-possessed then he acted as if they were, and we have a Savior who could act a lie. To say that Jesus only “accommodated himself” to the popular opinion leaves his case under a fatal moral stigma. The fact is that he never lowered himself to any falsehood, however widely and strongly it was held.

The Scriptures distinguish clearly between all ordinary forms of disease and the peculiar affliction of demoniacal possession. Jesus, for instance, addressed the demons, and these spoke to him, and that often in statements which the human sufferers could not themselves have made. “It is vain to clear away from the Gospel narratives the devil and his demons. Such an exegesis is opposed to the whole faith of the world at that time. If we are to make these statements now mean just what we please, why did no single man in the ancient world understand them so? Have we become wiser? Then let us congratulate ourselves on our good fortune; but we cannot, on that account, compel these venerable writers to say what in their own time they neither could nor would say.” Horst, Zauber-Bibliothek.

Matson, The Adversary, 177, etc., settles the question as to present-day cases, some of which are still occurring in heathen lands. “A certain abnormal state of mind exists, which is not insanity according to the legal definition of the term. It is a state unaffected, so far as science can prove, by any physical condition of the body; on which medicine appears to have no effect, and on which religion alone seems to exercise a beneficial control.” Christ gave his apostles power to drive out possessing spirits. The contention that Jesus accommodated himself to the views of the people in order to help these sufferers denies his omnipotent power as the Son of God and thus brings him down to the level of modern “healers.” Nor can anyone show why Jesus would not enlighten with his better knowledge, if such he had, at least his chosen disciples but left them, as is supposed, under the old delusion. What Jesus said to the seventy when they returned to him after driving out devils also more than establishes the reality of such terrible possession, Luke 10:18, etc. Compare Trench, Miracles, 160, etc.

All that Mark says is that the man was ἐνπνεύματιἀκαθάρτῳ, joined to such a spirit. The speech of this “spirit” shows that he is a personal being just as the Scriptures teach regarding all πνεύματα. His demon nature is brought out by the adjective “unclean,” which predicates that every trace of moral purity was gone, and utter foulness had become this spirit’s nature. Rushing into the solemn assembly in the synagogue on the Sabbath, this man is forced by the evil spirit to violate both the sacred time and place, for he yells out his objection to Jesus. Something of the devilishness appears in the strong verb ἀνακράζω; Luke even adds φωνῇμεγάλῃ, “with a great voice.” We may imagine the excitement this caused among the assembled people. Something strange and uncanny, beyond our ordinary comprehension, makes this spirit seek out Jesus in public and spill out what in an uncanny and supernatural way he knows about Jesus.

We should think that the spirit would drive the man away from Jesus in order the longer to keep his hold on him. It is beyond us why the spirit makes the man rush into the presence of Jesus and at once single him out.

Mark 1:24

24 The question τίἡμῖνκαὶσοί; is idiomatic, literally: “What is there for us and for thee?” Here it has the sense: “Do thou leave us alone!” The plural identifies this spirit with others of his kind; he speaks for them all. In John 2:4 this idiom is used by Jesus for putting off an implied request while it is here used to ward off hostile action from Jesus, B.-P., 335 under ἐγώ. The astounding thing is that the demoniacs always recognize Jesus in his deity, in Matt. 8:29 as the Son of God, in Mark 5:7 as the Son of the Most High God, and here as the Holy One of God. And with this he joined the further supernatural knowledge that Jesus has come to oust them from their unholy dominion. Those who deny that evil spirits actually took possession of human beings resort to rather arbitrary and radical means to remove these facts. Mental defectives and epileptics never exhibit such phenomena.

It is always plain, too, that the evil spirit is the speaker. He uses the man’s lips and voice and not the man himself.

The evil spirit first calls Jesus by his ordinary name “Jesus Nazarene.” We cannot see how this address makes ἡμῖν refer to the evil spirit plus the people in the synagogue as though Jesus had come to destroy also these people. “Jesus Nazarene” is only the common name by which Jesus was generally known since he had lived so long in Nazareth. The spirit can hardly be asking a question with ἦλθεςκτλ., either a question for information or merely a rhetorical question. He is stating a fact: “Thou didst come to destroy us”; and this is said to reproach Jesus, with intent to blame him. We see the same thing in Matt. 8:29. Ἀπολέσαι, of course, does not mean “to annihilate” but “to ruin” by driving the demons out of their control of human beings, by destroying their damnable works; and the aorist speaks of complete and final ruin.

In a malicious way the evil spirit yells out that he knows who Jesus is: “I know thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God.” Some prefer the reading οἴδαμεν, “we know thee,” we demons, instead of the singular, either οἶδα or οἶδαμέν. The demon makes this revelation by a direct and open declaration because he knows that Jesus does not want it made thus, but that the people should discover who he really is by his words and his works. Jesus never proclaimed that he was the Messiah or the Son of God but let men draw this as a conclusion, and when they drew it, either in hostile or in believing fashion, he substantiated it. This is the case even in John 4:25, 26, when all that Jesus had said made the woman think of the Messiah, Jesus then telling her that this was he himself. So Jesus, indeed, revealed his person as God’s Son and the promised Messiah.

In the New Testament the believers are called ἅγιοι, “holy ones” or saints, and in Ps. 106:16 Aaron is called ἅγιοςΚυρίου, “the Lord’s saint”; but in neither Testament is a mere man called ὁἅγιοςτοῦΘεοῦ. This is not even a common title for the Messiah since it occurs only in the parallel passage in Luke and in John 6:69; in Acts 4:27 there occurs ἅγιοςπαῖςτοῦΘεοῦ, “the holy servant of God.” “The Holy One of God” is the Son of God whom God sanctified and sent into the world (John 10:36), who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and then anointed by the Spirit for his holy office, sanctified and separated unto God for his great work. Thus he was “holy,” sinless in all his life and work, lifted above sin and death, possessing power over both to destroy them, and thus a terror to the demon world. See Keil on this passage.

Mark 1:25

25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Be silenced and come out of him! And the unclean spirit, having convulsed him, and having cried with a loud voice, came out of him.

Not for one instant does Jesus accept the testimony of the demon; see v. 34. He instantly silences the evil spirit. The aorist imperative φιμώθητι is peremptory, commanding silence on the instant. We may translate: “Be silenced!” preserving the passive, or: “Be silent!” The next imperative is likewise an aorist, equally peremptory, ordering the demon to leave his victim.

Mark 1:26

26 Jesus is at once obeyed. But in a final burst of rage the demon convulses his victim, wrenches his poor body so that its members writhe. At the same time he makes the man’s voice utter a loud, horrid cry. The aorist participle φωνῆσαν (neuter, modifying πνεῦμα) and the dative φωνῇμεγάλῃ form a paronomasia: “he yelled with a great yell”; some texts have κράξαν like ἀνέκραξε in v. 25. The miracle was wrought, the man was free. Jesus had shown his omnipotent power in Satan’s own domain.

This expulsion of demons by a single command of his exhibits the power of Jesus in the highest degree. Mark selects this as the first miracle of the many recorded in his Gospel. It fits most perfectly the theme of this first half of his Gospel, Jesus proving himself to be the Christ, God’s Son, by his mighty teaching and deeds.

Mark 1:27

27 And all were amazed so as to question with each other, saying, What is this? A new teaching with authority! Even the unclean spirits he commands, and they obey him. Now there went out the report of him immediately everywhere into the entire surrounding region of Galilee.

Graphically Mark describes the complete effect upon those present in the synagogue. He uses another strong verb to express the emotion aroused: “all were amazed,” ἐθαμβήθησαν, one of the passives with an active sense, R. 334. The emotion released itself in questioning with one another, and Mark reports what was said. “What is this?” refers to all that had taken place in the synagogue, the teaching and the demon-expulsion. This appears in the two answers that follow. First the exclamation: “A new teaching with authority!” This refers back to v. 22, where the teaching and the ἐξουσία are combined. Luke has λόγος instead of διδαχή. In Mark the phrase κατʼ ἐξουσίαν ought to be construed with διδαχὴκαινή; Luke draws ἐνἐξουσίᾳ to the expulsion of demons.

Secondly the power over demons: “Even the unclean spirits,” etc. Καί is ascensive: “even,” R. 1181; and τοῖςπνεύμασικτλ. is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. Even these vicious spirits, to say nothing of ordinary diseases, Jesus commands, and they obey him. The point lies in this that Jesus needs only to utter a word, and helplessly these demons yield. These people rightly combine the power in the preaching with that in the expulsions. The plural “spirits” generalizes from the one case; if Jesus can expel one he can expel any number. Yet no one seems to have inquired about who Jesus really was. They ask only what this is. The deed exhibits and proves the doer. So these people, after all, fell short in apprehending what stood forth in their synagogue that Sabbath Day.

Mark 1:28

28 The effect went beyond Capernaum. Mark states that the report went out immediately—everywhere—defining this as all over the surrounding region of Galilee. Jesus is at the height of his ministry—all the land is filled with his fame.

Mark 1:29

29 Matt. 8:14, 15 places the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law immediately after the Sermon on the Mount while Mark and Luke place it after the teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Both are correct. The succession of events was as follows: the Sermon on the Mount on the morning of the Sabbath; the leper healed on the way from the mount (Matt. 8:1, etc.); the centurion’s servant healed on entering Capernaum (Matt. 8:5, etc.); Jesus preaches in the synagogue with the same ἐξουσία as on the mount and again not as the scribes, he delivers the demoniac in the synagogue. Then toward the close of the Sabbath Jesus goes to Peter’s house and heals his mother-in-law. When the Sabbath is over at dusk, all the additional miracles reported in Matt. 8:16; Mark 1:32–34; and Luke 4:40, 41 were performed.

And immediately, having come out of the synagogue, they went to the house of Simon and Andrew in company with James and John. Now the mother-in-law of Simon was prostrate, suffering from fever. And immediately they tell him about her; and having gone to her, he raised her up, having grasped hold of her hand, and the fever left her, and she went on serving them.

From the synagogue Jesus and four of the disciples went to the home of Andrew and Simon. The impression made by the narrative is not that Jesus was asked to come to the home of Simon to heal his mother-in-law. It is most likely that, since Jesus himself had a home in Capernaum, he was asked to dine at the home of Simon and Andrew “in company with James and John,” μετά. Since only these two are mentioned as going along, we take it that they were also invited but not the other disciples.

Mark 1:30

30 Mark states only the fact that Simon’s mother-in-law was prostrate, suffering from fever, Luke adds that the fever was severe (“great”). Matthew states that Jesus saw the patient; Mark brings out the fact that they told Jesus about her, and that he then went to her (προσελθών); Luke adds that they besought him for her. Piecing these statements together, we may say that when Jesus did not see the woman he asked where she was and then heard of her ailment with the added request.

We learn here that Peter was married and that his mother-in-law lived at his home. Her husband was very likely dead, and she had no other children and no home of her own. The father of Peter is mentioned in Matt. 16:17 and in John 21:15, etc., but in a way that leads us to conclude that he was dead; we never hear of Peter’s mother. On the basis of 1 Cor. 9:5 it is certain that Peter’s wife was living at that time and accompanied him on his missionary travels. All this is rather inconvenient for Catholicism which makes Peter the first pope and demands celibacy of its priests. Clement of Alexandria states that Philip and Peter begat children (ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο).

He states that when Peter’s wife was led to her death, her husband encouraged her by telling her to remember the Lord. Elsewhere a paralytic daughter of Peter’s is mentioned.

Mark 1:31

31 Luke tells the story most graphically: “he stood over her and rebuked the fever.” Mark adds the detail that Jesus went to her and then raised her up, having grasped her hand. Both Matthew and Mark state that the fever left the woman. Thus the miracle was wrought. No weakness or lassitude was left as is always the case when a fever subsides, for she not only arose but with her daughter “went on ministering to them,” διηκόνει, the durative imperfect. This verb suggests that the woman helped with the δεῖπνον, the evening meal, the chief one of the day, to which Jesus and the other two guests had been invited.

Mark 1:32

32 Now evening having come, when the sun did set, they kept bringing him all that were ill and those possessed with demons. And the whole city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were ill with many kinds of diseases and cast out many demons; and he was not letting the demons talk because they knew him.

The Jews had two evenings, one extending from three o’clock to six, and the other after that. That is why Mark adds to the coming of the evening the further remark that “the sun did set,” ἔδυ, second aorist from δύω (δύνω). This was necessary because he had mentioned the Sabbath. Since the Sabbath had passed, the work of bringing all these sufferers to Jesus could be performed without violating the law of Sabbath rest.

Two classes are markedly distinguished: those suffering from ordinary diseases and those possessed with demons. The distinction shows that the latter cannot be classed with the former in spite of modern attempts in this direction. Note that ἔχειν with an adverb is used idiomatically; we translate: “those being ill.” The participles ἔχοντας and δαιμονιζομένους describe conditions. On the reality of possession see v. 23. “All” these sufferers were brought, a great number from all over the city of Capernaum.

Mark 1:33

33 Mark is graphic when he states that the whole city was assembled before the door of Peter’s house. Matthew and Luke refer only to the great number of the sick.

Mark 1:34

34 Jesus healed them all. When Mark writes “many afflicted with all kinds of diseases” he does not mean to indicate that some were left unhealed. Those who understand πολλούς in this sense contradict Matthew who writes πάντας, “all,” and Luke who says that Jesus laid his hand on each one. With πολλούς, “many,” Mark defines his own πάντας in v. 32 and tells us that by “all” he means “many”—they were a large number. It would have been unlike Jesus to pass any by, and we have no reason to imagine that there were causes that would have led Jesus to refuse to heal some. So he also expelled “many demons,” all those that came into his presence.

The remarkable thing is that there were so many, all in this one city. This affliction did not appear only in rare and isolated cases; it was prevalent and well known as being distinct from any form of disease.

Mark states that Jesus did not let the demons speak. Note that the demons are distinguished as personalities from the persons they possessed. Mark does not say that the demoniacs were not allowed to speak but the demons. They tried to speak, for Luke says that they yelled: “Thou art the Son of God!” compare the utterance of the demon in v. 24. As Jesus hushed him, so he silenced these others; ἤφιε is the imperfect from ἀφίημι and is descriptive of the course Jesus pursued. We cannot translate the ὅτι after λαλεῖν “that,” as introducing what the demons said, namely that they knew Jesus; this verb is not construed with ὅτι because it means only “to utter” (the opposite of being silent), “to talk.” Ὅτι states the reason why Jesus silenced the demons: “because they knew him.” The fact of this correct knowledge appears in every case where a demon spoke.

So, if Jesus had not silenced these evil spirits, they would have shouted out their knowledge of his deity and his Messiahship. The reason why Jesus silenced the demons has been stated under v. 24. The past perfect ᾔδεισαν is always used as an imperfect and thus matches ἤφιε.

Beginning with the Sermon on the Mount and ending with this wholesale healing far into the night, we see Jesus on one of his most strenuous days. He had many like this.

Mark 1:35

35 And in the morning, still very much in the night, having risen, he went out and went away to a lonely place, and there he continued to pray. And Simon and those with him chased after him and found him; and they say to him, All are seeking thee. And he says to them, Let us go elsewhere, into the adjacent countrytowns, in order that there too I may preach; and for this I did come forth. And he went preaching in their synagogues into entire Galilee and driving out the demons.

It seems that Jesus spent the night after the strenuous Sabbath Day in the home of Peter although he had his own home in Capernaum. Ἔννυχα means in the night, and λίαν intensifies the adverb. It was toward morning and yet still far from dawn when Jesus left the house and made his way out of the city to a lonely place where he could be undisturbed. And there he engaged in prayer as the imperfect tense προσηύχετο indicates.

The praying of Jesus, as far as we are able to judge from the recorded instances (Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; Matt. 11:25, etc.; John 11:41; 17:1, etc.), is always concerned with something important in his ministry. In the present instance, as the context indicates, it was his resolve to preach the gospel of the kingdom throughout Galilee. Jesus prayed because he was a man. His prayers were communions with his Father. Dealing with his work and uttered by him whom the Father had sent for that work, they moved on the highest spiritual plane. It is too much to say that these prayers were “the roots of his power.” The power lay in his divine person and in the Spirit poured out upon him.

But the Son had become man and as such he was dependent on his Father in all things. It was thus that he prayed and voiced his obedient love and his perfect accord with his Father.

Mark 1:36

36 When Simon and his household arose at day light they were surprised to find the room where Jesus had slept empty, and they at once set out in search of him. The verb διώκω has the perfective κατά (R. 606): “they pursued strenuously.” Simon alone is named and not Andrew, which is very likely an indication that Mark had heard this story from Simon’s own lips. “And those with him” includes Andrew and James and John, these at least but probably also the other disciples who were already attached to Jesus. While they had not passed the night at Simon’s house—Mark, in fact, has not as yet mentioned any of them—they certainly were on hand early to see what Jesus intended to do.

Mark 1:37

37 How long Simon and his companions searched, and how they came to find the place where Jesus was, is not stated; Mark records only the fact that “they found him.” From what they say to him, namely: “All are seeking thee!” we judge that the crowds of the evening before were already again gathering at Simon’s house. Simon and his companions intimate that Jesus should hurry back in order to satisfy these crowds.

Mark 1:38

38 But Jesus has other plans. Capernaum has enjoyed his teaching and his divine help in great abundance while so many other places in Galilee had not experienced his presence. So he proposes to visit these places: “Let us go (hortative subjunctive) elsewhere into the nearby countrytowns in order that there too I may preach” (κηρύξω, see v. 4, the aorist implying the proclamation of the complete message). To act as a herald in the towns of Galilee is the chief work of Jesus, the miracles are only appended signs and seals of his gospel proclamation. “That I may preach” is therefore sufficient.

The reason for this decision of Jesus is not something accidental, against which other reasons could be marshalled to make Jesus change his mind. This preaching far and wide is the very object for which Jesus came forth from God. Εἰςτοῦτο expresses purpose; and ἐξῆλθον should not be referred back to ἐξῆλθε in v. 35, Jesus’ leaving the house of Simon. While the statement is very brief it must furnish the adequate reason for the move that Jesus now makes; and this reason is the great purpose for which he left heaven and came to earth as man. Luke renders it: “because for this was I commissioned.” Jesus went forth (ἐξῆλθον) as the one whom the Father commissioned (ἀπεστάλην, second passive with the Father being the agent). Since the Son was commissioned in heaven and thus went forth on his mission, we decline to regard these verbs as referring to the departure from Nazareth for the assumption of the office through the baptism. Jesus means more than that he “came forth” out of the quiet life in Nazareth. From Luke we learn that the multitudes also went out to Jesus and asked him to stay, but he told them that he had to preach to the other cities also and gave as the reason the commission on which he was sent.

Mark 1:39

39 Thus Jesus went on his tour of the other cities in Galilee. He preached in their synagogues (εἰς is static and is used like ἐν, R. 593). Mark says nothing about his healing the sick, but this must be included since Mark adds, as the most notable of the miracles, “driving out the demons.” Here again the plural arrests attention by letting us know that the number of the possessed was considerable over all the land.

We may make a subdivision at this point since this episode rounds out the first picture which Mark gives us of the mighty work of Jesus in Galilee. It centers in Capernaum and then extends over the entire country into the neighboring cities.

Mark 1:40

40 And there comes to him a leper, beseeching him and falling on his knees to him and saying, If thou dost will thou canst cleanse me. And moved with compassion, having stretched out the hand, he touched him and says to him, I will, be thou clean! And immediately the leprosy went away from him, and he was cleansed.

This is a plain case where Mark disregards the τάξις or natural order of events, of which, according to Papias, the elder (apostle) John took note. Matthew (8:1, etc.) records this miracle as occurring right after Jesus came down from preaching the Sermon on the Mount. This was on the very Sabbath from which Mark took the events narrated in v. 21–34. Luke states in 7:1 that from the mount Jesus proceeded to Capernaum, and from 5:12 we learn that the leper was healed “in a certain city.” From Matthew we learn that crowds were accompanying Jesus on his way from the mount. This healing is the first miracle which Matthew reports, and its publicity is a point in his narrative. Mark omits mention of the presence of the multitudes. The facts, then, are these: on the Sabbath, after preaching his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus proceeds to Capernaum and on the way passes through a town where the leper came to him in the midst of the great crowd that went along with Jesus.

Mark states only the fact that the leper came to Jesus; the present ἔρχεται, like other present tenses among aorists in narrative, is historical and aoristic in force. We do not mix our tenses in this fashion. The fact that a leper made his way to Jesus through all these crowds was so astonishing that Matthew uses the exclamation “lo.” The man “comes beseeching him and falling on his knees to him” as a most humble suppliant. Luke says that he fell on his face while kneeling, bowing his head to the ground; Matthew that he prostrated himself, and that he addressed Jesus as Κύριε.

The question is raised whether this prostration and this address denote more than reverence before a great and mighty human helper. Orientals are very free with prostrations, and κύριε is often little more than our respectful “sir.” Here, however, the leper’s petition reveals what his attitude toward Jesus really was. It is less what he asks that reveals his thought; it is more the way in which he asks. He fully believes in the power of Jesus to heal his leprosy with a single word: “thou canst cleanse me”; but he adds: “if thou dost will” (or “shalt will”). In this he is not voicing doubt in regard to the will of Jesus but his own humble submission to Jesus. He leaves his healing to the will of Jesus, if in his superior counsel it be, indeed, best to grant him healing.

The idea that in all his healings Jesus had touched the sufferers, and that he would perhaps not touch a leper whose touch defiled, is in no way indicated as the explanation for the word “if thou wilt.” The man’s humble submission, placing his own sad case completely in the hands of Jesus just as a true child of God must always place himself in God’s hands, marks his faith in Jesus as being of the highest type. A petition like this can be addressed only to a divine helper, one whose will is the very will of the all-loving and all-wise God.

This leper is willing, if Jesus so wills, to remain in his living death. Submissive faith can go no farther. This leper distinguishes divine temporal from divine spiritual and eternal gifts. He knows that

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.