Mark 1

“THE GOSPEL OF MARK”

Chapter One Mark begins his gospel with the ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-8), followed by Jesus’ baptism by John and temptation by Satan (Mark 1:9-11). Jesus began his own ministry in Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:12-15). Selecting four fishermen to become His disciples (Mark 1:16-20), He went to Capernaum where He taught in the synagogue and cast out an unclean spirit (Mark 1:21-28). At the house of Simon (Peter) and Andrew, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law, and after sunset healed many more (Mark 1:29-34). The next morning after spending time in prayer, Jesus started an itinerant ministry of preaching in the synagogues throughout Galilee, casting out demons and healing a leper (Mark 1:35-45).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The concise, fast-paced nature of Mark’s gospel

• The meaning of the phrase, “The time is fulfilled, kingdom of God is at hand”

• The purpose of the miracles of healing that Jesus performed

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- The ministry of John the Baptist - Mark 1:1-8- The baptism and temptation of Jesus - Mark 1:9-13- The beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee - Mark 1:14-45
2. What prophecies did John the Baptist fulfill? (Mark 1:2-3)

• Malachi 3:1; Isaiah 40:3

3. What did John preach? What did he promise? (Mark 1:4 Mark 1:8)

• A baptism of repentance for the remission of sins
• The coming of One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit

4. What two events led to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry? (Mark 1:9-13)

• His baptism by John; His temptation by Satan

5. What message did Jesus proclaim as He began His ministry? (Mark 1:14-15)

• “The time is fulfilled…the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent… believe in the gospel.”

6. Who were selected to become His disciples? (Mark 1:16-20)

• Four fishermen: Simon and his brother Andrew, James and his brother John 7) What miracles does Mark record as Jesus began His ministry in Galilee?(Mark 1:21-45)
• Casting out an unclean spirit in the synagogue at Capernaum
• Healing the mother-in-law of Simon (Peter) of a fever
• Healing many who were sick of various diseases, and casting out demons
• Cleansing a leper who came to Him

Verse 1 The style of Mark is quick-moving and dramatic, his gospel being one of swift and vigorous action, and one of his favorite expressions being straightway. The entire first year of our Lord’s ministry is presented in this first chapter. He summarized the ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-8), related the baptism of Christ (Mark 1:9-11), and recorded the temptation (Mark 1:12-13) in the first brief section of things preparatory to Jesus’ ministry. He then immediately launched into his narrative of the Lord’s ministry principally in the vicinity of Capernaum (Mark 1:14 to Mark 4:34), the following events being related in this chapter: (1) Jesus begins to preach (Mark 1:14-15); (2) he calls four disciples (Mark 1:16-20); (3) casts an unclean spirit out of a man on the sabbath day (Mark 1:21-28); heals Simon Peter’s wife’s mother of a fever (Mark 1:29-31); casts out many demons (Mark 1:32-34); extends his ministry to all Galilee (Mark 1:35-39); and cleanses a leper (Mark 1:40-45). The student will observe that Mark made extensive use of the historical present, as in the above summary. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1) The gospel .. always means “the good news” in the New Testament. It is the joyful word of how men may receive the forgiveness of sins and restore the broken fellowship with God, a fellowship broken by the disaster in Eden. All kinds of collateral and tangential benefits flow out to men from the fountainhead in the gospel of Christ; but they are subordinately connected with it, the primary purpose of the gospel having ever been the redemption of men from sin and their endowment with the hope of eternal life. Social, political, and economic benefits, invariably associated with the spread of Christianity, do not appear in the New Testament as primary goals at all. This is not to decry such dividends as being in any way undesirable, but to emphasize the far greater concern for the souls’ true redemption from sin. Jesus Christ, the Son of God … The compound title of our Lord is of heavenly origin. It was announced, evidently for the first time on earth, in the Saviour’s intercessory prayer (John 17:3) and was repeatedly called the “name” which God had “given” (John 17:6; John 17:11-12; John 17:26). From this, in all probability, derived the apostolic preference for the expression, “Jesus Christ.“Son of God … is a reference to the unique sonship of Jesus and is the equivalent of hailing him as a supernatural person and as having an equality with God. The Pharisees properly understood the implications of this expression, interpreting it as “making himself equal with God” (John 5:18).

Verse 2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold. I send my messenger before thy face, Who shalt prepare thy way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight.Some critics really have a problem with this passage, because Mark included with his quotation from Isaiah a passage from Malachi, and put it first at that! In fairness to Mark, it should be noted that he did not declare that Isaiah was the author of both passages, his only reason for mentioning Isaiah having apparently been for the purpose of identifying the quotation as Scriptural, which of course it is. One can only be amused at what a passage of this kind does to some critics, all of whom are dramatically reminded by such a passage that the sacred authors were untroubled by many of the punctilious rules so much respected and slavishly followed by themselves. The passage from Isaiah is Isaiah 40:3, a great prophecy which included in its many implications the prophecy in Malachi 3:1. As Bickersteth said: The oracle of Malachi is, in fact, contained in the oracle of Isaiah; for what Malachi predicted, the same had Isaiah more clearly and concisely predicted in other words. And this is the reason why Mark here, and other evangelists elsewhere, when they cite two prophets, and two or more sentences from different places in the same connection, cite them as one and the same testimony.[1]The quotation from the Old Testament emphasizes the divine nature of the ministry of John the Baptist, the heavenly designate who went before the Lord to prepare Israel to recognize and receive the Messiah. The persistence of Israel even to this day of their expectation of Elijah’s coming shows the genuineness of the prophecies, Elijah, of course, being the type of John the Baptist. Israel’s mistake in their expectation of a literal return of Elijah was due to their failure to believe the revelation of Zacharias, to the effect that Elijah’s return would be accomplished by John the Baptist who would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah … to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him” (Luke 1:17). ENDNOTE: [1] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 1.

Verse 4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.The wilderness … That John was indeed the Elijah whose voice would cry “in the wilderness” is evident in the fact that, of all the great preachers in history, only one chose a wilderness as the scene of his ministry. Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins … John’s baptism was a heavenly device for gathering together out of the nation of Israel a prepared people to receive and adore the Messiah. This baptism was of God, and those who rejected it rejected God’s message (Luke 7:30). In God’s plan of redemption, a new birth was the essential prerequisite, a birth of water and of the Spirit (John 3:5). The birth of water (John’s baptism) was available to men in the preaching of the herald; and, for those who accepted it, the birth from the Spirit would follow, in time, when it was made possible through the Saviour’s death. The fact that those who rejected John’s baptism did not follow Christ and did not receive the Holy Spirit is parallel with the truth that persons today who refuse the baptism Jesus commanded cannot receive the Spirit. All the country … all they … The success of John the Baptist was sensational and extensive. Great crowds and widespread popularity marked his efforts. The great wilderness preacher aroused the nation from its slumber, arrested the attention of that whole generation, and created excitement throughout the country. Even the Pharisees at first accepted him and “were willing to rejoice for a season in his light” (John 5:35). This great popularity, however, did not last. As Ryle said: The vast majority, in all probability, died in their sins. Let us remember this when we see a crowded church. It is not enough to hear and admire popular preachers. It is no proof of our conversion that we always worship in a place where there is a crowd. Let us take care that we hear the voice of Christ and follow him.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 5.

Verse 6 And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and had a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I baptized you in water; but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.These verses conclude Mark’s account of the ministry of John the Baptist, an account which is shorter than Matthew’s, omitting such important details as John’s proclamation of the kingdom of heaven being near at hand and the insistence of the Pharisees that fleshly descent from Abraham was all they needed (Matthew 3:1-12). John’s prophecy of the rejection of national Israel was also omitted. The clothing and diet of John were cited as fulfilling the typical characteristics of Elijah. There is no need to understand “locusts and wild honey” otherwise than in their ordinary sense. Mightier than I … John the Baptist is unique among the world’s great men in this view of himself as inferior to his successor. This is all the more remarkable in view of their close kinship and of their being approximately the same age. Baptize you in the Holy Spirit … is a reference to the Spirit which Jesus would pour out on earth. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is variously understood as: (1) the experience on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), (2) an event like that in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48), (3) the miraculous endowment of the apostles (Acts 8:18), or (4) the guidance of the church throughout the ages by God’s Spirit through the word, including the indwelling earnest. Although including the latter, the baptism in view here exceeds it, affecting all mankind. Significantly, it is a promise of what Christ would do and not a commandment men were to obey. This is one of seven baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, the others being: (1) the baptism unto Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2), (2) that of sufferings (Mark 10:38-39), (3) that for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29), (4) that of fire (Matthew 3:11), (5) that of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3), and (6) that of the great commission (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:18-20). For fuller discussion of the ministry of John the Baptist, as related by Matthew, see Commentary on Matthew, (Matthew 3:1-14) pp. 23-31.

Verse 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him: and a voice from out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.Mark’s account of the baptism of Jesus gives far less detail than Matthew, omitting the reluctance of John to baptize him and Jesus’ statement of his purpose in it. Jesus was about thirty years of age when this event occurred ( Luke 3:23). In the Jordan … The baptism administered by John, and later that by the apostles, required that it be done “in” water, not merely “with” water, showing that immersion was the action called baptism. And straightway coming up out of the water … Here is Mark’s first use of “straightway,” one of his favorite expressions, which recurs many times in this gospel. “Out of the water …” indicates that Jesus was immersed; and, if such was not the case, there could have been no reason whatever for his coming “up out of the water.” If any other “form” of baptism had been in vogue, neither Jesus nor John would have been in the water at all. Spirit as a dove … The significance of this lies in the Spirit’s choice of such a symbol of himself, the dove being associated with certain religious sacrifices, having been the messenger of hope for Noah, and a symbol of peace and gentleness in all ages. This was the sign by which John the Baptist recognized the Messiah (John 1:32). And a voice out of the heavens … It will be noted that Mark’s account makes the voice out of heaven to have been addressed directly to Jesus, “Thou art my beloved Son,” whereas in Matthew it was stated generally, “This is my beloved Son.” This is called a contradiction by some; but when it is recalled that each of the sacred writers reported in his own words what happened, such allegations are unjustified. As Halley said: It is surprising with what utter abandon the statement is made in many present-day scholarly works that the Four Gospels are “full of contradictions.” Then when we see the things that are called contradictions, we are almost tempted to lose respect for some of the so-called scholarship. The fact of different details and slight variations in describing the same incident makes the testimony of the various writers all the more trustworthy, for it precludes the possibility of pre-arranged collusion among them[3]Alleged contradictions in the New Testament deserve designation as , a fabricated word derived from “pseudo,” meaning “sham” or pretended, and “con,” the first syllable of “contradiction.” In this instance of it, Matthew reported the voice from heaven from the standpoint of John the Baptist, and Mark from the standpoint of Jesus, the latter being proved by the fact that John the Baptist’s words were not mentioned by Mark. If he had reported the conversation of the herald, as did Matthew, he would necessarily have reported the voice as saying, “This is my beloved Son,” in order to avoid leaving the impression that this was said of John the Baptist. ENDNOTE: [3] Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 419.

Verse 12 And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.This is all that Mark wrote concerning the temptation. Driveth him … There is nothing inappropriate in this reference to the power with which the Spirit caused Jesus to go forth to meet the temptation. It means exactly the same thing that was meant in Matthew’s statement that he was “led” of the Spirit into the wilderness. This is another pseudocon. The allegation of scholars that Matthew was offended by Mark’s language here and that he “corrected” it is irresponsible. It should be remembered that the Holy Spirit did not use any kind of physical force to bring Jesus into the wilderness of his temptation; and it is just as correct and appropriate to refer to the force under which Jesus moved to the wilderness as his being either “driven” or “led,” the sacred authors referring to the same force by either term.

To make Mark and Matthew mean different things by these two terms is to suppose a difference not in existence. It is true that a horse may be driven or led and that his actions are different; but where have the scholars shown us any difference in one’s being “driven” of the gentle and blessed Holy Spirit, from the fact of one’s being “led” of him? The insistence on a difference here only emphasizes a failure to discern spiritual things. With the wild beasts … contrasts the theater where Christ won the victory over Satan with the beautiful garden where Satan won the victory over the first Adam. The thought of any millennial overtones in this passage as insinuating that Jesus lived harmoniously with the wild beasts should be rejected. The angels ministered unto him … The reality of the holy angels is affirmed throughout the New Testament. Angels announced the birth of Jesus Christ, ministered to him in the wilderness, strengthened him in Gethsemane, announced his resurrection, escorted him to glory, and announced the second coming. In this dispensation, angels do service for them that shall be the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:14).

Verse 14 Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.The kingdom of God … This is Mark’s favorite title of the kingdom, just as Matthew’s favorite is “kingdom of heaven.” The two expressions are one. Christ doubtless used both; and the Holy Spirit of inspiration upon the sacred authors guided them in the terminology which they employed. The near approach of the kingdom was announced in the earliest preaching of Jesus. Repent ye, and believe in the gospel … These words, along with reference to repentance and faith (in that order) in Hebrews 6:1 and Acts 20:10, have led to some religious theories that repentance precedes faith in the sinner’s heart; but such notions are refuted by the fact that no unbeliever in the history of the race was ever known to repent. We may not, therefore, take Mark’s expression here as indicating the time sequence of the appearance of repentance and faith in human hearts. There is apostolic precedent for using expressions like this without regard to the chronology of things mentioned. Thus Peter spoke of Jesus Christ, “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” (Acts 5:30, KJV). In these verses, and through Mark 4:34, Mark takes up the Galilean ministry, especially that in the vicinity of Capernaum.

Verse 16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they left the nets and followed him.THE CALLING OF FOUR This was not the first meeting of Jesus with these disciples; for the apostle John gives details of their first meeting in his gospel (John 1:35-51). The reference here is to a more formal calling to the apostleship and involved their leaving their occupation to attend Jesus continually. For they were fishers … These words figure prominently in the allegations regarding the priority of Mark; but it should ever be remembered that the extensive oral traditions of the early church were available to all the gospel writers, and that certain set expressions, as this, derived from common usage throughout the church and not from one writer’s reliance upon a document written by another. The notion that Matthew copied Mark leads to the supposition that one of the apostles, such as Matthew, who was an eyewitness to all that Jesus did, and who had orally taught the gospel to countless Christians throughout the world of that era, and who was one of the group of men whose words formed the oral traditions which prevailed in the first two or three decades of the Christian era … the incredible supposition that such an author would have needed to consult Mark is ridiculous and is in no wise proved by such expressions common to two, or even three, of the synoptics. The necessary existence of oral traditions before any of the gospels was written is a more than sufficient explanation of the common expressions such as this. Fishers of men … This purpose of the Master to make the men here mentioned to be “fishers of men” indicates this as a more formal call to the apostleship, contrasting with the first meeting recorded in John. They promptly obeyed the call.

Verse 19 And going a little further, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the boat mending the nets. And straightway he called them: and they left their father in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him.These brothers also were among those whose first meeting with Jesus was recorded by John; and it is true of them, as of Peter and Andrew, that this was a formal call to the apostleship, significantly afterward. Their response, like that of the others, was prompt and obedient.

Verse 21 And they go into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught. OF JESUS’ Mark does not relate what Jesus taught on this occasion, but it may be assumed that his teaching was identical with such teaching as that found in the sermon on the mount and in the parables and other discourses. Significantly, the first teaching of Jesus (as recorded by Mark) occurred in a synagogue provided by a liberal and God-fearing Gentile (Luke 7:5).

Verse 22 And they were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.Matthew reported the close of the sermon on the mount in almost these exact words. Why? Both Matthew, Mark, and all the gospel writers drew freely upon the established oral tradition which existed for about a decade before Matthew wrote and about three decades before Mark wrote. Such an expression as this verse had been repeated perhaps millions of times by believers in recounting the wonderful story of Jesus; and there can be no marvel at all that it is found in both gospels, with just enough variation to show that both authors wrote independently, Matthew writing, “their scribes,” and Mark writing “the scribes.” It is obvious that nobody copied anybody! Having authority … Jesus’ teaching was promulgated by him as being superior to that of Moses. He took up the great precepts of the law, repeated them, and then added, “But I say unto you,” going on to indicate his own teachings as superior to those of the law (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44 etc.).

Verse 23 And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God.THE HEALING OF THE IN THE With an unclean spirit … Luke’s account of this (Luke 4:31-37) calls this “an unclean demon,” the expressions being synonymous. What have we to do with thee … The plural indicates that the demon was speaking either upon behalf of himself and other demons, or for his victim and himself. Regarding other demon possession, of which there is so much in Mark, the following observations are in order. DEMON Our Lord used language in addressing demons which is not reconcilable with any explanation of such maladies as mere diseases or mental disturbances. He addressed the demon as distinct from the man (Mark 1:25); and, in private conversations with the Twelve, indicated that particularly malignant demons could not be expelled except by “fasting and prayer” (Matthew 17:21). Any scheme that confounds such diseases as epilepsy, insanity, paranoia, etc., with demon possession as related in the New Testament is refuted by the words and actions of Christ who clearly regarded the phenomenon of demon possession as real. Why, then, it may be asked, are there no examples of demon-possession in the current era? A double reply to this is as follows: (1) It is by no means certain that demon-possession has disappeared from the earth. As Trench said, “The assumption that there are none now, itself remains to be proved."[4] In the same vein of thought, William James, noted philosopher and psychologist, said: The refusal of modern “enlightenment” to treat possession as an hypothesis, to be spoken of as even possible, in spite of the massive human tradition based on concrete human experience in its favor, has always seemed to me a curious example of the power of fashion in things scientific. That the demon theory will have its innings again is to my mind absolutely certain. One has to be “scientific” indeed to be blind and ignorant enough to deny its possibility.[5]Moreover, Worcester and McComb affirm that: There are today educated and skilled physicians who believe in obsession by an extraneous intelligence and whose therapeutic system is based on this conviction.6 Aside from the fact that demon possession indeed might still exist on earth, there must be added the inference that even if it should be proved impossible today, such would not deny its existence then. At a time when the true Spirit was coming into the world as a Redeemer, it is certainly fully reasonable to expect that the most intensive activity of Satan would have been multiplied in opposition to the Lord’s work. The triumph of Christ would therefore explain the disappearance of the phenomenon in our own times. Either of the solutions to this problem presented here could be correct. Despite the fact that Jesus Christ obviously treated demon-possession as a reality in certain cases, he certainly did not refer all diseases to such a cause; and there were notable instances in which he went out of the way to demonstrate his rejection of popular notions of his day regarding demons. Thus, he commanded the crumbs to be taken up after the feeding of multitudes, defying the superstition that demons lurked in crumbs; also the popular notion that demons could take advantage of people who borrowed water was flaunted by our Lord’s borrowing water from the woman of Samaria. The Saviour himself represented demons as preferring “waterless places” (Matthew 12:43); but he did not hesitate to frequent waterless places, or desert places. The child of faith will not be intimidated by the accusations of those who would make of our Lord a mere child of his age, ignorantly making their own prejudices his own, and falling in with an erroneous superstition regarding demon possession. The dogmatism and arrogance with which some allege such things cannot fail to raise the thought that possibly such men might be an example of what they are denying. For further discussion of this subject, see Commentary on Matthew, (Matthew 8:21-32). I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God … appears as the testimony of the demon himself, and, as such, is one of the most interesting things in Scripture. Scribes and Pharisees at that point in time did not recognize heaven’s messenger, and not even his closest disciples fully knew him. Yet heaven had shouted the message from God himself that here was the Son beloved; and here darkness itself acknowledged the light; hell bore witness of the Christ, although he received it not. At Gadara also, demons confessed Christ as “Son of God”; but there too, it may be assumed, Jesus did not receive their testimony. The apostles likewise followed in this same pattern of rejecting the testimony of demoniacs (Acts 16:16-18). Paul did not allow the girl with the spirit of divination to bear witness of his preaching, although her words were true: “These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.” Paul cast the spirit out of her, thus ending her witness. Thus, neither Christ nor his apostles permitted hell to witness of heaven, nor the kingdom of evil to testify of the kingdom of God. What motivation produced the remarkable testimony of demons? If men had written the New Testament, it is incredible that the enemies of all light and truth should have appeared in such a role. Why would they have confessed the One who had entered the world to destroy their works? Every human thought inclines to the view that demons would have avoided such a confession at all cost. Why, then, did they do it? Certainly, they were not forced to do it by Christ, because he expressly forbade them.

Trench understood their motivation to have been in the “hope that the truth itself might be brought into suspicion and discredit in thus receiving attestation from the spirit of lies."[7] The purpose of Satan in prompting such testimony of demons comes to light in a similar instance of it in Mark 3:11, followed quickly by the Pharisees’ charge that Jesus cast out demons by the prince of demons (Mark 3:22). Thus, the use which Satan attempted to make of the alleged rapport of the demons with Christ reveals the diabolical purpose which instigated the kind of confessions which might have aided the devil. That such is the truth appears from the fact of Jesus’ unequivocal rejection of them. Art thou come to destroy us …? The fear of the demons was also noted by Matthew who recorded the complaint of the Gadarene demons, “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:29). The faith of demons must therefore be viewed as something exceeding that of many so-called Christians. Various New Testament references reveal them as believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, having absolute authority over them, having also judged them, consigning them to destruction, a fate already determined to be executed upon them at a given time. The destruction envisaged in this passage is hell; and the fact that demons believe in such destruction should give pause to sinners who deny any such place, supposing that their conception of a “loving God” negates any possibility of eternal condemnation. As Ryle wrote: It is a sorrowful thought that on these points some professed Christians have even less faith than the devil. There are some who doubt the reality of hell and the eternity of punishment. Such doubts find no place except in the hearts of self-willed men and women. There is no infidelity among devils. “They believe and tremble” (James 2:19).[8][4] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1943), p. 174. [5] Quoted by Elwood Worcester, Making Life Better (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936), p. 45. [6] Samuel McComb, Body, Mind and Spirit (New Hampshire: Marshall Jones and Company, 1931), p. 272. [7] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 250. [8] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 12.

Verse 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of the man. And the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.It was necessary that Jesus show his absolute power over the evil spirits, and as Bickersteth said, “also that he should show that he had nothing to do with them."[9]There were two excellent reasons why Christ forbade the testimony of evil spirits: (1) it was not the proper time that Christ should be made known as the Son of God, and (2) if it had been permitted, it would have been alleged as proof by the Pharisees that Christ was in league with Satan (Mark 3:22). Hold thy peace and come out … Christ ordered the evil spirit not to speak, and no further word was uttered by him, the loud cry being merely a wail and not an intelligible utterance. Tearing him … Luke recorded this, “And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no hurt” (Luke 4:35). “Tearing him” is therefore a reference to the man’s being convulsed and thrown down. Mark preferred the more dramatic word as in Mark 1:12. The Greek word here rendered “tearing” may also be translated “convulsed,"[10] according to Bickersteth. This action by the evil spirit showed his malignity and that he departed from the man unwillingly, solely upon the authority of Jesus. The convulsing of the man also demonstrated that he was actually possessed of a demon. The entire incident therefore provided an effective witness of the power of the Son of God over evil spirits. [9] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 5. [10] Ibid., p. 6.

Verse 27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.Mark thus testified to the effect of such mighty deeds upon the people who saw them. The mention of “teaching,” here, indicates that: The bystanders inferred that this new and unexampled power indicated the accompanying gift of “a new teaching,” a new revelation. More, it indicated that he who wrought these miracles must be the promised Messiah, the true God; for he alone by his power could rule the evil spirits.[11]ENDNOTE: [11] Ibid.

Verse 28 And the report of him went out straightway everywhere into all the region of Galilee round about.Everywhere … anticipates the world-wide spread of the gospel, but the primary meaning is here restricted to Galilee.

Verse 29 And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her: and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.THE HEALING OF PETER’S MOTHER-IN-LAW Simon’s wife’s mother … points up the fact that Peter was a married man, a fact further corroborated by Paul’s mention of Peter’s wife in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Lay sick of a fever … Luke, being a physician, was more technical in describing this malady, referring to it as “a great fever,” the medical designation of those times for such a malady as typhoid. Luke also recorded the fact of Jesus’ standing over her, and the information that others had interceded on her behalf. Thus, it is Luke who provided the delicate little touches alleged to be found principally in Mark. This account and those of Mat 8:14-17 and Luke 4:38-40 exhibit the superlative effect of interlocking narratives by independent writers combining to give a composite record of undeniable truth and beauty. Luke said it was Simon’s house; Matthew said it was Peter’s; and Mark related that it was Simon’s and Andrew’s. This is another pseudocon, explained by the fact that Peter and Andrew, as brothers, owned a house jointly. Straightway … This is the ninth usage of this expression by Mark in this chapter. They tell him of her … Luke gives what they told him, namely, that she was and including a request that Christ would heal her. The fever left her … It did not merely abate but disappeared. The power of Christ did not merely make people better but entirely whole and healthy. And she ministered unto them … The spiritual implications of this are extensive and are suggestive of many expressions found in the gospel of John. All people are saved to save others. Jesus did not heal people for their benefit only, but he healed them to serve others, as exemplified by the behavior of Peter’s mother-in-law here.

Verse 32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were sick, and them that were possessed of demons.When the sun did set … From this, and from the fact that the evil spirit had been cast out of a man on the sabbath day (apparently) only a short while previously, it is frequently considered that the people waited until after sundown to avoid violation of the sabbath; but this inference is by no means certain. True, Mark’s “straightway” sometimes means “in the very next sequence of time,” or “immediately”; but it is by no means a necessary meaning in Mark’s every use of the word. This sacred author apparently used the term also as a simple connective. For example, “straightway” in Mark 1:28 can hardly mean “on the same day.” Chrysostom thought that the mention of sunset here was to give “evidence of the faith and eagerness of the people, who, even when the day was spent, still came streaming to Christ."[12] Either this view, or that it was indeed the sabbath day, could be correct. ENDNOTE: [12] Quoted by R. C. Trench, op. cit., p. 254.

Verse 33 And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many demons; and he suffered not the demons to speak, because they knew him.Here it was Matthew who provided the sparkling details that: (1) all the sick were healed; (2) the demons were cast out by a word; and (3) there was here a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 53:4). This is contrary to the view that Mark more fully reported material common with the other synoptics. Luke more fully reported the incident of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, and Matthew more fully reported this. He suffered not the demons to speak … See under Mark 1:24-26. Matthew’s reference to this evening’s work of healing as a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases,” should not be thought of as limiting the vicarious work of Christ to the mere removal of bodily suffering, but rather this was viewed as a sign of the far greater service of “taking” and “bearing” the sins of all men, the very sins which are the root cause of all suffering. Supporting this view is the meaning of the original verbs in Isaiah where far more than mere removal is meant, for Messiah is there represented as actually taking upon himself all the disabilities of mankind. Peter also vindicates this understanding of the place (1 Peter 2:24).

Verse 35 And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up and went out, and departed into a desert place, and there prayed.A great while before day … Christ gave the top of the day to meditation and prayer, and his followers could do no better than to follow his example. It might be speculated that Christ arose thus early to escape the applause of men so profusely available following his miracles, but there was the far more important message of the kingdom to be advertised; and Christ’s prayers were preparatory to his first missionary journey in Galilee. A desert place … Deserts were the wandering place of demons, but Jesus feared them not. And there prayed … The prayer life of Christ was entensively stressed by the sacred writers. Once, he continued all night in prayer (Luke 6:12).

Verse 36 And Simon and they that were with him followed after him; and they found him, and say unto him, All are seeking thee.They that were with him … would mean at least the other three disciples called in this chapter. Luke reported in this context the coming of a multitude who sought to restrain Christ’s departure from them (Luke 4:42).

Verse 38 And he saith unto them, Let us go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for to this end came I forth. And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons.The extent and duration of this journey must have been considerable. Josephus relates that there were nearly 200 villages in the area, each with several thousand inhabitants. Christ’s words here indicated the priority of preaching over the work of healing the sick and casting out demons, his works being related, of course, to his preaching; but it was the preaching for which the miracles were wrought, and not the other way around. Luke indicated the subject matter of Jesus’ preaching in these words: “I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also: for therefore was I sent.”

Verse 40 And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.THE OF THE LEPERThis wonder is recorded in all the synoptics; and, although Mark is credited with giving “more full details,"[13] it is not amiss to point out that of the eight or nine sections in this chapter which are reported by one or both of the other synoptics, this is the first instance of Mark’s having, in any sense, a fuller account; and, even here, it was Matthew and Luke who gave the most vivid details of the leper’s “worshipping” Christ (Matthew 8:2) and of his falling “on his face” in order to do so (Luke 5:12), thus associating worship with a humble posture of the body. If one counts the words, or measures the text, of the three synoptic accounts of this miracle, he might fall in with the view that “Mark’s account is fuller”; but this apparent fullness actually results, not from information conveyed by the author, but from his manner of relating it. Take the charge to the cleansed man: “And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out, and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” - Mark “And he charged him to tell no man: but go thy way and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” - Luke. “And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” - Matthew It will be noted that the information given is the same in all three accounts. All three recorded the same miracle which had been incorporated into the oral tradition of the church which necessarily preceded all of the gospels. The recurrence in the synoptics of words, phrases and expressions common to them all has no explanation whatever apart from the prior oral tradition upon which all of them partially relied. The critical hypothesis which would make Mark the first of the gospels and the principal source of the other two synoptics is altogether ridiculous and unconvincing for those who have a thorough knowledge of the gospels. For more on the synoptic problem, see the introduction. A leper … This dreadful malady was incurable by any art or device of men. In the holy Scriptures, it appears like blindness as a type of sin; but this did not imply any greater guilt in those afflicted. The dreadful affliction itself in its ravage of the unfortunate victim was the type. That only God could cure leprosy was a fact stated in anger by Jehoram the King of Israel on the occasion when Naaman appeared and demanded that he be healed of his leprosy. The king said, “Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?” ( 2 Kings 5:7). If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean … The faith of the leper was very great. He did not suggest that Jesus intercede with God on his behalf but that he should cleanse him. He did not merely petition Jesus but worshipped him, falling on his face, and kneeling to him. ENDNOTE: [13] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 7.

Verse 41 And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.And touched him … It was not sinful to touch dead bodies, or lepers; but to do so brought ceremonial defilement (Leviticus 13-14). In the case of Christ’s touch, it brought cleansing and not defilement. The power and godhead of the Son of God shine in a miracle such as this; and, moreover, this sign suggests the far greater thing that Jesus did in touching our human nature by means of his incarnation and thus bringing eternal life to all men.

Verse 42 And straightway the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean.In this verse also, Mark’s “fuller account” consists of relating in twelve words what Luke gave in seven and Matthew in six words.

Verse 43 And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out.Strictly … is an emphatic term, indicating that the Master instructed the healed man in the most specific and urgent terms.

Verse 44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.Say nothing to any man … This prohibition by the Saviour was for his own protection against the irresponsible crowds who would have declared him king if they had been given the lightest pretext for doing so (see John 6:15). The things which Moses commanded … The sacrifice commanded by Moses was a triple offering of two male lambs without blemish and one ewe lamb without blemish (Leviticus 14). For a testimony unto them … The priests would by such a cleansing know of the power of Jesus; and Jesus did everything that even God could do in order to induce faith in the religious leaders. The prohibition to “tell no man” did not refer to the testimony which would of necessity be given to the priests.

Verse 45 But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.The cleansed man could then go everywhere, but the Lord who had healed him had to retire to the desert and avoid populated places. One may only marvel at the disobedience and vanity of the cleansed man who so vigorously flaunted the command of the Lord who healed him. Mark brought out the connection between the man’s disobedience and the necessity of Jesus’ retirement from populated areas; but the same thing is inferred in Luke where “the report concerning Jesus” by the cleansed man “went abroad,” the “great multitudes” coming to him, and the fact that he “withdrew” into the deserts are all recorded. It is incorrect, therefore, to say that Mark alone related this. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter OneThe Baptism and the Temptation of Jesus, Mark 1:1-13 John’s Ministry Described, Mark 1:1-8. (Matthew 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18) Mark 1:1. The beginning of the gospel.—Not the beginning absolutely considered, but Mark’s beginning, each of the other historians having a beginning different from this. Matthew begins with the genealogy and birth of Jesus; Luke, with the announcement to Zachariah concerning the birth of John; John, with the preexistence of the Word and the testimony of John the Baptist; Mark, with a brief account of John’s ministry introductory to the baptism and the ministry of Jesus. the Son of God.—Unlike Matthew, who introduces Jesus first as “Son of David, son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1), Mark introduces him at once as with a view to Gentile readers, he emphasizes the relation of Jesus to God rather than that to Abraham and the Jewish people.

Mark 1:2-3. in the prophets.—Two prophets are here quoted; the passage beginning, “Behold, I send my messenger,” being taken from Malachi 3:1; and that beginning, “The voice of one crying,” being taken from Isaiah 40:3. If the reading, “in the prophets,” be retained, there is no difficulty in the passage; but if the reading, “in the prophet Isaiah,” which is preferred by the critics, be substituted, it presents the difficulty of two passages from two different prophets being both apparently referred to one of them. Besides the great weight of authority exhibited by the critics in favor of the latter reading, it has in its favor the consideration that it is less likely to have been the result of a change. If it had been the original reading, there would have been a temptation to substitute “in the prophets,” in order to get rid of the difficulty just stated; whereas, if “in the prophets” had been the original, there would have been not only no temptation to make the change, but a reason for not making it. We accept, therefore, the corrected reading, and suppose that “in the prophets” was adopted by transcribers in order to avoid the difficulty, and because they thought that a mistake had been made by former copyists. We suppose also that Mark’s reason for mentioning Isaiah and omitting the name of Malachi, was that the essential part of the quotation was that taken from the former prophet. (Comp. Lange in loco.) my messenger.—The passage in Malachi (Malachi 3:1-6) from which this is an extract, has unmistakable reference to the Messiah, and the messenger to be sent before his face can be no other than John. We can see for ourselves that Mark’s application of the words is correct.

The voice.—See note on Matthew 3:3. Mark 1:4. baptism of repentance.—The exact meaning of this expression is to be ascertained by considering the relation between John’s baptism and repentance. That relation is indicated by the fact that men were required to repent as a condition of being baptized. (Matthew 3:8-9.) Repentance was the one antecedent condition of baptism; for although none were baptized who were not believers in the true God, this was because John preached only to Jews who were believers before his preaching began. As regards faith in Christ, this was enjoined as a duty which was to follow baptism and to be performed when the Christ should make his appearance. (Acts 19:4.) John’s baptism was called “the baptism of repentance,” then, because it was necessary for a man to repent in order that he might be baptized, and because this was the only condition enjoined. If the baptism of the new covenant were designated after the same manner, it would be called the baptism of faith, because faith, though not the only prerequisite, is the chief of all. for the remission of sins.—Remission of sins is but another expression for pardon, or the forgiveness of sins. “For the remission of sins” declares the object for which the baptism of repentance was administered; or, in other words, it points out the blessing to be enjoyed by the penitent Jew when baptized. This would need no argument to an unprejudiced mind; for it is the natural and obvious meaning of the words. But those who have been taught to deny the divinely established connection between baptism and remission of sins, have resorted to various ingenious devices in order to put a different meaning on passages like this. One of these devices is the assumption that the preposition “for” connects “remission,” not with the term baptism, but with the term repentance; and that repentance, not baptism, is declared to be for the remission of sins. According to this assumption, “repentance for the remission of sins” is an adjunct of ‘baptism,” showing what baptism John preached— a baptism preceded by repentance for remission of sins. But this is a forced construction of the sentence, and it bears all the marks of having been invented for a purpose.

By the natural and grammatical construction, “of repentance” must be regarded as an adjunct of “baptism,” showing that it is a baptism of repentance, while “for the remission of sins” declares the object of this baptism. We have examples of the same construction, in both English and Greek, in the following places: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.” (Romans 10:4.) “He” (the civil ruler) “is the minister of God to thee for good.” (Romans 13:4.)

In each of these examples the preposition “for” connects its object with the leading substantive of the sentence, while the subordinate substantive with its preposition “of” constitutes an adjunct of the principal subject. So, in the instance before us, “for” connects “baptism” with “remission of sins, while “of repentance” is an adjunct of “baptism.” Another device has been to assign to “for,” the meaning, “on account of;” thus making the passage mean that John preached the baptism of repentance on account of the remission of sins which had already taken place. But this is assigning to the Greek preposition (ις) rendered “for” a meaning which it never bears, and it makes John announce as a reason for baptism that which could not be a reason for it. How could the fact that a man’s sins had already been forgiven be a reason why he should be baptized? Even if forgiveness had preceded baptism, baptism would still have an object of its own, as it has in the system even of those who accept this interpretation, and for this object it would be administered. The course which candor and fair dealing with the word of God requires, is to accept the meaning which the inspired writer has left on the very surface of the passage, and not to seek for forced interpretations in order to save a theory which must be false unless it can find better support than this. It follows, that in addition to the animal sacrifices for sin which the law still required, John commanded the Jews to be also baptized for the same purpose, and thus his baptism served as a transition from the Jewish law of pardon to that which prevails under the reign of Christ. Mark 1:5-8.—In these verses Mark employs phraseology almost identical with that of Matthew, but he presents the thoughts more briefly, and arranges them in a different order. (For special remarks, see the notes on Matthew 3:4-6 Matthew 3:11-12.)

The Baptism of Jesus, Mark 1:9-11. (Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-23) Mark 1:9. came from Nazareth.—That Jesus “came from Nazareth of Galilee,” to be baptized by John, shows that he had continued to make his home at Nazareth until the time of his baptism. in Jordan.—The preposition here rendered “in” (ις) means into, and it represents the passage of the person of Jesus into the water as the act of baptism took place. “Baptized in the Jordan” would not be ambiguous or obscure; but “baptized into the Jordan” is more expressive, and is the correct rendering. Mark 1:10. out of the water.—The Greek text from which our version was made has here the Greek preposition apo (π), rendered “out of;” but all of the more recent critics unite in regarding ek (ἐκ) as the true reading. So depose Lachmann, Meyer, Tischendorf, Alford, Green, Tregelles. This is the reading of the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and many other less authoritative manuscripts, and the question is settled beyond all reasonable doubt. This question being settled, the question as to the immersion of Jesus is also settled: for if he came up out of the water, as ἐκ necessarily implies, he had gone down into it; and if he went down into the water to be baptized, there is no room for an honest doubt that he was immersed. the Spirit like a dove.— See note on Matthew 3:16. Mark 1:11. a voice from heaven.—On the import of the words uttered by this voice, see the note on Matthew 3:17. Mark’s report of it, as Luke’s also, differs from Matthew’s in representing the words as addressed to Jesus in the second person. It is most likely that Mark and Luke give us the words in their exact form, while Matthew adopts the less definite form of the third person, because his mind was chiefly directed to the effect of the speech on the bystanders, or because he is given to the less definite forms of speech.

The Temptation of Jesus, Mark 1:12-13. (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) Mark 1:12. driveth him.—While Matthew says that Jesus was “led” by the Spirit into the wilderness, Mark says “the Spirit driveth him,” using a much more forcible term, and indicating still more clearly that it was not at the volition of Jesus that he entered into the temptation. (Comp. Matthew 4:1.) Mark 1:13. forty days tempted.—While Mark states that Jesus was tempted forty days, Matthew represents that at the end of the forty days “the tempter came to him.” Luke’s statement is like Mark’s. (Luke 4:2.) I think the best explanation of this is that Mark and Luke regarded the forty days’ fast as a part of the temptation; and rightly so, because it was a necessary preparation for the trial in regard to bread. Had it not been for the hunger superinduced by the fast, the suggestion, “Turn these stones into bread,” would have had no force. with the wild beasts.—Mark is alone in mentioning the presence of wild beasts. Their presence added materially to the dreariness of the forty days of fasting, and was calculated to make Jesus impatient of the long detention. angels ministered.—This is the ministering mentioned by Matthew as occurring after Satan had left Jesus. (Matthew 4:11.) Mark’s account of the temptation is exceedingly brief. He barely mentions the fact as he hurries on to the chief theme of this part of his narrative, the ministry of Jesus in Galilee.

Argument of Section 1In this section Mark has set forth three facts which have an important bearing on his proposition that Jesus is the Son of God: first, that the prophet John, with direct allusion to him. announced the speedy appearance of one so much more exalted than himself, that he was not worthy to stoop down and loosen his shoe; second, that when Jesus was baptized, God himself, in an audible voice, proclaimed him his Son; and third, that immediately after this proclamation, Satan commenced against him such a warfare as we would naturally expect him to wage against God’s Son in human flesh. The Beginning of the Ministry in Galilee, Mark 1:14-45 Time and Theme of His Preaching, Mark 1:14-15. (Matthew 4:13-17, Luke 4:14-15; John 4:1-3) Mark 1:14. after John was put in prison.—The imprisonment of John is the only event named in the gospels to fix the time when the Galilean ministry of Jesus began. (Comp. Matthew 4:12). An account of the imprisonment is given in Mark 6:17-20. Mark 1:15. The time is fulfilled.—The time fixed in the writings of the prophets and in the purpose of God, for the long expected Messiah to make his appearance, and for the kingdom of heaven to be at hand. repent ye, and believe.—Jesus was preaching to persons who already believed in the true God, and in the revelation which God had already made, and his object, at this stage of his ministry, like that of John, was to bring them to repentance as a preparation for faith in himself and his kingdom. This accounts for the order in which repentance and faith are here mentioned. To repent toward the God in whom they already believed, but whose revealed will they were violating, naturally and properly took precedence over believing in him whom God was about to reveal. It was not a necessary order, for some who had not repented toward God, might have been induced to believe in Jesus; but it was the more practicable order, and it enabled Jesus to begin his argument on common ground with his hearers. At the same time, a penitent state of heart was the best possible preparation for considering favorably the claims of Jesus, and for ready faith in him. Call of the Four Fishermen, Mark 1:16-20. (Matthew 4:18-22; Luke 5:1-11) This paragraph is almost identical with the parallel in Matthew, differing from it chiefly in some forms of expression, which show that Mark did not copy from Matthew. The human sources of information enjoyed by the two must have been the same. Mark 1:20. with the hired servants —The presence of hired servants is the only item added by Mark to those given by Matthew. The fact that the four partners (Luke 5:10), Simon and Andrew, and James and John, with Zebedee, the father of the latter two, had hired servants in their employ, shows that they were conducting a business of respectable proportions. Though their capital was probably very small, they were enterprising business men. A Demon Cast Out, Mark 1:21-28. (Luke 4:31-37) Mark 1:21. the synagogue.—For an account of the Jewish synagogues, see note on Matthew 4:23. Mark 1:22. astonished at his doctrine.—Not at the subject-matter of it, but because “he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.” They had not yet believed in his divinity, and they could not reconcile his tone of divine authority with his human nature and his humble position in human society. (Comp. note on Matthew 7:28-29.) Mark 1:23. an unclean spirit.—The uncleanness of the Mosaic law, which excluded persons affected by it from the congregation, was so striking a type of sin, that it came to be almost synonymous with sin in the Jewish mind. Consequently the spirit in this demoniac was called, on account of his wickedness, an “unclean spirit.” It is singular that this wicked spirit, whose eternal doom had been fixed, should resort to a worshiping assembly where prayer was offered, the Scriptures were read, and men were exhorted to avoid all sin. Mark 1:24. Let us alone.—This outcry was a disturbance of the quiet which should reign in a religious assembly, and the thoughts to which it gave utterance were very startling. The spirit’s recognition of Jesus as “the Holy One of God,” and the fear which he manifested that Jesus had come to destroy him and his fellows, must have made a deep impression on the people. Mark 1:25. Jesus rebuked him.—This was probably the first demon which Jesus had encountered; at least, it is the first in point of time mentioned by any of the historians. We see, then, that from the beginning of his encounters with these beings he rebuked them for speaking of him, and commanded them to hold their peace and depart from their victims. It was important that he should do this for two reasons: first, that the faith of those who believed in him should not rest even in part on the testimony of evil spirits; second, that he should not appear to sustain friendly relations with these evil beings, and with Satan who ruled over them. In spite of all his precautions the charge was made that he cast out demons by the power of Satan (Mark 3:22-26); and it was perhaps for the very purpose of giving apparent ground for this charge, that Satan prompted the demons to testify as they did. Mark 1:26. had torn him.—Had convulsed him (σπαρξαν). The demon, on leaving the man, gave expression to his impotent rage and malignity, by throwing his victim into a convulsion, and by uttering a loud outcry through the unfortunate man’s lips. Mark 1:27. they were all amazed.—They expressed their amazement by the remark, “with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.” The power to command disembodied spirits is more surprising, because it is more mysterious than the power to work physical miracles. The authority with which he taught had first surprised them (Mark 1:22) but the authority with which he commanded the demons was more surprising still, and it confirmed the authority of his teaching. Mark 1:28. his fame spread abroad.—This was a necessary consequence of the excitement created in Capernaum. Any community, whether intelligent or ignorant, and whether of ancient or of modern times, would go wild over such exhibitions of power and authority. Cures at Simons House, Mark 1:29-34. (Matthew 8:14-17; Luke 4:38-41) Mark 1:29. And forthwith.—They went immediately from the synagogue to the “house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.” If this house was in Bethsaida, the home of these brethren previous to their call (John 1:45), this village must have been a suburb of Capernaum; for below (Mark 1:33) it is said that the whole city was gathered together at the door, and the only city mentioned in the context is Capernaum. (Mark 1:21.) Mark 1:30-31. Simon’s wife’s mother.—From this expression it appears that Simon, unlike his so-called successors, the Popes of Rome, was a married man. For the two reasons, that she was suffering, and that her services were needed for the proper entertainment of the company, she was healed, and “she ministered to them.” Mark 1:32. when the sun did set.—It was the Sabbath-day; for the company in Simon’s house had come immediately from the synagogue when the assembly had adjourned. (Mark 1:29.) The healing of Simon’s mother-in-law, the first cure of the kind effected in Capernaum, was the signal for a general rush of the people to secure the healing of their sick. But the traditional interpretation of the Sabbath law, which prohibited the bearing of burdens on the Sabbath-day (John 5:10), restrained them until after sunset, when, the Sabbath being over, they were at liberty to engage in any kind of labor. That was a night of joy in the city. Jesus was bestowing his blessings on them, and had as yet said little or nothing to them in regard to their sins. They were now like the seed that fell on the stony ground. Mark 1:34. suffered not the devils to speak.— See the notes on verse 25 and Matthew 8:16. Prayer and Departure, Mark 1:35-39. (Luke 4:42-44) Mark 1:35. a great while before day.—This is Mark’s first allusion to the prayerfulness of Jesus. There are two circumstances connected with this prayer that are worthy of note: first, the very early hour— “a great while before day”—at which he arose and went out to the solitary place where he prayed; and second, his abrupt departure when he learned (Mark 1:37-38) that the people were seeking for him. The unbounded admiration with which the people were regarding him might have swelled him with vanity, had not some means been employed to guard against this weakness. The means employed were prayer and flight. Jesus lived a spotless life, not merely because he was the Son of God, but because he used, with unfailing success, the means of resisting and of avoiding temptation. What an example for us who by nature are so weak!

When temptation draws near, let us pray, and rise up, if need be, “a great while before day,” that we may pray in solitude while all the world is wrapt in slumber. And if the temptation still draws near, let us flee from its presence. This prayer and flight occurred on Sunday morning. (Comp. Mark 1:29 Mark 1:32 Mark 1:35.) Mark 1:36-38. All men seek for thee.—Simon and the other disciples were elated by the sudden popularity of their Master, and they thought they were bringing most welcome tidings, when, after a diligent search to find Jesus, they said to him, “All men seek for thee.” What was their surprise when their announcement met with only this response: “Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.” Mark 1:39. in their synagogues.—Though Jesus preached much in the open air, especially during the secular days of the week, the synagogue was his constant resort on the Sabbath-day. and cast out devils.—Mark singles out this species of miracles in his general statement of the labors of Jesus, not because other kinds of miracles were not wrought in the time referred to (see Matthew 4:23), but because this was the most surprising, and may stand as the representative of all. A Leper Cleansed, Mark 1:40-45. (Matthew 8:2-4; Luke 5:12-16) Mark 1:40-43.— For remarks on this part of this paragraph, see notes on the parallel in Matthew (Matthew 8:2-4). Mark 1:44. for thy cleansing.—The man had already been cleansed in the sense of being cured of his unclean disease, but that cleansing is not the one here referred to. According to the law of Moses a leper was still unclean, in the legal sense of the term, after the leprosy had entirely departed from him. When the disease had departed he was to be examined by a priest, to see if this were a fact, and then he was to procure two birds, one of which was to be slain and its blood caught in a vessel of running water; he was to be sprinkled seven times with this bloody water; was to wash his clothes, shave off his hair, and bathe his body in water, both on that day and the seventh day thereafter; and after all this he was clean. He was then allowed to approach the altar, where certain other offerings were to be presented. (See Leviticus 14:1-20.) It is this legal cleansing that is referred to in the text, and the offerings were in order to this cleansing, not, as some have supposed, because of the cleansing which had been already effected by the touch and the word of Jesus. for a testimony.—While the uncleanness from leprosy continued, the unfortunate victim of it was excluded from all society, and compelled to remain outside the camp or city. (See the law on the subject, Leviticus 13:45-46; and an example of its enforcement, 2 Kings 7:3-4). When the offerings were presented these were a testimony that the person had been pronounced by the priest both physically and legally clean. Mark 1:45. could no more openly enter.—Every miracle which Jesus wrought of a kind different from those which had become somewhat familiar, increased the already intense excitement among the Galileans, and to such a pitch did the excitement now run, that the crowds became immense. This was unfavorable to calm thought, and therefore Jesus retired to desert places where comparatively few would follow him. Argument of Section 2In this section Mark has furnished a striking exhibition of both the divine authority and the divine power of Jesus. Such was the authority which he could exercise over men, that when he commanded the four fishermen to follow him, they left all they had on earth, without a question or a moment’s delay, and followed him. And such was the authority with which he commanded demons, that although these wicked spirits were not willingly obedient, they instantly departed from their victims at his bidding. Such, too, was his power, that at his touch the malignant fever, the incurable leprosy, and all the maladies which afflict the body, were instantly healed. Such, finally, was his unexampled meekness, that amid these displays of divine authority and power, when popular applause ran high, he retired by night to pray, or wandered away into desert places. His meekness was as high above the capacity of a merely human being, as were his miracles. Difference from MatthewOne of the characteristic differences between Mark and Matthew, their difference in regard to arrangement, is conspicuous in their modes of treating the subject-matter of the preceding section. Mark uses almost the same material with Matthew, but how differently he arranges it! They both begin with the removal of Jesus to Galilee, after the imprisonment of John, and follow this with the call of the four fishermen; but Matthew next introduces the general statement of the preaching throughout Galilee (Matthew 4:23-25), which Mark reserves until after the cures at Simon’s house (Mark 1:39); he next devotes considerable space to the sermon on the mount, which Mark omits; then he introduces as his first mentioned miracle the cure of the leper (Mark 8:1-4), which is the third miracle mentioned by Mark (Mark 1:40-45); his second miracle is the cure of the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5-13), of which Mark says nothing; his third is that of Simon’s mother-in-law, which is the second with Mark; and finally, they unite in following this last miracle with the cures at Simon’s door. This difference alone is sufficient proof that Mark’s narrative is not an abridgment of Matthew’s. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 11. What beginning is about to be recorded? 2. Who is its author? 3. Tell whose son he is declared to be. 4. Whose writings are quoted? 5. Who is “ thy” of 2d verse? 6. Tell what was to be sent before his face. 7. What was his work? 8. Describe his voice. 9. Tell what he was crying. 10. State the name of this person. 11. Where did he work? 12. What did he do? 13. Tell what he preached. 14. What was it for? 15. From where did he get his hearers? 16. What did they confess? 17. Describe John’ s clothing. 18. Also his food. 19. Who was coming after him? 20. How did he compare him? 21. With what did John baptize? 22. How did this differ from the next baptizer ? 23. Who came from Nazareth? 24. In what section of the country was this? . 25. For what did he come? 26. Why did he come “ up out of the water” ? 27. What was opened at this time? 28. And what could be seen? 29. Also what was heard? 30. Where did the voice come from? 31. To what place did Jesus now go? 32. What caused him to go there? 33. How long was he there? 34. What was he experiencing? 35. State what were his companions, 36. Who ministered to him? 37. What happened to John? 38. After that where did Jesus go? 39. Tell what he was doing. 40. What was he saying? 41. State what he bade the people do. 42. How could they repent before they believed? 43. Where did he walk ? 44. Whom did he see there ? 45. State their occupation. 46. What did he bid them do? 47. They were to be made what ? 48. Tell whether they obeyed. 49. When was a like call made ? 50. In doing so what did the brothers leave behind 51. Into what city did they go? 52. What building did they enter? 53. On what day was it? 54. What did Jesus do in this building? 55. How were the people affected ? 56. What was noted about his teaching? 57. Who was in there at this time? 58. Which spoke first, Jesus or the spirit ? 59. What did he say he knew ? 60. Was he telling the truth? 61. What did Jesus do about it? 62. Did the spirit obey? 63. How did he demonstrate his protest? 64. State the effect of this work on the people. 65. How far did this effect spread? 66. Into what house did Jesus next enter? 67. What did he see there? 68. How soon was it remedied ? 69. Who were brought in the evening? 70. Were they disappointed? 71. What knowledge did the devils have? 72. Were they permitted to confess it? 73. Why did Jesus rise early next morning? 74. Who followed him? 75. What was their report? 76. At this what did he propose? 77. For what reason? 78. Where did he operate? 79. What unfortunate man came to him? 80. With what result? 81. Tell what was then done with him. 82. State the charge given to him. 83. Why go to the priest? 84. Did the man obey? 85. This caused Jesus to do what?

Mark 1:1

1 Mark was not one of the apostles, but was inspired to write an account of the life of Christ. He is mentioned a few times in the New Testament which will be noticed as we come to them. Beginning of the gospel is his introduction to the story of Christ, indicating the point in the history at which he was to begin his book.

Mark 1:2

2 This verse states the beginning point that was referred to in the preceding verse, that it was the time when Jesus was ready to start in his public work. But since that was to be preceded immediately by the work of the forerunner, John the Baptist, the author opens his story with several verses about that great man. This verse cites a prophecy in Malachi 1, referring to John the Baptist as a messenger to go before the face of Christ to prepare the way for him.

Mark 1:3

3 See comments on Matthew 3:1 for the explanation of wilderness.

Mark 1:4

4 Baptism of repentance denotes that baptism was caused by sincere repentance. (See Matthew 3:7-8.) For is from EIS and means in order to remission of sins.

Mark 1:5

5 All the land of Judea means that people came to John from all that country, not that every person was baptized. Confessing their sins was the verbal evidence that they had repented, and submission to baptism was the active evidence.

Mark 1:6

6 See the comments at Matthew 3:4 for explanation of this verse.

Mark 1:7

7 This is John’s first mention of the one who was to follow him. The reference to shoes is an allusion to the customs of that time. Loose sandals were worn in foot travel and upon entering a home they were removed and taken charge of by a servant. By way of illustration John regarded himself as unworthy even to unfasten the shoes of the one mightier than he.

Mark 1:8

8 With is from EN and means “in,” referring to the element in which the persons were baptized. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was to be performed by the one coming after John and that was Christ. He was to give the Holy Ghost (Spirit) in overwhelming measure to his apostles to “guide them into all truth” (John 16:13).

Mark 1:9

9 The preceding eight verses (Mark 1:1-8) concludes the introduction referred to in Mark 1:1. This and the next verse includes both John and Jesus, which will be all that Mark will record directly of the work of John, and any reference that may be made to him will be as a matter of history. In those days denotes that while John was to come before Jesus, yet their introduction to the world was to be virtually at the same time. Jesus came from Nazareth where he had lived since the return of his parents with him from Egypt (Matthew 2:23). The reason for his baptism is explained in Matthew 3:13-15.

Mark 1:10

0 If Jesus came up out of the water, then he had gone down into it. That was made necessary for the body to be baptized which was done by immersion. He (John) saw the Spirit descending upon him (Jesus). John had been previously told that he would see such a thing take place (John 1:33).

Mark 1:11

1 The voice from heaven was that of God, who openly recognized Jesus as his Son after he had been baptized, and he also added the important truth that he was well pleased in his Son.

Mark 1:12

2 Having been recognized formally as the Son of God, Jesus would not enter into his work until he had been tested. The word spirit always comes from the same Greek word, whether good or evil spirits, human or divine spirits, are meant; the connection here shows it means the Holy Spirit. Driveth is from EKBALLO which Thayer defines at this place, “to command or cause one to depart in haste.” This is virtually the same in meaning as Matthew’s statement that Jesus was “led up of the Spirit” (Matthew 4:1).

Mark 1:13

3 This verse gives a general summing up of the different things that took place with Jesus in those forty days: for the details see Matthew 4:1-11. Gospel of the kingdom means good news that the kingdom of heaven was about to be set up.

Mark 1:14-15

5 Time is fulfilled means the predictions of the start of the kingdom of God as to time had been fulfilled. On that ground Jesus commanded them to repent and believe the gospel. Why did he put repentance before belief? A fuller statement on the same subject is in Acts 20:21. The work of John and Jesus was among the Jews only. They were still under the Mosaic system in which God was the only personality they were supposed to serve. But they had become slack toward God and were obligated to repent on behalf of Him, then come with clean hands to the new system and believe the Gospel. It was like telling a debtor to pay up his old debts before asking a new creditor to accept him.

Mark 1:16

6 This Simon was Simon Peter according to Matthew 4:18, who, with his brother Andrew, was the first man called from his secular occupation to travel with Jesus bodily over the country and to be with him constantly.

Mark 1:17

7 Using their own occupation as a basis for his figures of speech, Jesus compared the proposed work of these men with what they had been doing. They were still to be fishers, but were to fish after men with the bait of the Gospel.

Mark 1:18

8 They could not use their temporal nets in the new business and hence had to forsake them. Their interest was indicated by their straightway forsaking the nets.

Mark 1:19

9 James and John were the ones elsewhere called “Zebedee’s children.”

Mark 1:20

0 All of these men were only required to come along with Jesus. No initiation act was required of them because John had already baptized them. We know that he was to prepare a people for Christ, and Jesus accepted these men as they were which shows that they had been made ready for his service. John had but one method of preparing men for Christ which ended with baptism. So we must conclude these men had been baptized by John the Baptist to await service under Christ.

Mark 1:21

1 Capernaum was a city on the shore of Galilee, and Matthew 4:13 tells us that Jesus made it his dwelling place. He entered the synagogue on the sabbath because there would be people there whom he could teach. For more information about synagogues see the information offered in connection with Matthew 4:23.

Mark 1:22

2 This verse is explained at Matthew 7:28-29.

Mark 1:23

3 The man with an unclean spirit was possessed with a devil. This subject is considered at length at Matthew 8:28.

Mark 1:24

4 Of course we must understand that the devil did his talking with the mouth of the victim which is signified by the expression “possessed with the devil.” Note that references to this devil are in both the singular and plural numbers. That is because though there might be a legion of them within a man (chapter 5:5-13), there would be one as spokesman. The devil knew Jesus because he had once been with him in heaven but was cast out because of sin (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6; Luke 10:18). It was not surprising, then, that they did not want anything to do with Jesus.

Mark 1:25

5 Jesus rebuked him and not the man, for the being possessed with a devil was an affliction and not a. fault. The devil not only was commanded to come out of the man, but to make no remarks about the situation.

Mark 1:26

6 Cried with a loud voice may seem to contradict the statements in the preceding paragraph. No, this cry was forced from the victim by the injury which the devil inflicted on him as he was coming out.

Mark 1:27

7 People had been known to be possessed with devils for some years, but until the time of Christ no one was able to expel them. And notice that it was not done by any bodily contact, but solely by the authority of Jesus which was so great that when he commanded the devils they obeyed. No wonder the people were amazed and started to talk about it among themselves.

Mark 1:28

8 An event like the casting out of devils without any apparent means would be reported by everyone who heard about it. As a result the fame of Jesus spread at once throughout Galilee which was the district in which Capernaum was located.

Mark 1:29

9 Jesus and the first four disciples whom he called entered into the home of Simon and his brother.

Mark 1:30

0 Simon Peter was a married man for mention is made of his wife’s mother. This does not harmonize with the doctrine of Rome which denies the right of marriage to all of the clergy. It is replied that Peter left his wife so that he could be qualified to serve in the capacity of head of the church. That also contradicts the scripture, for 1 Corinthians 9:5 tells us that he was leading his wife about with him, and that was in Paul’s day. Anon they tell him of her means they told him of the case of sickness as soon as he entered into the house.

Mark 1:31

1 The only physical thing that Jesus did was to lift up the woman with his hand. But that act alone would not have recovered her, for any man could have done that. And the encouraging act of lifting her from the bed did not merely give her an imaginary impulse as a “shot in the arm” might cause, but she was able to minister to the group which would require something more than nervous will power.

Mark 1:32

2 This verse includes regular diseases and also the being possessed with devils which shows there was a difference between the two kinds of afflictions. The presence of devils sometimes caused diseases similar to those to which mankind was always subject, but such cases could be cured only by casting out the devils.

Mark 1:33

3 Jesus was still in the home of Peter and his brother where he had healed the mother of Peter’s wife, also had recovered others of their afflictions. This caused such a stir throughout the city that great crowds gathered at the door.

Mark 1:34

4 Divers diseases means many kinds of diseases. Suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. These devils would not have deserved any credit for proclaiming the divinity of Christ; that is, it would not have been an act of faith but of knowledge. They made such a declaration once and were rebuked for it (verses 24, 25), and Jesus still was not willing to be upheld by such characters.

Mark 1:35

5 Jesus was human as well as divine, and therefore he preferred to be alone with his Father at certain times. There is a foolish theory that Jesus and God are one in person. If that were true, to whom did he pray in that solitary place? The theory breaks down under the weight of its own absurdity.

Mark 1:36

6 Jesus was not allowed to be alone very long. Since he went out there a great while before day it is reasonable to say that as soon as it came the usual hour to arise, Peter discovered his absence and he took his group and went in search of him.

Mark 1:37

7 They did not know exactly where he was for it says when they had found him. They told Jesus that all men were seeking for him, but the motive for their search is not revealed by the text.

Mark 1:38

8 The main purpose of Jesus in his personal ministry was to preach the good news of the kingdom. The working of miracles was one of the “side lines” of his mission, performed to give testimony to the genuineness of his teaching. Because of that he stated that they should go into other towns to preach, and that he had come out into the world for that purpose.

Mark 1:39

9 The Jews would be gathered in their synagogues to read the Scriptures and perform other acts of worship. That gave Jesus an opportunity to preach the good news, then back up his authority by casting out devils or other miraculous works.

Mark 1:40

0 Leprosy was an incurable disease and a man afflicted with it was required to live apart from society (Leviticus 13:45-46). This leper had been convinced by the other miracles of Jesus that he could also heal him of leprosy if he was willing.

Mark 1:41

1 Leprosy was contagious only by physical contact, therefore when Jesus touched the leper he proved his faith in the power that the Father had given him. In connection with the physical contact he also uttered the word of cleansing.

Mark 1:42

2 As soon as he had spoken the man was cleansed from his leprosy. This denotes that his physical contact would not have been necessary as far as the healing was concerned. We should note that Jesus did not require a period of time for his accomplishment but did it immediately. Modern so-called faith healers must have an indefinite period, telling their patients that “it takes time,” and that if their faith “holds out” they will be healed. This proves that all such “faith-cure” persons are frauds.

Mark 1:43

3 The next verse will show what this charge was and why it was given.

Mark 1:44

4 Leprosy was incurable by any natural means, but it could be cured by miracle, such as the case of Naaman in 2 Kings 5. And when a Jew had been cured of the disease physically, he was still required to perform certain services for his ceremonial cleansing which included the offering of sacrifices and other materials. That is what Jesus meant that this man should offer for his cleansing. (See Leviticus 14:1.)

Mark 1:45

5 This verse indicates why the man was told not to report his case to any man. The people were so worked up over it that they interferred with the work of Jesus and caused him to go into desert places which were those not populated.