Text -- Mark 1:38-45 (NET)

1:38 He replied, “Let us go elsewhere, into the surrounding villages, so that I can preach there too. For that is what I came out here to do.” 1:39 So he went into all of Galilee preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons.

Cleansing a Leper

1:40 Now a leper came to him and fell to his knees, asking for help. “If you are willing, you can make me clean,” he said. 1:41 Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing. Be clean!” 1:42 The leprosy left him at once, and he was clean. 1:43 Immediately Jesus sent the man away with a very strong warning. 1:44 He told him, “See that you do not say anything to anyone, but go, show yourself to a priest, and bring the offering that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” 1:45 But as the man went out he began to announce it publicly and spread the story widely, so that Jesus was no longer able to enter any town openly but stayed outside in remote places. Still they kept coming to him from everywhere.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mar 1:38

Into the next towns ( eis tas echomenas kōmopoleis ).

It was a surprising decision for Jesus to leave the eager, excited throngs in Capernaum for the country town or village cities without walls or much importance. Only instance of the word in the N.T. Late Greek word. The use of echomenas for next is a classic use meaning clinging to, next to a thing. So in Luk 13:33; Act 13:44; Act 20:15; Heb 6:9. "D"here has eggus (near).

Robertson: Mar 1:39

Throughout all Galilee ( Eis holēn tēn Galilaian ).

The first tour of Galilee by Jesus. We are told little about this great preaching tour.

Robertson: Mar 1:40

Kneeling down to him ( kai gonupetōn ).

Picturesque detail omitted by some MSS. Luk 5:12 has "fell on his face."

Robertson: Mar 1:41

Being moved with compassion ( splagchnistheis ).

Only in Mark. First aorist passive participle.

Robertson: Mar 1:43

Strictly charged ( embrimēsamenos ).

Only in Mark. Luk 5:14 has parēggeilen (commanded). Mark’ s word occurs also in Mar 14:5 and in Mat 9:30 and Joh 11:38. See note on Mat 9:30. It is a strong word for the snorting of a horse and expresses powerful emotion as Jesus stood here face to face with leprosy, itself a symbol of sin and all its train of evils. The command to report to the priests was in accord with the Mosaic regulations and the prohibition against talking about it was to allay excitement and to avoid needless opposition to Christ.

Robertson: Mar 1:44

For a testimony unto them ( eis marturion autois ).

Without the formal testimony of the priests the people would not receive the leper as officially clean.

Robertson: Mar 1:45

Began to publish it much ( ērxato kērussein polla ).

Luk 5:15 puts it, "so much the more"(māllon ). One of the best ways to spread a thing is to tell people not to tell. It was certainly so in this case. Soon Jesus had to avoid cities and betake himself to desert places to avoid the crowds and even then people kept coming to Jesus (ērchonto , imperfect tense). Some preachers are not so disturbed by the onrush of crowds.

Vincent: Mar 1:38

Towns ( κωμοπόλεις )

Lit., village-towns, suburban towns.

Vincent: Mar 1:41

Moved with compassion

Only Mark.

Vincent: Mar 1:43

Strictly charged ( ἐμβριμησάμενος )

Rev., sternly , in margin. The word is originally to snort, as of mettlesome horses. Hence, to fret, or chafe, or be otherwise strongly moved; and then, as a result of this feeling, to admonish or rebuke urgently. The Lord evidently spoke to him peremptorily. Compare sent him out (ἐξέβαλεν ); lit., drove or cast him out. The reason for this charge and dismissal lay in the desire of Jesus not to thwart his ministry by awaking the premature violence of his enemies; who, if they should see the leper and hear his story before he had been officially pronounced clean by the priest, might deny either that he had been a leper or had been truly cleansed.

Vincent: Mar 1:45

The city

Properly, as Rev., a city; any city.

Wesley: Mar 1:40

Mat 8:2; Luk 5:12.

Wesley: Mar 1:44

But our blessed Lord gives no such charge to us. If he has made us clean from our leprosy of sin, we are not commanded to conceal it. On the contrary, it is our duty to publish it abroad, both for the honour of our Benefactor, and that others who are sick of sin may be encouraged to ask and hope for the same benefit. But go, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing what Moses commanded for a testimony to them - The priests seeing him, pronouncing him clean, Lev 13:17, Lev 13:23, Lev 13:28, Lev 13:37, and accordingly allowing him to offer as Moses commanded, Lev 14:2, Lev 14:7, was such a proof against them, that they durst never say the leper was not cleansed; which out of envy or malice against our Saviour they might have been ready to say, upon his presenting himself to be viewed, according to the law, if by the cleansed person's talking much about his cure, the account of it had reached their ears before he came in person. This is one great reason why our Lord commanded this man to say nothing.

Wesley: Mar 1:45

It was also to prevent this inconvenience that our Lord had enjoined him silence.

JFB: Mar 1:38

Or, according to another reading, "Let us go elsewhere."

JFB: Mar 1:38

Rather, "unto the neighboring village-towns"; meaning those places intermediate between towns and villages, with which the western side of the Sea of Galilee was studded.

JFB: Mar 1:38

Not from Capernaum, as DE WETTE miserably interprets, nor from His privacy in the desert place, as MEYER, no better; but from the Father. Compare Joh 16:28, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world," &c.--another proof, by the way, that the lofty phraseology of the Fourth Gospel was not unknown to the authors of the others, though their design and point of view are different. The language in which our Lord's reply is given by Luke (Luk 4:43) expresses the high necessity under which, in this as in every other step of His work, He acted--"I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also; for therefore"--or, "to this end"--"am I sent." An act of self-denial it doubtless was, to resist such pleadings to return to Capernaum. But there were overmastering considerations on the other side.

Clarke: Mar 1:38

The next towns - Κωμοπολεις properly signifies such towns as resembled cities for magnitude and number of inhabitants, but which were not walled as were cities. The Codex Bezae, most of the versions, and all the Itala, read, Let us go into the neighboring villages, And Into The Cities

Clarke: Mar 1:38

For therefore came I forth - Εις τουτο, for this purpose am I come forth - to preach the Gospel to every creature, that all might hear, and fear, and return unto the Lord. The towns and the villages will not come to the preacher - the preacher must go to them, if he desires their salvation. In this, also, Jesus has left his ministering servants an example, that they should follow his steps. Let no minister of God think he has delivered his own soul, till he has made an offer of salvation to every city and village within his reach.

Clarke: Mar 1:39

And he preached - He continued preaching - Ην κηρυσσων : this is the proper meaning of the words: he never slackened his pace - he continued proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation to all - there was no time to be lost - immortal souls were perishing for lack of knowledge; and the grand adversary was prowling about, seeking whom he might devour. This zealous, affectionate, and persevering diligence of Christ should be copied by all his servants in the ministry; it is not less necessary now than it was then. Thousands, thousands of Christians, so called, are perishing for lack of knowledge. O God, send forth more and more faithful laborers into thy vineyard!

Clarke: Mar 1:40

There came a leper - See the notes on Mat 8:2, etc

Should any be inclined to preach on this cleansing of the leper, Mark is the best evangelist to take the account from, because he is more circumstantial than either Matthew or Luke

I.    Consider this leper

1.    He heard of Jesus and his miracles

2.    He came to him for a cure, conscious of his disease

3.    He earnestly besought him to grant the mercy he needed

4.    He fell down on his knees, (with his face to the earth, Luk 5:12), thus showing his humbled state, and the distress of his soul

5.    He appealed to his love - if thou wilt; with a full conviction of his ability - thou canst; in order to get healed

II.    Consider Jesus

1.    He is moved with tender compassion towards him: this is the alone source of all human salvation

2.    He stretches forth his hand, showing thus his readiness to relieve him

3.    He touches him; though this was prohibited by the law, and rendered him who did it in any common case legally unclean

4.    He proves at once his infinite love and unlimited power, by his word and by his act; I will - be thou cleansed; and immediately his leprosy was removed. But see on Mat 8:2 (note).

Clarke: Mar 1:43

Straitly charged - See the reason for this, Mat 8:4 (note). This verse is wanting in two copies of the Itala.

Clarke: Mar 1:45

Began to publish it much - Began to publish πολλα, many things; probably all that he had heard about our Lord’ s miraculous works

Clarke: Mar 1:45

And to blaze abroad the matter - That is, his own healing; thinking he could never speak too much, nor too well, of him who had thus mercifully and miraculously cleansed him

Clarke: Mar 1:45

Jesus could no more openly enter into the city - A city of Galilee, probably Chorazin or Bethsaida, in which he did not appear, for fear of exciting the jealousy of the secular government, or the envy and malice of the Jewish rulers

Clarke: Mar 1:45

And they came to him from every quarter - So generally had the poor man, who was cleansed of his leprosy, spread abroad his fame. And can we suppose that, of all these people who came to him from all parts, and to whom he preached the glad tidings of the kingdom, by the power and authority of God, few or none were saved? This is a common opinion; but every person who seriously considers it must see that it is unfounded. Without doubt, Christ had thousands that were brought to God by his ministry; though, in general, only those are mentioned who were constant attendants on his person. It would be strange, if, while God manifested in the flesh was preacher, there should be few brought to the knowledge of themselves, and of the truth! In this respect he does not permit his faithful ministers to labor in vain. The Son of man sowed the seed of the kingdom; and it afterwards produced a plentiful harvest. Multitudes of Jews were converted by the preaching of the Gospel; and the first Christian Church was founded at Jerusalem.

Calvin: Mar 1:38

Mark 1:38.For on this account I came out Luk 4:43. For on this account am I sent. These words deserve our attention: for they contain a declaration of his earnest desire to fulfill his office. But it will perhaps be asked, is it better that the ministers of the Gospel should run here and there, to give only a slight and partial taste of it in each place, or that they should remain, and instruct perfectly the hearers whom they have once obtained? I reply. The design of Christ, which is here mentioned, was agreeable to the injunction and call of the Father, and was founded on the best reasons. For it was necessary that Christ should travel, within a short period, throughout Judea, to awaken the minds of men, on all sides, as if by the sound of a trumpet, to hear the Gospel. But on this subject we must treat more fully under another passage.

Calvin: Mar 1:44

Mat 8:4; Mar 1:44. For a testimony to them Some consider testimony to mean here a law or statute, as it is said in the Book of Psalms, God laid down this “ for a testimony to Israel,” (Psa 122:4.) But this appears to me to be a poor exposition: for I have no doubt that the pronoun to them refers to the priests. ⁴⁹⁶ Christ said this, in my opinion, with a view to the present occurrence: for this miracle was afterwards to be a sufficiently clear proof for convicting them of ingratitude. There is nothing inconsistent with this in the command which Christ gave to the leper to maintain silence: for he did not intend that the remembrance of the miracle which he had wrought should remain always buried. When the leper, at the command of Christ, came into the presence of the priest, this was a testimony to them, which would render them inexcusable, if they refused to receive Christ as the minister of God; and would, at the same time, take away occasion for slander, since Christ did not neglect a single point of the law. In a word, if they were not past cure, they might be led to Christ; while, on the other hand, so solemn a testimony of God was sufficiently powerful to condemn them, if they were unbelievers.

Calvin: Mar 1:45

Mar 1:45.So that Jesus could no longer enter openly into cities Hence we learn the reason why Christ did not wish the miracle to be so soon made known. It was that he might have more abundant opportunity and freedom for teaching. Not that his enemies rose against him, and attempted to shut his mouth, but because the common people were so eager to demand miracles, that no room was left for doctrine. He wished that they would all be more attentive to the word than to signs. Luke accordingly says, that he sought retirement in the deserts He avoided a crowd of men, because he saw, that he would not satisfy the wishes of the people, without overwhelming his doctrine by a superfluity of miracles. ⁴⁹⁷

Defender: Mar 1:41

Because of its contagious and deadly nature, leprosy made its victims essentially untouchable. But Jesus not only spoke to the leper - He touched him, and then spoke to him and healed him."

Defender: Mar 1:45

On the healing of this leper, see the parallel accounts in Mat 8:2-4 and Luk 5:12-14, especially in relation to the testimony of his cure to the priests. Only Mark, however, tells us that the leper instead told his story far and wide, wherever he could. This miracle attracted more attention to Jesus than the others (Mar 1:21-34) because leprosy was such a loathsome and incurable disease."

TSK: Mar 1:38

Let : Luk 4:43

for : Isa 61:1-3; Luk 2:49, Luk 4:18-21; Joh 9:4, Joh 16:28, Joh 17:4, Joh 17:8

TSK: Mar 1:39

preached : Mar 1:21; Mat 4:23; Luk 4:43, Luk 4:44

Galilee : Galilee was a province of Palestine, being bounded, says Josephus, on the west by Ptolemais and mount Carmel; on the south by the country of Samaria and Scythopolis, on the river Jordan; on the east by the cantons of Hyppos, Gadara, and Gaulon; and on the north by the confines of the Tyrians. It was divided into Lower and Upper Galilee; - Upper Galilee, so called from its being mountainous, was termed Galilee of the Gentiles (Mat 4:15), because inhabited, says Strabo, by Egyptians, Arabians, and Phoenicians, and comprehended the tribes of Asher and Naphtali; the Lower Galilee contained the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar, and was sometimes termed the Great Field. It was, says Josephus, very populous and rich, containing 204 cities and towns.

and cast : Mar 7:30; Luk 4:41

TSK: Mar 1:40

there : Mat 8:2-4; Luk 5:12-14

a leper : Lev. 13:1-14:57; Num 12:10-15; Deu 24:8, Deu 24:9; 2Sa 3:29; 2Kings 5:5-27; 2Ki 5:27, 2Ki 7:3, 2Ki 15:5; Mat 11:5; Luk 17:12-19

kneeling : Mar 10:17; 2Ch 6:13; Mat 17:14; Luk 22:41; Act 7:60; Eph 3:14

if thou : Mar 9:22, Mar 9:23; Gen 18:14; 2Ki 5:7

TSK: Mar 1:41

moved : Mar 6:34; Mat 9:36; Luk 7:12, Luk 7:13; Heb 2:17, Heb 4:15

I : Mar 4:39, Mar 5:41; Gen 1:3; Psa 33:9; Heb 1:3

TSK: Mar 1:42

immediately : Mar 1:31, Mar 5:29; Psa 33:9; Mat 15:28; Joh 4:50-53, Joh 15:3

TSK: Mar 1:43

Mar 3:12, Mar 5:43, Mar 7:36; Mat 9:30; Luk 8:56

TSK: Mar 1:44

show : Lev. 14:2-32; Mat 23:2, Mat 23:3; Luk 5:14, Luk 17:14

for a testimony : Rom 15:4; 1Co 10:11

TSK: Mar 1:45

and began : Psa 77:11; Mat 9:31; Luk 5:15; Tit 1:10

could : Mar 2:1, Mar 2:2, Mar 2:13

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mar 1:38

And he said unto them ... - This was said in answer to their "implied"request that he would go and meet the multitudes. "Since the anxiety to hear the truth is so great, since such multitudes are waiting to hear the word, let us go into the next towns,"etc.

Next towns - Towns in the neighborhood or vicinity of Capernaum. He proposed to carry the gospel to them, rather than that multitudes should leave their homes and attend him in his ministry. The word here rendered "towns"denotes places in size between "cities"and "villages,"or large places, but without walls.

For therefore came I forth - That is, came forth from God, or was sent by God. Luke, says Luk 4:43, "for therefore am I sent."Compare Joh 16:28; "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."The meaning of this verse therefore is, "Since multitudes press to hear the word, let us not remain here, but go into the neighboring towns also: for I was sent by God not to preach at Capernaum only, but "throughout Judea,"and it is therefore improper to confine my labors to this place."

Barnes: Mar 1:39

And he preached in their synagogues - See Mat 4:23.

All Galilee - See Mat 1:22.

And cast out devils - See Mat 4:24.

Barnes: Mar 1:40-45

And there came a leper ... - See the notes at Mat 8:1-4.

Kneeling down to him - He kneeled and inclined his face to the ground, in token of deep humiliation and earnest entreaty. Compare Luk 5:12.

If thou wilt - This was an acknowledgment of the almighty power of Jesus, and an appeal to his benevolence.

Make me clean - You (Jesus) can heal me of this loathsome and offensive disease, in the eye of the law justly regarded as "unclean,"and render me "legally"clean, and restore me to the privileges of the congregation.

And Jesus ...touched him - It was by the law considered as unclean to touch a leprous man. See Num 5:2. The fact that Jesus touched him was evidence that the requisite power had been already put forth to heal him; that Jesus regarded him as already clean.

I will - Here was a most manifest proof of his divine power. None but God can work a miracle; yet Jesus does it by his "own will"- by an exertion of his own power. Therefore, Jesus is divine.

See thou say nothing to any man - The law of Moses required that a man who was healed of the leprosy should be pronounced clean by the priest before he could be admitted again to the privileges of the congregation, Lev. 14. Christ, though he had cleansed him, yet required him to be obedient to the law of the land - to go at once to the priest, and not to make delay by stopping to converse about his being healed. It was also possible that, if he did not go at once, evil-minded men would go before him and prejudice the priest, and prevent his declaring the healing to be thorough because it was done by Jesus. It was of further importance that "the priest"should pronounce it to be a genuine cure, that there might be no cavils among the Jews against its being a real miracle.

Offer for thy cleansing those things ... - Two birds, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; and after eight days, two he-lambs, without blemish, and one ewe-lamb, and fine flour, and oil, Lev 14:4, Lev 14:10.

For a testimony unto them - Not to the priest, but to the people, that they may have evidence that it is a real cure. The testimony of the priest on the subject would be decisive.

Mar 1:45

Began to publish it much - That is, he made known his own cure. He was so deeply affected with it, and so much rejoiced, that he followed the natural dictates of his own feelings rather than the command of the Saviour.

Jesus could no more enter openly into the city - The word "could,"here, does not refer to any natural inability, or to any physical obstacle in his way, but only denotes that there was difficulty, inconvenience, or impropriety in his doing it then; that he judged it best not then to enter into the city. The difficulty was, probably, that his being in the city drew such crowds of people as rendered it difficult to accommodate them, or so as to excite the opposition of civil rulers.

The city - The city or large town where the leper was cured. The same reason for not entering that city applied also to others, so that he remained in the deserts, where the multitudes could come to him without any difficulty or opposition.

Poole: Mar 1:36-39

Ver. 36-39. Peter probably pitieth the multitude, because many amongst them needed Christ’ s presence, for their bodily infirmities. Our Saviour knew their hearts better than Peter; and that which made them so much seek for him, was either in some a curiosity to see miracles wrought, or at best but a desire of some bodily benefit from him. Whereas his working of miracles was but a secondary work, subservient to his work in preaching, and done to confirm his doctrine, and to advantage them as to their faith in him as the Messias. As therefore he refused to gratify the curiosity of the Pharisees in giving them a sign, so here our Saviour takes no notice of the multitude seeking for him, but saith to his disciples, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for therefore came I forth. Paul saith that God sent him not to baptize, but to preach, 1Co 1:17 . Our Saviour saith not, Let us go into the next towns, that I may work miracles, but that I may preach there also; he doth not say he came forth to work miracles, but to preach: how it comes to pass that some are possessed of so slight an opinion of preaching as to think that it is needless, which our Saviour and St. Paul counted to be their principal work, where, in the mean time, they pretend to derive from Christ, I cannot tell. I am sure preaching was the greatest part of Christ’ s work; how it comes to be the least part of ministers’ work since, or how any of them think it sufficient to discharge that work by journeymen, which he thought it not beneath him to do himself, may deserve their examination which make it so. We do not say that preaching is a greater work than prayer, or that it is not ministers’ duty to pray; nor yet that it is greater than administering the sacrament: but this we say, we read of Christ’ s preaching often in the synagogues, on the mountain, in a ship; of his public praying we read not, though of his private and secret prayer often. We read expressly that he baptized none. We must have leave to think that our greatest work which our Lord and his apostles were most employed in, and do think others will be of our minds as soon as they shall understand, that if the end of preaching be not turning men from one opinion to another, but from the love and practice of sin to God, there is as much need of it as ever; and that the turning of men from one opinion to another, without a change of heart, as to the love of sin, is but a turning of men from one quarter of the devil’ s kingdom to another.

Poole: Mar 1:39

Ver. 39 See Poole on "Mar 1:36"

Poole: Mar 1:40-45

Ver. 40-45. We before had this piece of history, in Matthew, See Poole on "Mat 8:2" See Poole on "Mat 8:3" See Poole on "Mat 8:4" , we shall also meet with it hereafter in Luk 5:14,15 . Our Lord being moved with compassion, or affected in his bowels, (as the word signifies), is often used as expressive of the cause of his acts of mercy: thus in curing the leper, he at once both showed himself the Son of man, one who could have compassion on our infirmities, and indeed could not but have such a commiseration toward mankind; and the Son of God, that he could in an instant, by a touch, or by the word of his power, command off a disease of so difficult cure. For his charging of him to say nothing to any man, we are not able to give a perfect account of it, whether it was to avoid a suspicion of ostentation, or to avoid a throng of company pressing upon him, or to avoid the odium which he knew the doing of these mighty works would bring him under with the scribes and Pharisees, until the time came for the fuller revelation of himself. Much less can we tell how to excuse the leper for doing contrary to this charge, which we find many others to have done who had the like charge, yet we read not of our Saviour’ s blaming them for it. Mark addeth, that his publication of it caused that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places; by which is to be understood only places less inhabited; some think, places near the shore, where by going into a ship (as he often did) he could more easily quit himself of the throng of people, for (as it followeth) they came to him from every quarter.

Poole: Mar 1:44

See Poole on "Mar 4:44"

Lightfoot: Mar 1:38

And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.   

[Towns.] What this word means may be excellently well discovered by searching into the distinction between cities; and villages; and towns in the evangelists: --   

I. I render cities; but by what word, you will say, will you render by towns; -- "A man cannot compel his wife to follow him to dwell from town to city, nor from city to town." The proper English of which take from what follows: " It is plain why he cannot force her from city to town; because in a city any thing is to be found;" or to be had; but in a town any thing is not to be had. The Gloss writes, " 'Kerac' is greater than 'Ir,' (that is, a city than a town ); and there is a place of broad streets, where all neighbouring inhabitants meet at a market, and there any thing is to be had." So the same Gloss elsewhere; " Kerac is a place of broad streets, where men meet together from many places," etc.  

The Gemarists go on: "R. Josi Bar Chaninah saith, Whence is it that dwelling in kerachin (cities) is more inconvenient? For it is said, 'And they blessed all the people who offered themselves willingly to dwell at Jerusalem' " (Neh 11). Note, by the way, that Jerusalem was Kerac. The Gloss there is, "Dwelling in 'Kerachin' is worse, because all dwell there, and the houses are straitened, and join one to another, so that there is not free air: but in a town are gardens, and paradises by the houses, and the air is more wholesome."  

Kerachim therefore were, 1. Cities girt with walls. Hence is that distinction, that there were some 'Kerachin' which were girt with walls from the days of Joshua; and some walled afterward. 2. Trading mart cities, and those that were greater and nobler than the rest.  

II. Villages or country towns; [had] no synagogue. Hence is that in Megill. cap. 1: A Kerac (a city), in which are not ten men to make a synagogue, is to be reckoned for a village. And Megill. cap. 1, where some of a village are bound to read the Book of Esther in the feast of Purim: It is indulged to them to do it on a synagogue-day; that is, when they had not a synagogue among them, but must resort to some neighbour town where a synagogue was, it was permitted them to go thither on some weekday, appointed for meeting together in the synagogue, and that they might not take the trouble of a journey on another day, however that day was appointed by law for that lection.  

III. Urbs; or civitas, a city; denoted generally fortified cities, and towns also not fortified, where synagogues were, and villages, where they were not. Hence is that distinction, "That was a great city where there was a synagogue": " a small city where there was not."  

By towns therefore here are to be understood towns where there were synagogues, which nevertheless were not either fortified or towns of trade; among us English called church-towns.

Haydock: Mar 1:44

It was not the intention of Christ, that he should not tell any body; had that been his wish, he would easily have realized it: he spoke thus purposely, to shew us that we ought not to seek the empty praises of men. He bade him also offer the sacrifices prescribed, because the law remained in full force till the passion of Christ, in which was offered a perfect sacrifice, that did away with all the legal sacrifices. (Nicholas of Lyra)

Gill: Mar 1:38

And he said unto them, let us go into the next towns,.... Instead of returning with his disciples to Capernaum, as they expected he would, and especially since there was such a concourse of people got together, he proposes to go to "the next towns"; or "village cities"; towns that were neither villages, nor cities, but between both, as the word signifies: hence the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions render it, "villages and cities": and it designs such towns in which there were synagogues. The Jews distinguish between walled towns, villages, and large cities ^r. They ask,

"what is a large city? every one in which there are ten leisure men; if less than so, lo! it is a village.''

And

"every place in which there were ten Israelites, they were obliged to provide a house into which they might go to prayer, at every prayer time, and that place is called a synagogue ^s.''

These were the places Christ judged it advisable to go to; he had preached already at Capernaum, the day before, and had confirmed his doctrine by miracles, which was sufficient for the present, and therefore thought fit to go elsewhere, and orders his disciples to go likewise; for the Syriac version renders it, "go ye to the next cities"; and in the same way read the Arabic and Persic versions:

that I may preach there also; as well as at Capernaum, that so the Gospel may be spread, and have its usefulness in other parts as well as there: the Arabic version renders it, "that we may preach"; both I and you; but without any foundation; nor does the reason following suit such a version,

for therefore came I forth: meaning, not from Simon's house, nor from Capernaum, though there may be a truth in that; for Christ might come from thence, with that view, to preach the Gospel elsewhere; but from God his Father, from whom he came forth, and by whom he was sent to preach the Gospel to other cities also, both in Galilee and Judaea; even to all the inhabitants of that country, to all the lost sheep of the house of Israel; so that this was but answering the end of his coming, and acting according to the commission given him.

Gill: Mar 1:39

And he preached in their synagogues,.... Which were in the next towns, in the village cities, and

throughout all Galilee: taking every town and city in his circuit, he continued preaching the Gospel of the kingdom in one place and another, until he had gone over the whole country:

and cast out devils; as out of the souls, so out of the bodies of men, whereby he confirmed the doctrine he preached.

Gill: Mar 1:40

And there came a leper to him,.... After he was come down from a certain mountain, in Galilee, where he had been preaching to the people, Mat 8:1, and when be was in a certain city, Luk 5:12, either Capernaum, or some other city of Galilee. This man was full of leprosy, as Luke says, and very probably deemed incurable; of the nature and symptoms of the leprosy; see Gill on Luk 5:12,

beseeching him; to cure him of his leprosy:

and kneeling down to him; in token of submission, respect, and reverence, and to worship him:

and saying unto him, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean; See Gill on Mat 8:2. Mark omits the word "Lord".

Gill: Mar 1:41

And Jesus, moved with compassion,.... At the sad and deplorable case the poor man was in, being a merciful high priest, and not with a desire of popular applause, and vain glory:

put forth his hand and touched him; though the leprosy was spread all over him, and there was no place clean, and touching him was forbidden by the law:

and saith unto him, I will be thou clean; See Gill on Mat 8:3.

Gill: Mar 1:42

And as soon as he had spoken,.... The above words,

immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed; from it, and which seems to be done not by touching him, but by the words spoken, which were accompanied with such power, as to effect the cure in an instant; See Gill on Mat 8:3.

Gill: Mar 1:43

And he straitly charged him;.... Either with the sin which had been the cause of this leprosy, and to take care that he sinned that sin no more, lest a worse evil should befall him; for sin was usually the cause of leprosy, as the cases of Miriam, Gehazi, and Uzziah show. It is said to come upon men for seven things. The seven abominations mentioned in Pro 6:16, are said, by the Jewish writers ^t, to be the reasons of persons being stricken with leprosy: "a proud look"; as appears from the instance of the daughters of Zion, Isa 3:16, the crowns of whose heads were smitten with a scab, and who were attended with a stink, boldness, and burning. "A lying tongue"; as in the case of Miriam, who, with Aaron, spoke against Moses; upon which the cloud departed from the tabernacle, and Miriam became leprous, white as snow, Num 12:1. "And hands that shed innocent blood"; which is proved from Joab, on whose head the blood of Abner and Amasa returned; and on account of which a leper was not to fail from his house; see 1Ki 2:31, compared with 2Sa 3:29. "An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations"; which was fulfilled in Uzziah, who sought to bring the high priesthood into contempt, and therefore was smitten with leprosy, which arose in his forehead, while he had the censer in his hands, and was contending with the priests; and he continued a leper to his death, 2Ch 26:18. "Feet that be swift in running to mischief"; which was true of Gehazi, who ran after Naaman the Syrian, and took a gift of him which he should not; for which, the leprosy, Naaman was cured of, seized him, and cleaved unto him, 2Ki 5:20. "A false witness that speaketh lies"; of this no instance is given. "And him that soweth discord among brethren"; as Pharaoh between Abraham and Sarah; wherefore the Lord plagued Pharaoh, &c. Gen 12:17, which the Jews understand of the plague of leprosy. These seven things are, in another place ^u, said to be an evil tongue, shedding of blood, a vain oath, uncleanness, a proud spirit, theft, and envy. Elsewhere it is said ^w, that for eleven things leprosy cometh; for cursing God, for uncleanness, for murder, for saying of a neighbour a thing that there is nothing in it, for pride, for entering into a border which is not a man's own, for a lying tongue, for theft, for a false oath, for profaning the name of God, for idolatry: and R. Isaac says, for an evil eye; and the Rabbins also say, it comes upon him who despises the words of the law: the first is proved from Goliath, 1Sa 17:26; the second from the daughters of Jerusalem, Isa 3:16; the third from Cain, Gen 4:15 and from Joab, 2Sa 3:29; the fourth from Moses, Exo 4:5; the fifth from Naaman, 2Ki 5:1; the sixth from Uzziah, 2Ch 26:16; the seventh from Miriam, Num 12:10; the eighth and ninth from Zec 5:4, compared with Lev 14:45; the tenth from Gehazi, 2Ki 5:20; the eleventh from the children of Israel when they made the calf, Exo 32:25, compared with Num 5:2. But whether this man's sin was either of these, or what it was, is not certain: however, he was, by this cure, laid under an obligation, for the future, to avoid it, and all other sins: or rather the charge was to tell no man of his cure, before he came to the priest: nor to him, or any other, how he came by it, and by whom he was healed;

and forthwith sent him away; to the priest, in all haste; and it looks as if the man was unwilling to have gone from him, but chose rather to have continued with his kind benefactor: for the word signifies, he cast him out; he drove him from him; he obliged him to go without delay.

Gill: Mar 1:44

And saith unto him, see thou say nothing to any man,.... By the way, till he came to the priest;

but go thy way, show thyself to the priest: the Syriac and Persic versions read, "to the priests"; and the Vulgate Latin renders it, "to the chief priest"; but any priest might judge of the cleansing of a leper;

and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded for a testimony unto them; See Gill on Mat 8:4.

Gill: Mar 1:45

But he went out,.... Either out of the synagogue; for in Mar 1:39, it is said, that Christ preached in their synagogues, &c. and in Mar 1:40, "there came a leper to him"; and Luke very, plainly suggests, that he was in the city, Luk 5:12, and he might be in the synagogue: and this was allowed a leper, according to the Jewish canons, provided some rules were observed; which were these ^x:

"if a leper enters into a synagogue, they make for him a partition ten hands high, and four cubits broad; he enters in first, and goes out last:''

or, it may be, he went out of the house where he was, into the city, and parts adjacent; for it seems as if the cure was done privately: and yet a leper was not allowed to enter into a house ^y;

"if he did, all the vessels which were there, i.e. all the goods in the house were defiled, even to the very beams. R. Simeon says, as far as four cubits. R. Judah says, if he stayed so long as the lighting of a lamp.''

And began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter; contrary to the charge Christ gave him; though this might be done by him, not out of disobedience to Christ, but out of a transport of joy for the mercy received; and perhaps with a good intention to spread the fame and glory of his Saviour:

insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city; of Capernaum, or whatever city it was, where this cure was wrought, without a crowd of people about him, and danger from them, at least from his enemies, who envied his applause and glory.

But was without in desert places; devoid of inhabitants, where he spent his time in prayer:

and they came to him from every quarter; whenever the people could learn where he was: so agreeable was his doctrine to some; and so useful his miraculous work of healing to others.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mar 1:38

¹ tn Grk “And he said to them.”

² tn Grk “Because for this purpose I have come forth.”

NET Notes: Mar 1:39

¹ tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of previous action(s) in the narrative.

² sn See the note on synagogue in 1:21.

NET Notes: Mar 1:40

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

² sn The ancient term for leprosy covers a wider array of conditions than what we call leprosy today. A leper was totally ostracized from society until he was declared cured (Lev 13:45-46).

³ tn This is a third class condition. The report portrays the leper making no presumptions about whether Jesus will heal him or not.

NET Notes: Mar 1:41

¹ tc The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff² r^1*) here read ὀργισθείς (ojrgisqei", “moved with anger”). It is more difficult to account for a change from “moved with compassion” to “moved with anger” than it is for a copyist to soften “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion,” making the decision quite difficult. B. M. Metzger (TCGNT 65) suggests that “moved with anger” could have been prompted by 1:43, “Jesus sent the man away with a very strong warning.” It also could have been prompted by the man’s seeming doubt about Jesus’ desire to heal him (v. 40). As well, it is difficult to explain why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant). Thus, in light of diverse mss supporting “moved with compassion,” and at least a plausible explanation for ὀργισθείς as arising from the other reading, it is perhaps best to adopt σπλαγχνισθείς as the original reading. Nevertheless, a decision in this case is not easy. For the best arguments for ὀργισθείς, however, see M. A. Proctor, “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1999).

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ sn Touched. This touch would have rendered Jesus ceremonially unclean (Lev 14:46; also Mishnah, m. Nega’im 3.1; 11.1; 12.1; 13.6-12).

NET Notes: Mar 1:43

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “him”; the referent (the man who was healed) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Mar 1:44

¹ tn Grk “And after warning him, he immediately sent him away and told him.”

² sn The silence ordered by Jesus was probably meant to last only until the cleansing took place with the priests and sought to prevent Jesus’ healings from becoming the central focus of the people’s reaction to him. See also 1:34; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26, 30; and 9:9 for other cases where Jesus asks for silence concerning him and his ministry.

³ sn On the phrase bring the offering that Moses commanded see Lev 14:1-32.

⁴ tn Or “as an indictment against them”; or “as proof to the people.” This phrase could be taken as referring to a positive witness to the priests, a negative testimony against them, or as a testimony to the community that the man had indeed been cured. In any case, the testimony shows that Jesus is healing and ministering to those in need.

NET Notes: Mar 1:45

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (the man who was healed) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Grk “and”; καί (kai) often has a mildly contrastive force, as here.

⁴ tn The imperfect verb has been translated iteratively.

Geneva Bible: Mar 1:38

And he said unto them, Let us go into the ^{( t )} next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.

^{( t )} Villages which were like cities.

Geneva Bible: Mar 1:40

^{( 12 )} And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

^{( 12 )} By healing the leprous he shows that he came for this reason: to wipe out the sins of the world with his touch.

Geneva Bible: Mar 1:44

^{( 13 )} And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the ^{( u )} priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

^{( 13 )} He shows that he was not motivated by ambition, but only by the desire for his Father's glory, and by his love towards poor sinners.

^{( u )} All the posterity of Aaron had the authority to judge a leper.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mar 1:1-45

1 The office of John the Baptist.

9 Jesus is baptized;

12 tempted;

14 he preaches;

16 calls Peter, Andrew, James, and John;

23 heals one that had a devil;

29 Peter's mother in law;

32 many diseased persons;

40 and cleanses the leper.

Maclaren: Mar 1:40-42

A Parable In A Miracle

And there came a leper to Him, beseeching Him, and kneeling down to Him, and saying unto Him, If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean. 41. And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth His hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean. 42. And as soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.'--Mark 1:40-42.

CHRIST'S miracles are called wonders--that is, deeds which, by their exceptional character, arrest attention and excite surprise. Further, they are called mighty works'--that is, exhibitions of superhuman power. They are still further called signs '--that is, tokens of His divine mission. But they are signs in another sense, being, as it were, parables as well as miracles, and representing on the lower plane of material things the effects of His working on men's spirits. Thus, His feeding of the hungry speaks of His higher operation as the Bread of Life. His giving sight to the blind foreshadows His illumination of darkened minds. His healing of the diseased speaks of His restoration of sick souls. His stilling of the tempest tells of Him as the Peace-bringer for troubled hearts; and His raising of the dead proclaims Him as the Life-giver, who quickens with the true life all who believe on Him. This parabolic aspect of the miracles is obvious in the case before us. Leprosy received exceptional treatment under the Mosaic law, and the peculiar restrictions to which the sufferer was subjected, as well as the ritual of his cleansing, in the rare cases where the disease wore itself out, are best explained by being considered as symbolical rather than as sanitary. It was taken as an emblem of sin. Its hideous symptoms, its rotting sores, its slow, stealthy, steady progress, its defiance of all known means of cure, made its victim only too faithful a walking image of that worse disease. Remembering this deeper aspect of leprosy, let us study this miracle before us, and try to gather its lessons.

I. First, Then, Notice The Leper's Cry.

Mark connects the story with our Lord's first journey through Galilee, which was signalised by many miracles, and had excited much stir and talk. The news of the Healer had reached the isolated huts where the lepers herded, and had kindled a spark of hope in one poor wretch, which emboldened him to break through all regulations, and thrust his tainted and unwelcome presence into the shrinking crowd. He seems to have appeared there suddenly, having forced or stolen his way somehow into Christ's presence. And there he was, with his horrible white face, with his tightened, glistening skin, with some frowsy rag over his mouth, and a hunted look as of a wild beast in his eyes. The crowd shrank back from him; he had no difficulty in making his way to where Christ is sitting, calmly teaching. And Mark's vivid narrative shows him to us, flinging himself down before the Lord, and, without waiting for question or pause, interrupting whatever was going on, with his piteous cry. Misery and wretchedness make short work of conventional politeness.

Note the keen sense of misery that impels to the passionate desire for relief. A leper with the flesh dropping off his bones could not suppose that there was nothing the matter with him. His disease was too gross and palpable not to be felt; and the depth of misery measured the earnestness of desire. The parallel fails us there. The emblem is all insufficient, for here is the very misery of our deepest misery, that we are unconscious of it, and sometimes even come to love it. There are forms of sickness in which the man goes about, and to each inquiry says, I am perfectly well,' though everybody else can see death written on his face. And so it is with this terrible malady that has laid its corrupting and putrefying finger upon us all. The worse we are, the less we know that there is anything the matter with us; and the deeper the leprosy has struck its filthy fangs into us, the more ready we are to say that we are sound. We preachers have it for one of our first duties to try to rouse men to the recognition of the facts of their spiritual condition, and all our efforts are too often--as I, for my part, sometimes half despairingly feel when I stand in the pulpit--like a firebrand dropped into a pond, which hisses for a moment and then is extinguished. Men and women sit in pews listening contentedly and quietly, who, if they saw themselves, I do not say even as God sees them, but as others see them, would know that the leprosy is deep in them, and the taint patent to every eye. I do not charge you, my brother, with gross transgressions of plain moralities; I know nothing about that. I know this: As face answereth to face in a glass,' so doth the heart of man to man, and I bring this message, verified to me by my own consciousness, that we have all gone astray, and wounds and bruises and putrefying sores' mark us all. If the best of us could see himself for once, in the light of God, as the worst of us will see himself one day, the cry would come from the purest lips, Oh! wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?'u this life in death that I carry, rotting and smelling foul to Heaven, about with me, wheresoever I go.

Note, further, this man's confidence in Christ's power: Thou canst make me clean.' He had heard all about the miracles that were being wrought up and down over the country, and he came to the Worker, with nothing of the nature of religious faith in Him, but with entire confidence, based upon the report of previous miracles, in Christ's ability to heal. I do not suppose that in its nature it was very different from the trust with which savages will crowd round a traveller who has a medicine-chest with him, and expect to be cured of their diseases. But still it was real confidence in our Lord's power to heal. As a rule, though not without exceptions, He required (we may perhaps say He needed) such confidence as a condition of His miracle-working power.

If we turn from the emblem to the thing signified, from the leprosy of the body to that of the spirit, we may be sure of Christ's omnipotent ability to cleanse from the extremest severity of the disease, however inveterate and chronic it may have become. Sin dominates men by two opposite lies. I have said how hard it is to get people's consciences awakened to see the facts of their moral and religious condition; but then, when they are waked up, it is almost as hard to keep them from the other extreme. The devil, first of all, says to a man, It is only a little sin. Do it; you will be none the worse. You can give it up when you like, you know.' That is the language before the act. Afterwards, his language is, first, You have done no harm, never mind what people say about sin. Make yourself comfortable,' and then, when that lie wears itself out, the mask is dropped, and this is what is said: I have got you now, and you cannot get away. Done is done! What thou hast written thou hast written; and neither thou nor anybody else can blot it out.' Hence the despair into which awakened consciences are apt to drop, and the feeling, which dogs the sense of evil like a spectre, of the hopelessness of all attempts to make oneself better. Brethren, they are both lies; the lie that we are pure is the first; the lie that we are too black to be purified is the second. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and make God a liar,' but if we say, as some of us, when once our consciences are stirred, are but too apt to say, We have sinned, and it cleaves to us for ever,' we deceive ourselves still worse, and still more darkly and doggedly contradict the sure word of God. Christ's blood atones for all past sin, and has power to bring forgiveness to every one. Christ's vital Spirit will enter into any heart, and, abiding there, has power to make the foulest clean.

Note, again, the leper's hesitation. If Thou wilt'-he had no right to presume on Christ's good will. He knew nothing about the principles upon which His miracles were wrought and His mercy extended. He supposed, no doubt, as he was bound to suppose, in the absence of any plain knowledge, that it was a mere matter of accident, of caprice, of momentary inclination and good nature, to whom the gift of healing should come. And so he draws near with the modest If Thou wilt'; not pretending to know more than he knew, or to have a claim which he had not. But his hesitation is quite as much entreaty as hesitation. What do we mean when we say about a man,' He can do it, if he likes,' but to imply that it is so easy to do it, that it would be cruel not to do it? And so, when the leper said, If Thou wilt, Thou canst,' he meant,' There is no obstacle standing between me and health but Thy will, and surely it cannot be Thy will to leave me in this life in death.' He, as it were, throws the responsibility for his health or disease upon Christ's shoulders, and thereby makes the strongest appeal to that loving heart.

We stand on another level. The leper's hesitation is our certainty. We know the principle upon which His mercy is dispensed; we know that it is a universal, all-embracing love; we know that no caprice nor passing spasm of good nature lies at the bottom of it. We know that if any men are not healed, it is not because Christ will not, but because they will not. If ever there springs in our hearts the dark doubt If Thou wilt,' which was innocent in this man in the twilight of his knowledge, but is wrong in us in the full noontide of ours, we ought to be able to banish it at once, and to lay none of the responsibility of our continuing unhealed on Christ, but all on ourselves. He has laid it there, when He lamented, How often would I--and ye would not!' Nothing can be more in accordance with the will of God, of which Jesus Christ is the embodiment, than to deliver men from sin, which is the opposite of His will.

II. Notice, Secondly, The Lord's Answer.

Mark's record of this incident puts the miracle in very small compass, and dilates rather upon the attitude and mind of Jesus Christ preparatory to it. As if, apart altogether from the supernatural element and the lessons that are to be drawn from it, it was worth our while to ponder, for the gladdening of our hearts and the strengthening of our hopes, that lovely picture of sheer simple compassion and tender-heartedness. Jesus, moved with compassion '--a clause which occurs only in Mark's account--put forth His band and touched him, and said, I will; be thou clean.'

Note, then, three things, the compassion, the touch, the word.

As to the first, is it not a precious boon for us, in the midst of our many wearinesses and sorrows and sicknesses, to have that picture of Jesus Christ bending over the leper, and sending, as it were, a gush of pitying love from His heart to flood away all his miseries? It is a true revelation of the heart of Jesus Christ. Simple pity is its very core. That pity is eternal, and subsists as He sits in the calm of the heavens, even as it was manifest whilst He sat teaching in the humble house in Galilee. For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities.' The pitying Christ is near us all. Nor let us forget that it is this swift shoot of pity which underlies all that follows--the touch, the word, and the cure. Christ does not wait to be moved by the prayers that come from these leprous lips, but He is moved by the leprous lips themselves. The sight of the man affects His pitying heart, which sets in motion all the wheels of His healing powers. So we may learn that the impulse to which His redeeming activity owes its origin wells up from His own heart. Show Him sorrow, and He answers it by a pity of such a sort that it is restless till it helps and assuages. We may rise higher. The pity of Jesus Christ is the summit of His revelation of the Father, and, looking upon that gentle heart, into whose depths we can see as through a little window by these words of my text, we must stand with hushed reverence as beholding not only the compassion of the Man, but therein manifested the pity of the God who,' Like as a father pitieth his children, pitieth them that fear Him,' and pities yet more the more miserable men who fear and love Him not. The Christian's God is no impassive Being, indifferent to mankind, but' One who in all our afflictions is afflicted, and, in His love and in His pity,' redeems and bears and carries.

Note, still further, the Lord's touch. With swift obedience to the impulse of His pity, Christ thrusts forth His hand and touches the leper. There was much in that touch, but whatever more we may see in it, we should not be blind to the loving humanity of the act. Remember that the man kneeling there had felt no touch of a hand for years; that the very kisses of his own children and his wife's embrace of love were denied him. And now Jesus puts out His hand, and, without thinking of Mosaic restrictions and ceremonial prohibitions, yields to the impulse of His pity, and gives assurance of His sympathy and His brotherhood, as He lays His pure fingers upon the rotting ulcers. All men that help their fellows must be contented thus to identify themselves with them and to take them by the hand, if they would seek to deliver them from their evils.

Remember, too, that according to the Mosaic law it was forbidden to any but the priest to touch a leper. Therefore, in this act, beautiful as it is in its uncalculated humanity, there may have been something intended of a deeper kind. Our Lord thereby does one of two things--either He asserts His authority as overriding that of Moses and all his regulations, or He asserts His sacerdotal character. Either way there is a great claim in the act.

Further, we may take that touch of Christ's as being a parable of His whole work. It was a piece of wonderful sympathy and condescension that He should put out His hand to touch the leper; but it was the result of a far greater and more wonderful piece of sympathy and condescension that He had a hand to touch him with. For the sweet human hands and lips and eyes' which He wore in this world were assumed by Him in order that He might make Himself one with all sufferers and bear the burden of all their sins. So His touch of the leper symbolises His identifying of Himself with mankind, the foulest and the most degraded; and in this connection there is a profound meaning in one of the ordinarily trivial legends of the Rabbis, who, founding upon a word of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, tell us that when Messias comes He will be found sitting amongst the lepers at the gate of the city. So He was numbered amongst the transgressors in His life, and' with the wicked in His death.' He touches, and, touching, contracts no impurity, cleansing as the sunlight and the fire do, by burning up the impurity, and not by receiving it into Himself.

Note the Lord's word,' I will; be thou clean.' It is shaped, convolution for convolution, so to speak, to match the man's prayer. He ever moulds His response according to the feebleness and imperfection of the petitioner's faith. But, at the same time, what a ring of autocratic authority and conscious sovereignty there is in the brief, calm, imperative word, I will; be thou clean!' He accepts the leper's ascription of power; He claims to work the miracle by His own will, and therein He is either guilty of what comes very near arrogant blasphemy, or He is rightly claiming for Himself a divine prerogative. If His word can tell as a force on material things, what is the conclusion? He who spake and it was done' is Almighty and Divine.

III. Lastly, Note The Immediate Cure.

Mark tells, with his favourite word straightway,' how as soon as Christ had spoken, the leprosy departed from the leper. And to turn from the symbol to the fact, the same sudden and complete cleansing is possible for us. Our cleansing from sin must depend upon the present love and present power of Jesus Christ. On account of Christ's sacrifice, whose efficacy is eternal and lies at the foundation of all our blessedness and our purity until the heavens shall be no more, we are forgiven our sins and our guilt is taken away. By the present indwelling of that cleansing Spirit of the ever-living Christ, which will be given to us each if we seek it, we are cleansed day by day from our evil. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin,' not only when shed as propitiatory, but when applied as sanctifying. We must come to Christ, and there must be a real living contact between us and Him through our faith, if we are to possess either the forgiveness or the cleansing which are wrapped up inseparable in His gift.

Further, the suddenness of this cure and its completeness may be reproduced in us. People tell us that to believe in sudden conversion is fanatical. This is not the place to argue that question. It seems to me that such suddenness is in accordance with analogy. And I, for my part, preach with full belief and in the hope that the words may not be spoken altogether in vain to every man, woman, and child listening to me, irrespective of their condition, character, and past, that there is no reason why they should not go to Him straightway; no reason why He should not put out His hand straightway and touch them; no reason why their leprosy should not pass from them straightway, and they lie down to sleep to-night accepted in the Beloved' and cleansed in Him. Trust Him and He will do it.

Only remember, it was of no use to the leper that crowds had been healed, that floods of blessing had been poured over the land. What he wanted was that a rill should come and refresh his own lips. If you wish to have Christ's cleansing you must make personal work of it, and come with this prayer, On me be all that cleansing shown!' You do not need to go to Him with an If nor a prayer, for His gift has not waited for our asking, and He has anticipated us by coming with healing in His wings. The parts are reversed, and He prays you to receive the gift, and stands before each of us with the gentle remonstrance upon His lips, Why will ye die when I am here ready to cure you?' Take Him at His word, for He offers to us all, whether we desire it or no, the cleansing which we need. Take Him at His word, trust Him wholly, trust to His death for forgiveness, to His sanctifying Spirit for cleansing, and straightway' your leprosy will depart from you,' and your flesh shall become like the flesh of a little child, and you shall be clean.

Maclaren: Mar 1:41

Christ's Touch

Jesus put forth His hand, and touched him.'--Mark 1:41.

BEHOLD the servant of the Lord' might be the motto of this Gospel, and He went about doing good and healing' the summing up of its facts. We have in it comparatively few of our Lord's discourses, none of His longer, and not very many of His briefer ones. It contains but four parables. This Evangelist gives no miraculous birth as in Matthew, no angels adoring there as in Luke, no gazing into the secrets of Eternity, where the Word who afterwards became flesh dwelt in the bosom of the Father, as in John. He begins with a brief reference to the Forerunner, and then plunges into the story of Christ's life of service to man and service for God.

In carrying out his conception the Evangelist omits many things found in the other Gospels, which involve the idea of dignity and dominion, while he adds to the incidents which he has in common with them not a few fine and subtle touches to heighten the impression of our Lord's toil and eagerness in His patient, loving service. Perhaps it may be an instance of this that we find more prominence given to our Lord's touch as connected with His miracles than in the other Gospels, or perhaps it may merely be an instance of the vivid portraiture, the result of a keen eye for externals, which is so marked a characteristic of this gospel. Whatever the reason, the fact is plain, that Mark delights to dwell on Christ's touch. The instances are these--first, He puts out His hand, and lifts up' Peter's wife's mother, and immediately the fever leaves her (Mark 1:31); then, unrepelled by the foul disease, He lays His pure hand upon the leper, and the living mass of corruption is healed (Mark 1:41); again, He lays His hand on the clammy marble of the dead child's forehead, and she lives (Mark 1:41). Further, we have the incidental statement that He was so hindered in His mighty works by unbelief that He could only lay His hands on a few sick folk and heal them (Mark 6:5). We find next two remarkable incidents, peculiar to Mark, both like each other and unlike our Lord's other miracles. One is the gradual healing of that deaf and dumb man whom Christ took apart from the crowd, laid His hands on him, thrust His fingers into his ears as if He would clear some impediment, touched his tongue with saliva, said to him, Be opened'; and the man could hear (Mark 7:4). The other is, the gradual healing of a blind man whom our Lord again leads apart from the crowd, takes by the hand, lays His own kind hands upon the poor, sightless eyeballs, and with singular slowness of progress effects a cure, not by a leap and a bound as He generally does, but by steps and stages; tries it once and finds partial success, has to apply the curative process again, and then the man can see (Mark 8:23). In addition to these instances there are two other incidents which may also be adduced. It is Mark alone who records for us the fact that He took little children in His arms, and blessed them. And it is Mark alone who records for us the fact that when He came down from the Mount of Transfiguration He laid His hand upon the demoniac boy, writhing in the grip of his tormentor, and lifted him up.

There is much taught us, if we will patiently consider it, by that touch of Christ's, and I wish to try to bring out its meaning and power.

I. The Natural Expression Of A Truly Human Tenderness And Compassion.

Whatever diviner and sacreder aspect there may be in these incidents, the first thing, and in some senses the most precious thing, in them is that they are the natural expression of a truly human tenderness and compassion.

Now we are so accustomed, and as I believe quite rightly, to look at all Christ's life down to its minutest events as intended to be a revelation of God, that we are sometimes apt to think about it as if His motive and purpose in everything was didactic. So an unreality creeps over our conceptions of Christ's life, and we need to be reminded that He was not always acting and speaking in order to convey instruction, but that words and deeds were drawn from Him by the play of simple human feelings. He pitied not only in order to teach us the heart of God, but because His own man's heart was touched with a feeling of men's infirmities. We are too apt to think of Him as posing before men with the intent of giving the great revelation of the Love of God. It is the love of Christ Himself, spontaneous, instinctive, without the thought of anything but the suffering that it sees, which gushes out and leads Him to put forth His hand to the outcast beggars, the blind, the deaf, the lepers. That is the first great lesson we have to learn from this and other stories--the swift human sympathy and heart of grace and tenderness which Jesus Christ had for all human suffering, and has to-day as truly as ever.

There is more than this instinctive sympathy taught by Christ's touch, but it is distinctly taught. How beautifully that comes out in the story of the leper! That wretched man had long dwelt in his isolation. The touch of a friend's hand or the kiss of loving lips had been long denied him. Christ looks on him, and before He reflects, the spontaneous impulse of pity breaks through the barriers of legal prohibitions and of natural repugnance, and leads Him to lay His holy and healing hand on his foulness.

True pity always instinctively leads us to seek to come near those who are its objects. A man tells his friend some sad story of his sufferings, and while he speaks, unconsciously his listener lays his hand on his arm, and, by a silent pressure, speaks his sympathy. So Christ did with these men--not only in order that He might reveal God to us, but because He was a man, and therefore felt ere He thought. Out flashed from His heart the swift sympathy, followed by the tender pressure of the loving hand--a hand that tried through flesh to reach spirit, and come near the sufferer that it might succour and remove the sorrow.

Christ's pity is shown by His touch to have this true characteristic of true pity, that it overcomes disgust. All real sympathy does that. Christ is not turned away by the shining whiteness of the leprosy, nor by the eating pestilence beneath it; He is not turned away by the clammy marble hand of the poor dead maiden, nor by the fevered skin of the old woman gasping on her pallet. He lays hold on each, the flushed patient, the loathsome leper, the sacred dead, with the all-equalising touch of a universal love and pity, which disregards all that is repellent, and overflows every barrier and pours itself over every sufferer. We have the same pity of the same Christ to trust to and to lay hold of to-day. He is high above us and yet bending over us; stretching His hand from the throne as truly as He put it out when here on earth; and ready to take us all to His heart in spite of our weakness and wickedness, our failings and our shortcomings, the fever of our flesh and hearts' desires, the leprosy of our many corruptions, and the death of our sins,--and to hold us ever in the strong, gentle clasp of His divine, omnipotent, and tender hand. This Christ lays hold on us because He loves us, and will not be turned from His compassion by the most loathsome foulness of ours.

II. The Medium Of His Miraculous Power.

And now take another point of view from which we may regard this touch of Christ: namely, as the medium of His miraculous power.

There is nothing to me more remarkable about the miracles of our Lord than the royal variety of His methods of healing. Sometimes He works at a distance, sometimes He requires, as it would appear for good reasons, the proximity of the person to be blessed. Sometimes He works by a simple word:, Lazarus, come forth!' Peace be still!' Come out of him!' sometimes by a word and a touch, as in the instances before us; sometimes by a touch without a word; sometimes by a word and a touch and a vehicle, as in the saliva that was put on the tongue and in the ears of the deaf, and on the eyes of the blind; sometimes by a vehicle without a word, without a touch, without His presence, as when He said, Go wash in the pool of Siloam, and he washed and was clean.' So the divine worker varies infinitely and at pleasure, yet not arbitrarily but for profound, even if not always discoverable, reasons, the methods of His miracle-working power, in order that we may learn by these varieties of ways that He is tied to no way; and that His hand, strong and almighty, uses methods and tosses aside methods according to His pleasure, the methods being vitalised when they are used by His will, and being nothing at all in themselves.

The very variety of His methods, then, teaches us that the true cause in every case is His own bare will. A simple word is the highest and most adequate expression of that will. His word is all-powerful: and that is the very signature of divinity. Of whom has it been true from of old that He spake and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast'? Do you believe in a Christ whose bare will, thrown among material things, makes them all plastic, as clay in the potter's hands, whose mouth rebukes the demons and they flee, rebukes death and it looses its grasp, rebukes the tempest and there is a calm, rebukes disease and there comes health?

But this use of Christ's touch as apparent means for conveying His miraculous power also serves as an illustration of a principle which is exemplified in all His revelation, namely, the employment in condescension to men's weakness, of outward means as the apparent vehicles of His spiritual power. Just as by the material vehicle sometimes employed for cure, He gave these poor sense-bound natures a ladder by which their faith in His healing power might climb, so in the manner of His revelation and communication of His spiritual gifts, there is provision for the wants of us men, who ever need some body for spirit to make itself manifest by, some form for the ethereal reality, some tabernacle' for the sun.' Sacraments,' outward ceremonies, forms of worship, are vehicles which the Divine Spirit uses in order to bring His gifts to the hearts and the minds of men. They are like the touch of the Christ which heals, not by any virtue in itself, apart from His will which chooses to make it the apparent medium of healing. All these externals are nothing, as the pipes of an organ are nothing, until His breath is breathed through them, and then the flood of sweet sound pours out.

Do not despise the material vehicles and the outward helps which Christ uses for the communication of His healing and His life, but remember that the help that is done upon earth, He does it all Himself. Even Christ's touch is nothing, if it were not for His own will which flows through it.

III. Consider Christ's Touch As A Shadow And Symbol Of The Very Heart Of His Work.

Go back to the past history of this man. Ever since his disease declared itself no human being had touched him. If he had a wife he had been separated from her; if he had children their lips had never kissed his, nor their little hands found their way into his hard palm. Alone he had been walking with the plague-cloth over his face, and the cry' Unclean!' on his lips, lest any man should come near him. Skulking in his isolation, how he must have hungered for the touch of a hand! Every Jew was forbidden to approach him but the priest, who, if he were cured, might pass his hand over the place and pronounce him clean. And here comes a Man who breaks down all the restrictions, stretches a frank hand out across the walls of separation, and touches him. What a reviving assurance of love not yet dead must have come to the man as Christ grasped his hand, even if he saw in Him only a stranger who was not afraid of him and did not turn from him!

But beside this thrill of human sympathy, which came hope-bringing to the leper, Christ's touch had much significance, if we remember that, according to the Mosaic legislation, the priest and the priest alone was to lay his hands on the tainted skin and pronounce the leper whole. So Christ's touch was a priest's touch.

He lays His hand on corruption and is not tainted. The corruption with which He comes in contact becomes purity. Are not these really the profoundest truths as to His whole work in the world? What is it all but laying hold of the leper and the outcast and the dead--His sympathy leading to His identification of Himself with us in our weakness and misery?

That sympathetic life-bringing touch is put forth once for all in His Incarnation and Death. He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham,' says the Epistle to the Hebrews, looking at our Lord's work under this same metaphor, and explaining that His laying hold of men was His being made in all points like unto His brethren.' Just as he took hold of the fevered woman and lifted her from her bed; or, as He thrust His fingers into the deaf ears of that poor man stopped by some impediment, so, in analogous fashion, He becomes one of those whom He would save and help. In His assumption of humanity and in His bowing of His head to death, we behold Him laying hold of our weakness and entering into the fellowship of our pains and of the fruit of sin.

Just as He touches the leper and is unpolluted, or the fever patient and receives no contagion, or the dead and draws no chill of mortality into His warm hand, so He becomes like His brethren in all things, yet without sin. Being found in' the likeness of sinful flesh,' He knows no sin, but wears His manhood unpolluted and dwells among men blameless and harmless, the Son of God, without rebuke.' Like a sunbeam passing through foul water untarnished and unstained; or like some sweet spring rising in the midst of the salt sea, which yet retains its freshness and pours it over the surrounding bitterness, so Christ takes upon Himself our nature and lays hold of our stained hands with the hand that continues pure while it grasps us, and will make us purer if we grasp it.

Brethren, let your touch answer to His; and as He lays hold of us, in His incarnation and His death, let the hand of our faith clasp His outstretched hand, and though our hold be as faltering and feeble as that of the trembling, wasted fingers which one timid woman once laid on His garment's hem, the blessing which we need will flow into our veins from the contact. There will be cleansing for our leprosy, sight for our blindness, life driving out death from its throne in our hearts, and we shall be able to recount our joyful experience in the old Psalmist's triumphant strains --He sent me from above, He laid hold upon me, He drew me out of many waters.'

IV. A Pattern For Us.

Finally, we may look upon these incident's as being in a very important sense a pattern for us.

No good is to be done by any man to his fellows except at the cost of true sympathy which leads to identification and contact. The literal touch of your hand would do more good to some poor outcasts than much solemn advice, or even much material help flung to them as from a height above them. A shake of the hand might be more of a means of grace than a sermon, and more comforting than ever so many free breakfasts and blankets given superciliously.

And, symbolically, we may say that we must be willing to take those by the hand whom we wish to help; that is to say, we must come down to their level, try to see with their eyes, and to think their thoughts, and let them feel that we do not think our purity too fine to come beside their filth, nor shrink from them with repugnance, however we may show disapproval and pity for their sin. Much work done by Christian people has no effect, nor ever will have, because it has peeping through it a poorly concealed I am holier than thou.' An instinctive movement of repugnance has ruined many a well-meant effort.

Christ has come down to us, and has taken all our nature upon Himself. If there is an outcast and abandoned soul on earth which may not feel that, Jesus has laid a loving and healing touch on him, Jesus is not the Saviour for the world. He shrinks from none, He unites Himself with all, therefore' He is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him.' His conduct is the pattern and the law for us. A Church is a poor affair if it is not a body of people whose experience of Christ's pity and gratitude for the life which has become theirs through His wondrous making Himself one with them, compels them to do the like in their degree for the sinful and the outcast. Thank God, there are many in every communion who know that constraint of the love of Christ. But the world will not be healed of its sickness till the great body of Christian people awakes to feel that the task and honour of each of them is to go forth bearing Christ's pity certified by their own.

The sins of professing Christian countries are largely to be laid at the door of the Church. We are idle when we ought to be at work. We pass by on the other side' when bleeding brethren lie with wounds gaping to be bound up by us. And even when we are moved to service by Christ's love, and try to do something for our fellows, our work is often tainted by a Sense of our own superiority, and we patronise when we should sympathise, and lecture when we should beseech.

We must he content to take lepers by the hand, if we would help them to purity, and to let every outcast feel the warmth of our pitying, loving grasp, if we would draw them into the forsaken Father's House. Lay your hands on the sinful as Christ did, and they will recover. All your holiness and hope come from Christ's laying hold of you. Keep hold of Him, and make His great pity and loving identification of Himself with the world of sinners and sufferers, your pattern as well as your hope, and your touch, too, will have virtue. Keeping hold of Him who has taken hold of us, you too may be able to say, Ephphatha, be opened,' or to lay your hand on the leper, and he will be cleansed.

MHCC: Mar 1:29-39

Wherever Christ comes, he comes to do good. He cures, that we may minister to him, and to others who are his, and for his sake. Those kept from public ordinances by sickness or other real hinderances, may expect the Saviour's gracious presence; he will soothe their sorrows, and abate their pains. Observe how numerous the patients were. When others speed well with Christ, it should quicken us in seeking after him. Christ departed into a solitary place. Though he was in no danger of distraction, or of temptation to vain-glory, yet he retired. Those who have the most business in public, and of the best kind, must yet sometimes be alone with God.

MHCC: Mar 1:40-45

We have here Christ's cleansing of a leper. It teaches us to apply to the Saviour with great humility, and with full submission to his will, saying, " Lord, if thou wilt," without any doubt of Christ's readiness to help the distressed. See also what to expect from Christ; that according to our faith it shall be to us. The poor leper said, If thou wilt. Christ readily wills favours to those who readily refer themselves to his will. Christ would have nothing done that looked like seeking praise of the people. But no reasons now exist why we should hesitate to spread the praises of Christ.

Matthew Henry: Mar 1:29-39

In these verses, we have,

I. A particular account of one miracle that Christ wrought, in the cure of Peter's wife's mother, who was ill of a fever. This passage we had before, in Matthew. Observe,

1. When Christ had done that which spread his fame throughout all parts, he did not then sit still, as some think that they may lie in bed when their name is up. No, he continued to do good, for that was it he aimed at, and not his own honour. Nay, those who are in reputation, had need be busy and careful to keep it up.

2. When he came out of the synagogue, where he had taught and healed with a divine authority, yet he conversed familiarly with the poor fishermen that attended him, and did not think it below him. Let the same mind, the same lowly mind, be in us, that was in him.

3. He went into Peter's house, probably invited thither to such entertainment as a poor fisherman could give him, and he accepted of it. The apostles left all for Christ; so far as that what they had should not hinder them from him, yet not so, but that they might use it for him.

4. He cured his mother-in-law, who was sick. Wherever Christ comes, he comes to do good, and will be sure to pay richly for his entertainment. Observe, How complete the cure was; when the fever left her, it did not, as usual, leave her weak, but the same hand that healed her, strengthened her, so that she was able to minister to them; the cure is in order to that, to fit for action, that we may minister to Christ, and to those that are his for his sake.

II. A general account of many cures he wrought - diseases healed, devils expelled. It was on the evening of the sabbath, when the sun did set, or was set; perhaps many scrupled bringing their sick to him, till the sabbath was over, but their weakness therein was no prejudice to them in applying to Christ. Though he proved it lawful to heal on the sabbath days, yet, if any stumbled at it, they were welcome at another time. Now observe,

1. How numerous the patients were; All the city was gathered at the door, as beggars for a dole. That one cure in the synagogue occasioned this crowding after him. Others speeding well with Christ should quicken us in our enquiries after him. Now the Sun of righteousness rises with healing under his wings; to him shall the gathering of the people be. Observe, How Christ was flocked after in a private house, as well as in the synagogue; wherever he is, there let his servants, his patients, be. And in the evening of the sabbath, when the public worship is over, we must continue our attendance upon Jesus Christ; he healed, as Paul preached, publicly, and from house to house.

2. How powerful the Physician was; he healed all that were brought to him, though ever so many. Nor was it some one particular disease, that Christ set up for the cure of, but he healed those that were sick of divers diseases, for his word was a panpharmacon - a salve for every sore. And that miracle particularly which he wrought in the synagogue, he repeated in the house at night; for he cast out many devils, and suffered not the devils to speak, for he made them know who he was, and that silenced them. Or, He suffered them not to say that they knew him (so it may be read); he would not permit any more of them to say, as they did (Mar 1:24), I know thee, who thou art.

III. His retirement to his private devotion (Mar 1:35); He prayed, prayed alone; to set us an example of secret prayer. Though as God he was prayed to, as man he prayed. Though he was glorifying God, and doing good, in his public work, yet he found time to be alone with his Father; and thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness. Now observe,

1. The time when Christ prayed. (1.) It was in the morning, the morning after the sabbath day. Note, When a sabbath day is over and past, we must not think that we may intermit our devotion till the next sabbath: no, though we go not to the synagogue, we must go to the throne of grace, every day in the week; and the morning after the sabbath particularly, that we may preserve the good impressions of the day. This morning was the morning of the first day of the week, which afterward he sanctified, and made remarkable, by another sort of rising early. (2.) It was early, a great while before day. When others were asleep in their beds, he was praying, as a genuine Son of David, who seeks God early, and directs his prayer in the morning; nay, and at midnight will rise to give thanks. It has been said, The morning is a friend to the Muses - Aurora Musis amica ; and it is no less so to the Graces. When our spirits are most fresh and lively, then we should take time for devout exercises. He that is the first and best, ought to have the first and best.

2. The place where he prayed; He departed into a solitary place, either out of town, or some remote garden or out-building. Though he was in no danger of distraction, or of temptation to vain-glory, yet he retired, to set us an example to his own rule, When thou prayest enter into thy closet. Secret prayer must be made secretly. Those that have the most business in public, and of the best kind, must sometimes be alone with God; must retire into solitude, there to converse with God, and keep up communion with him.

IV. His return to his public work. The disciples thought they were up early, but found their Master was up before them, and they enquired which way he went, followed him to his solitary place, and there found him at prayer, Mar 1:36, Mar 1:37. They told him that he was much wanted, that there were a great many patients waiting for him; All men seek for thee. They were proud that their Master was become so popular already, and would have him appear in public, yet more in that place, because it was their own city; and we are apt to be partial to the places we know and are interested in. "No,"saith Christ, "Capernaum must not have the monopoly of the Messiah's preaching and miracles. Let us go into the next towns, the villages that lie about here, that I may preach there also, and work miracles there, for therefore came I forth, not to be constantly resident in one place, but to go about doing good. "Even the inhabitants of the villages in Israel shall rehearse the righteous acts of the Lord, Jdg 5:11. Observe, Christ had still an eye to the end wherefore he came forth, and closely pursued that; nor will he be drawn by importunity, or the persuasions of his friends, to decline from that; for (Mar 1:39) he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and, to illustrate and confirm his doctrine, he cast out devils. Note, Christ's doctrine is Satan's destruction.

Matthew Henry: Mar 1:40-45

We have here the story of Christ's cleansing a leper, which we had before, Mat 8:2-4. It teaches us,

1. How to apply ourselves to Christ; come as this leper did, (1.) With great humility; this leper came beseeching him, and kneeling down to him (Mar 1:40); whether giving divine honour to him as God, or rather a less degree of respect as a great Prophet, it teaches us that those who would receive grace and mercy from Christ, must ascribe honour and glory to Christ, and approach to him with humility and reverence. (2.) With a firm belief of his power; Thou canst make me clean. Though Christ's outward appearance was but mean, yet he had this faith in his power, which implies his belief that he was sent of God. He believes it with application, not only in general, Thou cast do every thing (as Joh 11:22), but, Thou cast make me clean. Note, What we believe of the power of Christ we must bring home to our particular case; Thou canst do this for me. (3.) With submission to the will of Christ; Lord, if thou wilt. Not as if he had any doubt of Christ's readiness in general to help the distressed, but, with the modesty that became a poor petitioner, he refers his own particular case to him.

2. What to expect from Christ; that according to our faith it shall be to us. His address is not in the form of prayer, yet Christ answered it as a request. Note, Affectionate professions of faith in Christ, and resignations to him, are the most prevailing petitions for mercy from him, and shall speed accordingly. (1.) Christ was moved with compassion. This is added here, in Mark, to show that Christ's power is employed by his pity for the relief of poor souls; that his reasons are fetched from within himself, and we have nothing in us to recommend us to his favour, but our misery makes us the objects of his mercy. And what he does for us he does with all possible tenderness. (2.) He put forth his hand, and touched him. He exerted his power, and directed it to this creature. In healing souls, Christ toucheth them, 1Sa 10:26. When the queen toucheth for the evil, she saith, I touch, God heals; but Christ toucheth and healeth too. (3.) He said, I will, be thou clean. Christ's power was put forth in and by a word, to signify in what way Christ would ordinarily work spiritual cures; He sends his word and heals, Psa 107:20; Joh 15:3; Joh 17:17. The poor leper put an if upon the will of Christ; If thou wilt; but that doubt is soon put out of doubt; I will. Christ most readily wills favours to those that most readily refer themselves to his will. He was confident of Christ's power; Thou canst make me clean; and Christ will show how much his power is drawn out into act by the faith of his people, and therefore speaks the word as one having authority, Be thou clean. And power accompanied this word, and the cure was perfect in an instant; Immediately his leprosy vanished, and there remained no more sign of it, Mar 1:42.

3. What to do when we have received mercy from Christ. We must with his favours receive his commands. When Christ had cured him, he strictly charged him; the word here is very significant, embrimēsamenos - graviter interminatus - prohibiting with threats. I am apt to think that this refers not to the directions he gave him to conceal it (Mar 1:44), for those are mentioned by themselves; but that this was such a charge as he gave to the impotent man whom he cured, Joh 5:14, Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee; for the leprosy was ordinarily the punishment of some particular sinners, as in Miriam's, Gehazi's, and Uzziah's, case; now, when Christ healed him, he warned him, he threatened him with the fatal consequence of it if he should return to sin again. He also appointed him, (1.) To show himself to the priest, that the priest by his own judgment of this leper might be a witness for Christ, that he was the Messiah, Mat 11:5. (2.) Till he had done that, not to say any thing of it to any man: this is an instance of the humility of Christ and his self-denial, that he did not seek his own honour, did not strive or cry, Isa 42:2. And it is an example to us, not to seek our own glory, Pro 25:27. He must not proclaim it, because that would much increase the crowd that followed Christ, which he thought was too great already; not as if he were unwilling to do good to all, to as many as came; but he would do it with as little noise as might be, would have no offence given to the government, no disturbance of the public peace, not any thing done that looked like ostentation, or an affecting of popular applause. What to think of the leper's publishing it, and blazing it abroad, I know not; the concealment of the good characters and good works of good men better become them than their friends; nor are we always bound by the modest commands of humble men. The leper ought to have observed his orders; yet, no doubt, it was with a good design that he proclaimed the cure, and it had no other ill effect than that it increased the multitudes which followed Christ, to that degree, that he could no more openly enter into the city; not upon the account of persecution (there was no danger of that yet,) but because the crowd was so great, that the streets would not hold them, which obliged him to go into desert places, to a mountain (Mar 3:13), to the sea-side, Mar 4:1. This shows how expedient it was for us, that Christ should go away, and send the Comforter, for his bodily presence could be but in one place at a time; and those that came to him from every quarter, could not get near him; but by his spiritual presence he is with his people wherever they are, and comes to them to every quarter.

Barclay: Mar 1:35-39

Simply to read the record of the things that happened at Capernaum is to see that Jesus was left with no time alone. Now Jesus knew well that he could not live without God; that if he was going to be forever giving out, he must be at least sometimes taking in; that if he was going to spend himself for others, he must ever and again summon spiritual reinforcements to his aid. He knew that he could not live without prayer. In a little book entitled The Practice of Prayer, Dr. A. D. Belden has some great definitions. "Prayer may be defined as the appeal of the soul to God." Not to pray is to be guilty of the incredible folly of ignoring "the possibility of adding God to our resources." "In prayer we give the perfect mind of God an opportunity to feed our mental powers." Jesus knew this; he knew that if he was to meet men he must first meet God. If prayer was necessary for Jesus, how much more must it be necessary for us?

Even there they sought him out. There was no way in which Jesus could shut the door. Once Rose Macaulay, the novelist, said that all she demanded from this life was "a room of her own." That is precisely what Jesus never had. A great doctor has said that the duty of medicine is "sometimes to heal, often to afford relief, and always to bring consolation." That duty was always upon Jesus. It has been said that a doctor's duty is "to help men to live and to die"--and men are always living and dying. It is human nature to try to put up the barriers and to have time and peace to oneself; that is what Jesus never did. Conscious as he was of his own weariness and exhaustion, he was still more conscious of the insistent cry of human need. So when they came for him he rose from his knees to meet the challenge of his task. Prayer will never do our work for us; what it will do is to strengthen us for work which must be done.

Jesus set out on a preaching tour of the synagogues of Galilee. In Mark this tour is dismissed in one verse, but it must have taken weeks and even months to do it. As he went he preached and he healed. There were three pairs of things which Jesus never separated.

(i) He never separated words and actions. He never thought that a work was done when that work was stated; he never believed that his duty was completed when he had exhorted men to God and to goodness. Always the statement and the exhortation were put into action. Fosdick somewhere tens of a student who bought the best possible books and the best possible equipment and got a special study chair with a special bookrest to make study easy, and then sat down in the chair--and went to sleep. The man who deals in words with no actions to follow is very like that.

(ii) He never separated soul and body. There have been types of Christianity which spoke as if the body did not matter. But man is both soul and body. And the task of Christianity is to redeem the whole man and not just part of him. It is indeed blessedly true that a man may be starving, living in a hovel, in distress and pain and yet have sweet times with God; but that is no reason at all for leaving him in such a case. Missions to primitive races do not only take the Bible; they take education and medicine; they take the school and the hospital. It is quite wrong to talk about the social gospel as if it were an extra, or an option, or even a separate part of the Christian message. The Christian message is one and it preaches and works for the good of a man's body as well as the good of his soul.

(iii) Jesus never separated earth and heaven. There are those who are so concerned with heaven that they forget all about earth and so become impractical visionaries. There are those who are so concerned with earth that they forget about heaven and limit good to material good. The dream of Jesus was a time when God's will would be done in earth as it is in heaven, (Mat 6:10) and earth and heaven be one.

Barclay: Mar 1:40-45

In the New Testament there is no disease regarded with more terror and pity than leprosy. When Jesus sent out the Twelve he commanded them, "Heal the sick, cleanse lepers." (Mat 18:8.) The fate of the leper was truly hard. E. W. G. Masterman in his article on leprosy in the Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, from which we have drawn much of the information that follows, says, "No other disease reduces a human being for so many years to so hideous a wreck." Let us look first at the facts.

There are three kinds of leprosy. (i) There is nodular or tubercular leprosy. It begins with an unaccountable lethargy and pains in the joints. Then there appear on the body, especially on the back, symmetrical discoloured patches. On them little nodules form, at first pink, then turning brown. The skin is thickened. The nodules gather specially in the folds of the cheek, the nose, the lips and the forehead. The whole appearance of the face is changed till the man loses his human appearance and looks, as the ancients said, like a lion or a satyr. The nodules grow larger and larger; they ulcerate and from them comes a foul discharge. The eye-brows fail out; the eyes become staring; the voice becomes hoarse and the breath wheezes because of the ulceration of the vocal chords. The hands and the feet also ulcerate. Slowly the sufferer becomes a mass of ulcerated growths. The average course of the disease is nine years, and it ends in mental decay, coma and ultimately death. the sufferer becomes utterly repulsive both to himself and to others.

(ii) There is anaesthetic leprosy. The initial stages are the same; but the nerve trunks also are affected. The infected area loses all sensation. This may happen without the sufferer knowing that it has happened; and he may not realize that it has happened until he suffers some burning or scalding and finds that there is no feeling whatsoever where pain ought to be. As the disease develops the injury to the nerves causes discoloured patches and blisters. The muscles waste away; the tendons contract until the hands become like claws. There is always disfigurement of the finger nails. There ensues chronic ulceration of the feet and of the hands and then the progressive loss of fingers and of toes, until in the end a whole hand or a whole foot may drop off. The duration of the disease is anything from twenty to thirty years. It is a kind of terrible progressive death of the body.

(iii) The third kind of leprosy is a type--the commonest of all--where nodular and anaesthetic leprosy are mixed.

That is leprosy proper, and there is no doubt that there were many lepers like that in Palestine in the time of Jesus. From the description in Lev 13 it is quite clear that in New Testament times the term leprosy was also used to cover other skin diseases. It seems to have been used to include psoriasis, a disease which covers the body with white scales, and which would give rise to the phrase "a leper as white as snow." It seems also to have included ring-worm which is still very common in the East. The Hebrew word used in Leviticus for leprosy is tsara'ath (06883). Now Lev 13:47speaks of a tsara'ath (06883) of garments, and a tsara'ath (06883) of houses is dealt with in Lev 14:33. Such a blemish on a garment would be some kind of mould or fungus; and on a house it would be some kind of dry-rot in the wood or destructive lichen on the stone. The word tsara'ath (06883), leprosy in Jewish thought, seems to have covered any kind of creeping skin disease. Very naturally, with medical knowledge in an extremely primitive state, diagnosis did not distinguish between the different kinds of skin disease and included both the deadly and incurable and the non-fatal and comparatively harmless under the one inclusive title.

Any such skin disease rendered the sufferer unclean. He was banished from the fellowship of men; he must dwell alone outside the camp; he must go with rent clothes, bared head, a covering upon his upper lip, and as he went he must give warning of his polluted presence with the cry, "Unclean, unclean!" We see the same thing in the Middle Ages, which merely applied the Mosaic law. The priest, wearing his stole and carrying a crucifix, led the leper into the church, and read the burial service over him. The leper was a man who was already dead, though still alive. He had to wear a black garment that all might recognize and live in a leper- or lazar-house. He must not come into a church service but while the service went on he might peer through the leper "squint" cut in the walls. The leper had not only to bear the physical pain of his disease; he had to bear the mental anguish and the heart-break of being completely banished from human society and totally shunned.

If ever a leper was cured--and real leprosy was incurable, so it is some of the other skin diseases which must be referred to--he had to undergo a complicated ceremony of restoration which is described in Lev 14 . He was examined by the priest. Two birds were taken and one was killed over running water. In addition there was taken cedar, scarlet and hyssop. These things and the living bird were dipped in the blood of the dead bird and then the live bird was allowed to go free. The man washed himself and his clothes and shaved himself. Seven days then elapsed and he was re-examined. He had then to shave his hair, his head, his eye-brows. Certain sacrifices were made--two male lambs without blemish and one ewe lamb; three tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil and one log of oil. The amounts were less for the poor. The restored sufferer was touched on the tip of the right ear, the right thumb and the right great toe with blood and oil. He was given a final examination and, if clear of the disease, he was snowed to go with a certificate that he was clean.

Here is one of the most revealing pictures of Jesus.

(i) He did not drive away a man who had broken the law. The leper had no right to have spoken to him at all, but Jesus met the desperation of human need with an understanding compassion.

(ii) Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him. He touched the man who was unclean. To Jesus he was not unclean; he was simply a human soul in desperate need.

(iii) Having cleansed him, Jesus sent him to fulfil the prescribed ritual. He fulfilled the human law and human righteousness. He did not recklessly defy the conventions, but, when need be, submitted to them.

Here we see compassion, power and wisdom all conjoined.

Constable: Mar 1:14--3:7

II. The Servant's early Galilean ministry 1:14--3:6

Mark omitted Jesus' year of early Judean ministry (John 1:15-4:42), as did the other Synoptic evangelists. He began his account of Jesus' ministry of service in Galilee, northern Israel (1:14-6:6a). Because of increasing opposition and rejection, Jesus made several withdrawals from Galilee followed by returns to this region. Mark recorded four of these (6:6b-8:30). Then Jesus left Galilee for Jerusalem. Mark recorded lessons on four important subjects pertinent to discipleship that Jesus taught His disciples during this transition for his readers' benefit (ch. 10). Next Jesus ministered in Jerusalem, and Mark selected three significant events there for inclusion in his story (chs. 11-13).

"Four major characters stand out, as do two groups of minor characters: Jesus, the religious authorities, the disciples, the crowd, and those groups of minor characters who either exhibit faith or somehow exemplify what it means to serve."³⁸

Mark stressed Jesus' ministry as a servant in his Gospel. The rest of the book details how He served God and man. During the first part of Jesus' ministry, He laid down His life in service (1:14-13:37). His passion is the record of His laying down His life in self-sacrifice (chs. 14-16).

Mark began his Gospel with an overview of selected events in Jesus' early Galilean ministry that were typical of His whole ministry (1:14-3:6).

Constable: Mar 1:35-45

C. Jesus' early ministry throughout Galilee 1:35-45

Jesus made several preaching tours throughout Galilee. Mark summarized the first of these (vv. 35-39) and then related one specially significant event during that tour (vv. 40-45). This section continues to present Jesus as the Servant of the Lord who went about doing the messianic work that His Father had assigned to Him.

Constable: Mar 1:35-39

1. The first preaching tour of Galilee 1:35-39 (cf. Luke 4:42-44)

While these verses record the itinerant ministry of Jesus, Mark's emphasis was clearly on Jesus' spiritual preparation for that ministry. It highlighted His dependence on His Father.

1:35 Mark implied that these events happened the next day. Many people would have slept late after such a busy day. However, Jesus rose early, even before dawn, and went to a remote (Gr. eremon, v. 4) place to pray (Gr. proseucho, the general word for prayer). This sacrificial act paints Jesus as consciously dependent on His Father for strength and direction for what lay ahead of Him. Prayerlessness typically manifests self-sufficiency, but prayerfulness reveals humility.

"Mark selectively portrayed Jesus at prayer on three crucial occasions, each in a setting of darkness and aloneness: near the beginning of his account (v. 35), near the middle (6:46), and near the end (14:32-42). All three were occasions when He was faced with the possibility of achieving His messianic mission in a more attractive, less costly way. But in each case He gained strength through prayer."⁵⁵

In this case the crest of popular support that Jesus had ridden the day before threatened to carry Him into political leadership that might have washed out the Cross.

1:36-37 Simon and his companions--who they were is unimportant--did not understand Jesus' need for prayer. They seem to have had the common attitude that when things are favorable we do not need God's help. Their words implied annoyance. Apparently they felt Jesus was not taking advantage of His popularity to promote His mission. They did not realize that God directed Jesus' mission, not the responses of people. This is the first instance of Peter's impetuous leadership that Mark recorded.

1:38-39 Peter viewed the healing ministry of Jesus as primary, as did many of his companions. Jesus viewed them as only a small part of His larger mission. He had "come out" from God to fulfill this mission. Peter encouraged Jesus to stay where He could not escape pressure to perform miracles (cf. John 7:3-5). Jesus chose to move on to other parts of Galilee where He could present the gospel (v. 14) and His claims (v. 15).

Verse 39 summarizes this preaching tour throughout Galilee. It may have lasted several weeks or even months (cf. Matt. 4:23-25). Jesus centered His ministry during this time in the synagogues because His mission was essentially religious rather than political or economic. His main activity was heralding (Gr. kerysso) the gospel, but He authenticated His preaching with miracles, the most dramatic of which were exorcisms.

Constable: Mar 1:40-45

2. The cleansing of a leprous Jew 1:40-45 (cf. Matt. 8:1-4; Luke 5:12-16)

This pericope evidently describes one incident during the Galilean preaching tour just summarized. It provides a striking example of Jesus' supernatural power. This is only one of two healings of lepers that the Gospels record, though Jesus healed other lepers (cf. Matt. 11:5). The other recorded incident involved Jesus cleansing 10 lepers in Samaria (cf. Luke 17:11-19). This incident that Mark recorded was significant because it brought the religious leaders from Jerusalem into Galilee to investigate Jesus. This is the beginning of the hostility motif.

Mark is the only evangelist who recorded that compassion moved Jesus to heal this pitiable man (v. 41). However his version of this miracle stressed what the leper did after Jesus healed him. Jesus had "sternly warned" (Gr. embrimaomai) the cleansed leper not to tell anyone what Jesus had done for him (vv. 43-44; cf. vv. 25, 34; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 9:9). Only Mark used this strong word. Jesus wanted to avoid becoming known simply as a miracle worker, which might lead to pressure to avoid the Cross. However the man disobeyed Jesus even though he probably thought he had good reason to do so, namely to bring praise to Jesus. His disobedience to Jesus' word frustrated Jesus' work rather than advancing it. Jesus needed to minister to people, but the leper's action forced Him to spend more time in uninhabited, solitary places (Gr. eremon, vv. 4, 35).

Perhaps Mark pointed this out to encourage his Christian readers to follow the Word of God carefully. Sometimes believers disobey God because we think our way will be better than His. It never is. Frequently it has the same result as this cleansed leper's disobedience. It retards God's mission rather than advancing it. The fact that this man was a cleansed leper makes believers' identification with him easy since leprosy in the Bible is similar to sin, and believers are cleansed sinners.

The leper's disobedience did not destroy God's plan but only created complications. The Galileans still kept seeking Jesus out (v. 45).⁵⁶

College: Mar 1:1-45

MARK 1

I. INTRODUCTION (1:1-15)

Mark's Gospel begins with an introduction that orients the reader to the story to follow. The extent of the introduction is debatable, with different scholars arguing for setting the limit at the end of v. 8, v. 13, or v. 15. However, even if one were to conclude that vv. 14-15 or even vv. 9-13 are not technically part of what Mark envisioned as an introduction to the book, they nevertheless clearly function to introduce the identity and mission of Jesus.

It is important to read 1:1-15 carefully since these verses set the framework for the rest of the story. They tell us that Mark's story will focus on Jesus; they identify him as the Christ, the Son of God; they sum up his message; they declare his story to be the fulfilment of the prophetic message concerning the coming one and his kingdom; and they indicate that the good news about Jesus calls for a response.

A. THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL (1:1-8)

¹ The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ^a

² It is written in Isaiah the prophet:

" I will send my messenger ahead of you,

who will prepare your way" ^b -

³" a voice of one calling in the desert,

'Prepare the way for the Lord,

make straight paths for him.'" ^c

⁴ And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. ⁵ The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. ⁶ John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. ⁷ And this was his message: " After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. ⁸ I baptize you with ^d water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

^a 1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God. ^b 2 Mal. 3:1 ^c 3 Isaiah 40:3 ^d 8 Or in

In 1:1-8, Mark begins with the preaching of John the Baptist, but he does so in a way that puts the focus on Jesus.Vv. 1 and 7-8 make this apparent, as does the description of John as one sent to " prepare the way." The first eight verses are in one sense primarily about John, but their more significant purpose is to set the stage for Jesus.

1. The first verse deserves a detailed examination. Some believe it refers to the opening section of the Gospel (whether vv. 1-8, 1-13, or 1-15) while others argue it is Mark's title for the book as a whole. The first view is more likely, especially in view of the opening phrase of v. 2, " as it is written." In the other twenty-five New Testament occurrences of this phrase it comments on what has just preceded it, usually introducing an Old Testament quotation that is applied to the preceding statement. If the same is true here, then the quotation in vv. 2-3 clarifies what Mark has in mind when he speaks of " the beginning of the gospel." He is thinking about the preparatory work of John.

Yet there is a sense in which the rest of the first verse after " the beginning" describes the entire Gospel of Mark. All sixteen chapters are not " the beginning," but all sixteen chapters are concerned with " the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

The word " gospel" (eujaggevlion, euangelion ) means " good news." In Mark's day it had a broad usage like the modern phrase " good news." However, Mark's use of the term was based on its Christian use in which it referred to the saving message about Jesus. Mark uses the word " gospel" (in 1:1, 14-15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; and 14:9) to refer either to Jesus' own message (as in 1:14-15) or to the message about Jesus (as in 13:10). The NIV translation " gospel about Jesus Christ" is probably correct in indicating the latter for v. 1, although the phrase could be translated " Jesus Christ's gospel" (that is, the gospel proclaimed by Jesus himself, as in 1:14-15).

Jesus is identified in v. 1 as " Jesus Christ, Son of God." " Christ" was the Greek translation of " messiah," a Hebrew word meaning " anointed one." Since Israel's kings were designated by anointing, the king many Jews expected God to send in the future was called the messiah. By identifying Jesus as Christ, Mark indicates that he is the one who fulfilled the centuries old Jewish expectations of a coming messiah.

The title " Son of God" is not part of v. 1 in several important ancient witnesses to the text. It may not belong to the original text of Mark 1:1, although Jesus' Sonship is clearly an important theme elsewhere in Mark (1:11; 3:11; 8:38; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:36, 61; 15:39). The prominence of this concept in Mark favors its originality here. In the Old Testament angels, Israel's kings, and the nation of Israel are described as being God's sons (e.g., Job 1:6; 2 Sam 7:14; Exod 4:22-23). In the New Testament the title " Son of God" is often associated closely with the term " Christ" (e.g., Mark 1:1; 14:61; Matt 16:16; Luke 4:41; Rom 1:1-4). Of course Mark describes Jesus as God's Son in a sense that transcends what could be said of Israel, Israel's kings, or angels. Jesus is uniquely God's Son, as seen especially in his baptism (1:11) and his transfiguration (9:7). The importance of Jesus' divine sonship for Mark may be indicated by its appearance at the beginning of his Gospel in connection with Jesus' baptism (1:11), in the middle during the transfiguration scene (9:7), and at the end immediately after Jesus' death (15:39).

By the end of the first verse, Mark's readers know that the book will focus on the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2-3. The next two verses also serve a valuable introductory function. This is the only occasion when Mark quotes a specific prophecy in an editorial comment. (The other fulfilment quotations in Mark are cited by people in the story.) However, coming at the very beginning of the book, this quotation sets the entire book of Mark in the framework of the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy (cf. 1:15, " The time has come. . . . The kingdom of God is near" ). Mark's story is the story of God fulfilling his promises about the coming messiah and kingdom.

The quotation in vv. 2-3 looks back to v. 1 to explain that the beginning of the gospel came about " as it is written in Isaiah the prophet." Although many ancient manuscripts of Mark read " as it is written in the prophets," the best manuscripts refer only to Isaiah. Perhaps Mark wanted to focus on the citation of Isa 40:3 in v. 3.

V. 2 combines elements of Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1. Through the use of Mal 3:1 Mark implicitly identifies John the Baptist as the Elijah to come of Mal 4: 5, an identification that is later made overtly in Mark 9:11-13. In addition to combining Old Testament texts, Mark makes small but significant changes in wording. His use of " your" way rather than " my" way points to Jesus as the one for whom the messenger prepares. V. 3 alters the Isa 40:3 citation in a similar way, speaking of making straight " his" (that is, Jesus') paths rather than the paths " of our God."

The point of the composite and edited citation is that the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ came about as it had been prophesied: God sent a messenger into the wilderness to prepare the way for the Christ. The following verses provide the specifics of the fulfilment. The messenger is John the Baptizer. The location of his preaching is the wilderness. He prepared the people by proclaiming a baptism of repentance and teaching them about the one who would come after him.

4-5. Although our manuscripts differ, the best attested reading of Mark's description of John is probably not the NIV's " John came, baptizing," but " John the baptizer came." Mark is unique in describing John as " the baptizer" rather than " the baptist," but the meaning is basically the same. John was known for baptizing Jews in the Jordan river.

Before John, immersion rituals were already common in Palestine. Many Jews practiced repeated ritual (self-administered) immersions to deal with uncleanness. John's baptism differed in that it was a one time event, administered by another, and connected with repentance and forgiveness of sins. Unfortunately, we do not know for sure whether proselyte baptism (for initiating Gentiles into Judaism) was practiced before the ministry of John. It would provide a more similar (one time only) precedent for John's baptism, although it was also self-administered.

In any case, John's baptism was not a repeated ritual immersion, but a one time event connected with repentance and confession of sins. It led, as does Christian baptism, to forgiveness of sins (compare Mark 1:4 and Acts 2:38 - although, of course there could be no thought in John's baptism of the parallel with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus or of the atoning value of Jesus' death).

Mark's statement that " the whole Judaean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem" were baptized by John is hyperbolic, but it indicates that John did have much success in preparing people for the one to come after him.

6. Why does Mark tell us what John wore and ate? Probably he wants to underscore the point that John was a man of the wilderness (in fulfilment of Isa 40:3). It is possible that John's garment of camel hair is mentioned to identify him as a prophet (cf. Zech 13:4; Heb 11:37) or that his leather belt relates him to Elijah (2 Kgs 1:8).

7-8. John's teaching about the one who would follow him is that he will be more powerful than John. The statement that he is not worthy even to stoop and untie Jesus' sandals emphasizes the vast superiority that he grants to the coming one. One element of Jesus' superiority will be that he will baptize with (one could also translate ejn as " in" ) the Holy Spirit.

Mark does not explain the meaning of John's description of Jesus as baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Presumably, he assumed his readers would know the meaning of this concept. Modern readers must turn to other New Testament texts. The reflections of John's statement in Acts 1:4-5 and 11:16 make it clear that for Luke John's prediction about Jesus baptizing in the Spirit was fulfilled in Acts 2 at Pentecost and in Acts 10 with Cornelius's household. It may be questioned, however, whether Luke intended to limit the fulfilment to these two events. The fact that John proclaimed this message to all who came out to him suggests a more general application. It can be argued from Acts 1:4-5; 2:16-21, 33, 38-39 that Peter equates being baptized with the Spirit, the pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. In that case being baptized in the Spirit would not be a special miracle-working measure of the Spirit granted only to some Christians and not others, but the common reception of the Spirit also referred to as receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. This accords with Paul's usage in 1 Cor 12:13: " For we all were baptized by (or " with" or " in" -it is the same preposition ejn Mark uses) the Holy Spirit." Thus John the baptizer probably speaks of the universal reception of the Spirit by all who are baptized with Christ's baptism. John's baptism brought forgiveness of sins, but only Christ would fulfill the Old Testament promises that God would give his Spirit to all his people (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:27; 37:14; Joel 2:28-29).

B. JOHN BAPTIZES JESUS (1:9-11)

⁹ At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. ¹⁰ As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. ¹¹ And a voice came from heaven: " You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

In this paragraph Jesus is introduced into the story in a way that highlights who he is. Mark's account of John baptizing Jesus connects Jesus to the work of John. More importantly, it portrays the Spirit descending on Jesus and God identifying Jesus as his beloved Son. From this point forward Jesus is the main figure in every section of Mark except 6:17-29 (the description of John's death).

9. Note the parallel between v. 9 and v. 5. V. 9, of course, does not have a parallel to " confessing their sins." Jesus' hometown Nazareth is named only here in Mark. But in 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; and 16:6 he is identified as a Nazarene, that is, a man from Nazareth. Mark 6:1-6 takes place there. Nazareth was a small village in the hills of lower Galilee. However, it is incorrect to think of it as completely isolated. It was only a few miles from ancient Sepphoris, which " in the decades following the birth of Jesus . . . was the chief city and capital of Galilee."

10-11. Mark focuses attention on three things that happened as Jesus came up from being immersed. The tearing open of the heavens and the Spirit's descent may echo Isa 64:1 (LXX Isa 63:19) where Isaiah petitions God to open the heavens and come down. Whether or not it reflects Isaiah, the heavens being opened suggests a revelation from God. The two other things that happen should be thought of as coming out of the open heavens: the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus and the voice declaring Jesus to be God's Son.

It is questionable whether we can ascertain why the Spirit appeared in the particular form of a dove. It is more significant to ask what his descent upon Jesus signified, although Mark does not provide a specific answer. It may indicate the point at which the Spirit came to dwell within Jesus (as long as one does not understand this in an adoptionistic sense as the point when the man Jesus is adopted as the Son of God). It could be understood as a means of identifying Jesus as the one who will baptize in the Spirit (Mark 1:8; cf. John 1:33) or of commissioning him for his mission (cf. Isa 61:1-3). Nor are these possible implications mutually exclusive.

The voice from heaven confirms Mark's previous identification of Jesus (in 1:1) as the Son of God. That is its main purpose. It is probable that " You are my Son" reflects Ps 2:7 and that " whom I love; with you I am well pleased" reflects Isa 42:1. However, what Mark provides are allusions, not quotations. It may be overinterpreting to argue that we are meant to think of the contexts of Ps 2 and Isa 42 and to interpret the statement from heaven as combining the concepts of the messianic king and the suffering servant. The word ajgaphtov" (agapçtos) translated " whom I love," (or preferably " beloved" ) generally means just that, but in a few cases (e.g., Gen 22:2 LXX) it designates an " only" son. It might have that connotation here (although the primary meaning " beloved" would still be present). It is not clear whether " with you I am well pleased" is a response to Jesus' obedience in baptism in particular or simply a general declaration.

Despite some uncertainty over details, the general importance of the incidents accompanying Jesus' baptism are clear. Jesus is the one John came to prepare for. He is God's beloved and pleasing Son.

C. TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS (1:12-13)

¹² At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, ¹³ and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

In contrast to Matt 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13, Mark's description of Satan tempting Jesus is extraordinarily brief. It is also somewhat enigmatic. We do not know how much Mark assumed his readers knew about this incident and it is not easy to determine what he would have wanted them to understand about its significance.

12. Coming immediately after the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at his baptism, this verse demonstrates that the Spirit was active in Jesus' life. The wilderness experience of Jesus was according to divine plan.

13. Forty days is a common time period in Scripture. In Exod 34:28; Deut 9:9, 18; and 1 Kgs 19:8 it is a period of fasting. Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark does not refer to Jesus fasting, but he may assume his readers know more of the story than he describes. In three brief clauses Mark tells what happened in the wilderness: Jesus was tempted by Satan, he was with the wild beasts, and the angels attended (dihkovnoun, diçkonoun, NRSV: " waited on" ) him. When he says Jesus was tempted by Satan, Mark expects the reader to assume that Jesus successfully resisted those temptations. The second clause - about being with the wild beasts - is unique to Mark. The point may be that the wild beasts would not harm him because of who he was. The third item - that the angels attended to him - also seems to underscore his identity. Perhaps Mark's chief purpose in his brief account of Jesus' experiences in the wilderness is to continue his emphasis on Jesus' unique identity.

D. THE GOSPEL JESUS PREACHED (1:14-15)

¹⁴ After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ¹⁵" The time has come," he said. " The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

This brief paragraph locates Jesus' ministry in space and time. More importantly, it provides a brief summary of his message. Whether it is considered to be the last part of Mark's introduction or the first part of his description of Jesus' ministry it serves to introduce the reader to Jesus' gospel. Here " good news" does not refer to the message about Jesus, but to what Jesus himself preached.

14. Jesus began his ministry in Galilee after John's arrest. This region was the setting of most of Jesus' ministry. Located above Samaria and west of the Sea of Galilee, Galilee was a predominately Jewish area ruled by Herod Antipas. The Gospels name seven Galilean towns that Jesus entered: Cana, Capernaum, Chorazin, Gennesaret, Nain, Nazareth, and Tiberias.

15. Jesus' gospel centers on the coming of the kingdom of God. " The time has come" is clarified by " The kingdom of God is near." " The time" is the appointed time God had announced through the prophets. " Has come" (peplhvrwtai, peplçrôtai) could be translated " is fulfilled" (as in the NRSV). Jesus is announcing the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the kingdom.

The clause " The kingdom of God is near" is more problematic than it first appears to be. The verb translated " is near" (h[ggiken, çngiken) has been the subject of continuing debate throughout much of the twentieth century. In 1935 C.H. Dodd argued that Jesus was saying that the kingdom had already arrived in his ministry. Dodd argued that the saying ought to be translated " The kingdom of God has come." The upshot of decades of debate is that few current scholars would agree with Dodd completely, but many believe that the verb in this clause is deliberately ambiguous as to whether the kingdom " is near" or " has come." This understanding correlates with the widespread opinion that for Jesus the kingdom was both (in some sense) already present and (in its full sense) yet to come. The NRSV translation " The kingdom of God has come near" probably intends to indicate this ambiguity.

Whether in this instance one chooses " The kingdom is near" or " The kingdom has come near," there is ongoing debate concerning Jesus' overall teachings concerning the nature and the arrival of the kingdom of God. The phrase " kingdom of God" (or Matthew's equivalent, " kingdom of heaven" ) is not defined in the Gospels and so our understanding must be developed from careful examination of every detail in Jesus' statements about it. One aspect which is quite clear in Mark and elsewhere is that Jesus sometimes has reference to the final, otherworldly, abode of the faithful. For example, in Mark 9:47 Jesus says, " It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell." There can be no serious doubt that here and elsewhere Jesus is thinking of the eternal, heavenly kingdom.

On the other hand, it is not clear that Jesus always had heaven in mind when he spoke of the kingdom of God. On two occasions most interpreters believe Jesus was saying that in some sense the kingdom was already present in his ministry: Luke 17:21 and especially Matt 12:28 (=Luke 11:20). In Matt 12:28 when Jesus says " But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you," he uses a different verb than in the saying we are considering from Mark. He seems to be giving his authority over demons as evidence that the kingdom is already present. If the kingdom of God is understood as a dynamic concept with the general sense of the rule or reign of God, then it is possible to speak of the reign of God breaking into the world in a new way in Jesus' ministry and more fully after Jesus' death in the church, and yet to reserve the ultimate ideal for the all-encompassing reign of God in his heavenly kingdom.

The good news Jesus proclaims in Mark is that " The kingdom of God is (or has come) near." In response people need to repent and believe the good news. John had also called upon the people to repent (Mark 1:4-5).

II. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION ONE

(1:16-3:12)

A. THE CALL OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES (1:16-20)

¹⁶ As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. ¹⁷ Come, follow me," Jesus said, " and I will make you fishers of men." ¹⁸ At once they left their nets and followed him.

¹⁹ When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. ²⁰ Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

The first event of Jesus' ministry in Mark is the call of the four fishermen. If one takes Mark 1:1-15 as an introduction, 1:16-20 begins the first half of the body of the book. In this half there are two major themes: 1) christology, with a strong emphasis on Jesus' authority, and 2) discipleship. The call of the fishermen brings the disciples into the picture. From this point forward they participate in almost every scene, becoming the most important characters other than Jesus. Mark presumably expected his readers to identify with the disciples as they sought to follow Jesus. We learn from both their successes and their failures. The four disciples called in this section are designated as part of the twelve in 3:13-19. Three of them-Peter, James, and John-become the inner circle of the twelve who are privileged on three special occasions (5:37; 9:2; 14:33). The first named, Peter, plays a central role among the twelve, coming to the forefront several times, including his famous confession (8:29) and denials (14:66-72) of Jesus.

16-18. This is the first of several scenes that take place on or near the Sea of Galilee. Mark calls Peter " Simon" until 3:16 when he says Jesus gave Simon the name Peter. Peter and his brother Andrew are fishermen. From Luke 5:1-11 we learn that Peter owned his own boat and that James and John were his partners. Combining this with the reference in Mark 1:20 to hired hands we should probably think of the two sets of brothers as successful entrepreneurs.

The main points of the story concern christology and discipleship. Christologically, Mark's portrait of Jesus calling these men in the midst of their work and receiving an immediate response highlights the authority of Jesus, a theme demonstrated repetitively in the first half of the book. Mark also suggests that Jesus' own mission is to fish for men, both through his successful catch of the four fishermen and through his definition of their task in following him.

As far as discipleship is concerned, we learn that discipleship involves " following," a concept repeated throughout Mark. We learn that following may involve leaving something as important as one's occupation. And we learn that following leads to becoming another kind of fisherman, one who fishes for people. The imagery of fishing for people or nations is found in the Old Testament (Jer 16:16; Ezek 29:4-5; Amos 4:2; Hab 1:14-17) as a metaphor of God's punishment. Jesus apparently created the positive metaphor in connection with the occupation of the fishermen. Both Jesus and his disciples fish for people to bring them into the kingdom of God.

19-20. The second calling adds James and John. It indicates that in addition to making sacrifices with respect to occupation, discipleship may involve making sacrifices with respect to family (" they left their father Zebedee in the boat" ). Peter will later say, " We have left everything to follow you!" (10:28) and Jesus will commend those who have " left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel" (10:29).

It is important not to misread Peter's declaration about leaving everything. In Mark 1:29 Peter still has a house and a mother-in-law, and in 1 Cor 9:5 Paul says that Peter took his wife around with him. The demands Jesus made should not be read as equivalent to the ancient Cynic's demand for renunciation of property and family. It is also important to be cautious about applying the demands made on the twelve to Christian discipleship in general. The twelve had a special role for which they left their former work as fishermen, tax collectors, etc. Jesus did not ask everyone he taught to do this. Nevertheless, following Jesus sometimes involves sacrificing one's occupation or family relationships.

B. JESUS DEMONSTRATES HIS AUTHORITY

IN CAPERNAUM (1:21-28)

²¹ They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. ²² The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. ²³ Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, ²⁴" What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are - the Holy One of God!"

²⁵" Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. " Come out of him!" ²⁶ The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.

²⁷ The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, " What is this? A new teaching - and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him." ²⁸ News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

^a 23 Greek unclean ; also in verses 26 and 27

The call of the fishermen was the first event Mark describes from Jesus' ministry. The scene in the synagogue in Capernaum is the first public teaching event, accompanied by the first miracle. These verses open a section which presents a day in the life of Jesus (1:21-39). It is an unusual section in Mark because several different stories are tied together by the place (Capernaum) and by detailed time references (v. 29 " as soon as they left the synagogue," v. 32 " that evening after sunset," v. 35 " in the morning, while it was still very dark" ).

The synagogue scene emphasizes Jesus' authority (ejxousiva, exousia , vv. 22 and 27) as demonstrated by both his teaching and his ability to command the unclean spirits. The evil spirit provides the correct understanding of Jesus' authority when he says, " I know who you are - the Holy One of God." Being a spirit with supernatural knowledge, he reaffirms what Mark (1:1) and God (1:11) have already affirmed about Jesus.

21. Capernaum was a lakeside town on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. Peter and Andrew lived there (Mark 1:29). Jesus apparently spent a large amount of time there during his Galilean ministry. In Matt 9:1 (cf. Mark 2:1) it is described as " his (Jesus') own town." On the sabbath many Jews, including Jesus, went to the synagogue to worship.

22. " Teachers of the law" is the NIV translation for the word grammatei'" ( grammateis ) traditionally translated " scribes." The scribes were professional interpreters and teachers of the Old Testament Law. They could be Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes, although the majority of those mentioned in the Gospels seem to be Pharisees (cf. 2:16). Mark mentions scribes twenty-one times as opponents of Jesus. They are sometimes mentioned alone (as here), sometimes associated with the Pharisees (e.g., 2:16; 7:5), and sometimes mentioned as part of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (e.g., 14:53).

Mark provides less of Jesus' teaching than the other Gospels, but he refers to the fact of Jesus' teaching (proportionately) more frequently. The point he emphasizes here is that Jesus' teaching was different from that of the teachers of the scribes because he taught " as one who had authority." This may refer to Jesus' " You have heard . . . but I say" style (represented in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere) as opposed to the scribal tendency to cite the opinions of various rabbis. Or it may have more to do with the substance of his teaching (as in 2:5 when he forgives a man's sins). In either case Mark observes that the people in the synagogue were amazed at the authority of Jesus' teaching. This is the first of a series of references to Jesus' teaching or miracles creating amazement (1:27; 2:12; 5:20, 42; 6:2, 51; 7:37; 10:24, 26; 11:18).

23-24. The first miracle Jesus performs in Mark's account involves an unclean spirit or demon. Mark uses the terms " unclean spirit" and " demon" interchangeably and roughly an equal number of times. The NIV prefers " evil spirit" rather than the more literal translation " unclean spirit." Mark does not call these beings " evil" spirits, although Luke does (7:21; 8:2).

This is the first of four exorcisms Mark selected from the many Jesus performed (5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-29; cf. 1:34, 39). As a supernatural being, the demon knows Jesus, his hometown, his antagonism to demons, and his identity as " the Holy One of God." This is the first of many times in Mark that the demons identify Jesus (1:34; 3:11; 5:7; cf. 9:20). The title " Holy One of God" appears in the Gospels only here, in the parallel in Luke 4:34, and in John 6:69. It is used in the Old Testament for Aaron (Ps 106:16) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4:9). Like " Son of God," it developed a heightened meaning when applied to Jesus.

25-26. In this first instance, Jesus' silencing of the demon might be understood simply as his exerting his authority over it. However, Mark 3:12, " But he sternly ordered them [the demons] not to make him known" (NRSV translation), suggests that the silencing of the demons is part of what is often called " the messianic secret." In 8:30 Jesus instructs the disciples not to tell others that he is the Christ and in 9:9 he orders Peter, James, and John not to tell anyone about the transfiguration until after he is raised from the dead. Mark does not explain the reason for these instructions and there is not a concensus of opinion in contemporary scholarship. Jesus probably wanted to avoid misunderstandings of his identity and role based on various popular misconceptions of the messiah. It has often been argued that he wanted to avoid the possibility that the authorities would bring his ministry to an untimely end if they perceived him as claiming messiahship. The most popular understanding today is that Jesus kept his messiahship secret because it would inevitably be misunderstood until it could be seen in the light of the cross and resurrection. This point of view is supported by the way Jesus responds to Peter's confession with predictions of his death (8:27-31) and by the centurion's confession of Jesus as God's Son when he " saw how he died" (15:39). In the shadow of the cross the meaning of Jesus' identity could be seen more clearly.

With a brief command, Jesus expelled the demon, which went out of the man in a visible and audible manner. Mark's point is that Jesus had authority over the demon.

27-28. At the beginning of the Capernaum synagogue scene Mark said that the people were amazed at the authority of Jesus' teaching. He concludes with another note about their amazement at Jesus' authority - this time at both his teaching and his power over the demon. Grammatically the phrase " with authority" can be taken with either " a new teaching" or " he even gives orders to evil spirits." This grammatical problem underscores the fact that both features illustrate Jesus' authority.

The reference to Jesus' spreading fame is the first of many.

C. HEALING SIMON'S MOTHER-IN-LAW (1:29-31)

²⁹ As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. ³⁰ Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her. ³¹ So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.

The second miracle Mark records is a healing, the first of nine Mark has chosen to describe (1:29-31, 40-45; 2:12; 3:1-6; 5:21-43; 7:31-37; 8:22-26; 10:46-52). This story provides some incidental information about Simon: that he had a house in Capernaum, a mother-in-law, and thus presumably a wife (cf. 1 Cor 9:5). See the Introduction to this commentary for the early tradition that Mark's Gospel stems from the preaching of Peter.

The item Mark wanted to stress is no doubt the miraculous healing as another illustration of Jesus' authority.

D. OTHER HEALINGS AT CAPERNAUM (1:32-34)

³² That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. ³³ The whole town gathered at the door, ³⁴ and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

The people presumably waited until the sabbath ended at sundown to avoid violating the sabbath (by carrying the sick or by asking Jesus to heal). Mark uses hyperbole to underscore the popularity of Jesus (" the whole town gathered at the door" ).

This brief summary indicates that the exorcism and healing of 1:21-31 were just two of many miracles Jesus performed in Capernaum. On Jesus' silencing of the demons see the comments on 1:25.

E. WHAT JESUS CAME TO DO (1:35-39)

³⁵ Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. ³⁶ Simon and his companions went to look for him, ³⁷ and when they found him, they exclaimed: " Everyone is looking for you!"

³⁸ Jesus replied, " Let us go somewhere else - to the nearby villages - so I can preach there also. That is why I have come." ³⁹ So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.

This is the first of three glimpses Mark provides into Jesus' prayer life (see also 6:46; 14:32-42). Jesus rose early and found a deserted place partially because the crowds were always present. In fact, when Simon and the others find Jesus they tell him everyone is searching for him.

Jesus left Capernaum on the day after the events of 1:21-34. He began to travel throughout Galilee (cf. 1:14, 28). Although the summation in v. 39 includes exorcisms, Jesus' statement in v. 38 indicates where his emphasis was: he came in order to preach. The NIV translation " That is why I have come" hides an ambiguity apparent in the more literal NRSV translation " that is what I came out to do." Some argue that Jesus means to say why he left Capernaum, but Luke's " that is why I was sent" supports the more likely understanding (which the NIV has chosen). Jesus is stating the mission God sent him to accomplish. Vv. 38-39 should remind the reader of 1:14-15 and Jesus' message of good news about the kingdom of God's arrival. Perhaps v. 39 refers to the exorcisms because Jesus' victories over Satan's cohorts indicate the truth of his message about the arrival of the kingdom (cf. Matt 12:28).

F. HEALING A LEPER (1:40-45)

⁴⁰ A man with leprosy ^a came to him and begged him on his knees, " If you are willing, you can make me clean."

⁴¹ Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. " I am willing," he said. " Be clean!" ⁴² Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.

⁴³ Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: ⁴⁴" See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." ⁴⁵ Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.

^a 40 The Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the skin - not necessarily leprosy.

The one example Mark provides of Jesus' activity during the days after he left Capernaum is not an example of his preaching or exorcisms, but of his healings. Mark may have found the cure of a leper particularly impressive. He may have been especially interested in highlighting Jesus' obedience to the law (1:44) before the controversies of 2:1-3:6 in which Jesus is accused of disobedience. Whatever drew Mark to this particular incident, it is another example of Jesus' authority and another opportunity to highlight his growing popularity (v. 45).

40-42. The term " leper" (leprov", lepros ) in Scripture is broader than it is in modern usage. But whatever skin disease was involved it would have put this man in a pitiable state; not only due to the disease, but also due to the social ostracizing that accompanied it (cf. Lev 13:45-46). Jesus had compassion on him. He even touched him despite the leper's uncleanness. The healing was immediate and impressive.

43-45. The Greek words underlying both Jesus' " sending away" (ejxevbalon, exebalon ) and his " strong warning" (ejmbrimhsavmeno", embrimçsamenos) to the leper are so strong that many wonder what motivated his intensity here. A good suggestion is that he foresaw the man's disobedience and the problems it would create for his ministry to the towns in Galilee (v. 45). Mark's statement that the man's disobedient proclamation of his healing created a situation in which " Jesus could no longer enter a town openly" may provide the primary reason that on this and several other occasions Jesus instructed those whom he healed not to tell others (see 5:43; 7:36; 8:26). Jesus' reputation as a healer and exorcist created such enormous crowds of miracle seekers that he might have been hindered in his central mission, the preaching ministry.

The instructions to go to the priest and to offer the sacrifices which Moses commanded for cleansing are in accordance with the instructions concerning leprosy in Lev 13-14. The priest would certify that the man was now clean and then the sacrifices would be offered. The phrase " as a testimony to them" is problematic. It could also be translated " as a testimony against them." But who are those who receive this testimony and what does it bear witness to? The recipients may be the priests (although Jesus only commands the man to show himself to one priest) or perhaps anyone who comes to know about the priest certifying the man's cleansing. The testimony is often thought to be a witness to Jesus' power in healing the leprosy or to his adherence to the Law in instructing the man to follow Mosaic regulations. However, since Jesus instructs the man not to tell about his involvement in the healing the point may simply be that the sacrifices offer testimony to others of the man's cleanness as certified by the priest.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mar 1:35-39

XXXIII.
JESUS MAKES A PREACHING TOUR
THROUGH GALILEE.
^aMATT. IV. 23-25; ^bMARK I. 35-39; ^cLUKE IV. 42-44.

   ^b35 And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up went out [i. e., from the house of Simon Peter], and departed into a desert place, and there prayed. [Though Palestine was densely populated, its people were all gathered into towns, so that it was usually easy to find solitude outside the city limits. A ravine near Capernaum, called the Vale of Doves, would afford such solitude. Jesus taught (Mat 6:6) and practiced solitary prayer. We can commune with God better when alone than when in the company of even our dearest friends. It is a mistaken notion that one can pray equally well at all times and in all places. Jesus being in all things like men, except that he was sinless (Heb 2:17), must have found prayer a real necessity. He prayed as a human being. Several reasons for this season of prayer are suggested, from which we select two: 1. It was a safeguard against the temptation to vainglory induced by the unbounded admiration and praise of the multitude whom he had just healed. 2. It was a fitting preparation on the eve of his departure on his first missionary tour.]  ^c42 And when it was day, he came out and went into a desert place. [Mark has in mind the season when Jesus sought the Father in prayer, and so he tells us it was "a great while before day." Luke has in mind the hour when Jesus faced and spoke to the multitude, so he says, "When it was day."]  ^b36 And Simon. [As head of the house which Jesus had just left, Simon naturally acted as leader and guide to the party which sought Jesus] and they that were with him [they who were stopping in Simon's house; viz.: Andrew, James, and John] followed after him [172] [literally, "pursued after him." Xenophon uses this word to signify the close pursuit of an enemy in war. Simon had no hesitancy in obtruding on the retirement of the Master. This rushing after Jesus in hot haste accorded with his impulsive nature. The excited interest of the people seemed to the disciples of Jesus to offer golden opportunities, and they could not comprehend his apparent indifference to it];  37 and they found him, and say unto him, All are seeking thee. [The disciples saw a multitude seeking Jesus for various causes: some to hear, some for excitement, some for curiosity. To satisfy the people seemed to them to be Christ's first duty. Jesus understood his work better than they. He never encouraged those who sought through mere curiosity or admiration (Joh 6:27). Capernaum accepted the benefit of his miracles, but rejected his call to repentance -- Mat 11:23.]  38 And he saith unto them, Let us go elsewhere into the next towns [the other villages of Galilee], that I may preach there also; for to this end came I forth. [I. e., I came forth from the Father (Joh 16:28) to make and preach a gospel. His disciples failed to understand his mission. Afterwards preaching was with the apostles the all-important duty -- Act 6:2, 1Co 1:17.] cand the multitudes sought him after him, and came unto him, and would have stayed him, that he should not go from them. [They would have selfishly kept his blessed ministries for their own exclusive enjoyment.]  43 But he said unto them, I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also: for therefore was I sent. [Jesus sought to arouse the entire nation. That which the disciples regarded as a large work in Capernaum was consequently in his sight a very small one. Those who understand that it is God's will and wish to save every man that lives upon the earth will not be overelated by a successful revival in some small corner of the great field of labor.]  ^b39 And he ^aJesus went about in all Gailiee [The extreme length of Galilee was about sixty-three miles, and its extreme width about thirty-three miles. Its average [173] dimensions were about fifty by twenty-five miles. It contained, according to Josephus, two hundred and forty towns and villages. Its population at that time is estimated at about three millions. Lewin calculates that this circuit of Galilee must have occupied four or five months. The verses of this paragraph are, therefore, a summary of the work and influence of Jesus during the earlier part of his ministry. They are a general statement, the details of which are given in the subsequent chapters of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- the Gospel of John dealing more particularly with the work in Judæa], binto their synagogues throughout all Galilee, ateaching in their synagogues [The word "synagogue" is compounded of the two Greek words "sun," together, and "ago," to collect. It is, therefore, equivalent to our English word "meeting-house." Tradition and the Targums say that these Jewish houses of worship existed from the earliest times. In proof of this assertion Deu 31:11, Psa 74:8 are cited. But the citations are insufficient, that in Deuteronomy not being in point, and the seventy-fourth Psalm being probably written after the Babylonian captivity. It better accords with history to believe that the synagogue originated during the Babylonian captivity, and was brought into the motherland by the returning exiles. Certain it is that the synagogue only came into historic prominence after the books of the Old Testament were written. At the time of our Saviour's ministry synagogues were scattered all over Palestine, and also over all quarters of the earth whither the Jews had been dispersed. Synagogues were found in very small villages, for wherever ten "men of leisure," willing and able to devote themselves to the service of the synagogue, were found, a synagogue might be erected. In the synagogues the people met together on the Sabbaths to pray, and to listen to the reading of the portions of the Old Testament, and also to hear such instruction or exhortation as might be furnished. With the permission of the president of the synagogue any one who was fitted might deliver an address. Thus the synagogues furnished Jesus (and in later times his disciples also) with a congregation [174] and a suitable place for preaching. We find that on week days Jesus often preached in the open air. But the synagogues are thus particularly mentioned, probably, because in them were held the most important services, because they were necessary during the rainy and cold season, and because their use shows that as yet the Jewish rulers had not so prejudiced the public mind as to exclude Jesus from the houses of worship], and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, band casting out demons [Mark singles out this kind of miracle as most striking and wonderful], aand healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people.  24 And the report of him went forth into all Syria [caravans passing through Galilee back and forth between the Mediterranean seaports on the west and the Persian cities on the east, and between Damascus on the north and Egypt on the south, would carry the reports concerning Jesus far and wide]: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them. [Thus, by his actions, Jesus showed that the kingdom of God had come. The wonders of Moses were mostly miracles of judgment, those of Jesus were acts of compassion. The diseases here enumerated are still among the most difficult for physicians to handle. The term "palsy" included all forms of paralysis, catalepsy, and cramps.]  25 And there followed him great multitudes [these popular demonstration, no doubt, intensified the erroneous notion of his disciples that the kingdom of Jesus was to be one of worldly grandeur] from Galilee and Decapolis [Decapolis is formed from the two Greek words "deka," ten, and "polis," city. As a geographical term, Decapolis refers to that part of Syria lying east, southeast, and south of the Lake of Galilee. There is some doubt as to which were the ten cities named, for there seem at times to have been fourteen of them. Those commonly reckoned are 1. Damascus. 2. Philadelphia. 3. Raphana. 4. Sycthopolis. 5. Gadara. 6. Hyppos. 7. Dion. 8. Pella. 9. Galas. 10. Kanatha. The [175] other four are Abila and Kanata (distinct from Kanatha), Cæsarea Philippi, and Gergesa. None of these were in Galilee save Sycthopolis. According to Ritter, these cities were colonized principally by veterans from the army of Alexander the Great. A reminiscence of their Macedonian origin is found in the fact that there was a city named Pella in Macedonia. These cities are said to have been formed into a confederacy by Pompey the Great. In the time of Jesus they were chiefly inhabited by Greeks or heathens, and not by Jews. Josephus expressly calls Gadara and Hyppos Greek cities] and Jerusalem and Judæa and from beyond the Jordan. [The land beyond Jordan was called Peræa, which means "beyond." According to Josephus, it included territory between the cities of Pella on the north and Machærus on the south. That is to say, its northern boundary began on the Jordan opposite the southern line of Galilee, and its southern boundary was at Moab, about the middle of the east shore of the Dead Sea.]  ^c44 And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee.

[FFG 172-176]

McGarvey: Mar 1:40-45

XXXIV.
JESUS HEALS A LEPER AND CREATES MUCH EXCITEMENT.
^aMATT.VIII. 2-4; ^bMARK I. 40-45; ^cLUKE V. 12-16.

   ^c12 And it came to pass, while he was in one of the cities [it was a city of Galilee, but as it was not named, it is idle to conjecture which city it was], behold, bthere cometh {acame} bto him a leper [There is much discussion as to what is here meant by leprosy. Two diseases now go by that name; viz., psoriasis and elephantiasis. There are also three varieties of psoriasis, namely, white, black and red. There are also three varieties or modifications of elephantiasis, namely, tubercular, spotted or streaked, and anæsthetic. Elephantiasis is the leprosy found in modern times in Syria, Greece, Spain, Norway and Africa. Now, since Lev 13:1-59., in determining [176] leprosy, lays great stress on a white or reddish-white depression of the skin, the hairs in which are turned white or yellow, and since it also provides that the leper who is white all over shall be declared clean, and since in the only two cases where lepers are described -- Num 12:10, 2Ki 5:27 -- they are spoken of as "white as snow," scholars have been led to think that the Biblical leprosy was the white form of psoriasis. But the facts hardly warrant us in excluding the other forms of psoriasis, or even elephantiasis; for 1. Leviticus xiii. also declares that any bright spot or scale shall be pronounced leprosy, if it be found to spread abroad over the body; and this indefinite language would let in elephantiasis, cancer and many other skin diseases. In fact, the law deals with the initial symptoms rather than with the ultimate phases of the fully developed disease. 2. Elephantiasis was a common disease in our Saviour's time, and has been ever since, and would hardly be called leprosy now, if it had not been popularly so called then. The word "leprosy" comes from "lepo," which means to peel off in scales. It is hereditary for generations, though modern medical authorities hold that it is not contagious. However, the returning Crusaders spread it all over Europe in the tenth and eleventh centuries, so that according to Matthew Paris there was no less than nine thousand hospitals set apart for its victims. The facts that the priests had to handle and examine lepers, and that any one who was white all over with leprosy was declared clean, led scholars to think that the laws of Moses, which forbade any one to approach or touch a leper, were not enacted to prevent the spread of a contagion, but for typical and symbolic purposes. It is thought that God chose the leprosy as the symbol of sin and its consequences, and that the Mosaic legislation was given to carry out this conception. Being the most loathsome and incurable of all diseases, it fitly represents in bodily form the ravages of sin in the soul of a man. But there must also have been a sanitary principle in God's laws, since we still deem it wise to separate lepers, and since other people besides the Hebrews (as the Persians) prohibited lepers from mingling with other [177] citizens. Elephantiasis is the most awful disease known. The body of its victim disintegrates joint by joint, until the whole frame crumbles to pieces. Psoriasis is milder, but is very distressing. Mead thus describes a case: The "skin was shining as covered with flakes of snow. And as the furfuraceous or bran-like, scales were daily rubbed off, the flesh appeared quick or raw underneath." In addition to the scaly symptoms, the skin becomes hard and cracks open, and from the cracks an ichorous humor oozes. The disease spreads inwardly, and ends in consumption, dropsy, suffocation, and death], ca man full of leprosy [Some have thought that Luke meant to indicate one so completely covered with leprosy as to be clean (Lev 13:28, Lev 13:29, Lev 13:36, Lev 13:37). But the fact that Jesus sent him to the priest, shows that he was not such a clean leper. Luke meant to describe a leper in the last stages of the disease -- a leper past all hope]: and when he saw Jesus, bbeseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying to him, che fell on his face, aand worshipped him, cand besought him, saying, bunto him, ^cLord [The Jews, in addressing any distinguished person, usually employed the title "Lord." They were also accustomed to kneel before prophets and kings. It is not likely that the leper knew enough of Jesus to address him as the Son of God. He evidently took Jesus for some great prophet; but he must have had great faith, for he was full of confidence that Jesus had power to heal him, although there was but one case of leper-cleansing in the Scriptures -- 2Ki 5:1-19, Luk 4:27], if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. [The leper believed in the power of Jesus, but doubted his willingness to expend it on one so unworthy and so unclean. In temporal matters we can not always be as sure of God's willingness as we can be of his power. We should note that the man asked rather for the blessing of cleanness than for health. To the Jew uncleanness was more horrible than disease. It meant to be an outcast from Israel, and to be classed with swine, dogs and other odious and abhorrent creatures. The leper, therefore, prayed that the Lord would remove his shame [178] and pollution.]  ^b41 And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him [Mark habitually notes the feelings, and hence also the gestures of Jesus. It was not an accidental, but an intentional, touch. Popular belief so confused and confounded leprosy with the uncleanness and corruption of sin, as to make the leper feel that Jesus might also compromise his purity if he concerned himself to relieve it. The touch of Jesus, therefore, gave the leper a new conception of divine compassion. It is argued that Jesus, by this touch, was made legally unclean until the evening (Lev 13:46, Lev 11:40). But we should note the spirit and purpose of this law. Touch was prohibited because it defiled the person touching, and aided not the person touched. In Jesus' case the reasons for the law were absent, the conditions being reversed. Touching defiled not the toucher, and healed the touched. In all things Jesus touches and shares our human state, but he so shares it that instead of his being defiled by our uncleanness, we are purified by his righteousness. Moreover, Jesus, as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6), possessed the priestly right to touch the leper without defilement -- Heb 4:15], and saith unto him, {csaying,} I will; be thou made clean. [The Lord's answer is an echo of the man's prayer. The words, "I will," express the high authority of Jesus.]  ^b42 And straightway the {ahis} cleprosy departed from him, {awas cleansed.} band he was made clean. ["Luke says, 'departed', giving the merely physical view of the event. Matthew says, 'was cleansed', using ceremonial language. Mark combines the two forms" -- Godet.]  43 And he strictly charged him, cto tell no man [The language used indicates that Jesus sternly forbade the man to tell what had been done. The man's conduct, present and future, shows that he needed severe speech. In his uncontrollable eagerness to be healed he had overstepped his privileges, for he was not legally permitted to thus enter cities and draw near to people (Num 5:2, Num 5:3); he was to keep at a distance from them, and covering his mouth, was to cry, "Tame, [179] tame -- unclean, unclean" (Lev 13:45, Lev 13:46, Luk 17:12, Luk 17:13). The man evinced a like recklessness in disregarding the command of Jesus]: band straightway sent him out,  ^a4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; {bsay nothing to any man:} [Several reasons are suggested why the Lord thus commanded silence: 1. It may have been better for the man not to mention his cure (Joh 9:34). 2. He required the decision of the priest to make him legally clean; and too much talk might so prejudice the priests as to lead them to refuse to admit his cure. 3. But the best reason is that it accorded with our Lord's general course, which was to suppress excitement, and thus prevent too great crowds from gathering about him and hindering his work. To take this view is to say that Jesus meant to prevent exactly what happened] cbut go, and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, bthe things which {athe gift that} Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. [Though healed of his leprosy, the man was not legally clean until declared so by the priest. The priest alone could readmit him to the congregation. The local priest inspected the healed leper, and if he was found clean or cured, he was purified by the use of two birds, cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop, razor and bath. After seven days he was again inspected, and if still cured the priest repaired with him to the temple, where he offered the gift for his cleansing, which was three lambs, with flour and oil; or if the leper was poor, one lamb and two doves or pigeons, with flour and oil (Lev 14:19-22.). The healed leper was a testimony that Messiah, the great Physician, had come, and that he respected the law of Moses. This testimony was given both to priests and people.]  45 But he went out [from the presence of Jesus and from the city], and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter,  {^c15 But so much the more went abroad the report concerning him:}. [The leper was so elated that he could scarcely refrain from publishing his cure, and he must also have thought that this was what Jesus really [180] wanted -- that in commanding him not to publish it he did not mean what he said] and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities. binsomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city [Not a natural or physical inability, but the inability of impropriety. Jesus could not do what he judged not best to do. The excitement cause by such an entry was injurious in several ways: 1. It gave such an emphasis to the miracles of Jesus as to make them overshadow his teaching. 2. It threatened to arouse the jealousy of the government. 3. It rendered the people incapable of calm thought. Two things constantly threatened the ministry of Jesus, namely, impatience in the multitude, and envious malice in the priests and Pharisees. Jesus wished to add to neither of these elements of opposition. Thus the disobedience of the leper interrupted Jesus, and thwarted him in his purpose to visit the villages. Disobedience, no matter how well-meaning, always hinders the work of Christ],  ^c16 But he withdrew himself in the deserts, {bwas without in desert places:} [That is, the the remote grazing-lands like that desert in which he afterwards fed the five thousand. Such was our Lord's unexampled meekness that he preferred the silent deserts to the applause of multitudes. His meekness was as high above the capacity of a merely human being as were his miracles] cand prayed. [Luke's gospel is pre-eminently the gospel of prayer and thanksgiving] band they came to him from every quarter.

[FFG 176-181]

Lapide: Mar 1:1-45

COMMENTARY

upon

THE GOSPEL OF  S. MARK.

_______i>o ^_______

INTRODUCTION.

"MARK," says S. Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, "was a disciple and interpreter of S. Peter. At the request of the brethren at Rome, he wrote a short Gospel, based upon what he had heard S. Peter relate. This, when Peter had heard, he approved of, and sanctioned its being read in the Church." Shortly afterwards, S. Jerome proceeds to say, "Mark took his Gospel, which he had compiled, and went to Egypt. He first preached Christ at Alexandria, and founded a Church there, which possessed such great purity of doctrine and life that it influenced all followers of Christ by its example. In short, Philo, the most eloquent of the Jews, beholding the primitive Church of Alexandria, as yet Judaizing, wrote a book upon its peculiarities, as it were in praise of his own people. And similarly as S. Luke records that at Jerusalem those who believed had all things common, so has Philo preserved the memory of what he saw at Alexandria under S. Mark as the teacher of the Christians. He died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria. Anianus succeeded him."

Clement of Alexandria ( Strom. l vi.) and Papias of Hierapolis attest the same things; so does Eusebius ( H. E. ii. 15), who adds that S. Peter confirmed S. Mark's Gospel, and delivered it to be read for all time in the Churches. S. Athanasius ( Synops. sub fin.) and S. Epiphanius ( Hæres. 51) say the same. Wherefore Tertullian ( l. iv . cont. Marcion ) attributes the Gospel of S. Mark to S. Peter, because, as S. Jerome says, "it was compiled from what S. Peter related, Mark being the writer." The same S. Jerome, or whoever is the author of the preface to his Commentary on S. Mark, says, "After Matthew soweth Mark, He, I say, who roareth as a lion, who flieth as an eagle, who learneth as a man, who sacrificeth as a priest, who watereth as a river, who flourisheth as a field, who fermenteth as wine. For Christ who is spoken of is man by being born, is a calf by dying, a lion by rising again, an eagle by ascending into heaven."

For this cause the cherubim of Ezek. i. and the Apocalypse, which have four faces, signify the four Evangelists. For the face of a man denotes Matthew, who relates the works of Christ's humanity; the face of an eagle, John, who speaks of the divinity of Christ; the face of an ox denotes Luke, who begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; and the face of a lion designates Mark, because he begins his Gospel from the loud roaring of John the Baptist, as it were of a lion. For these four have drawn the chariot of the glory of God, the chariot of the Gospel, through the whole world, and have subdued all nations to Him, that He may triumph.

The name Mark happily agrees with this symbolism, whether we derive it from the Hebrew or from Latin. For Mark in Hebrew, says Pagninus ( in inteterpret. Heb. nomin. ), means the same as smoothed, polished, cleansed from rust. It is derived from ξψχ, marak, to clean, to Polish. As Jeremiah (xlvi. 4) says, "Stand in the helmets, polish the lances;" where for polish the Heb. has ξψχε, mircu, polish ye. Thus S. Mark polished the lance of his Gospel and preaching, that it, like a lion, might subdue the Egyptians and other nations to Christ. But S. Isidore ( 1. vii. Origen, c. 9) says, " Mark means high in commandment " (but I know not from what root), that is to say, on account of the Gospel of the Most High, which he preached. Again, the Heb. of Mark may be, as it were, ξψ λεν, mar cos, or the Lord of the Chalice, that is to say, of suffering and martyrdom.

But in Latin, Carolus Signonius ( de Nom. Roman.) says, "He is called Marcus who is born in the month of March." But Isidore says Mark means a strong hammer, Marcellus is a moderate-sized hammer, and Maculus a litle one. Thus S. Mark was a mighty and strong hammer, breaking in pieces the rock, i.e., bruising with compunction the strong hearts of the Gentiles, and moving them to repentance and a Christian life. Mark, then, and Marcellus are the same as, Martellus, a hammer. So Charles, the grandfather of Charlemagne, was called Charles Martel, because of his warlike prowess, by which he crushed a host of 300,000 Saracens. Or Marcus may be taken to be the same as Martius, a sort of heavenly Mars. The Marcian gens at Rome, an ancient patrician family, was so called from Ancus Marcius, the fourth king of Rome. King Ancus was called the sacrificial, because he restored worship which had fallen into decay, or had been improperly performed.

How religious and brave S. Mark was appears from the institution of the Essæi,^* who were the first religious, and the prototypes of all religious, of whose wondrous sanctity more anon.

Lastly, the Romans used to give the prænomen Marcus to first-born sons. Marcus Tullius Cicero was so called because he was a first-born son. Thus Mark was a first-born son, and singularly beloved of S. Peter. Thus he speaks of him as Marcus, my son (1 Pet. v.). For he as a son had drunk of S. Peter's spirit, and was an express image of the wisdom and holiness of S. Peter.

You will ask, Of what country, who, and what was S. Mark? I answer. 1. That he was of the Hebrew nation, and of the tribe of Levi. Bede adds that he was a priest, of the family of Aaron.

2. Theophilus, Victor of Antioch, and Euthymius think that this Mark was the same as John Mark, who was nephew of Barnabas, and who journeyed with him and S. Paul to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, the same S. Mark as he to whom S. Paul refers in his Epistle to Philemon, and Col. iv., and 2 Tim. iv. But I say that this Mark was a different person from John Mark, for at the same time that John Mark was with Paul and Barnabas in Greece, this Mark was with S. Peter at Rome, and was sent by him to preach first at Aquileia, and afterwards at Alexandria.

3. Origen ( lib. de Recta Fide ), S. Epiphanius ( Hæres. 51), and Dorotheus ( in Synops.) think that Mark was one of Christ's seventy-two disciples. But the contrary, namely, that he was converted and baptized by S. Peter after Christ's death, is more probable. For he calls him his (spiritual) son (1 Pet. v. 13), "The Church which is at Babylon saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." So S. Jerome, Eusebius ( H. E. vii. 14), &c., who say that S. Mark was a disciple and companion of S. Peter.

4. S. Austin ( l. 1 , de Cons. Evang. c. 2) calls Mark the abbreviator of Matthew, not because he made a compendium of his Gospel, as some say, but because he often relates more briefly, as he had received them from S. Peter, the things which Matthew records at greater length. I said "often," for occasionally Mark relates events in the life of Christ more fully than Matthew does, as is plain from the account of Peter's denial. Some things also he unfolds with greater clearness than Matthew. Mark is fuller in narrative than Matthew, but has less of Christ's doctrine. Mark's, therefore, is an independent Gospel. Whence the Arabic prefixes the following title to his Gospel:—In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, One God, the Gospel of the Father, Patriarch, Apostle, S. Mar (i.e., Lord ) Mark the Evangelist.

5. Mark wrote this Gospel A.D. 45, in the third year of the reign of Claudius, as Eusebius says ( in Chron.), shortly before he went to Alexandria, where he governed for nineteen years the Church which he there founded. His disciples were so excellent that they were called Essæi, that is, holy and pious. For they, as the first religious, lived in such purity and holiness as to become the admiration of the whole world, and afforded a mirror of perfection to all other Churches. Hence S. Jerome and Cassian call S. Mark the chief and founder of the Cœnobites. See what I have said concerning the Essæi in Acts v. 2.

Moreover, S. Mark founded the first Christian school at Alexandria, from which so many holy doctors, bishops, and martyrs proceeded. This school of Alexandria wonderfully flourished under the Emperor Commodus, A.D. 180, when Pantænus presided over it. Pantænus was succeeded by Clement, Clement by Origen.

Finally, S. Mark added to the laurels of an Apostle, Doctor, and Evangelist the crown of martyrdom. In the Roman Martyrology for the 25th of April we read concerning him thus, "At Alexandria, the natal day of B. Mark the Evangelist, he, for the faith of Christ, being stretched and bound with cords, was dragged over the rocks, and grievously tormented. Afterwards, being shut up in prison, he was first comforted by an angelic vision, and at last by the appearance of the Lord Himself, by whom he was called to the heavenly kingdom in the eighth year of Nero." The body of S. Mark was translated by merchants from Alexandria to Venice, A.D. 827. There it is cherished with the utmost veneration, insomuch that the Senate have adopted as their insignia a lion, the emblem of S. Mark; and when they issue any command, they call it the mandate of S. Mark.

You will ask, secondly, in what language Mark wrote his Gospel,—in Latin or Greek? Many think he wrote it in Latin. And the reason seems plain. For Mark wrote at Rome for the Romans; therefore, say they, he must have written in the Latin tongue. For the Romans did not understand Greek (as Baronius abundantly proves) in A.D. 45. For although S. Chrysostom on Mark asserts that he wrote his Gospel at Alexandria, yet S. Jerome, Eusebius, Clement, and other Fathers declare, passim, that he wrote it at Rome. And the author of that Commentary upon S. Mark was not S. Chrysostom, as I will prove hereafter. So the Syriac version, which at the end of S. Mark's Gospel adds expressly, "Here endeth the holy Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, which he spake and preached at Rome, in the Roman language." S. Gregory Nazianzen, in the poem in which he gives a catalogue of Holy Scripture, thus assigns the Evangelists to languages and nations,—

"The wonders of Christ for the Hebrews S. Matthew did write;

  S. Mark for Westerns; for Greeks S. Luke in learning bright;

  For all S. John, who soared aloft with heavenly sight."

On the other hand, S. Jerome affirms expressly, in the preface to the Gospel, that Mark wrote in Greek. "I am speaking," he says, "of the New Testament, which, without doubt, was written in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who first in Judæa published the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew." And he adds that he for this reason, at the command of Pope Damasus, corrected the ancient Latin Vulgate version of the New Testament, and therefore of S. Mark's Gospel, in accordance with the Greek original. S. Augustine teaches us the same thing: "Matthew is said to have written in Hebrew, all the rest in Greek." The same was the common opinion of ancient and modern writers.

Reason favours the same view. For S. Mark wrote his Gospel when he was about to pass to Alexandria, that he might preach it there. But the inhabitants of Alexandria spoke at that time the Greek language. For Alexandria was founded, and its name given, by Alexander the Great. SS. Athanasius and Cyril, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, and the rest wrote in Greek. Again, Mark was more skilled in Greek than he was in Latin. Wherefore, also, the Greek text of his Gospel is more polished and elegant than the Latin. For the Jews, who were neighbours of Greek-speaking countries, and subjects of Alexander the Great and his successors, learned thoroughly the Greek language, but not so the Latin, as being far distant from Latin-speaking countries. Moreover, the Greek language was then very widely diffused, as Cicero says. For this reason the Romans, especially the patricians and the wealthier sort of people, were skilled in Greek. Indeed, they sent their sons to Athens that they might be thoroughly grounded in Grecian wisdom and eloquence. And Mark wrote this Gospel not for the Roman plebeians, but for patricians and nobles, for such persons as S. Clement, S. Pudens. Listen to Clement of Alexandria ( tom. 6, in Biblioth. Patr. in Edit. Parisiensi.), "Mark, the follower of Peter, when Peter was preaching the Gospel publicly at Rome, in the presence of certain knights of Cæsar's household, and was advancing many testimonies about Christ, being requested by them, wrote from the things which were spoken by Peter a Gospel, which is called that according to Mark." In like manner S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek, as I have shown in my preface to that Epistle.

Lastly, S. Mark was present with S. Peter at Antioch, where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians. And at Antioch Greek was spoken. Hence Greek was more familiar to Mark than Latin, and it is possible that Greek was his mother tongue. For although the Apostles and primitive believers received the gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit, yet they received it for sufficiency, not for elegance, and so they spoke each their own vernacular better and more elegantly.

You will reconcile both opinions if you say that Mark wrote his Gospel both in Greek and Latin, as Genebrard thinks, and our Barradi ( tom. 1, l. c. 19) and Possevin. Hear Peter Natalis ( in Cat. Sanct. l. 4, c. 86), "Peter sent Mark to Aquileia as its first bishop. There he wrote again his Gospel in Greek, which he had previously written in Latin at Rome, which Gospel, together with the ivory chair in which he sat to write it, is still shown in the church of Aquileia."

Further, some imagine that the Latin original of Mark has perished through the injuries of time, as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has perished. But it is difficult to believe so. For how would the Roman Church, so faithful to her trust, and so careful a guardian of the sacred writings, and especially in those early ages from Mark to Constantine, when it was so ardent and constant in zeal for religion, have suffered so great a treasure committed to her to he lost? Surely she who kept so faithfully what pertained to others did not lose her own. What, did so many copies of the Gospel of S. Mark, which noble Romans and other Italians, converted to Christ by SS. Peter and Paul, would emulously cause to be transcribed, perish to a single copy, so that not even one has survived? Wherefore we shall say, with greater probability, that Mark, for the reasons already assigned, wrote originally in Greek, but immediately afterwards, either by himself or by some other translator, rendered the Greek into Latin, and delivered both to the Romans, in a similar way to S. Paul, who wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek, but sent the same to them translated into Latin by Tertius, his scribe and interpreter. The reasons are—1st Because SS. Jerome and Austin affirm that Mark wrote in Greek, not in Latin. 2nd Because, as Bellarmine has rightly perceived ( de Script. Eccles. in Marc.), it is evident, from a collation of the Greek and Latin texts, that the Old Latin and the Vulgate editions, both of Matthew and Mark, have been translated from the Greek. This is proved by Franc. Lucas by many examples. To these you may add that the Latin translator of Mark Grecized, as when he says (ii. 2) et convenerunt multi, ita ut non caperet neque ad januam, words which are obscurely translated into Latin from the Greek, which reads clearly and elegantly, ‏ףפו לחך?פי קשזו?ם לחהו̀ פב̀ נזן̀ע פח̀ם ט‎סבם, ie., so that not even the places about the door could contain the crowd. Again, in iv. 10, the Vulgate has, et cum esset singularis, whilst the Greek is plain, ךבפבל?םבע, i.e., alone. Also vii. 17, 18, 20, Quæ de homine exeunt, illa communicant hominem, the Gr. ךןיםן?, i.e., make a man common or unclean, is clear. For the Hebrews call common unclean things, that is, things which all, even the impure, use promiscuously and in common. So, again, in chap. i. 47, היבצחל?זוים, is translated verbally, diffamare, to make known abroad. Again, נסןף?גגבפןם is rendered ante sabbatum, i.e., the day before the Sabbath.

The original of the Gospel of S. Mark is religiously preserved at Venice, but the letters are so corroded and worn away by age that they cannot be deciphered. When I was inquiring about the matter at Rome, several reliable persons, who had carefully investigated the subject, wrote to me to this effect, that the following is the tradition among the Venetians. They say that this Gospel was written by S. Mark at Aquileia, and left by him there, and that it was brought from thence to Venice. For when Attila took Aquileia after a three years' siege, and destroyed it, many of the inhabitants fled to the marshes bordering on the Adriatic, and there, in a marvellous manner, laid the foundations of Venice, A.D. 452. Moreover, a trustworthy man, a canon of S. Mark's at Venice, who has the custody of this relic, and is therefore an eye-witness, wrote to me in answer to my inquiries, within the last few days, that this autograph of S. Mark is written in Greek, and was brought from Aquileia to Venice A.D. 1472.

Pagnini has written a dissertation on this question, dedicated to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which he maintains that S. Mark in the first instance wrote his Gospel in Latin at Rome, and afterwards in Greek at Aquileia, but that the Latin has been lost, since the present Latin of S. Mark is a translation from the Greek. He cites many passages which go to prove the great prevalence of Greek at Rome in those times. He also cites Damasus as saying, ( lib. de Vit. Pont.) in the Life of S. Peter, that the Evangelists wrote in Latin (mentioning Mark), in Greek, and Hebrew. But it is well known that this work is not by Damasus, but by Anastasius, the librarian. What Pagnini adds, that S. Peter preached to the Romans in Greek, and that S. Mark, as his interpreter, rendered his words into Latin, cannot be considered worthy of credit. Besides, the duty of an interpreter was different from this, as I have shown on 1 Cor. xii. 10.

The Syrians, as Fabricius tells us in the preface to his Syriac New Testament, assert that Mark wrote in Latin. They also say that the same Mark translated not only his own Gospel into his Galilean or Syriac mother tongue, but all the other books of the New Testament.

But it is difficult to believe this. For there is no mention of such a translation by Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret, S. Jerome, or other Fathers, who either were Syrians, or who lived in Syria and Egypt, and treated carefully the subject of the various editions and translations of the Holy Scriptures. Therefore this Syriac translation of the New Testament seems to have been made later than S. Mark's time.

Lastly, S. Mark's Gospel has always been reckoned amongst the canonical Scriptures, with the exception of the last chapter, doubts about which were formerly entertained by some, as S. Jerome testifies ( Ep. 150, ad Hedib. q. 3), because it contained certain things which savoured of Manichæism, which S. Jerome recites ( lib. 2, cont. Pelag.). The words were these, "And they were satisfied, saying, Substance is that world of iniquity and unbelief, which suffereth not through wicked spirits the true power of God to be apprehended: therefore now call back thy righteousness." But these words have been since removed.

Observe Mark's whole strength is given to narration, and does not care for the order in which things were done. Hence he places events which were done afterwards before some which were prior to them in order of time, and vice versa. Hear S. Jerome ( Introd. to S. Matt.), "Second, Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle Peter, who indeed had not himself seen the Lord, the Saviour, but had heard his master's preaching, related according to the truth of the things which were done, rather than the order in which they were done."

There is extant a second volume of S. Chrysostom's Commentary upon S. Mark, which, although not devoid of genius, learning, and piety, nevertheless seems to be wanting in the style, spirit, and subtlety of S. Chrysostom. Hence Bellarmine says that it is undoubtedly not the work of that Saint, but of a certain simple monk, who expounded the Gospel to his brethren.

Victor of Antioch, an ancient author, wrote especially upon S. Mark, whom one Theodore Peltanus has translated out of Greek into Latin.

The author of the Commentary or Scholiast upon S. Mark in the works of S. Jerome is not S. Jerome himself, for he shows himself to be unskilled both in Greek and Hebrew.

Here only a few things occur to be noted, because most have been spoken of in S. Matthew. There the reader will find them annotated. Here, therefore, I shall be brief.

*The Christian Essenes of Alexandria.(Trans.)   back to place

SAINT Mark'S GOSPEL

CHAPTER 1

1 The office of John the Baptist. 9 Jesus is baptized, 12 tempted : 14 he preacheth : 16 calleth Peter, Andrew, James, and John : 23 healeth one that had a devil, 29 Peter's mother-in-law, 32 many diseased persons, 41 and cleanseth the leper.

The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaias, &c. Many place a full stop before as, thinking that the beginning of the Gospel, &c., is the title of the book. But that these words are not the title, but the introduction of the book, is plain from the word beginning, and because they are really dependent upon the clause as it is written, &c. Therefore a comma, not a period, must be placed before as. The word Gospel, then, in this place does not denote the book of the Gospel which Mark wrote, as when we say, the Gospel of Mark, but the Gospel preaching of Jesus Christ as it follows. The meaning, therefore, is, "The Gospel preaching of Christ had such a beginning as Isaiah and Malachi foretold, that is to say, the preaching of John the Baptist and his testimony concerning Christ." For John began to preach the kingdom of heaven, that it would be opened by Christ's preaching and death. Wherefore he urged them to repentance, that they might be capable of receiving the grace of Christ, saying, Repent ye, &c. For Moses and the ancient Law preached and promised a land flowing with milk and honey, if the Jews would obey God's commandments. But Christ and the Evangelical Law preach and promise the kingdom of heaven, if men will repent of their sins, and obey the commands of Christ. John's preaching of repentance, therefore, was the preparation for, and the beginning of, Christ's preaching the Gospel.

Observe, Matthew and John commence their Gospels from Christ Himself—John from the divine, Matthew from the human generation of Christ. Mark and Luke begin with John the Baptist—Luke from his nativity, Mark from his preaching.

Vers. 2, 3. As it is written in Isaias the prophet, Behold, I send arty angel before Thy face, who shall prepare the way before Thee. A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight His paths. The former citation in the 2nd verse is from Mal 3:1. The latter is from Isa 40:3. Wherefore the Greek has, it is written in the prophets. But the Vulgate and some Greek copies, also the Syriac and Arabic, have as above. And S. Jerome says that this was formerly the reading of the Greek ( lib. de Opt. Gen. Interpret. Scrip.).

You will ask, "Why does Mark only cite Isaias and not Malachi?" I answer, because the prophecy of Isaias is of greatest importance in this place, for the voice of John crying in the desert, Do penance, &c., was one beginning of the Gospel. But inasmuch as Malachi shows that John was not sent by man, but by God, to utter these words, therefore Mark prefixes the words of Malachi to arouse the attention of the reader to receive and venerate the voice of John. Besides, Malachi in reality says the same as Isaias. For the angel sent by God to prepare the way of Christ was none other than John himself, crying, and preaching repentance, by which the hearts of men must be prepared for the preaching and grace of Christ. This is therefore, as it were, one and the same oracle of two prophets, uttered concerning one and the same John, but in different words, so that they mutually confirm and explain one another. This, then, is the reason why Mark in this place, and the other Evangelists and Apostles, when they cite two prophets, or two or more sentences of the same or different books of the Old Testament, quote them as one and the same testimony. This is plain from 1Pe 2:7, compared with Psa 118:22 and Isa 8:14. Also, 1Co 15:54, compared with Isa 25:8 and Hos 13:14. The reason, I say, is, because one sentence confirms and explains the other, so that they are in truth not two, but one sentence.

Ver. 4. John was in the desert baptizing, and preaching the baptism of penance unto remission of sins. That this remission was to be received from Christ and His baptism, which was the perfection and consummation of John's baptism. For Christ. as it were the King of Heaven, preached that the kingdom must be received by His grace, of which the first part is remission of sins, which is given by the baptism of Christ, inasmuch as it is furnished and, as it were, animated by the Spirit and grace of Christ, according to those words of John

( in Mat 3: 11), "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but He that shall come after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."

And immediately the Spirit drove (Gr. ו̉ךג?ככוי, i.e., sends out, expels ) Him out into the desert. The Spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit, who a little while before had glided down upon Him in His baptism in the form of a dove. Drove, that is, impelled Christ with great power of spirit and ardour, that He should, of His own accord, go into the desert, and there, as in a palæstra, match Himself in single combat with the devil.

And He was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and was tempted (Gr. נויסבז?לוםןע, i.e., suffering temptation ). Whence many think that Christ during the forty days was frequently tempted by Satan, by means of various spectres and horrible monsters, such as the demon presented to S. Anthony, to terrify him and distract his mind from prayer. So Franc. Lucas. But it seems better to take Mark as speaking only of the three well-known temptations ( see what has been said in Mat 4:2).

And He was with beasts (Gr. טחז?שם, wild beasts ). This is an intimation of the excessive solitude of the place, as well as of Christ's innocency. Although He was in such a desert place, with lions, wolves, leopards, serpents, yet He did not fear them, nor was He injured by them. Just as Adam, so long as he was innocent, lived with such creatures without harm in Paradise. For they all looked up to him, and reverenced him as their lord.

And the angels ministered to Him. Not before His temptation and victory, as Bede supposes. For if so, Jesus would have been recognised by the devil as the Son of God; nor would the devil have dared to approach Him. But it was after the temptation and the victory, as is plain from Matt. iv. 11. And for this reason, that Jesus might show in His own person that consolation and comfort and the ministry of angels has been prepared by God for those who overcome temptations.

Ver. 14. And after that John was delivered up, &c. This was the second coming of Christ from Judæa into Galilee, that He might flee from Herod, lest he should cast Him also into prison. For Christ had been preaching and baptizing in Judæa. And the increase of His glory there had excited the envy of the Scribes and Pharisees, who denounced Him to Herod as though He were a revolutionist. Wherefore this is the same coming of Christ as that mentioned in Mat 4:12, Luk 4:14, and Joh 4:3 and Joh 4:43. Although some say that this last was a different one, and the third advent of Christ into Galilee, because Christ was then fleeing from the Pharisees, as John says; but in His second coming He was fleeing from Herod, as Matthew and Mark say. But, as I have observed, He fled from the Pharisees because He fled from Herod. For they had accused Him to Herod. Wherefore this was the same flight of Christ, and the same coming into Galilee.

Ver. 15. And saying, Because (Gr. ?פי ) the time, &c. The time, that is, of the advent of Messiah, and the kingdom of heaven. That, indeed, what had been shut for so many thousands of years, Christ by His preaching, His death, and His grace, might open and unclose.

Repent ye : do penance, that ye may detest the sins ye have committed, and determine to change your lives for the better. Beautifully says the Scholiast in S. Jerome, "The sweetness of the apple makes up for the bitterness of the root, the hope of gain makes pleasant the perils of the sea, the expectation of health mitigates the nauseousness of medicine. He who desires the kernel breaks the nut; so he who desires the joy of a holy conscience swallows down the bitterness of penance."

Ver. 19 . James the son of Zebedee and John. Again beautifully says the Scholiast, "By this chariot of the four fishermen we are carried up to heaven, as Elias was. On these four corner-stones the Church was first built. By four virtues we are changed into the image of God, being obedient by prudence, acting manfully by justice, trampling on the serpent by temperance, and gaining the grace of God by fortitude." Theophylact says, " Peter, that is, action, is first called, afterwards John, that is, contemplation."

Ver. 23. And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, i.e., a man having an unclean spirit, that is to say, possessed by a devil. The Greek has, in an unclean spirit, and it is a Hebraism. For the Hebrew uses α, beth, i.e., in, when one noun governs another in the genitive.

And he cried out, i.e., the spirit, by the mouth of the man possessed, "as though he were suffering torment," says the Scholiast in S. Chrysostom, "as though in pain, as though not able to bear his strokes." "For," as Bede says, "the presence of the Saviour is the torment of the devils." Christ desired that by this public testimony of the demon concerning Him, in the synagogue of Capernaum (for it is plain from ver. 21 that these things occurred there), the Jews who were gathered there might acknowledge Him to be Messias. There is nothing about this demoniac in Matthew, but there is in Luk 4:33.

Saying. The Gr. subjoins ?ב, which the translator of Luk 4:34 renders by let alone, as if the imperative of the verb ?בש, i.e., suffer, permit ; as Euthymius says, dismiss us. Others take ?ב as an adverb of grieving, wondering, beseeching. As it were, "Ah! alas! Lord, in what have I injured Thee?"

Ver. 24. What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know who Thou art, the Holy One of God. "What is there between us and Thee, 0 Jesus? We have not attacked Thee, 0 Christ, who art holy; but sinners, who are, as it were, our own. We have no contention with Thee; do not Thou, then, contend with and destroy us."

Come to destroy us. Some MSS. add, before the time. But the words are not found in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic received texts. They seem to have been transferred hither from S. Mat 9:25. With respect to the meaning, in the first place, Bede says that the demons, beholding the Lord upon earth, supposed that they were to be immediately judged. It was as though they said, "Do not Thou, 0 Jesus, by Thine advent bring on so quickly the day of judgment, and banish us to the bottomless pit without any hope of coming forth." Second, the Scholiast in S. Chrysostom says, "Thou givest us no place among men when Thou teachest divine things." But this is mystical. Third, and correctly, "Hast Thou come to destroy us, to cast us out from men, and send us to hell?" Whence Theophylact says, "He calls going out of men his destruction." For the highest pleasure of the devils is to possess and vex men.

I know, &c. Arab. 0 Holy One ; the Gr. ??דיןע, emphatically, the Holy One. "Thou who art so holy that Thou communicatest Thy holiness to others, since Thou art, as it were, the Fountain and the Sun of holiness, who sanctifiest all the saints, the Messiah and the Son of God, for whom all are eagerly waiting so many thousand years!" There is an allusion to Dan 9:24,"until the Holy of Holies, i.e., Messiah, be anointed."

I know, i.e., I suspect, I think. For, as the Scholiast in Chrysostom says, the devil had no firm and certain knowledge of the coming of God. Because, as S. Austin says ( lib. 9, de Civ. c. 21), He only made known to them as much as He wished; and He only wished as much as was expedient.

Ver. 25. And Jesus threatened him ; Gr. ו̉נופ?לחףום, i.e., rebuked, chided him with threats. That He would punish him unless he were silent.

Saying, Speak no more : Arab. shut thy mouth. Wherefore? I answer, First, Because it was not fitting that Christ should be commanded by the devil.

Second, That He might not appear to be a friend of the devil, and to hold intercourse with him. For afterwards it was objected to Christ that He cast out devils by the aid of Beelzebub. By acting as He did, Christ has taught us to shun all dealings with the devil; for he is the sworn enemy of God, and is wholly bent upon injuring and destroying us, even when he promises or brings us any corporal aid. Wherefore, as the Scholiast in Chrysostom saith, "Be silent; let thy silence be My praise. Let not thy voice, but thy torments praise Me. I am not pleased that thou shouldst praise Me, but that thou shouldst go forth."

Third, To show that we should resist flattery, that it may not stir up any desire of vainglory in our breast.

Fourth, Euthymius says, "He has taught us never to believe the demons, even when they say what is true. For since they love falsehood, and are most hostile to us, they never speak the truth except to deceive. They make use of the truth as it were a kind of bait." For, liars that they are, they conceal their lies by a colouring of truth. They say certain things that are true at the first, and afterwards interweave with them what is false, that those who have believed the first may believe also the last. For this cause Paul drove out the spirit of Python, who praised him, Act 16:18.

Fifth, Because the demon in an unseasonable manner, and too speedily, disclosed that Christ was Messiah. For this might have injured Him, and turned the people away from Him. For so mighty a secret should be disclosed gradually, and the people be persuaded of its truth by many miracles; for otherwise they would not at first receive it and believe it. This was why (Mar 8:30) Christ forbids the Apostles also to say that He was Christ. So Maldonatus and others.

Symbolically : Bede, "The devil, because he had deceived Eve with his tongue, is punished by the tongue, that he might not speak."

Ver. 26. And the unclean spirit tearing him, &c. Tearing (Vulg. discerpens ), not by lacerating or mutilating the man who was possessed by him, for Luke says (Luk 4:35) that he did no harm to him, but by contorting and twisting his limbs this way and that, as if he wished to tear him piecemeal. For the Greek ףנבס?פפש, signifies to pull or tear in pieces. The devil did this through rage and madness, that being compelled by Christ to go out of the man, he might injure him as much as he could. But the nearer and the more powerful the grace of Christ is, the more impotently does the devil rage. For, observe, the devil only raised a dreadful tempest, but one that was vain and ineffectual. For he cannot hurt when Christ forbids. Christ permitted it for three reasons. 1. That it might be plain that this man was really possessed by the devil. 2. That the malice and wrath of the demon might be made apparent. 3. That it might be clear that the demon went forth, not of his own will, but because he was compelled to do so by Christ.

Tropologically : S. Gregory teaches ( Hom. 12, in Ezek.) that the devil wonderfully tempts and vexes sinners when they are converted. "As soon," he says, "as the mind begins to love heavenly things, as soon as it collects itself for the vision of inward peace with its whole intention, that ancient adversary, who fell from heaven, is envious, and begins to lie in wait more insidiously, and brings to bear sharper temptations than he was wont, so as, for the most part, to try the soul which resists in a way that he had never tried her when he possessed her. Wherefore it is written, My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, stand fast in justice and fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation."

And crying out. With dreadful howlings, shrieking, and roaring, to show how unwillingly he went out, and what great power was applied to him by Christ. For he uttered no articulate speech. For Christ had forbidden him to speak when He said shut thy mouth. Thus Euthymius says, "Being scourged by the Lord's commands, he cried out with a loud voice, and yet he spake not when he cried, because he uttered cries which signified nothing." Titus adds, "When the man was restored to himself, then he uttered the speech of a man."

Ver. 27. What new doctrine is this, &c. "What is this heavenly and divine doctrine, which indeed God confirms from heaven by so many and such mighty miracles? For Christ, the Teacher of this doctrine, not by prayers, but of His mere power, and by His command only, orders the devils to go out, and they obey Him. Wherefore this must be the Messias, the Son of God, and the true God; for He alone commands the devils by His power."

Ver. 32. When the sun had set: Gr. ?פו?הץ??כיןע, i.e., when the sun was swallowed up and sunk in the sea. For הץ?לבי means to be sunk, submerged, and is spoken of islands which are submerged and drowned by the sea. This is a form of speech adopted from the common people, who think that when the sun sets it is subrnerged in the ocean.

Ver. 33. And all the city (Capernaum, as appears from ver. 21 ) was gathered together at the door. Of the house of Peter and Andrew, where Jesus was being entertained, as is plain from ver. 29.

Ver. 34. And He healed many, i.e., all who presented themselves, for they were many.

Suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew Him. Arab., because they knew that He Himself was He.

Ver. 35. And rising very early, &c.: Gr.ךב? נזש??םםץקןם, i.e., in the morning, whilst it was still night. For it was at the very first commencement of dawn, whilst it was yet dark. Thus it might be called night by S. Mark, although by S. Luke (Luk 4:42) it is called day, because the day was just about beginning to dawn.

He went into a desert place, that He might pray thus more quietly and attentively. Wherefore it follows, and there prayed, both that after so many miracles He might avoid the praise and applause of men, and to teach us to do the same. Learn here from Christ to give the early morning to prayer, and to rise up with the dawn, so as to have leisure for meditation, and to give the first-fruits of the day to God. For the dawn of day is a friend of the Muses, but a greater friend of God and the angels.

Ver. 43. And He strictly charged him. The Gr. is, And having threatened him, he straightway sent him out. He severely commanded him with threats to conceal the miracle of healing which He had just wrought; and therefore He dismissed him, and sent him away from Him, that it might not be known that He had cured him of his leprosy; and that this might afford us an example of avoiding the applause of men.

Ver. 44. Show thyself to the high priest (Vulg.). Gr. to the priest. For not only the High Priest, but any priest might judge concerning leprosy, whether it was healed or no, as is plain from Lev 13:2. It is probable, however, that because the case of leprosy was so grave and difficult, the decision concerning it was, by the interpretation and decree of the pontiffs, reserved for a Chief Priest, as is here said, that is, for one of the twenty-four heads of the priests, who each in turn presided for a week over the rest of the priests, and the sacrifices, and the other offices and rites of the Temple, according to the institution of David, as appears from 1Ch 24:3, &c.

Ver. 45. But he, being gone out, began to publish and to blaze abroad the word, i.e., the fact of the miracle of his leprosy having been healed by Christ. For he thought that this was for the glory of God and Christ, although Christ, out of humility and modesty, had enjoined silence; but he himself did not consider this command binding upon him.

So that he could not openly go into the city, without feeling His modesty hurt by the honour and applause of the people. Or could not may mean would not. For so could is often put for would, as Nazianzen shows by many examples ( Orat. 4, de Theolog.).

*It has not been thought necessary to print in full the text of S. Mark. The citation of the few passages commented on is from the Douai Version.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

By Way of Introduction

One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark’s Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that a.d. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel . Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark’s Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q ( Logia of Jesus ) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark’s work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter ( The Four Gospels ) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter’s own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Pe_5:13).

This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter’s discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mar_6:38), two thousand hogs (Mar_5:13), looking round about (Mar_3:5, Mar_3:34). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like Boanerges (Mar_3:17), Talitha cumi (Mar_5:41), Korban (Mar_7:11), Ephphatha (Mar_7:34), Abba (Mar_14:36). The Greek is distinctly vernacular Koiné like one-eyed ( monophthalmon , Mar_9:47) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like centurio (Mar_15:39), quadrans (Mar_12:42), flagellare (Mar_15:15), speculator (Mar_6:27), census (Mar_12:14), sextarius (Mar_7:4), praetorium (Mar_15:6), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter’s preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Col_4:10) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my Making Good in the Ministry . The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter’s preaching as we see it in Act_10:36-42, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark’s Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, Mar_16:9-20, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as Mar_16:9-20 is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my The Christ of the Logia . The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my Harmony of the Gospels I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark’s Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter’s eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men’s bodies and saving men’s souls.

JFB: Mark (Book Introduction)

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed, though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col 4:10). But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN, HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same person with the John Mark of the Gospels. But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John, surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. And yet, as we shall presently see, no tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of him as "Marcus my son" (1Pe 5:13), that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel--converted to Christ through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the Apostles Peter and Paul were together--how seldom they even met--how different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact, something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark or Marcus; too slight a circumstance to conclude the sameness of the person from, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel, the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform, and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after their departure (or decease), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." And CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts, is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men, and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther--to ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or "directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.; and to JEROME, who but echoes EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which, confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly from materials furnished by Peter. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses the reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer to our remarks on Mar 16:7, and Joh 18:27, he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places, which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to Mar 2:18; Mar 7:3-4; Mar 12:18; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:42, for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel--about which nothing certain is known--if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on that it was written at Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word "departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years earlier.

JFB: Mark (Outline)

• THE PREACHING AND BAPTISM OF JOHN. ( = Mat 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18). (Mar 1:1-8)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM AND THEREAFTER OF SIMON'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS--JESUS, NEXT DAY, IS FOUND IN A SOLITARY PLACE AT MORNING PRAYERS, AND IS ENTREATED TO RETURN, BUT DECLINES, AND GOES FORTH ON HIS FIRST MISSIONARY CIRCUIT. ( = Luk 4:31-44; Mat 8:14-17; Mat 4:23-25). (Mark 1:21-39)
• HEALING OF A PARALYTIC. ( = Mat 9:1-8; Luk 5:17-26). (Mar 2:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER--REASON FOR TEACHING IN PARABLES--PARABLES OF THE SEED GROWING WE KNOW NOT HOW, AND OF THE MUSTARD SEED. ( = Mat. 13:1-23, 31, 32; Luk 8:4-18). (Mark 4:1-34)
• THE SOWER, THE SEED, AND THE SOIL. (Mar 4:3, Mar 4:14)
• JESUS CROSSING THE SEA OF GALILEE, MIRACULOUSLY STILLS A TEMPEST--HE CURES THE DEMONIAC OF GADARA. ( = Mat 8:23-34; Luke 8:22-39). (Mark 4:35-5:20)
• THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS RAISED TO LIFE--THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. ( = Mat 9:18-26; Luke 8:41-56). (Mark 5:21-43)
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH. ( = Mat 14:1-12; Luk 9:7-9). (Mark 6:14-29)
• THE TWELVE ON THEIR RETURN, HAVING REPORTED THE SUCCESS OF THEIR MISSION, JESUS CROSSES THE SEA OF GALILEE WITH THEM, TEACHES THE PEOPLE, AND MIRACULOUSLY FEEDS THEM TO THE NUMBER OF FIVE THOUSAND--HE SENDS HIS DISCIPLES BY SHIP AGAIN TO THE WESTERN SIDE, WHILE HE HIMSELF RETURNS AFTERWARDS WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mat. 14:13-36; Luk 9:10-17; John 6:1-24). (Mark 6:30-56)
• THE SYROPHœNICIAN WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER--A DEAF AND DUMB MAN HEALED. ( = Mat 15:21-31). (Mar 7:24-37)
• FOUR THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED--A SIGN FROM HEAVEN SOUGHT AND REFUSED--THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES--A BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA RESTORED TO SIGHT. ( = Mat. 15:32-16:12). (Mark 8:1-26) In those days the multitude being very great, &c.
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mat 17:14-23; Luk 9:37-45). (Mark 9:14-32)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WITH RELATIVE TEACHING--INCIDENTAL REBUKE OF JOHN FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. ( = Mat 18:1-9; Luk 9:46-50). (Mark 9:33-50)
• THIRD EXPLICIT AND STILL FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--THE AMBITIOUS REQUEST OF JAMES AND JOHN, AND THE REPLY. ( = Mat 20:17-28; Luk 18:31-34). (Mar 10:32-45)
• THE BARREN FIG TREE CURSED WITH LESSONS FROM IT--SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, ON THE SECOND AND THIRD DAYS OF THE WEEK. ( = Mat 21:12-22; Luk 19:45-48). (Mark 11:11-26)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE THE RESURRECTION, AND THE GREAT COMMANDMENT, WITH THE REPLIES--CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. ( = Mat. 22:15-46; Luke 20:20-47). (Mark 12:13-40)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, AND WARNINGS SUGGESTED BY IT TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING. ( = Mat. 24:1-51; Luke 21:5-36). (Mark 13:1-37)
• THE CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--THE SUPPER AND THE--ANOINTING AT BETHANY--JUDAS AGREES WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIS LORD. ( = Mat. 26:1-16; Luk 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11). (Mar 14:1-11)
• JESUS ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM CONDEMNED TO DIE, AND SHAMEFULLY ENTREATED--THE FALL OF PETER. ( = Mat. 26:57-75; Luke 22:54-71; Joh 18:13-18, Joh 18:24-27). (Mark 14:53-72)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION--HIS ASCENSION--TRIUMPHANT PROCLAMATION OF HIS GOSPEL. ( = Mat 28:1-10, Mat 28:16-20; Luke 24:1-51; Joh 20:1-2, John 20:11-29). (Mark 16:1-20)

TSK: Mark 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mar 1:1, The office of John the Baptist; Mar 1:9, Jesus is baptized; Mar 1:12, tempted; Mar 1:14, he preaches; Mar 1:16, calls Peter, Andrew, James, and John; v.23, heals one that had a devil; v.29, Peter’s mother in law; v.32, many diseased persons; v.40, and cleanses the leper.

Poole: Mark 1 (Chapter Introduction)

ARGUMENT

That the author of this compendious history of the Gospel was none of the twelve apostles, is evident to any who will read over their names, Mat 10:2-4 Mar 3:14-19 . That he was one of the seventy, whom Christ sent out afterwards, is said by some, but upon what evidence I cannot tell. That he was a disciple of Christ is out of question. There was one John surnamed Mark, Act 12:12 ; some think he was the penman of this Gospel, but others doubt it, the ancients always calling him Mark. We read of a Mark, sister’ s son to Barnabas, Col 4:10 ; and we read of Mark employed in the ministry, 2Ti 4:11 . Peter calls one of this name his son, 1Pe 5:13 . Paul calls one of this name his fellow labourer, Phm 1:24 . He who was surnamed Mark (added to John as his praenomen) went along with Barnabas to Cyprus, upon the dissension betwixt Paul and him, Act 15:39 . How many distinct persons are mentioned in Scripture of this name, and which of them was the evangelist, we have not light enough in Scripture to know by, (which yet we should not have wanted had it been material for us to know), and writers give an uncertain sound concerning this evangelist. Some would have him to be one, some another. Some have thought this Gospel was dictated by Peter to Mark. We are also told, that he wrote this history at Rome, then preached the gospel in Egypt, and was the first bishop of Alexandria, where he was buried, dying in the eighth year of Nero. These are the things which men may believe, or forbear to believe, as they see reason, coming to us only upon the credit of writers who are said, to have wrote what we have of their writings at least three hundred years after Mark’ s time. Most valuable interpreters agree him to have wrote in Greek, though a native Jew, and well understanding that language. Hierom tells us, that he wrote it at Rome upon Peter’ s dictating, at the desire of some Christians; but these are great uncertainties, and we want any evidence from Scripture that Peter ever came at Rome, though we know that Paul was carried thither prisoner. His history is much shorter than that of any of the other three evangelists, yet in some particular parts he added very much to Matthew’ s relations. He seemeth much to have compared notes with Matthew, and hath very few things which Matthew hath not, (though he omits many things which he hath), which hath much shortened our annotations upon this Gospel. Matthew begins his history with the genealogy and birth of our Saviour. Luke begins his with some things that preceded the birth of John the Baptist, and of our Saviour. Mark begins with the preaching of John the Baptist. The Divine authority of this book never came in question, nor can come, unless Matthew and Luke be questioned also, for he hath very little that is not in one of them. That is what we are most especially to attend unto, for from thence it followeth, that what he wrote is the object of our faith, and the rule of our life, as to things practicable by us.

MARK CHAPTER 1

Mar 1:1-8 The Gospel begins with the preaching of John the Baptist.

Mar 1:9-11 Jesus is baptized, witnessed to from heaven,

Mar 1:12-13 and tempted of the devil,

Mar 1:14-15 preacheth in Galilee,

Mar 1:16-22 calleth Peter, Andrew, James, and John,

Mar 1:23-28 healeth one possessed of an unclean spirit,

Mar 1:29-31 Simeon’ s mother-in-law,

Mar 1:32-34 and divers other diseased persons,

Mar 1:35-39 prayeth alone, and goeth on to preach,

Mar 1:40-45 cleanseth a leper.

The Gospel seems to have taken its name, euaggelion , from the angel’ s words to the shepherds, Luk 2:10 , I bring you good tidings of great joy; for the word in the Greek signifies a good message, or good news or tidings. It sometimes signifieth the historical narration of the coming of Christ, John Baptist’ s and Christ’ s preaching, and what he did in the world, his birth, life, death, &c.; sometimes the doctrine of salvation by Christ, in opposition to that of the law; sometimes, the dispensation of it, or that period of time when God began to publish the mystery hid from ages openly to the world. It seemeth here to signify the latter; for both Matthew and Luke seem to begin the history higher. Luke, from the history of John the Baptist and Christ, as to what things preceded their birth. Matthew, from the birth of Christ. But the dispensation of the gospel began with the preaching of John the Baptist. Before his time the doctrine of the gospel was made known to Adam, and Abraham and David; prophesied by Jacob, Isaiah, and several of the prophets; but John was the first in whom those promises and prophecies were fulfilled, the first public and plain preacher of the doctrine of the gospel; for the law and the prophets prophesied until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it, Mat 11:13 Luk 16:16 . So as John’ s preaching was the beginning of the gospel; for though the doctrine of the gospel was before darkly made known, yet it then began to be plainly and publicly declared to the world. He was the first in whom the gospel prophecies began to have an end, as both the prophecies and the types of it had a more full completion in Christ. Two prophecies at least had their completion in John, which we find in Mal 3:1 , which the evangelist mentions in the next verse, and Mar 4:5 , concerning Elias first to come, which our Saviour applies to John, Mat 11:14 Mar 9:11-13 , and the angel before him, Luk 1:17 ; besides Isaiah’ s prophecy, Isa 40:3 , applied unto him by Mat 3:3 Mar 1:3 , and by John applied to himself, Joh 1:23 . This Gospel is called the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because the history of Christ’ s birth, life, and death is the matter of it. Christ was by Matthew called the Son of David, the son of Abraham, to let us know that he was truly man, a native Jew, and of the royal family, and derived from those two families, to whom the promises of the Messias were made. By Mark he is called

the Son of God to let us know that he was more than mere man. And indeed who, but he who was the Son of God, could fully reveal his Father’ s will, determine the law of Moses and introduce a new way of worship, and publish a mystery of salvation, hid from all preceding ages, though not from all individual persons in them.

MHCC: Mark (Book Introduction)

Mark was a sister's son to Barnabas, Col 4:10; and Act 12:12 shows that he was the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and first Christians assembled. From Peter's styling him his son, 1Pe 5:13, the evangelist is supposed to have been converted by that apostle. Thus Mark was closely united with the followers of our Lord, if not himself one of the number. Mark wrote at Rome; some suppose that Peter dictated to him, though the general testimony is, that the apostle having preached at Rome, Mark, who was the apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter delivered, was desired to commit the particulars to writing. And we may remark, that the great humility of Peter is very plain where any thing is said about himself. Scarcely an action or a work of Christ is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and the minuteness shows that the facts were related by an eye-witness. This Gospel records more of the miracles than of the discourses of our Lord, and though in many things it relates the same things as the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we may reap advantages from reviewing the same events, placed by each of the evangelists in that point of view which most affected his own mind.

MHCC: Mark 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mar 1:1-8) The office of John the Baptist.

(Mar 1:9-13) The baptism and temptation of Christ.

(Mar 1:14-22) Christ preaches and calls disciples.

(Mar 1:23-28) He casts out an unclean spirit.

(Mar 1:29-39) He heals many diseased.

(Mar 1:40-45) He heals a leper.

Matthew Henry: Mark (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Mark

We have heard the evidence given in by the first witness to the doctrine and miracles of our Lord Jesus; and now here is another witness produced, who calls for our attention. The second living creature saith, Come, and see, Rev 6:3. Now let us enquire a little,

I. Concerning this witness. His name is Mark. Marcus was a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark, his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; so Grotius. We read of John whose surname was Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased with (Act 15:37, Act 15:38), but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the churches to receive him (Col 4:10), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is profitable to me for the ministry (2Ti 4:11); and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers, Phm 1:24. We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an instrument of his conversion (1Pe 5:13); whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by his authority; so Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, legatus Roma à fratribus, breve scripsit evangelium - Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a concise gospel; and Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap. 5), Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus - Mark, the interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things which had been preached by Peter. But as Dr. Whitby very well suggests, Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when, though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along (Act 1:21), who had a commission like that of the apostles (Luk 10:19, compared with Mar 16:18), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did (Act 1:15; Act 2:1-4), so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were? St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living. Constituit ecclesiam tantâ doctrinâ et vitae continentiâ ut omnes sectatores Christi ad exemplum sui cogeret - He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of Christ.

II. Concerning this testimony. Mark's gospel, 1. Is but short, much shorter than Matthew's, not giving so full an account of Christ's sermons as that did, but insisting chiefly on his miracles. 2. It is very much a repetition of what we had in Matthew; many remarkable circumstances being added to the stories there related, but not many new matters. When many witnesses are called to prove the same fact, upon which a judgment is to be given, it is not thought tedious, but highly necessary, that they should each of them relate it in their own words, again and again, that by the agreement of the testimony the thing may be established; and therefore we must not think this book of scripture needless, for it is written not only to confirm our belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the foregoing gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest at any time we let them slip; and even pure minds have need to be thus stirred up by way of remembrance. It was fit that such great things as these should be spoken and written, once, yea twice, because man is so unapt to perceive them, and so apt to forget them. There is no ground for the tradition, that this gospel was written first in Latin, though it was written at Rome; it was written in Greek, as was St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, the Greek being the more universal language.

Matthew Henry: Mark 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Mark's narrative does not take rise so early as those of Matthew and Luke do, from the birth of our Saviour, but from John's baptism, from which he soon passes to Christ's public ministry. Accordingly, in this chapter, we have, I. The office of John Baptist illustrated by the prophecy of him (Mar 1:1-3), and by the history of him (Mar 1:4-8). II. Christ's baptism, and his being owned from heaven (Mar 1:9-11). III. His temptation (Mar 1:12, Mar 1:13). IV. His preaching (Mar 1:14, Mar 1:15, Mar 1:21, Mar 1:22, Mar 1:38, Mar 1:39). V. His calling disciples (Mar 1:16-20). VI. His praying (Mar 1:35). VII. His working miracles. 1. His rebuking an unclean spirit (Mar 1:23-28). 2. His curing Peter's mother-in-law, who was ill of a fever (Mar 1:29-31). 3. His healing all that came to him (Mar 1:32, Mar 1:34). 4. His cleansing a leper (Mar 1:40-45).

Barclay: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MARK

The Synoptic Gospels

The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are always known as the synoptic gospels. The word synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together; and these three are called the synoptic gospels because they can be set down in parallel columns and their common matter looked at together. It would be possible to argue that of them all Mark is the most important. It would indeed be possible to go further and to argue that it is the most important book in the world, because it is agreed by nearly everyone that it is the earliest of all the gospels and therefore the first life of Jesus that has come down to us. Mark may not have been the first man to write the life of Jesus. Doubtless there were earlier simple attempts to set down the story of Jesusife; but Markgospel is certainly the earliest life of Jesus that has survived.

The Pedigree Of The Gospels

When we consider how the gospels came to be written, we must try to think ourselves back to a time when there was no such thing as a printed book in all the world. The gospels were written long before printing had been invented, compiled when every book had to be carefully and laboriously written out by hand. It is clear that so long as that was the case only a few copies of any book could exist.

How do we know, or how can we deduce, that Mark was the first of all the gospels? When we read the synoptic gospels even in English we see that there are remarkable similarities between them. They contain the same incidents often told in the same words; and they contain accounts of the teaching of Jesus which are often almost identical. If we compare the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand in the three gospels (Mar_6:30-44 ; Mat_14:12-21 ; Luk_9:10-17 ) we see that it is told in almost exactly the same words and in exactly the same way. A very clear instance of this is the story of the healing of the man who was sick of the palsy (Mar_2:1-12 ; Mat_9:1-8 ; Luk_5:17-26 ). The accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three in exactly the same place. The correspondences are so close that we are forced to one of two conclusions. Either all three are taking their material from some common source, or two of the three are based on the third.

When we study the matter closely we find that Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Only four are not included either in Matthew or in Luke. Even more compelling is this. Mark has 661 verses; Matthew has 1,068 verses; Luke has 1,149 verses. Of Mark661 verses, Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606. Sometimes he alters the wording slightly but he even reproduces 51 per cent. of Markactual words. Of Mark661 verses Luke reproduces 320, and he actually uses 53 per cent. of Markactual words. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce 31 are found in Luke. So the result is that there are only 24 verses in Mark which do not occur somewhere in Matthew and Luke. This makes it look very like as if Matthew and Luke were using Mark as the basis of their gospels.

What makes the matter still more certain is this. Both Matthew and Luke very largely follow Markorder of events. Sometimes Matthew alters Markorder and sometimes Luke does. But when there is a change in the order Matthew and Luke never agree together against Mark. Always one of them retains Markorder of events.

A close examination of the three gospels makes it clear that Matthew and Luke had Mark before them as they wrote; and they used his gospel as the basis into which they fitted the extra material which they wished to include.

It is thrilling to remember that when we read Markgospel we are reading the first life of Jesus, on which all succeeding lives have necessarily been based.

Mark, The Writer Of The Gospel

Who then was this Mark who wrote the gospel? The New Testament tells us a good deal about him. He was the son of a well-to-do lady of Jerusalem whose name was Mary, and whose house was a rallying-point and meeting place of the early church (Act_12:12 ). From the very beginning Mark was brought up in the very centre of the Christian fellowship.

Mark was also the nephew of Barnabas, and when Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey they took Mark with them to be their secretary and attendant (Act_12:25 ). This journey was a most unfortunate one for Mark. When they reached Perga, Paul proposed to strike inland up to the central plateau; and for some reason Mark left the expedition and went home (Act_13:13 ).

He may have gone home because he was scared to face the dangers of what was notoriously one of the most difficult and dangerous roads in the world, a road hard to travel and haunted by bandits. He may have gone home because it was increasingly clear that the leadership of the expedition was being assumed by Paul and Mark may have felt with disapproval that his uncle was being pushed into the background. He may have gone home because he did not approve of the work which Paul was doing. Chrysostom--perhaps with a flash of imaginative insight--says that Mark went home because he wanted his mother!

Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary journey and then proposed to set out upon their second. Barnabas was anxious to take Mark with them again. But Paul refused to have anything to do with the man "who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia." (Act_15:37-40 .) So serious was the difference between them that Paul and Barnabas split company, and, so far as we know, never worked together again.

For some years Mark vanishes from history. Tradition has it that he went down to Egypt and founded the Church of Alexandria there. Whether or not that is true we do not know, but we do know that when Mark re-emerges it is in the most surprising way. We learn to our surprise that when Paul writes the letter to the Colossians from prison in Rome Mark is there with him (Col_4:10 ). In another prison letter, to Philemon, Paul numbers Mark among his fellow-labourers (Phm_1:24 ). And, when Paul is waiting for death and very near the end, he writes to Timothy, his right-hand man, and says, "Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is a most useful servant to me." (2Ti_4:11 .) It is a far cry from the time when Paul contemptuously dismissed Mark as a quitter. Whatever had happened Mark had redeemed himself. He was the one man Paul wanted at the end.

MarkSources Of Information

The value of any manstory will depend on the sources of his information. Where, then, did Mark get his information about the life and work of Jesus? We have seen that his home was from the beginning a Christian centre of Jerusalem. Many a time he must have heard people tell of their personal memories of Jesus. But it is most likely that he had a source of information without a superior.

Towards the end of the second century there was a man called Papias who liked to obtain and transmit such information as he could glean about the early days of the Church. He tells us that Markgospel is nothing other than a record of the preaching material of Peter, the greatest of the apostles. Certainly Mark stood so close to Peter, and so near to his heart, that Peter could call him "Mark, my son." (1Pe_5:13 .) Here is what Papias says:

"Mark, who was Peterinterpreter, wrote down accurately, though

not in order, all that he recollected of what Christ had said or

done. For he was not a hearer of the Lord or a follower of his. He

followed Peter, as I have said, at a later date, and Peter adapted

his instruction to practical needs. without any attempt to give

the Lordwords systematically. So that Mark was not wrong in

writing down some things in this way from memory, for his one

concern was neither to omit nor to falsify anything that he had

heard."

We may then take it that in his gospel we have what Mark remembered of the preaching material of Peter himself.

So, then, we have two great reasons why Mark is a book of supreme importance. First, it is the earliest of all the gospels; if it was written just shortly after Peter died its date will be about A.D. 65. Second, it embodies the record of what Peter preached and taught about Jesus; we may put it this way--Mark is the nearest approach we will ever possess to an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus.

The Lost Ending

There is a very interesting thing about Markgospel. In its original form it stops at Mar_16:8 . We know that for two reasons. First, the verses which follow (Mar_16:9-20 ) are not in any of the great early manuscripts; only later and inferior manuscripts contain them. Second, the style of the Greek is so different that they cannot have been written by the same person as wrote the rest of the gospel.

But the gospel cannot have been meant to stop at Mar_16:8 . What then happened? It may be that Mark died, perhaps even suffered martyrdom, before he could complete his gospel. More likely, it may be that at one time only one copy of the gospel remained, and that a copy in which the last part of the roll on which it was written had got torn off. There was a time when the church did not much use Mark, preferring Matthew and Luke. It may well be that Markgospel was so neglected that all copies except for a mutilated one were lost. If that is so we were within an ace of losing the gospel which in many ways is the most important of all.

The Characteristics Of MarkGospel

Let us look at the characteristics of Markgospel so that we may watch for them as we read and study it.

(i) It is the nearest thing we will ever get to a report of Jesusife. Markaim was to give a picture of Jesus as he was. Westcott called it "a transcript from life." A. B. Bruce said that it was written "from the viewpoint of loving, vivid recollection," and that its great characteristic was realism.

If ever we are to get anything approaching a biography of Jesus, it must be based on Mark, for it is his delight to tell the facts of Jesusife in the simplest and most dramatic way.

(ii) Mark never forgot the divine side of Jesus. He begins his gospel with the declaration of faith, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He leaves us in no doubt what he believed Jesus to be. Again and again he speaks of the impact Jesus made on the mind and heart of those who heard him. The awe and astonishment which he evoked are always before Markmind. "They were astonished at his teaching." (Mar_1:22 .) "They were all amazed." (Mar_1:27 .) Such phrases occur again and again. Not only was this astonishment in the minds of the crowds who listened to Jesus; it was still more in the minds of the inner circle of the disciples. "And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, o then is this, that even wind and sea obey him? (Mar_4:41 .) "And they were utterly astounded." (Mar_6:51 .) "The disciples were amazed at his words." (Mar_10:24 , Mar_10:26 .)

To Mark, Jesus was not simply a man among men; he was God among men, ever moving them to a wondering amazement with his words and deeds.

(iii) At the same time, no gospel gives such a human picture of Jesus. Sometimes its picture is so human that the later writers alter it a little because they are almost afraid to say what Mark said. To Mark Jesus is simply "the carpenter." (Mar_6:3 .) Later Matthew alters that to "the carpenterson" (Mat_13:55 ), as if to call Jesus a village tradesman is too daring. When Mark is telling of the temptations of Jesus, he writes, "The Spirit drove him into the wilderness." (Mar_1:12 .) Matthew and Luke do not like this word drove used of Jesus, so they soften it down and say, "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." (Mat_4:1 ; Luk_4:1 .) No one tens us so much about the emotions of Jesus as Mark does. Jesus sighed deeply in his spirit (Mar_7:34 ; Mar_8:12 ). He was moved with compassion (Mar_6:34 ). He marvelled at their unbelief (Mar_6:6 ). He was moved with righteous anger (Mar_3:5 ; Mar_8:33 ; Mar_10:14 ). Only Mark tells us that when Jesus looked at the rich young ruler he loved him (Mar_10:21 ). Jesus could feel the pangs of hunger (Mar_11:12 ). He could be tired and want to rest (Mar_6:31 ).

It is in Markgospel, above all, that we get a picture of a Jesus of like passions with us. The sheer humanity of Jesus in Markpicture brings him very near to us.

(iv) One of the great characteristics of Mark is that over and over again he inserts the little vivid details into the narrative which are the hall-mark of an eyewitness. Both Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus taking the little child and setting him in the midst. Matthew (Mat_18:2 ) says, "And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them." Mark adds something which lights up the whole picture (Mar_9:36 ). "And he took a child and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them..." In the lovely picture of Jesus and the children, when Jesus rebuked the disciples for keeping the children from him, only Mark finishes, "and he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them." (Mar_10:13-16 ; compare Mat_19:13-15 ; Luk_18:15-17 .) All the tenderness of Jesus is in these little vivid additions. When Mark is telling of the Feeding of the Five Thousand he alone tells how they sat down in hundreds and in fifties, looking like vegetable beds in a garden (Mar_6:40 ) and immediately the whole scene rises before us. When Jesus and his disciples were on the last journey to Jerusalem, only Mark tells us, "and Jesus went before them." (Mar_10:32 ; compare Mat_20:17 ; Luk_18:31 ); and in that one vivid little phrase all the loneliness of Jesus stands out. When Mark is telling the story of the stilling of the storm he has one little sentence that none of the other gospel-writers have. "And he was in the hinder part of the ship asleep on a pillow" (Mar_4:38 ). And that one touch makes the picture vivid before our eyes.

There can be little doubt that all these details are due to the fact that Peter was an eyewitness and was seeing these things again with the eye of memory.

(v) Markrealism and his simplicity come out in his Greek style.

(a) His style is not carefully wrought and polished. He tells the story as a child might tell it. He adds statement to statement connecting them simply with the word "and." In the third chapter of the gospel, in the Greek, there are 34 clauses or sentences one after another introduced by "and" after one principal verb. It is the way in which an eager child would tell the story.

(b) He is very fond of the words "and straightway," "and immediately." They occur in the gospel almost 30 times. It is sometimes said of a story that "it marches." But Markstory does not so much march; he rushes on in a kind of breathless attempt to make the story as vivid to others as it is to himself.

(c) He is very fond of the historic present. That is to say, in the Greek he talks of events in the present tense instead of in the past. "And when Jesus heard it, he says to them, ose who are strong do not need a doctor, but those who are ill (Mar_2:17 .) "And when they come near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, he sends two of his disciples, and says to them, into the village opposite you... (Mar_11:1-2 .) "And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of The Twelve, comes." (Mar_14:43 .)

Generally speaking we do not keep these historic presents in translation, because in English they do not sound well; but they show how vivid and real the thing was to Markmind, as if it was happening before his very eyes.

(d) He quite often gives us the very Aramaic words which Jesus used. To Jairus aughter, Jesus said, "Talitha (G5008) cumi (G2891)." (Mar_5:41 .) To the deaf man with the impediment in his speech he said, "Ephphatha (G2188)." (Mar_7:34 .) The dedicated gift is "Corban (G2878)." (Mar_7:11 .) In the Garden he says, "Abba (G5), Father." (Mar_14:36 .) On the Cross he cries, "Eloi (G1682) Eloi (G1682) lama (G2982) sabachthani (G4518)?" (Mar_15:34 .)

There were times when Peter could hear again the very sound of Jesusoice and could not help giving the thing to Mark in the very words that Jesus spoke.

The Essential Gospel

It would not be unfair to call Mark the essential gospel. We will do well to study with loving care the earliest gospel we possess, the gospel where we hear again the preaching of Peter himself.

FURTHER READING

P. Carrington, According to Mark (E)

R. A. Cole, The Gospel According to St Mark (TC; E)

C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (CGT; G)

F. C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel (E)

A. M. Hunter, St Mark (Tch; E)

Sherman E. Johnson, The Gospel According to St Mark (ACB; E)

R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St Mark (E)

A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (G)

D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (PC; E)

A. E. J. Rawlinson, The Gospel According to St Mark (WC; E)

H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

C. H. Turner, St Mark (E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

CGT: Cambridge Greek Text

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

WC: Westminster Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Mark 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The Beginning Of The Story (Mar_1:1-4)

The Herald Of The King (Mar_1:5-8)

The Day Of Decision (Mar_1:9-11)

The Testing Time (Mar_1:12-13)

The Message Of The Good News (Mar_1:14-15)

Jesus Chooses His Friends (Mar_1:16-20)

Jesus Begins His Campaign (Mar_1:21-22)

The First Victory Over The Powers Of Evil (Mar_1:23-28)

A Private Miracle (Mar_1:29-31)

The Beginning Of The Crowds (Mar_1:32-34)

The Quiet Hour And The Challenge Of Action (Mar_1:35-39)

The Leper Is Cleansed (Mar_1:40-45)

Constable: Mark (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer did not identify himself as the writer anywhere in this Gospel. There are many statements of the early church fathers, however, that identify John Mark as the writer.

The earliest reference of this type is in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (c. 326 A.D.).¹ Eusebius quoted Papius' Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles (c. 140 A.D.), a work now lost. Papius quoted "the Elder," probably the Apostle John, who said the following things about this Gospel. Mark wrote it though he was not a disciple of Jesus during Jesus' ministry nor an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. He accompanied the Apostle Peter and listened to his preaching. He based his Gospel on the eyewitness account and spoken ministry of Peter. Mark did not write his Gospel in strict chronological sequence, but he recorded accurately what Peter remembered of Jesus' words and deeds. He considered himself an interpreter of Peter's content. By this John probably meant that Mark recorded the teaching of Peter for the church though not necessarily verbatim as Peter expressed himself.² Finally the Apostle John said that Mark's account is wholly reliable.

Another important source of the tradition that Mark wrote this Gospel is the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (160-180 A.D.). It also stated that Mark received his information from Peter. Moreover it recorded that Mark wrote after Peter died and that he wrote this Gospel in Italy.

Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.), another early church father, added that Mark wrote after Peter and Paul had died.³

Other early tradition documenting these facts comes from Justin Martyr (c. 150-160 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 A.D.), Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), the Muratorian Canon (c. 200 A.D.), and Origen (c. 230 A.D.). Significantly this testimony dates from the end of the second century. Furthermore it comes from three different centers of early Christianity: Asia Minor (modern Turkey), Rome (in Italy), and Alexandria (in Egypt). Thus there is strong evidence that Mark wrote this Gospel.

The Mark in view is the John Mark mentioned frequently in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:36-39; Col. 4:10; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13). He was evidently a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey but left these apostles when they reached Perga. He became useful to Paul during Paul's second Roman imprisonment. He was also with Peter when Peter was in Rome, and Peter described him as his "son," probably his protégé.

It seems unlikely that the early church would have accepted this Gospel as authoritative, since its writer was a secondary figure, without having convincing proof that Mark wrote it. Perhaps Luke showed special interest in John Mark in Acts because he was the writer of this Gospel more than because he caused a breach between Paul and Barnabas.⁴

Date

The earliest Mark could have written, if the testimonies of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue and Irenaeus are correct, was after the death of Peter and Paul. The most probable dates of Peter's martyrdom in Rome are 64-67 A.D. Paul probably died as a martyr there in 67-68 A.D. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both placed the composition of this Gospel during Peter's lifetime. This may mean that Mark wrote shortly before Peter died. Perhaps Mark began his Gospel during Peter's last years in Rome and completed it after Peter's death.

The latest Mark could have written was probably 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that since no Gospel writer referred to this event, which fulfilled prophecy, they all wrote before it.

To summarize, Mark probably wrote this Gospel sometime between 63 and 70 A.D.

Origin and Destination

Early tradition says Mark wrote in Italy⁵ and in Rome.⁶

This external testimony finds support in the internal evidence of the Gospel itself. Many indications in the text point to Mark's having written for Gentile readers originally, particularly Romans. He explained Jewish customs that would have been strange to Gentile readers (e.g., 7:2-4; 15:42). He translated Aramaic words that would have been unfamiliar to Gentiles (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22). Compared to Matthew and Luke he used many Latinisms and Latin loan words indicating Roman influence. He showed special interest in persecution and martyrdom that would have been of special interest to Roman readers when he wrote (e.g., 8:34-38; 13:9-13). Christians were suffering persecution in Rome and throughout the empire then. Finally the early circulation and widespread acceptance of this Gospel among Christians suggest that it originated from and went to a powerful and influential church.⁷

Characteristics

Notice first some linguistic characteristics. Mark used a relatively limited vocabulary when he wrote this Gospel. For example, he used only about 80 words that occur nowhere else in the Greek New Testament compared with Luke's Gospel that contains about 250 such words. Another unique feature is that Mark also liked to transliterate Latin words into Greek. However the Aramaic language also influenced Mark's Greek. He evidently translated into Greek many of Peter's stories that Peter spoke in Aramaic. The result was sometimes rather rough and ungrammatical Greek compared with Luke who had a much more polished style of writing. However, Mark used a forceful, fresh, and vigorous style of writing. This comes through in his frequent use of the historical present tense that expresses action as happening at once. It is also obvious in his frequent use of the Greek adverb euthys translated "immediately."⁸ The resulting effect is that as one reads Mark's Gospel one feels that he or she is reading a reporter's eyewitness account of the events.

"Though primarily engaged in an oral rather than a written ministry, D. L. Moody was in certain respects a modern equivalent to Mark as a communicator of the gospel. His command of English was seemingly less than perfect and there were moments when he may have wounded the grammatical sensibilities of some of the more literate members of his audiences, but this inability never significantly hindered him in communicating the gospel with great effectiveness. In a similar way, Mark's occasional literary lapses have been no handicap to his communication in this gospel in which he skillfully set forth the life and ministry of Jesus."⁹

Mark also recorded many intimate details that only an eyewitness would observe (e.g., 1:27, 41, 43; 2:12; 3:5; 7:34; 9:5-6, 10; 10:24, 32). He addressed his readers directly (e.g., 2:10; 7:19), through Jesus' words (e.g., 13:37), and with the use of rhetorical questions addressed to them (e.g., 4:41). This gives the reader the exciting feeling that he or she is interacting with the story personally. It also impresses the reader with the need for him or her to respond to what the story is presenting. Specifically Mark wanted his readers to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and to follow Him.

Mark stressed Jesus' acts and gave a prominent place to His miracles in this Gospel. He recorded fewer of Jesus' words and more of His works. Jesus comes through Mark's Gospel as a man of action. Mark emphasized Jesus' role as the Servant of the Lord.

"Mark's story of Jesus is one of swift action and high drama. Only twice, in chapters 4 and 13, does Jesus pause to deliver extended discourses."¹⁰

Candor also marks this Gospel. Mark did not glorify the disciples but recorded them doing unflattering things such as criticizing Jesus. He also described the hostility of Jesus' family members toward Him. He stressed the human reactions and emotions of Jesus.

This Gospel presents a high christology beginning with the introduction of Jesus as the Son of God (1:1). Mark revealed Jesus' preference for the title "Son of man," which He used to describe Himself frequently.

Purpose

These characteristics help us understand Mark's purpose for writing, which he did not state directly. Mark's purpose was not just to give his readers a biographical or historical account of Jesus' life. He had a more practical purpose. The biographical material he chose to include and omit suggests that he wanted to enable his Christian readers to endure suffering and persecution for their faith effectively. To do this he recorded much about Jesus' sufferings. About one third of this Gospel deals with the passion of Jesus. Moreover there are many other references to suffering throughout the book (e.g., 1:12-13; 3:21-22, 30-35; 8:34-38; 10:30, 33-34, 45; 13:8, 11-13). Clearly Mark implied that faithfulness and obedience as a disciple of Jesus will inevitably result in opposition, suffering, and perhaps death. This emphasis would have ministered to the original readers who were undergoing persecution for their faith. It is a perennial need in pastoral ministry.¹¹

Mark had a theological as well as a pastoral purpose in writing. It was to stress the true humanity of the Son of God. Whereas Matthew presented Jesus as the Messiah, Mark showed that He was the human servant of God who suffered as no other person has suffered. Mark stressed Jesus' obedience to His Father's will. This emphasis makes Jesus an example for all disciples to follow (10:45). One wonders if Mark presented Jesus as he did to balance a tendency that existed in the early church to think of Jesus as divine but not fully human.

Mark's position among the Gospels

It is common today for scholars to hold Markan priority. This is the view that Mark wrote his Gospel first and the other Gospel evangelists wrote after he did. This view has become popular since the nineteenth century. Before that most biblical scholars believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. Since then many scholars have concluded that Mark was one of the two primary sources that the other Synoptic Gospel writers used, the other being Q.¹² There is presently no definitive solution to this problem of which came first.

Scholars favoring Markan priority base their view on the fact that Mark contains about 90% of what is in Matthew and about 40% of what is in Luke. Matthew and Luke usually follow Mark's order of events, and they rarely agree against the content of Mark when they all deal with the same subject. Matthew and Luke also often repeat Mark's wording, and they sometime interpret and tone down some of Mark's statements. Normally Mark's accounts are fuller than Matthew and Luke's suggesting that they may have edited his work.

However sometimes Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in a particular account. Luke omitted a large section of Mark's material including all of what is in Mark 6:45-8:26. Moreover in view of the traditional dating of Mark late in the 60s, if Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke must have written after the fall of Jerusalem. This seems unlikely since that event fulfilled prophecy, but neither writer cited the fulfillment as such.¹³

All things considered I favor Matthean priority. However this debate is not crucial to the interpretation of the text.

Message¹⁴

Matthew presents Jesus in the purple and gold of royalty. Mark portrays Him in the brown and green of a servant who has come to do His Father's will.

The message of the book is similar to Matthew's message. A concise statement of it appears in 1:14-15. This is the message that Jesus proclaimed throughout His earthly ministry.

Another verse that is key to understanding the message of this Gospel is 10:45. This verse provides the unique emphasis of the book, Jesus' role as a servant, and a general outline of its contents.

First, the Son of Man came. That is the secret of the Incarnation. The Son of Man was God incarnate in human nature. His identity is a major theme in this Gospel.

Second, the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to but to minister. That is the secret of service. This Gospel also has much to teach disciples about service to God and mankind.

Third, the Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many. That is the secret of His sufferings. Mark's Gospel stresses the sufferings of the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Mark is the Gospel of the Servant of God.

Jesus was, of course, by nature the Son of God. He is and ever has been equal with the Father because He shares the same divine nature. However in the Incarnation, Jesus became the Servant of God.

The idea of a divine Servant of God was an Old Testament revelation. Isaiah had more to say about the Servant of the Lord than any other Old Testament prophet, though many other prophets spoke of Him too.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul expounded the significance of Jesus becoming the Servant of God more than any other writer. His great Kenosis passage in Philippians 2 helps us grasp what it meant for the Son of God to become the Servant of God. In the Incarnation, Jesus limited Himself. He did not cease to be God, but He poured Himself into the nature and body of a man. This limited His divine powers. Moreover He submitted Himself to a mission that the Father prescribed for Him that constrained His divine freedom. Mark presents Jesus as a real man who was also God in the role of a servant.

Let us consider first the nature of Jesus' service. The first and the last verses of this Gospel help us understand the nature of Jesus' service. Notice 1:1.

The second person of the Trinity became a servant to create a gospel, to provide good news for human beings. This good news is that Jesus has provided salvation for mankind. To provide salvation the eternal Son became a servant. Whenever the Bible speaks of Jesus as a servant it is always talking about His providing salvation.

Mark began by citing Isaiah who predicted the Servant of God (1:3, from Isa. 40:3). The quotation from Malachi in verse 2 is only introductory. This is very significant because Mark, unlike Matthew, rarely quoted from the Old Testament. Isaiah pictured One who would come to accomplish God's purpose of providing a final salvation. His picture of the Servant became more distinct and detailed, like a portrait under construction, until in chapter 53 Isaiah depicted the Servant's awful sufferings. This chapter is the great background for the second Gospel, as Psalm 110 lies behind the first Gospel.

The picture of the Servant suffering on the Cross is the last in a series that Mark has given us. He also shows the Servant suffering in His struggle against the forces of Satan and His demons. Another picture is of the Servant suffering the opposition of Israel's religious leaders. Another one is of the Servant suffering the dullness and misunderstanding of even His own disciples. These are all major themes in Mark's Gospel that have in common the view of Jesus as the Suffering Servant.

Turning to the Apostle Paul's theological exposition of the Suffering Servant theme in Scripture we note that he picked up another of Mark's emphases. Mark did not just present Jesus as the Suffering Servant as an interesting theological revelation. He showed what that means for disciples of the Suffering Servant. We need to adopt the same attitude that Jesus had (Phil. 2:5). Disciples of the Suffering Servant should expect and prepare for the same experiences He encountered. We need to have the same graciousness, humility, and love that He did. The Son of God emptied Himself to become a servant of God and man. We must also sacrifice ourselves for the same purpose.

Isaiah revealed that the central meaning of the Servant's mission was to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Isa. 53). Paul also revealed that the Son became a servant to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Phil. 2). The only sense in which the Son of God became the Servant of the Lord is that He created a gospel by providing salvation from the slavery of sin.

When Jesus began His public ministry He announced, "The time is fulfilled" (1:15). The person Isaiah and the other prophets had predicted had drawn near. God had drawn near by becoming a man. He had drawn near in the form of a humble servant. He was heading for the Cross. He would conquer what had ruined man and nature. He would provide good news for humankind, and He would return one day to establish His righteous empire over all the earth in grace and glory.

"Jesus" was His human name. "Messiah" was the title that described His role, though most people misunderstood it. "Son of God" was the title that represented His deity. These three are primary in Mark's Gospel.

Second, we need to observe what Mark teaches about the characteristics of Jesus' service.

Note Jesus' sympathy with sinners. Mark recorded no word of severity coming from Jesus' lips for sinners. Jesus reserved His severity for hypocrites, those who pretend to be righteous but are really rotten. He was hard on them because they ruined the lives of other people.

Sympathy comes from suffering. We have sympathy for someone who is undergoing some painful experience that we have gone through. It is hard to sympathize with someone whose experience is foreign to us.

Sympathy comes from suffering and it manifests itself in sacrifice. It involves bearing one another's burdens. Jesus' sympathy for us sinners arose from His sharing our sufferings, and it became obvious when He sacrificed Himself for us. If there was ever anyone who bore the burdens of others, it was Jesus (10:45).

Third, note the result of Jesus' service. It is the gospel. Reference to the gospel opens and closes this book (1:1; 16:20). The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

When Jesus arose from the dead, His disciples were fearful, and they refused to believe He was alive. Jesus' strongest words of criticism of them occur in 16:14. This is the climax of the theme of the disciples' unbelief that runs through this Gospel. Look what He said to them immediately after that (16:15). He sent them out to proclaim the good news of salvation accomplished to every creature. The resurrection of the Servant is the great proof of the acceptability of His service, and it demands service of His disciples.

The abiding appeal of this book is, "Repent and believe the gospel" (1:15). Repenting is preliminary. Believing is the essential call.

Jesus did not preach that people should believe into the gospel (Gr. eis) nor that they should believe close to the gospel (Gr. apo). He called them to rest in the gospel (Gr. en). The gospel is a sphere of rest. We can have confidence in the gospel, put our trust in it, and rest in it.

The unbelievers in Mark's Gospel refused to rest in the reality that Jesus was not just a human Messiah come to deliver Israel from Rome but the divine Son of God. The disciples had little rest because they still could not overcome the limited traditional misconceptions of Messiah's role in history even though they believed that Jesus was God's Son.

The application of this Gospel to the church as a whole is, "Believe the gospel." As the disciples believed but struggled to believe, so the church needs to have a continuing and growing confidence in the gospel of the Servant of God.

It is a message of pardon and of power. Peter had to learn that it was a message of pardon after his triple denial of Jesus. All the disciples had to learn it is a message of power after they refused to believe that God had raised Jesus back to life.

When the church loses its confidence in the gospel, its service becomes weak. If we doubt the power of the gospel, we have no message for people who are the servants of sin. The measure of our confidence in the gospel will be the measure of our effectiveness as God's servants.

How can we have greater confidence in the gospel? It is not by studying or trying or experiencing. It is by the illuminating work of God's Holy Spirit in our hearts. Jesus' disciples were blind until God opened their eyes first to Jesus' true identity and then to Jesus' central place in time and history. They huddled in unbelief following the resurrection until the Holy Spirit illuminated their understanding about the significance of the resurrection. Then they went everywhere proclaiming the gospel (16:20).

Mark calls individual disciples of Jesus to believe in this gospel, to rest in it for pardon from sin and for power for service. It tells the story of the perfect Servant of God whose perfected service is perfecting salvation. God's Son became a servant to get near people, to help them, to lift us. That is the good news people need to hear. That is what it means to preach the gospel.

Constable: Mark (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-13

A. The title of the book 1:1

B. Jesus' preparation for ministry 1:2-13

1. The ministry of John the Baptist 1:2-8

2. The baptism of Jesus 1:9-11

3. The temptation of Jesus 1:12-13

II. The Servant's early Galilean ministry 1:14-3:6

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 1:14-20

1. The message of the Servant 1:14-15

2. The first disciples of the Servant 1:16-20

B. Early demonstrations of the Servant's authority 1:21-34

1. Jesus' teaching and healing in the Capernaum synagogue 1:21-28

2. The healing of Peter's mother-in-law 1:29-31

3. Jesus' healing of many Galileans after sundown 1:32-34

C. Jesus' early ministry throughout Galilee 1:35-45

1. The first preaching tour of Galilee 1:35-39

2. The cleansing of a leprous Jew 1:40-45

D. Jesus' initial conflict with the religious leaders 2:1-3:6

1. The healing and forgiveness of a paralytic 2:1-12

2. The call of Levi and his feast 2:13-17

3. The religious leaders' question about fasting 2:18-22

4. The controversies about Sabbath observance 2:23-3:6

III. The Servant's later Galilean ministry 3:7-6:6a

A. The broadening of Jesus' ministry 3:7-19

1. Jesus' ministry to the multitudes 3:7-12

2. Jesus' selection of 12 disciples 3:13-19

B. The increasing rejection of Jesus and its result 3:20-4:34

1. The increasing rejection of Jesus 3:20-35

2. Jesus' teaching in parables 4:1-34

C. Jesus' demonstrations of power and the Nazarenes' rejection 4:35-6:6a

1. The demonstrations of Jesus' power 4:35-5:43

2. Jesus rejection by the Nazarenes 6:1-6a

IV. The Servant's self-revelation to the disciples 6:6b-8:30

A. The mission of the Twelve 6:6b-30

1. The sending of the Twelve 6:6b-13

2. The failure of Antipas to understand Jesus' identity 6:14-29

3. The return of the Twelve 6:30

B. The first cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 6:31-7:37

1. The feeding of the 5,000 6:31-44

2. Jesus' walking on the water and the return to Galilee 6:45-56

3. The controversy with the Pharisees and scribes over defilement 7:1-23

4. Jesus' teaching about bread and the exorcism of a Phoenician girl 7:24-30

5. The healing of a deaf man with a speech impediment 7:31-36

6. The preliminary confession of faith 7:37

C. The second cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 8:1-30

1. The feeding of the 4,000 8:1-9

2. The return to Galilee 8:10

3. Conflict with the Pharisees over signs 8:11-13

4. Jesus' teaching about the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod 8:14-21

5. The healing of a blind man near Bethsaida 8:22-26

6. Peter's confession of faith 8:27-30

V. The Servant's journey to Jerusalem 8:31-10:52

A. The first passion prediction and its lessons 8:31-9:29

1. The first major prophecy of Jesus' passion 8:31-33

2. The requirements of discipleship 8:34-9:1

3. The Transfiguration 9:2-8

4. The coming of Elijah 9:9-13

5. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:14-29

B. The second passion prediction and its lessons 9:30-10:31

1. The second major prophecy of Jesus' passion 9:30-32

2. The pitfalls of discipleship 9:33-50

3. Lessons concerning self-sacrifice 10:1-31

C. The third passion prediction and its lessons 10:32-52

1. The third major prophecy of Jesus' passion 10:32-34

2. Jesus' teaching about serving 10:35-45

3. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 10:46-52

VI. The Servant's ministry in Jerusalem chs. 11-13

A. Jesus' formal presentation to Israel 11:1-26

1. The Triumphal Entry 11:1-11

2. Jesus' judgment on unbelieving Israel 11:12-26

B. Jesus' teaching in the temple 11:27-12:44

1. The controversy over Jesus' authority 11:27-12:12

2. The controversy over Jesus' teaching 12:13-37

3. Jesus' condemnation of hypocrisy and commendation of reality 12:38-44

C. Jesus teaching on Mt. Olivet ch. 13

1. The setting 13:1-4

2. Warnings against deception 13:5-8

3. Warnings about personal danger during deceptions 13:9-13

4. The coming crisis 13:14-23

5. The second coming of the Son of 13:24-27

6. The time of Jesus' return 13:28-32

7. The concluding exhortation 13:33-37

VII. The Servant's passion ministry chs. 14-15

A. The Servant's anticipation of suffering 14:1-52

1. Jesus' sufferings because of betrayal 14:1-11

2. Jesus' sufferings because of desertion 14:12-52

B. The Servant's endurance of suffering 14:53-15:47

1. Jesus' Jewish trial 14:53-15:1

2. Jesus' Roman trial 15:2-20

3. Jesus' crucifixion, death, and burial 15:21-47

VIII. The Servant's resurrection ch. 16

A. The announcement of Jesus' resurrection 16:1-8

B. The appearances and ascension of Jesus 16:9-20

1. Three post-resurrection appearances 16:9-18

2. Jesus' ascension 16:19-20

Constable: Mark

Mark

Bibliography

Adams, J. McKee. Biblical Backgrounds. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1965.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Gospel According to Mark. 1881. Reprint ed. London: Banner of Truth, 1960.

Alexander, William M. Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations Historical, Medical, and Theological. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible series. Greenwood, S. C.: Attic Press, 1976.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. 1862. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. A Commentary on Mark Thirteen. London: Macmillan, 1957.

Best, E. The Temptation and the Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Blunt, A. W. F. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Boobyer, G. H. "Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954):115-20.

Bratcher, R. G., and Nida, E. A. Translator's Handbook on Mark. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Burgon, John W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. 1871. Reprint ed. N. c.: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Carl, Harold F. "Only the Father Knows: Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus' Eschatological Ignorance in Mark 13:32." A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 16, 2000, Nashville, TN.

Carrington, P. According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Chantry, Walter J. "Does the New Testament Teach the Fourth Commandment?" The Banner of Truth 325 (October 1990):18-23.

Clarke, W. N. "Commentary on the Gospel of Mark." In An American Commentary. 1881. Reprint ed. Phildelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.

Cole, R. A The Gospel According to Mark. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Davis, C. Truman. "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View," Arizona Medicine 22:3 (March 1965):185-87.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Use of euthys (immediately') in Mark." Journal of Ministry and Theology 1:1 (Spring 1997):90-121.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Donahue, J. R. "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971):39-61.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Earle, Ralph. The Gospel According to Mark. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellenburg, B. Dale. "A Review of Selected Narrative-Critical Conventions in Mark's Use of Miracle Material." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):171-80.

English, E. Schuyler. "A Neglected Miracle." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):300-5.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Internationa Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Grassmick, John D. "Mark." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 95-197. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Green, Michael P. "The Meaning of Cross-Bearing." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-June 1983):117-33.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

Heil, John Paul. "Mark 14, 1-52: Narrative Structure and Reader Response." Biblica 71:3 (1990):305-32.

Hellerman, Joseph H. "Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (June 2000):213-28.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Hodges, Zane C. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Biblitheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hort, A. F. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1902. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.

Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Torch Bible Commentary series. London: SCM, 1967.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments. 2 vols. Hartford: S. S. Scranton, n. d.

Jeremias, Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 2nd ed. New York: Scribners, 1966.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

Johnson, Sherman E. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark. Reprint ed. London: C. A. Hammond, 1934.

Kingsbury, J. D. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1946.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Mark." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 65-86. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Maclaren, Alexander. "St. Mark." In Expositions of Holy Scripture. Vol. 8. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Maclear, G. F. "The Gospel According to St. Mark." In Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Martin, R. P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Matera, Frank J. "The Prologue as the Interpretitive Key to Mark's Gospel." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (October 1988):3-20.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. "Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke." In Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Translated, revised, and edited by William P. Dickson. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. 8th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896.

Moule, C. F. D. The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Nineham, D. E. Saint Mark. Pelical Gospel Commentary series. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

Plummer, Alfred. "The Gospel According to St. Mark" In The Cambridge Greek Testament. 1914. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1949.

Rhoads, David M., and Michie, Donald M. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Riddle, Matthew B. "The Gospel According to Mark." In International Revision Commentary on the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1881.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Santos, Narry F. "Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:625 (January-March 2000):15-25.

_____. "The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):452-60.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. London: SPCK, 1971.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Geoffrey. "A Closer Look at the Widow's Offering: Mark 12:41-44." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:1 (March 1997)27-36.

Smith, George Adam. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909.

Stauffer, Ethelbert Jesus and His Story. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

Sugirtharajah, R. S. "The Syrophoenician Woman." The Expository Times 98:1 (October 1986):13-15.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1898. Reprint ed. London: Macmillan, 1905.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martins Press, 1966.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "basilia," by K. L. Schmidt.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

Unger, Merrill F. Biblical Demonology: A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1952.

_____. Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1971.

_____. "Divine Healing." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):234-44.

Van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. VIIII. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Warfield, Benjamin B. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1899.

Wessel, Walter W. "Mark." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Williams, George. The Student's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 5th ed. London: Oliphants, 1949.

Williams, Joel F. "Discipleship and Minor Characters in Mark's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):332-43.

_____. "Literary Approaches to the End of Mark's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):21-35.

Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. 1901. Reprint ed. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Sadducees," by D. A. Hagner.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p41mar-3@

Haydock: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.

INTRODUCTION.

St. Mark, who wrote this Gospel, is called by St. Augustine, the abridger of St. Matthew; by St. Jerome, the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and according to Origen and St. Jerome, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son. Stilting, the Bollandist, (in the life of St. John Mark, T. vii. Sep. 27, p. 387, who was son of the sister of St. Barnabas) endeavours to prove that this was the same person as our evangelist; and this is the sentiment of St. Jerome, and some others: but the general opinion is that John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in Acts xii. was a different person. He was the disciple of St. Paul, and companion of St. Barnabas, and was with St. Paul, at Antioch, when our evangelist was with St. Peter at Rome, or at Alexandria, as Eusebius, St. Jerome, Baronius, and others observe. Tirinus is of opinion that the evangelist was not one of the seventy-two disciples, because as St. Peter calls him his son, he was converted by St. Peter after the death of Christ. St. Epiphanius, however, assures us he was one of the seventy-two, and forsook Christ after hearing his discourse on the Eucharist, (John vi.) but was converted by St. Peter after Christ's resurrection, hær. 51, chap. v. p. 528. --- The learned are generally of opinion, that the original was written in Greek, and not in Latin; for, though it was written at the request of the Romans, the Greek language was commonly understood amongst them; and the style itself sufficiently shews this to have been the case: ---

----------Omnia Græce;

Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latine.--- Juvenal, Satyr vi.

The old manuscript in Latin, kept at Venice, and supposed by some to be the original, is shewn by Montfaucon and other antiquaries, to have been written in the sixth century, and contains the oldest copy extant of St. Jerome's version. --- St. Peter revised the work of St. Mark, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies of the faithful; hence some, as we learn from Tertullian, attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself. St. Mark relates the same facts as St. Matthew, and often in the same words: but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He narrates two histories not mentioned by St. Matthew; the widow's two mites, and Christ's appearing to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; also some miraculous cures; (Mark i. 40; vii. 32; viii. 22, 26) and omits many things noticed by St. Matthew ... But nothing proves clearly, as Dom. Ceillier and others suppose, that he made use of St. Matthew's gospel. In his narrative he is concise, and he writes with a more pleasing simplicity and elegance.

It is certain that St. Mark was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world) as Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and others assure us. He remained here, governing that flourishing church with great prudence, zeal, and sanctity. He suffered martyrdom in the 14th year of the reign of Nero, in the year of Christ 68, and three years after the death of Sts. Peter and Paul, at Alexandria, on the 25th of April; having been seized the previous day, which was Sunday, at the altar, as he was offering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass.

====================

Gill: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MARK

This is the title of the book, the subject of which is the Gospel; a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ: the writer of it was not one of the twelve apostles, but an evangelist; the same with John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark: John was his Hebrew name, and Mark his Gentile name, Act 12:12, and was Barnabas's sister's son, Col 4:10, his mother's name was Mary, Act 12:12. The Apostle Peter calls him his son, 1Pe 5:13, if he is the same; and he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from him ^a, and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by him ^b it is said to have been wrote originally in Latin, or in the Roman tongue: so say the Arabic and Persic versions at the beginning of it, and the Syriac version says the same at the end: but of this there is no evidence, any more, nor so much, as of Matthew's writing his Gospel in Hebrew. The old Latin copy of this, is a version from the Greek; it is most likely that it was originally written in Greek, as the rest of the New Testament.

College: Mark (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

No story is more important than the story of Jesus. I am confident that my comments do not do it justice. Even granting the limitations of a historical commentary (see the Introduction) there is so much more to be said. Nevertheless, the completion of a commentary on the Gospel of Mark accomplishes a goal I have wanted to reach for many years. I pray that my comments will help readers to develop a deeper understanding of Mark's story of Jesus as a basis for reflecting on Jesus' significance for their own lives.

I thank College Press for the opportunity to write in this series. I thank my colleague at Harding Graduate School Richard Oster (whose commentary on 1 Corinthians has appeared in the same series) for reading my manuscript and making many valuable suggestions. Another friend and colleague John Mark Hicks also provided helpful comments on several sections.

Most of all I thank Nancy, Amy, and Stacey, whose love and support are the dearest things on earth to me. The blessing they have been to me is second only to the blessing God has given to us all in the story about which I have been privileged to comment.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

The intended audience of this book is the general reader with a serious interest in Scripture. This is not a work for scholars seeking to explore and press forward the edges of contemporary scholarship on Mark. Rather, I seek to make some of the fruits of others' scholarly research available to the general reader. I have been especially influenced by the commentaries by William Lane and Robert Gundry, the incomplete commentary on 1:1-8:26 by Robert Guelich, and the magisterial work on the death of Jesus by Raymond Brown. I often refer the reader to their scholarly works for further information, and even where I do not the reader would be well advised to consider them for a scholar's depth of treatment. Another fine source for further treatment with respect to many topics that arise in Mark is the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels , edited by Joel Green and Scot McKnight.

The purpose of the commentary is to provide a historical interpretation of the Gospel of Mark; that is, an interpretation of what Mark meant to say to his ancient audience. I write with the conviction that modern readers can only determine God's message to us after and on the basis of a determination of Mark's message to his ancient contemporaries. Because I believe God worked through Mark and inspired his work, I believe it has great relevance to every reader in every age. But we can only determine what it means to us if we have first determined what it meant when Mark wrote it. It is this latter task that it the focus of most commentaries, including this one. I will occasionally make comments about what a given passage means today, but not consistently. I will consistently comment on what Mark meant to say to his ancient readers. I hope and pray that my readers will recognize the contemporary relevance of Mark's work even though it will not be my purpose to point it out or illustrate it. My purpose is to provide a base to build on for contemporary application.

The commentary deals with historical meaning or intention on two levels. The first of those is the meaning intended by Mark for his contemporaries. John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John points out that every Gospel writer must be selective. That is true with respect to which stories or sayings are selected and with respect to the perspective from which they are told and the amount of detail which is provided. The commentary consistently asks why Mark might have made his particular choices (which I assume were made under divine guidance).

The second level of meaning is the level of the intent of the historical characters Mark wrote about, especially Jesus. What did Jesus intend to convey to his contemporaries by his words and actions? A major part of Mark's intended meaning is to convey his understanding of Jesus' intended meaning. Therefore, it is important to ask both "What did Mark want his contemporaries to understand from this action or saying?" and "What did Jesus want his contemporaries (two to three decades earlier) to understand from this action or saying?" Concerning the latter question, the commentary will focus primarily on what one could learn about Jesus' intentions from Mark's account alone. On a few occasions, another Gospel will be brought into the discussion - but primarily for the purpose of solving some ambiguity or otherwise illuminating Mark's account.

I have generally not commented on the scholarly disputes concerning the historicity of various events and sayings in Mark. Most of them arise from the presupposition that Jesus did not work miracles. In this commentary I presuppose that he did and I assume the basic historicity of Mark's account. I comment only on a few well known problems of historicity which do not stem from antisupernaturalistic presuppositions.

In general, I have sought to provide deeper treatment of any recurring subject at the point where it is first mentioned in the text. For example, the titles "Christ" and "Son of God" are discussed primarily when they first arise in 1:1, and "Son of Man" is discussed in connection with 2:10. This means that the first chapter of the commentary is particularly important. It also means that readers will often want to look at the first text that mentions a particular theme. For example, it is important to supplement the comments on the centurion's confession of Jesus as the Son of God at 15:39 with the comments on the Son of God title at 1:1.

I have commented on the NIV text. In some places where it seems deficient, I have provided an alternative translation, often from the NRSV. The commentary makes note of the most significant textual variants and my opinions concerning them, but does not provide a list of manuscripts, versions, or church fathers. Interested readers should use the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament .

AUTHORSHIP

The author of the Gospel of Mark is not indicated within the text itself. However, the traditional understanding of the author is supported by the title and by early Christian writers.

The titles of the Gospels are first found in ancient manuscripts dating from the late second or early third centuries. Some scholars readily dismiss them as late second century creations. It is true that they seem to be creations of early church tradition rather than of the authors themselves. This can be observed by noting their stereotypical form "The Gospel according to _________" and by the clearer evidence that other New Testament book titles were not original. For example, Paul would hardly have designated the letter we know as 1 Corinthians by that name. Not only did letters not need a name but in 1 Cor 5 he speaks about a former letter he had written them. The titles of Paul's letters and of the Gospels represent the perspectives of those who collected and circulated them.

But that does not mean they are not to be trusted. Martin Hengel has well argued that the titles of the Gospels go back to the earliest days of their collection and distribution. Papias, a bishop in Asia Minor in the early second century, apparently knew of them. So did his source, "the elder" - presumably a generation older than Papias. Hengel correctly argues that as soon as there was more than one Gospel to read at church, it would have become necessary to name them. The lack of competing titles suggests that these titles were uniformly applied from the earliest days.

The second most important piece of information concerning the authorship of Mark is a paragraph written by the above-named Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (near Colossae and Laodicea). The pertinent statements were preserved by Eusebius from Papias's work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord , which was probably written within the first three decades of the second century. According to Eusebius Papias wrote:

And the presbyter used to say this: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

Papias believed a) that the author was a Mark closely associated with Peter and b) that what he wrote was essentially the preaching of Peter. These traditional understandings were repeated favorably by subsequent church fathers. Justin Martyr (writing c. A.D. 155-60) spoke of Mark's Gospel as "Peter's memoirs." In the late second century Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria described Mark as writing Peter's preaching. In the early third century Origen and Tertullian affirm the same tradition. The early date of Papias and the widespread support of his statements suggest that they might be correct.

The connection between Peter and Mark is supported by Peter going to John Mark's mother's house in Acts 12:12 and by Peter's reference to "my son Mark" in 1 Pet 5:13. The idea that Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's preaching is probably trustworthy. It is probably also true that what Peter usually did was tell various individual stories about Jesus rather than a sustained account. Mark's Gospel, like the others, is not in strict chronological order, although it does generally follow chronological lines.

Acts 12:12 and 25 suggests that the Mark that Peter would later refer to as "my son" was the same as the John Mark who was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey and a source of dispute between them over whether to take him on their return trip (Acts 15:36-40). Col 4:10; Phlm 24; and 2 Tim 4:11 indicate that Paul was eventually reconciled with John Mark (and that John Mark was Barnabas' cousin). According to Acts 12:12 John Mark was from Jerusalem, but Papias and other ancient writers say that he did not follow Jesus before Jesus' death.

I will assume the author was John Mark of Jerusalem and that his Gospel was to some extent based upon the preaching of Peter.

AUDIENCE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

In the late second century Clement of Alexandria commented on the circumstances of Mark's writing, including the audience he wrote for and the place where he wrote. According to Eusebius Clement believed that:

When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said: and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.

However, Clement is not a very trustworthy source and his contemporary Irenaeus contradicted him by saying that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter.

Clement could be correct about Rome as the location for Mark's audience and his place of composition. Two other factors provide mild support for Rome. In 1 Pet 5:13, where Peter mentions Mark and calls him "my son," he indicates that he and Mark were in "Babylon." Most scholars believe Peter is referring to Rome, thus placing himself and Mark in Rome. Furthermore, Gundry and others argue that the frequent Latinisms (Latin loan words or other Latin influence on Mark's Greek) point to Italy. The Latinisms argument is, however, problematic. Some are not persuaded because many of the Latin terms used in Mark are military, judicial, or economic in nature and would be present throughout the empire.

What can be affirmed with more confidence is that Mark's audience contained many Gentiles. This is made clear in 7:3-4 when Mark must explain ritual cleanliness customs which he says are the practice of "all the Jews." Mark must envision non-Jews who would not know these practices. This does not mean he did not envision some Jews reading his work, but only that he included comments clearly aimed at Gentiles.

It is probable that the readers Mark had in mind were already Christians. Beginning with the citation of Scripture in 1:2-3 he occasionally cites or alludes to Scriptures in a way that seems to assume knowledge of and appreciation for the Old Testament. Coupled with the indications of a Gentile audience, the assumed knowledge of the Old Testament suggests either Gentiles who had been attracted to the synagogue or who had become Christians. Occasionally, more distinctly Christian knowledge seems to be assumed. For example, Mark never explains what John meant by Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit (1:8). Christian readers would know. A particularly interesting case is 15:21, which identifies Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Apparently, the readers of Mark knew the two sons. But they were not well-known public figures. The most likely hypothesis to explain Mark's assumption is that they were known within the Christian community or at least that element of it which he had in mind.

Mark may have written his Gospel in Rome and for Roman Christians. In any case, he probably envisioned a Christian audience with many Gentiles.

DATE

As noted above, the earliest comments reflecting the date of Mark are by the late second century writers Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, who disagree on whether Mark was written prior to or after Peter's death. Very little concrete data is available to supplement their conflicting reflections. The most significant data in my opinion is the widespread hypothesis that Luke was dependent upon Mark coupled with a relatively early date for Luke-Acts. If Luke-Acts was complete by c. A.D. 62 and if Luke used Mark's Gospel, then Mark completed his work by the early sixties.

MAJOR THEMES AND STRUCTURE

A number of scholars agree that two themes stand out in Mark and that they are developed in a two-part structure for the book.

1. CHRISTOLOGY

One of the pervasive concerns of Mark is to portray Jesus as the authoritative Son of God and as the ultimate model of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

From the opening verse, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1), it is clear that Mark wants to paint a portrait of Jesus. Although it is an obvious oversimplification, it is useful to look at Mark's portrait by emphasizing a key word for the first half of the book, "authority," and a key word for the second half, "service." The pivotal center of Mark's Gospel is the confession by Peter in 8:27-30 and the crucial discussion that follows in 8:31-9:1. The turning point is the disciples' confession that Jesus is the Christ. The first half of the book leads to this confession; the second half builds on it and defines the role of the Son of Man as that of service unto death.

In 1:1-8:30, the focus is on the authority of Jesus as exhibited in his miracles and teaching and in the testimony of others. John the Baptist says, "After me will come one more powerful than I" (1:7). God declares, "You are my Son, whom I love" (1:11). Jesus summons fishermen, and they drop everything to follow him (1:16-20). When he teaches, the people "were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority" (1:22). When he casts out demons, they declare, "He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him" (1:27). The first eight chapters are permeated with features like these examples from the first chapter. Jesus' authority is repeatedly emphasized.

The question underlying most of these stories surfaces plainly in 4:41, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" Who, indeed, is this one with such authority that his teaching transcends that of the teachers of the law, that he forgives sins, that he controls sickness, disease, demons, nature, and even death?

The resounding answer is already given to the reader in 1:1, but is finally clear to the disciples in 8:29. At this point a new stage is opened up: "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things . . ." (8:31). The disciples do not readily grasp this new understanding either. Peter immediately objects (8:32). Throughout the remainder of the book, Jesus repeatedly works with the disciples to try to get them to see that the Son of Man "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).

The fact that this authoritative figure who commanded nature, disease, demons, and death would submit to death in suffering service is a key theme permeating everything after 8:31. Even though the second half of the book continues to emphasize Jesus' authority, the focus turns more and more toward the cross. This focus is explicit in Jesus' own statements about his coming suffering (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:32-34, 45; 14:18-21, 24-25, 27, 41). The shadow of his death lies over the second half of the book in other ways as well. One thinks, for example, of the fate of the son in the parable of the wicked tenants (12:6-8) or the anointing at Bethany (14:1-9) and of all the events from the Lord's Supper to the end of the crucifixion (14:12-15:47). In the second half of the book, Mark underscores the fact that the powerful, authoritative Son of God willingly submitted himself to the most shameful and inhumane of deaths because he had the heart of a servant.

2. DISCIPLESHIP

The theme of Christology carried out in the emphasis on Jesus' authority and then his suffering service is brought to bear on Mark's readers' lives through the emphasis on discipleship. To submit to Jesus' authority involves following in Jesus' footsteps in suffering service.

This point is first enunciated in 8:34-35 and then driven home by repetition, especially in 9:33-37 and 10:35-45. It is no accident that these sections of vital instruction on discipleship immediately follow the three repetitions of Jesus' predictions regarding his own death in Jerusalem. Disciples are to be like their master.

In each of these three instances, Jesus' prediction is followed by immediate indication that the disciples are out of step with their Lord. In 8:32, Peter even "rebukes" Jesus for what he said would happen. Having rebuked Peter, Jesus calls all the people together with his disciples and explains that what he plans to do bears not only on him but on what it means to be a follower: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (8:34).

In the second instance Mark writes that the disciples did not understand Jesus' prediction concerning himself (9:32), then immediately shows that they did not grasp its implications for themselves. They are interested in establishing which of them is the greatest (9:33-34), but Jesus tells them that followers of one who takes the role of a servant must be servants themselves (9:35).

The third instance is similar. Here, again immediately following a prediction concerning Jesus' death, James and John seek the chief places in the coming kingdom (10:35-37). Jesus' reply is explicit in the way it ties discipleship to Christology: "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:43-45). These verses, 10:43-45, provide a convenient summary of the main point with respect to discipleship. This emphasis permeates the second half of the book.

3. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON MARK'S STRUCTURE

In addition to the major division of Mark at 8:30 / 8:31, a few further divisions may be discerned with varying levels of confidence.

Most scholars identify either 1:1-8, 1:1-13, or 1:1-15 as an introduction. I have chosen 1:1-15 for reasons that are described at the beginning of the comments on chapter 1. These verses set the stage for all that follows.

It is questionable whether there is a clearly discernible substructure for the rest of the first half of the book (1:16-8:30). I have chosen the popular three-part structure proposed by Leander Keck largely as a matter of convenience for the memory. Keck's outline is easily learned because each section begins with a new stage in the disciples' development: the call of the four fishermen (1:16-20), the appointment of the twelve apostles (3:13-19), and the mission of the twelve (6:6b-13).

The second half of the book is easily divisible according to stages in Jesus' ministry. In 8:31-10:52 he journeys to Jerusalem. Beginning at 11:1 Mark focuses over one third of his book on Jesus' last week, from the triumphal entry to the resurrection.

In addition to the overall structure of the book, there are smaller structural features discernible in various sections. Some of these are identified in the outline, such as the collection of five controversy stories in 2:1-3:6 or the parable section in 4:1-34. Others are discussed as they arise in the commentary, such as the "sandwich" phenomenon discussed first at 3:20-35.

PURPOSE

Mark does not provide a statement of purpose for his work. It is difficult to construct a hypothetical statement of purpose that is well focused and yet broad enough to include all of Mark's material. Any statement of Mark's purpose should take into account his intended audience, particularly the probability that he wrote primarily for those who had already become Christians.

Mark's overall purpose might be stated as follows: to tell the story of Jesus from his baptism to his death and resurrection in order to strengthen the faith and deepen the understanding of his readers. The weakness of this statement is that it is so broad as to include virtually anything Mark might have known about Jesus.

As stated above on pages 11-13, each Gospel writer had some particular emphases that guided his selection. In Mark's case there is one particular emphasis that dominates the overall structure of the book and presumably was the primary principle of selection for much of its contents: the emphasis on discipleship as self-sacrificing service. Mark presents Jesus as the model of service: "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45). As is demonstrated in the above section on the structure of the book, Mark organizes his book around Jesus' effort to explain this to his disciples and to bring them to the understanding that "whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (10:43-44). This focus may account for many of Mark's choices.

Lane (and others) would be more specific. In particular, he believes the purpose of Mark was to encourage Roman Christians to sacrificial service during the time of the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. But I have argued above that Mark was probably written by A.D. 62 and that the tradition that his intended audience was in Rome is possibly true, but not a tradition to hold with confidence. It is questionable whether Mark wrote primarily for a persecution setting, Neronian or otherwise. There are only a few explicit references to persecution (4:17; 8:34-38; 10:29-30, 39; and 13:9-13). Certainly Mark's Gospel could have been used for encouragement by persecuted Christians, but it is preferable to state his primary focus in broader terms of sacrificial service.

SUMMARY OF INTRODUCTORY CONCLUSIONS

The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark of Jerusalem, an associate of Paul and of Peter. It probably reflects Peter's preaching about Jesus. Mark composed it by the early sixties. The audience he had in mind were predominantly Gentile Christians, possibly in Rome. He wrote the story of Jesus in order to strengthen their faith and deepen their understanding, particularly with respect to their need to follow Jesus in the path of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

Mark focused on christology and discipleship and their interrelationship. In the first part of the Gospel (1:1-8:30) he focused on Jesus' authority and the need for disciples to believe in him. Then, beginning in 8:31, he focused on how Jesus submitted himself to death in sacrificial service and on the need for disciples to follow his example.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, United Bible Societies, 1993.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Batey, Richard, A. Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: MacMillan, 1962.

. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Best, Ernest. Mark: The Gospel As Story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983.

Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. WUNT 2.40. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991.

Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987.

. Matthew. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Bock, Darrell L. "Elijah and Elisha." DJG 203-206.

Bratcher, Robert G. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Anchor Bible Reference Library, 2 Volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.

Cargounis, C.C. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven." DJG 417-430.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1959.

Davids, Peter. Commentary on James. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dodd, C.H. "The Kingdom of God Has Come." Expository Times 48 (1936-37): 138-142.

. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1935.

Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt. 15:5." Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 60-65.

. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.

France, Richard T. Jesus and the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971.

. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Geldenhuys, Norval G. Commentary of the Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Green, Joel B. and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1:1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. "Amen." DJG 7-8.

Heard, Warren J. "Revolutionary Movements." DJG 688-698.

Helton, Stanley N. "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20." Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 32- 52.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. London: SCM, 1977.

. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Herzog, William R., II. "Temple Cleansing." DJG 817-821.

Hoehner, Harold.W. Herod Antipas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

. "Herodian Dynasty." DJG 317-326.

Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

Judge, E.A. "The Regional Kanon for Requisitioned Transport." In New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Ed. G.H.R. Horsley. North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1976.

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Keck, Leander E. "The Introduction to Mark's Gospel." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 352-372.

Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Marcus, Joel. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 443-446.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. The Origins of New Testament Christology. Updated ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

McGarvey, J.W. "Biblical Criticism." Christian Standard 32 (1896): 1367.

. The New Testament Commentary. Vol. 1: Matthew and Mark. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 1875.

McIver, Robert K. "One Hundred-Fold Yield - Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13.8, 23; Mark 4.8, 20; Luke 8.8." New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 606-608.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1994.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 49. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Roads, David and Donald Michie. Mark As Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Rousseau, John J. and Rami Arav, eds. Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Sanders, E.P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE-66CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Schmidt, Thomas E. "Taxes." DJG 804-807.

Twelftree, G.H. "Blasphemy." DJG 75-77.

. "Demon, Devil, Satan." DJG 163-172.

. "Sanhedrin." DJG 728-732.

. "Scribes." DJG 732-735.

Westerholm, Stephen. "Pharisees." DJG 609-614.

Wilkins, Michael J. "Sinner." DJG 757-760.

Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Mark. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox, 1983.

Willis, Wendell, ed. The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Wuellner, Wilhelm H. The Meaning of "Fishers of Men." The New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD . . . A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed., eds. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

DJG . . . Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX . . . The Septuagint (An ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV . . . The Holy Bible, New International Version

NRSV . . . The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version

SNTSMS . . . Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Monograph Series

UBS ⁴ . . . The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed.

WUNT . . . Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NT

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Mark (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - Mark 1:1-15

A. The Beginning of the Gospel - 1:1-8

B. John Baptizes Jesus - 1:9-11

C. Temptation in the Wilderness - 1:12-13

D. The Gospel Jesus Preached - 1:14-15

II. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION ONE - 1:16-3:12

A. The Call of the First Disciples - 1:16-20

B. Jesus Demonstrates His Authority in Capernaum - 1:21-28

C. Healing Simon's Mother-in-Law - 1:29-31

D. Other Healings at Capernaum - 1:32-34

E. What Jesus Came to Do - 1:35-39

F. Healing A Leper - 1:40-45

G. Stories of Controversy between Jesus and the Religious Authorities - 2:1-3:6

1. Controversy over Forgiving Sins - 2:1-12

2. Controversy over Eating with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 2:13-17

3. Controversy over Fasting - 2:18-22

4. Controversy over Picking Grain on the Sabbath - 2:23-28

5. Controversy over Healing on the Sabbath - 3:1-6

H. Summary Statement about the Crowds and Healings - 3:7-12

III. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION TWO - 3:13-6:6a

A. The Appointment of the Twelve Apostles - 3:13-19

B. Jesus Accused of Lunacy and Being Possessed - 3:20-35

C. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 4:1-34

1. The Parable of the Sower - 4:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 4:10-12

3. The Interpretation of the Sower - 4:13-20

4. The Parable of the Lamp - 4:21-23

5. The Parable of the Measure - 4:24-25

6. The Parable of the Growing Seed - 4:26-29

7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed - 4:30-32

8. Teaching in Parables - 4:33-34

D. Jesus' Authority over Nature, Demons, Disease and Death - 4:35-5:43

1. Authority over Nature - 4:35-41

2. Authority over Demons - 5:1-20

3. Authority over Disease and Death - 5:21-43

E. Rejection at Nazareth - 6:1-6a

IV. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION THREE - 6:6b-8:30

A. The Mission of the Twelve - 6:6b-13

B. Herod Hears about Jesus - 6:14-16

C. Herod Has John Beheaded - 6:17-29

D. Feeding the Five Thousand - 6:30-44

E. Walking on the Water - 6:45-52

F. Healing at Gennesaret and Beyond - 6:53-56

G. The Controversy over Eating with Unwashed Hands - 7:1-23

H. The Syrophoenician Woman - 7:24-30

I. Healing a Deaf Man with a Speech Impediment - 7:31-37

J. Feeding the Four Thousand - 8:1-10

K. The Pharisees Demand a Sign - 8:11-13

L. The Yeast of the Pharisees and Herod - 8:14-21

M. The Blind Man at Bethsaida - 8:22-26

N. Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 8:27-30

V. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM - 8:31-10:52

A. Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection - 8:31-33

B. The Costs of Discipleship - 8:34-9:1

C. The Transfiguration and the Subsequent Discussion - 9:2-13

D. Jesus Casts a Spirit from a Man's Son - 9:14-29

E. The Second Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 9:30-32

F. Teachings on Servanthood - 9:33-50

1. Who Is the Greatest? - 9:33-35

2. An Example Based on Welcoming Children - 9:36-37

3. Jesus Rebukes the Disciples' Pride - 9:38-41

4. Getting Rid of Pride and Getting Along with Each Other - 9:42-50

G. Jesus Questioned About Divorce - 10:1-12

H. Receiving the Kingdom Like a Child - 10:13-16

I. The Rich Man and Jesus' Teaching Concerning Wealth - 10:17-31

J. The Third Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 10:32-34

K. The Request of James and John - 10:35-45

L. Bartimaeus Receives His Sight - 10:46-52

VI. THE LAST WEEK: JERUSALEM, THE CROSS, AND THE RESURRECTION - 11:1-16:8[20]

A. The Triumphal Entry - 11:1-11

B. Cursing the Fig Tree and Cleansing the Temple - 11:12-19

C. A Lesson from the Withered Fig Tree - 11:20-25

D. Another Series of Controversies with the Religious Authorities - 11:27-12:44

1. The Question about Authority - 11:27-33

2. The Parable of the Tenants - 12:1-12

3. The Question about Paying Taxes - 12:13-17

4. The Question about the Resurrection - 12:18-27

5. The Question about the First Commandment - 12:28-34

6. Jesus' Question about David's Son - 12:35-37

7. Jesus Denounces the Teachers of the Law and Commends a Poor Widow - 12:38-44

E. Jesus Instructs the Disciples Concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming - 13:1-37

1. The Setting of Jesus' Last Days Discourse - 13:1-4

2. General Description of the Birth Pains - 13:5-13

3. The Sharp Pain: The Destruction of Jerusalem - 13:14-19

4. Warnings Against False Messiahs during the Birth Pains - 13:20-23

5. The Second Coming - 13:24-27

6. The Significance of the Birth Pains for the Second Coming - 13:28-31

7. No One Knows the Day or Hour of the Second Coming - 13:32-37

F. Jesus Honored and Betrayed - 14:1-11

G. The Passover Meal - 14:12-31

1. Preparation for the Passover - 14:12-16

2. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal - 14:17-21

3. The Institution of the Lord's Supper - 14:22-25

H. Jesus Predicts the Flight of the Disciples and Peter's Denial - 14:26-31

I. Prayer in Gethsemane - 14:32-42

J. Betrayal, Arrest, and Flight - 14:43-52

K. Jesus and Peter Put on Trial - 14:53-72

1. Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin - 14:53-65

2. Peter's Denials - 14:66-72

L. Jesus' Trial Before Pilate - 15:1-15

M. Pilate's Soldiers Mock Jesus - 15:16-20

N. The Crucifixion - 15:21-41

O. The Burial of Jesus - 15:42-47

P. The Resurrection - 16:1-8

Q. Post-Resurrection Appearances - 16:9-20

1. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene - 16:9-11

2. The Appearance to Two Disciples - 16:12-13

3. The Appearance to and Commission of the Eleven - 16:14-18

4. The Ascension and the Disciples' Mission - 16:19-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV