Proud to be TJ's man

In 2:1–3:6 Mark provides five stories of controversy between Jesus and the religious authorities. These stories are not chronologically connected to each other and appear to be brought together primarily in a thematic rather than chronological way.¹ Their overall purpose is to introduce the conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities. By the end of these five stories Mark’s readers know that many of the religious authorities are unbelieving antagonists who badger Jesus at every turn. The climax of these incidents is in 3:6: “Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.”

1. Controversy over Forgiving Sins (2:1–12)

¹ A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. ² So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. ³ Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. ⁴ Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. ⁵ When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

⁶ Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, ⁷ “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

⁸ Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? ⁹ Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? ¹⁰ But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.…” He said to the paralytic, ¹¹ “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” ¹² He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

The first controversy, 2:1–12, focuses in a dramatic way on the identity of Jesus. This story provides a fourth specific miracle performed by Jesus, which again underscores his authority. But this time the miracle is subordinated to an even more dramatic indication of Jesus’ identity: he forgives sins. The scribes correctly conclude that forgiving sins implies a special relationship to God (v. 7), but they wrongly refuse to accept the correct conclusion. By healing the paralytic Jesus demonstrates “that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”

In addition to this christological focus, Mark 2:1–12 also teaches an important lesson about discipleship. The four men who carried the paralytic to Jesus demonstrated not only ingenuity, but also—and more importantly—faith. Mark has already indicated the importance of faith in 1:15 (“Repent and believe the good news!”). He will underscore the point often (e.g., 4:40; 5:34, 36; 6:6; 9:23; 10:52). Faith is the proper response to Jesus’ demonstrations of authority in his teaching and his miracles.

1–2. The scene returns to Capernaum, where the events of 1:21–35 took place. The ’s “that he had come home” is a rather paraphrastic translation of a clause that might also be translated “that he was in a (or ‘the’) house.” He was probably at Peter’s house (1:29).² The intensity of the crowd resonates with Mark’s previous descriptions of the crowds in 1:32–33, 37, and 45.

Jesus was teaching them “the word” (τὸν λόγον, ton logon). The word is presumably the message of 1:14–15 about the kingdom. The same expression is used in Mark 4:14–20, 33 for Jesus’ parabolic message about the kingdom.³

3–4. When the four men could not get their paralyzed friend through the crowd to ask Jesus to heal him, they went up on the roof, opened up a hole, and lowered the paralytic on his pallet. ⁴ The point, of course, is that the five men went to great lengths because they believed in Jesus’ ability to heal.

5–7. At the point when one would expect Jesus to heal the man, he instead declares the paralytic’s sins forgiven. It is possible that in this particular case Jesus implies a connection between the man’s infirmity and his sin.⁵ Although in one case in John’s Gospel Jesus explicitly denies that a particular man’s blindness was caused by his sin (9:3), in another case (incidentally also involving paralysis) Jesus implies a connection between a man’s sin and infirmity (John 5:14).⁶

Whatever motivated Jesus to declare this man’s sins forgiven, the scribes recognize it as an implicit claim to a special relationship with God. Jesus’ declaration of forgiveness does not necessarily involve more than Nathan’s statement to David in 2 Sam 12:13: “The Lord has taken away your sin.”⁷ However, Jesus’ subsequent statement that “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” indicates that the scribes correctly understood Jesus to be claiming the ability not only to report God’s forgiveness but also to grant it.⁸ They accuse him of blasphemy because he claims to do what only God can do. The charge of blasphemy anticipates the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin where blasphemy is the basis for the sentence of death (14:64). Blasphemy could be narrowly defined in a way that involved specifically using God’s name (Lev 24:15–16) or more broadly defined as “a word or act detracting from the power and glory of God.”⁹ This broad sense applies to Mark 2 and 14.

8–9. Jesus knows the thinking of the scribes and poses a counter-question, the first of several times he used this approach (3:4; 11:30; 12:37).¹⁰ His question, “Which is easier …?” probably refers to verifiability.¹¹ It seems easier to say “Your sins are forgiven” because it is not verifiable, but to say “Get up, take your mat and walk” is a statement subject to empirical verification.

10–12. Jesus intends to use the empirically verifiable, harder statement about healing to verify his authority to forgive sins. If he can heal the paralytic then his claim to forgive the paralytic’s sins must be taken seriously.¹²

1. 10 introduces the enigmatic title “Son of Man,” which is used again in 2:28 and then twelve times after Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. The Son of Man title has been studied vigorously, but there is no concensus concerning its pre-Christian usage or precisely how Jesus used it. A few observations can be made with confidence: 1) Except for one case in the Gospels (John 12:34) and a few instances in the rest of the New Testament (Acts 7:56 and the probably non-titular uses in Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14) the phrase “Son of Man” appears only on the lips of Jesus. Although it was Jesus’ most common title for himself, the early Christians seem to have preferred other titles such as Lord and Christ. 2) Jesus’ statement in Mark 14:62 alludes to Dan 7:13 and suggests that in using the title Son of Man he intended to identify himself as the “one like a son of man” in Daniel’s vision. According to Daniel this figure was “coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” Jesus’ claim to be this son of man was not simply a reference to his humanity, but an exalted claim with messianic overtones.

It is extremely difficult to establish whether Son of Man had been used as a title in association with Dan 7 before Jesus and whether anyone in Jesus’ audiences would have recognized that connection or any messianic overtones.¹³ An attractive but uncertain suggestion is that Jesus chose to emphasize this title partly because it was not a common messianic title and therefore he could use it (like the parables) not only to reveal the truth to some, but to conceal it from others.¹⁴

The story of the paralytic is an important one. It continues and heightens the emphasis on Jesus’ authority. It introduces the teachers of the law as Jesus’ antagonists. In contrast to the antagonism and disbelief of the teachers of the law, it highlights and illustrates the importance of faith by the actions of the five men and by Jesus’ response to their faith.

2. Controversy over Eating with Tax Collectors and Sinners (2:13–17)

¹³ Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. ¹⁴ As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

¹⁵ While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. ¹⁶ When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”

¹⁷ On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

2:13 Jesus went to the seashore again. Large crowds came to him, and he taught them.

Jesus withdrew from the crowds at Simon’s house. The entire circumstance must have been charged with emotional energy, leaving Jesus tired. He needed to withdraw and have some time alone. Although the absence of Mark’s favorite word, immediately, might lead us to conclude that this event did not occur directly after healing the paralytic, it is likely that it followed soon thereafter.

Regardless of the time factor, we see that Jesus withdrew to the Sea of Galilee. However, He did not get an opportunity to rest. The crowd pursued Him, and again, He stopped and taught them.^[1]

Vv. 13–14 could be separated from vv. 15–17 as the story of the calling of Levi. However, it is Matthew and not Mark who provides a connection with the rest of the story of Jesus by identifying Levi as Matthew the apostle. Mark seems content to treat Levi’s call as an illustration of and introduction to Jesus’ offensive companionship with the wrong sorts of people. He calls a tax collector to be one of his followers, he goes to the tax collector’s house, and while there he eats a meal with other tax collectors and sinners.

The next clash between Jesus and the religious leaders revolved around the company he kept. Not only had Jesus not separated himself from distasteful characters, he sought them out. Jesus wasn’t accused of accepting sinners as his friends; he was charged with befriending sinners.

What a mystifying man Jesus was! He called Matthew to follow him, then visited Matthew in his own home! Jesus met Matthew in Matthew’s “world” in order to explain why he had come into our world. The Pharisees who were watching believed that Jesus couldn’t possibly affiliate with the “world” without being sullied by the contact. Jesus responded by saying that precisely the opposite was true; contact with him could change the world. In order to accomplish his mission, he knew he had to be with those he came to rescue and heal.

Just as Jesus entered the world to save sinners, he still enters sinful human lives to rescue those he loves. If we’re sinners, we’re on his home visitation list.^[2]

2:13 Jesus went out again beside the sea; the whole crowd gathered around him, and he taught them.  Jesus left Capernaum and went back beside the sea (that is, the Sea of Galilee). A crowd of people gathered (the imperfect tense in Greek, meaning “they kept on gathering” or “they kept coming to him”), and Jesus taught (again in the imperfect tense, meaning “he kept on teaching” them). While Jesus often spoke in synagogues or homes, he also taught groups of people on hillsides (Matthew 5:1) or on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The hillsides and sloping shoreline of the Sea of Galilee provided a convenient place for large crowds to gather, sit comfortably, and listen to the teacher standing at the foot of the hill, on the shore, or sometimes on a boat moored in the water (as in Luke 5:3). While the crowds followed, Jesus always taught.

13. 13. This is another of Mark’s many references to Jesus teaching the crowds. He has taught in the synagogue (1:21), at a house (2:2), and now beside the Sea of Galilee (2:13).
14. 14. The call of Levi is similar to the previous call of the four fishermen: the call is to “follow,” Jesus gives the call while Levi is working, and Levi responds on the spot. The critical difference noticeable to informed readers is that Levi was a tax collector. Tax collectors were widely despised for defrauding people to inflate their own commissions and for collusion with Rome.¹⁵

TEACHING TIPS How did Jesus teach? Did he lecture or prefer dialogue? Did he pronounce truth in categorical terms, or paint pictures of truth like an artist working on a canvas? Surely Jesus used stories to teach (the Bible calls them parables), and he also used places to best advantage: seashores, hillsides, synagogues. He wasn’t afraid to teach concepts that would only be understood much later (concerning his death and resurrection, for example), and he kept his focus. We have no record that he lectured on questions such as What language did Adam and Eve speak? or Where did Cain’s wife come from? We have every reason to believe (based on the Bible’s record) that Jesus treated his listeners as intelligent, responsible human beings. Parents who use these teaching methods with children are apt to get a more attentive audience, as are pastors with congregations and Sunday school expositors with their freshly washed cherubs. Teaching is hard work. Following Jesus’ example will not make it easy, just more successful.

2:14 When Jesus was leaving, he saw Levi, son of Alphaeus, sitting in a tax office. Jesus said to him, “Follow me!” So Levi got up and followed him.

2:14    As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth.  Levi (also called Matthew, and later the author of the Gospel of Matthew) was a Jew who worked for the Romans (specifically for Herod Antipas) as the area’s tax collector. He collected taxes from the citizens as well as from merchants passing through town. (Capernaum was a customs post on the caravan route between Damascus to the northeast and the Mediterranean Sea to the west.) Tax collectors were expected to take a commission on the taxes they collected, but most of them overcharged and kept the profits. Thus, tax collectors were hated by most Jews because of their reputation for cheating and because of their support of Rome. A Jew who accepted such an office was excommunicated from the synagogue and shamed his family and friends. Thus a Jewish tax collector was looked down upon for valuing money over reputation, respectability, purity before God, and concern for his own people, who had to pay extremely high taxes to the imperial power.

The tax collector’s booth was an elevated platform or bench. Everyone knew who Levi was, and anyone passing through the city who had to pay taxes could find him easily. Levi’s tollbooth taxed commercial goods being transported from the sea to land routes. Obviously this was not the first time Jesus saw Levi, for Jesus walked these shores many times. Apparently Jesus observed in Levi what he could use in his ministry. For example, Levi’s attention to detail and careful record-keeping skills can be seen in the way he wrote the first Gospel. Certainly Levi had seen Jesus before and, with the crowds, probably had been amazed at this incredible man.

I believe though I do not comprehend, and I hold by faith what I cannot grasp with the mind. Bernard of Clairvaux

    “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.  Mark’s words emphasize the brevity of Jesus’ call and Levi’s radical obedience. The man with leprosy in 1:40–43, despised by the people, was touched and healed by Jesus. Levi also was despised by his countrymen, not for a physical disease, but for his occupation. Jesus also “touched” and “healed” Levi, rearranging his priorities and choosing him to be one of his disciples.

Jesus’ words, “Follow me,” are in the imperative mood, meaning this was a command, not an invitation. The Greek word is akolouthei; Mark used the same word in 1:18 when he wrote that Simon and Andrew “left their nets and followed Him” (). The word is in the present tense, signifying the commencement and continuation of that action. Jesus called Levi to follow—that is, to walk the same road. Levi recognized that Jesus wasn’t inviting him; Jesus was calling him. So Levi got up and followed.

Levi’s radical obedience is amazing for the change it would effect in his life. Already ostracized by family and friends, following Jesus probably made no difference in this regard. But Levi was probably very wealthy—tax collecting was a lucrative occupation. When Levi walked away from his booth, he snubbed Rome, Herod Antipas, and a certain lifetime of great wealth. Levi had been an outcast; now he was wanted as a member of a group. But he would have to learn to live in poverty.^[3]

Apparently, Jesus concluded His discourse with the crowd and began walking along the shore. As Jesus had called Simon and Andrew while they fished, He simply looked at Levi, a tax collector sitting in the tax office, and said to him, “Follow Me!” There was no lengthy interview, nor are we told of Levi’s qualifications. Once Jesus called him, Levi left his tax office and followed Jesus.

We wonder about the physical qualities and magnetism of Jesus. What commanded the attention of the person He addressed? Did He speak quietly? Did He speak firmly? What was His body language? Was it His face? His eyes? The tone of His voice? Who can explain how Jesus could address a perfect stranger in such a way that he would leave his life’s occupation, walk away, and attach himself to the one Who had called him? Certainly, His teachings and deeds were extraordinary, but was He also extraordinary in His appearance—the way He looked and the way He conducted Himself? Whatever His appearance, the result was remarkable. Levi rose and followed Jesus. Jesus alone knew the reasons for His invitation to Levi, also known as Matthew, one of the chosen twelve apostles.

15–16. 2:15 Later Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house. Many tax collectors and sinners who were followers of Jesus were eating with him and his disciples.

Shortly afterward, Jesus and His disciples, along with many others, gathered at Levi’s house for a meal. Apparently, the social standing of those eating at Levi’s table were “tax collectors and sinners.”

In this context, the word sinners does not mean that those who did not attend the meal were not sinners. It is describing a certain social level of these people as seen through the eyes of the scribes and the Pharisees. These were common people not counted among the religious elite. Sitting with these common folk were tax collectors.

What an unlikely alliance had been forged. Tax collectors were held in contempt because they had traded their Jewish heritage to be an official in the hated Roman hierarchy. As tax collectors, they achieved some degree of wealth compared to their Jewish counterparts. They gained their wealth by charging the common man with the Roman tax and then adding a sum for the cost of collection. Tax collectors were intensely disliked, yet there they were, sitting at a meal with Jesus and His disciples.

Levi invited Jesus to a meal at his house which was attended by other tax collectors and “sinners” (ἁμαρτωλοί, hamartōloi). Mark says that there were many of these who were following Jesus. The meaning of the term “sinners” in this and similar contexts is a point of continuing debate among contemporary scholars. Some argue that the term refers to those who did not follow the strict Pharisaic guidelines. Others argue that “sinners” were the wicked who sinned willfully and without repentance. I am inclined to agree with a third view which holds that this term refers to those who were opposed to God’s will from the standpoint of the one who is using the term, whether Jesus or his opponents.¹⁶

It is clear from this passage and other New Testament texts (such as Acts 11:3 and Gal 2:12) that who one had table fellowship with was a matter of considerable importance for many first century Jews. The scribes who were Pharisees¹⁷ find Jesus’ table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners offensive, an obvious contradiction to his supposed status as a religious leader.

This is Mark’s first reference to the Pharisees, who appear repeatedly during Jesus’ Galilean ministry but only once by name in Jerusalem (12:13). The Pharisees were the leading sect or party among the Jews of Jesus’ day. Although the Sadducees controlled the Sanhedrin,¹⁸ the Pharisees probably had the most popularity among the people. Being a Pharisee was not a profession like being a scribe. Rather, people of various professions (including scribes) and classes could be Pharisees. Being a Pharisee was primarily a matter of commitment to Pharisaic norms of religious practice. They maintained a strong commitment to traditional beliefs and practices handed down from earlier generations. These traditions involved a strict interpretation of and supplement to the Old Testament Law. Examples would be their commitment to tithing (Matt 23:23) and ritual cleanliness (Mark 7:1–5).¹⁹

2:15    And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him.  Levi responded as Jesus would want all his followers to do; he followed his Lord immediately, and he called his friends together to meet him too. Levi left a lucrative tax-collecting business to follow Jesus. Then he held a dinner for his fellow tax collectors and other notorious sinners so they also could meet Jesus. Levi, who left behind a material fortune in order to gain a spiritual fortune, was proud to be associated with Jesus.

In Levi’s house there gathered a crowd that Jesus could not reach in the synagogues. The tax collectors had been excommunicated. The term “sinners” referred to the common people who were not learned in the law and did not abide by the rigid standards of the Pharisees. The Pharisees regarded these people as wicked and opposed to the will of God because they did not observe the rituals for purity, which enabled them to eat with others. In any case, Jesus had attracted a following among these people, for Mark recorded that there were many who followed him. These people gathered at Levi’s house, where they knew they had a welcome, and they too sat with Jesus and his disciples at dinner and listened to the message this marvelous teacher had for them.

2:16 When the scribes who were Pharisees saw him eating with sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

When the scribes and Pharisees saw this unusual occurrence, they wondered about this rabbi’s judgment. He had established Himself with considerable authority throughout the region of Galilee. He taught with authority. He commanded demons to leave. He healed lepers. He even forgave sins. His authority was without question. However, His judgment was now under scrutiny. There He sat, visiting a tax collector and eating a meal with Levi’s colleagues and a bunch of sinners. After He had established Himself as an authoritative rabbi, why would He not prefer to dine with the religious elite—the scribes and the Pharisees?

It is obvious that the scribes and Pharisees were not included in this group sharing a meal with Jesus. In fact, it would have been considered religiously unclean for them to do so. If they had been invited, they would have declined the invitation. Wouldn’t Jesus have been wise to make some small gesture of kindness toward these recognized religious leaders? Why did Jesus avoid their friendship? After all, they represented a powerful religious and political constituency. Did they not deserve some credit for their religious fervor?^[4]

17. 17. Jesus replies to their accusation with a common proverb using the imagery of doctors and their patients.²⁰ He does not defend the sinfulness of the tax collectors and sinners nor does he intend to imply that the Pharisees are truly righteous in God’s sight, but he effectively makes the point that his task is to call sinners to God. Therefore he must be in their company.

2:17 When Jesus heard that, he said to them, “Healthy people don’t need a doctor; those who are sick do. I’ve come to call sinners, not people who think they have God’s approval.”

Jesus heard their question and understood their concern. He explained His reason for separating Himself from those who chose to appear as God’s emissaries. He directly informed them that His purpose was to bring the reality of His Father’s message to those who recognized their spiritual deadness. If the scribes and Pharisees were so convinced of their righteous living before Almighty God, it would be difficult to convince them of their desperate need for forgiveness. Jesus made no effort to court their respect or companionship, for they were self-righteous hypocrites. Their religious fervor was motivated by social standing and acceptance—totally external. Jesus’ message remained the same as it was in the beginning: repent. Therefore, Jesus aligned Himself with the common man—the one who would repent and follow Him, who would admit his need for repentance, and who would seek fellowship with Jesus. This person desired to sit and dine with Jesus.

When Jesus said to the paralytic, “Friend, your sins are forgiven,” He drove a wedge between Himself and the religious elite of His day. They could not understand, and they certainly did not condone His alleged blasphemy. Jesus further offended their dignity and their self-importance by aligning Himself with the lower strata of society and, in effect, telling these religious zealots that He preferred the company of sinners.

2:16    When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”  The teachers of the law (also called “scribes”) were the legal specialists of the time. They interpreted the law, but were especially concerned about the “rules” for life that came to be as binding as God’s written law in the Torah. Many scribes were also Pharisees—a strict religious group of Jews who also advocated minute obedience to the Jewish laws and traditions. Their job was to teach the Scriptures and the Law and to protect them against anyone’s willful defiance. They saw themselves as righteous and everyone else as sinners.

Then along came this man, Jesus, who was popular, taught with great authority from the Scriptures, claimed to speak for God himself, and yet ignored their laws and seemed to condone sin by keeping company with sinners. They watched Jesus, followed his every move, and their anger continued to boil as he flouted their man-made rules, which they often elevated above the laws of God (see, for example, 7:8–13)!

The Pharisees, so strict in their observance of their laws as they attempted to retain their “purity,” refused to eat with common people because the sins of the commoners might make them ceremonially impure. So when Jesus sat down to a meal with these “sinners” and tax collectors, the Pharisees were quite surprised. Here was a man who seemed to have the entire law at his fingertips, who taught with great authority, yet who stooped to the level of the poor, unlearned, common people (even sinners!). Thus the Pharisees pulled his disciples aside and asked why Jesus did this.

2:17    When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”  The question apparently made its way to Jesus’ ears, and Jesus had an answer for the self-righteous, influential religious leaders. The first part of Jesus’ answer was from a common proverb on the healthy and the sick. People who are well don’t seek out a physician; the physician’s waiting room is filled with people who are sick. They recognize their need and come to the one who can make them well. The physician, in turn, spends his time helping the sick get well.

Jesus carried the proverb a step further and explained his messianic mission. “No,” he was saying to his detractors, “I do not spend time with such people because I am a glutton and a sinner at heart—far from it. I am here because these are the people who realize their need and welcome me.” Jesus did not come to call the righteous (used ironically—those, like these Pharisees, who thought they were righteous) to repentance, for the self-righteous did not recognize their sinfulness. But these sinners saw their need. This was Jesus’ audience. Jesus, the Great Physician, healed people of physical illnesses, but he knew that all people are spiritually sick and in need of salvation. Luke recorded Jesus’ words about his mission as, “For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10 ).

If you find someone who does not have the joy of faith but is weak of faith and seeks comfort, do not reject him but comfort him in the promised grace of Christ … firm, certain, eternal. Johann Arndt

Notes/Applications

Once again, Jesus rocked the boat by “doing the wrong thing” and “hanging around the wrong people,” and as a result, the scribes and Pharisees were outraged by His behavior. We can imagine how they shook their heads and even tore their clothes at His “blasphemous” behavior. Why was Jesus’ behavior considered blasphemous? Because He did not act the way righteous people were supposed to act if they wanted to remain in the good graces of the religious leaders.

Like the Jewish scribes, many people today come to Jesus with religious, even “Christian” backgrounds. They approach Jesus carrying the banner of their self-righteous importance but forgetting the very first word of the gospel message: repent.

Even though we may approach Jesus with a truly broken and contrite heart, we struggle to avoid self-righteousness in dealing with others. Have we forgotten what Jesus saved us from?

²He pulled me out of a horrible pit,

out of the mud and clay.

He set my feet on a rock

and made my steps secure.

³He placed a new song in my mouth,

a song of praise to our God. (Psalm 40:2–3)

Jesus displayed the heart of the Father, eager to include the broken, outcast members of society, but we, too, often behave like the Pharisees. “Look at me. Jesus saved me. I’m a good person. Don’t you want to be like me?”

In contrast, grace and a profound humility mark the believer who is spiritually mature. Such a person understands the precious, fragile beginning of faith and gently leads others to the feet of Christ. May we never try to usurp Jesus’ place and implicate ourselves into the message of salvation. “⁸God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God. ⁹It’s not the result of anything you’ve done, so no one can brag about it. ¹⁰God has made us what we are. He has created us in Christ Jesus to live lives filled with good works that he has prepared for us to do” (Ephesians 2:8–10).

PROMINENT JEWISH RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL GROUPS

Name and Selected References	Description	Agreement with Jesus	Disagreement with Jesus
PHARISEES Matthew 5:20 Matthew 23:1–36 Luke 6:2 Luke 7:36–47	Strict group of religious Jews who advocated minute obedience to the Jewish law and traditions. Very influential in the synagogues.	Respected the law; believed in the resurrection of the dead; were committed to obeying God’s will.	Rejected Jesus’ claim to be Messiah because he did not follow all their traditions and because he associated with notoriously wicked people.
SADDUCEES Matthew 3:7 Matthew 16:11–12 Mark 12:18	Wealthy, upper-class Jewish priestly party. Rejected the authority of the Bible beyond the five books of Moses. Profited from business in the temple. They, along with the Pharisees, were one of the two major parties of the Jewish council.	Showed great respect for the five books of Moses, as well as the sanctity of the temple.	Denied the resurrection of the dead; thought the temple could also be used as a place to transact business.
TEACHERS OF THE LAW (SCRIBES) Matthew 7:29 Mark 2:6 Mark 2:16	Professional interpreters of the law—who especially emphasized the traditions. Many teachers of the law were Pharisees.	Respected the law; were committed to obeying God.	Denied Jesus’ authority to reinterpret the law; rejected Jesus as Messiah because he did not obey all of their traditions.
HERODIANS Matthew 22:16 Mark 3:6 Mark 12:13	A Jewish political party of King Herod’s supporters.	Unknown. In the Gospels they tried to trap Jesus with questions and plotted to kill him.	Afraid of Jesus causing political instability; saw Jesus as a threat to their political future at a time when they were trying to regain from Rome some of their lost political power.
ZEALOTS Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13	A fiercely dedicated group of Jewish patriots determined to end Roman rule in Israel.	Were concerned about the future of Israel; believed in the Messiah but did not recognize Jesus as the One sent by God.	Believed that the Messiah must be a political leader who would deliver Israel from Roman occupation.
ESSENES none	Jewish monastic group practicing ritual purity and personal holiness.	Emphasized justice, honesty, commitment.	Believed ceremonial rituals made them righteous.

3. Controversy over Fasting (2:18–22)

¹⁸ Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”

¹⁹ Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. ²⁰ But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

²¹ “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. ²² And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.”

Like the previous story, this controversy centers on ancient Jewish traditions rather than on the clear demands of Mosaic law. The law itself required fasting only on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29–31). However, fasting is often commended in the Old Testament as a pious behavior (e.g., Deut 9:9; Dan 9:3; Esth 4:1–3). By the time of Jesus many pious Jews fasted twice each week (Luke 18:12).²¹ Such traditions were held in high honor among the Pharisees.

The Pharisees had almost constant skirmishes with Jesus. While this exchange probably did not happen at Matthew’s party, the holy freedom exercised by Jesus and the restrictive views of the religious leaders create an effective literary contrast.

At every turn, Jesus challenged the Pharisees’ way of looking at life. They lived by appearance; he challenged motives. They constructed elaborate behavior patterns to indicate their holiness; Jesus taught that good actions done for the wrong reasons have no moral or spiritual effect.

In response to their questions about fasting, Jesus turned the discussion from proper behavior to the reasons for fasting. Jesus made it clear that fasting was not a self-justifying action. It was right in its proper place, but there was also a proper place for feasting and joy. To further underscore this truth, Jesus added two other analogies (clothing repair and wineskin care). A worn item of clothing cannot be repaired with a new piece of cloth that shrinks when washed. A well-stretched wineskin filled with new wine will expand and burst when the wine ferments. So also the new spiritual age brought by Christ would burst the confines of the old system.

2:18    Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting.  John’s disciples refers to the remaining disciples of John the Baptist. These men and the Pharisees were fasting—that is, they were going without food in order to spend time in prayer repenting and humbling themselves before God. The Old Testament law set aside only one day a year as a required day of fasting for all Jews—the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29). The Pharisees, however, fasted on Mondays and Thursdays (see Luke 18:12) as an act of piety, and most likely promoted this among the people.

The tense of the verb indicates that the feast at Levi’s house happened at the very time that these people were fasting, apparently on one of the weekly fasting days. John the Baptist was in prison, and these disciples erroneously sided with the Pharisees on this issue, fasting when they should have been feasting with Jesus. Naturally this caused a question:  Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”

18. 18. Since weekly fasting was practiced not only by those who followed the Pharisees²² but also by the followers of John the Baptist who baptized Jesus, many would naturally be surprised that Jesus and his disciples did not follow this common spiritual discipline. They may even have viewed the customary fasting as mandatory.

19–20.  Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.”  The Pharisees fasted as a show of piety; the disciples of John the Baptist fasted as a sign of mourning for sin and to prepare for the Messiah’s coming. But, like Jesus’ disciples, they did not need to fast because the Messiah was with them! To be with Jesus the bridegroom is as joyous as a wedding feast. Wedding guests do not mourn or fast; a wedding is a time of celebration and feasting. Likewise, Jesus’ coming was a sign of celebration, not mourning and fasting. Jesus did not condemn fasting—he himself fasted (Luke 4:2). He emphasized that fasting must be done at the right time for the right reasons.

Jesus replied with three metaphors. The first one uses the image of a wedding feast. It would be inappropriate for the guests at a wedding feast to fast, for the bridegroom is there and they need to celebrate with him. Jesus implies that his presence among the disciples creates an analogous situation of celebration. V. 20 is an odd statement in the context of a wedding feast. It is an allusion to the death of Jesus and the mourning of his disciples concerning his death. It is the only reference to Jesus’ death before Mark 8:31.

The rest of the New Testament indicates that the early Christians did fast on various occasions. Jesus’ reference here, however, probably refers to mourning over his death.

2:20    “But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.”  In the Bible, people were expected to fast in times of disaster and as a sign of their humility and repentance. Fasting represented mourning. During that time, the people approached God with humility and sorrow for sin. Fasting focused their attention on God and demonstrated their change of heart and their true devotion (see, for example, Judges 20:26; 1 Kings 21:27; Ezra 8:21; Joel 1:14; Jonah 3:5). While Jesus walked the earth, his presence was a cause for celebration—the Messiah had come! The people did not need to mourn, they needed to rejoice.

But Jesus knew that soon he (the bridegroom) would be taken from them. The Greek word translated “taken from” is aparthe; a similar verb is used in the Septuagint version of Isaiah 53:8, a verse prophesying the Messiah’s violent death. That day refers to the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. On that day, Jesus’ disciples would indeed fast and mourn. John 16:20 says, “You will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy” (). The disciples would grieve for their crucified Master, and the world (the mass of people opposed to Jesus) would rejoice. But the disciples’ grief would not last long; their sorrow would turn to joy when they saw their risen Lord.

2:21    “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse.”  Jesus’ arrival on earth ushered in a new time, a new covenant between God and people. The new covenant called for a new way of expressing personal faith. The newness of the gospel and its relationship to people could not be combined with the religion of Judaism any more than a piece of unshrunk cloth should be used as a patch on a worn-out garment. When the garment is washed, the patch will shrink, pull away from the old garment, and leave a bigger hole than before.

The gospel offered grace; Judaism offered law and rule keeping. The Christian church was never meant to be a sect of Judaism; rather, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. The Jews, patiently waiting for their Messiah, should have recognized Jesus as the Messiah and should have believed the Good News. The apostle John wrote, “The law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17 ). Both law and grace express God’s nature—Moses’ law emphasized God’s law and justice; Jesus Christ came to express God’s mercy, love, and forgiveness. Moses could only give the law; Christ came to fulfill the law perfectly (Matthew 5:17). The law reveals the nature and will of God; Jesus Christ reveals the nature and will of God. But while the law could only point out sin and condemn us, Jesus Christ gave his life to bring us forgiveness of sin and salvation. The parables of the cloth and the wineskins (2:22) apply to more than just fasting or to the Pharisees; they speak of Jesus’ entire mission and the new era he inaugurated by his entrance into human history.

A FRESH START Jesus did not come to patch up the old religious system of Judaism with its rules and traditions. His purpose was to fulfill it and start something new, though it had been prophesied for centuries. Jesus Christ, God’s Son, came to earth to offer all people forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. The gospel did not fit into the old rigid legalistic system of religion. It needed a fresh start. The message will always remain “new” because it must be accepted and applied in every generation. When we follow Christ, we must be prepared for new ways to live, new ways to look at people, and new ways to serve.

2:22    “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”  In Bible times, wine was not kept in glass bottles, but in goatskins sewn around the edges to form watertight bags called wineskins. New wine expanded as it fermented, stretching its wineskin. After the wine had aged, the old wineskin (that had gotten brittle with age and couldn’t stretch anymore) would burst if more new wine was poured into it. New wine, therefore, was always put into new wineskins.

Like old wineskins, the Pharisees and indeed the entire religious system of Judaism were too rigid to accept Jesus, who could not be contained in their traditions or rules. They were the self-appointed guardians of the “old garments” and the “old wineskins.” Christianity required new approaches and new structures. Our church programs and ministries should not be so structured that they have no room for a fresh touch of the Spirit, a new method, or a new idea. We, too, must be careful that our heart does not become so rigid that it prevents us from accepting the new way of thinking that Christ brings. We need to keep our heart pliable so we can accept Jesus’ life-changing message.

21–22. The second two metaphors are parallel in meaning. The point of both is similar to the point of the bridegroom analogy. Jesus compares his presence to a new unshrunk piece of cloth and to new wine. The tradition of fasting is part of an old garment or an old wineskin. The new situation created by Jesus’ presence makes the old form of fasting inappropriate for his disciples. The disciples need to act in a way that is appropriate for the new situation created by Jesus.

It is difficult to be sure what it was about fasting that made it inappropriate for Jesus’ disciples. In the light of the bridegroom analogy, a good suggestion is that Jesus’ coming and the inbreaking of the kingdom which accompanied him called for a joyful response, while fasting was associated primarily with mourning.²⁴

4. Controversy over Picking Grain on the Sabbath (2:23–28)

²³ One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. ²⁴ The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

²⁵ He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? ²⁶ In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

²⁷ Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. ²⁸ So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

The fourth and fifth controversies in this series focus on interpreting the sabbath law. The grain picking incident appears to modern readers to be tedious nit-picking on the part of the Pharisees. It may be, but modern readers are prone to swing to the other side of the pendulum and perhaps forget such texts as Num 15:32–36 in which a man was stoned for picking up wood on the sabbath.

Jewish life in Jesus’ day revolved around the Sabbath. Elaborate laws had been designed so that everyone knew exactly how to “keep the Sabbath.” It was difficult for Jews to get any rest on the seventh day because they were so busy making sure they didn’t do any “work.” The fourth clash between Jesus and the power of Satan recorded by Mark occurred on a Sabbath. Jesus and his disciples took a Sabbath afternoon stroll, pausing for a grain snack in a farmer’s field along the way. On any other day, this would have been acceptable (Deuteronomy 23:25). But on the Sabbath, said the religious teachers, this kind of snacking was unlawful because it required you to pick the grain off the stock and was, therefore, work. Although not working themselves, the Pharisees were clearly on the job, confronting Jesus with his disciples’ behavior. They must have expected to put Jesus on the defensive. Instead, he refuted both their accusation and their whole interpretation of the Sabbath.

The way Jesus kept the Sabbath irritated his critics to the point of fury. To us, their reaction seems overstated. We must remember that the religious leaders, by imposing a bewildering system of Sabbath laws, had in fact made themselves lords of the Sabbath and thus lords over the people. They made the seventh day dreaded rather than enjoyed.

By claiming the title of Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus was stating his own divinity. But this claim was also an affront to the position of the religious leaders. His remaking the Sabbath into a day of refreshment, worship, and healing pried open the tight-fisted control the Pharisees held on the people. No wonder Jesus’ approach to the Sabbath led his enemies to plot his death.

23–24. As in 2:13–17 and 2:18–22, the chronological connection with the preceding story is loose, but the thematic connection is strong. Mark provides another illustration of the conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities.

The Pharisees are not suggesting that the disciples are stealing. The old gleaning laws certainly made it legitimate for the disciples to pick a few heads of grain. The problem is that they are doing this on the sabbath. The accusation is that they are violating the sabbath by working.²⁵

We expect Jesus to argue (as he does in the case of 3:1–6) that such activity is not actually a violation of the sabbath. However, his approach to the subject seems to grant their accusation that the disciples are doing what is not lawful on the sabbath. Jesus argues that there are special circumstances in which some “break the sabbath and yet are guiltless.”²⁶

The story about David and the consecrated bread (1 Sam 21:1–6) is a parallel case. Under normal circumstances no one could eat this bread except priests. David’s circumstances were special. He and his companions were hungry. Furthermore, and significantly, David was the anointed king of Israel. (Presumably, neither Jesus nor the Pharisees would grant just any hungry band of men the privilege of eating the consecrated bread without guilt.) Jesus and his disciples’ situation was analogous.²⁷

2:23    One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.  Mark prepares us for a conflict with the opening words, one Sabbath. Jesus, determined not to be confined to the Pharisees’ petty rules, always seemed to be doing something against those rules on the Sabbath. Mark continued to highlight the growing animosity of the religious leaders against Jesus.

2:24    The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”  The Pharisees had established thirty-nine categories of actions forbidden on the Sabbath, based on interpretations of God’s law and on Jewish custom. Harvesting was one of those forbidden actions; traveling any distance was another. By walking along and picking some heads of grain to rub in their hands to eat, the disciples were technically harvesting, according to the religious leaders. Jesus and the disciples were picking grain because they were hungry (as recorded in Matthew 12:1), not because they wanted to harvest the grain for a profit. The disciples, who were not farmers, were not doing their daily work on the Sabbath. Neither were they stealing grain, for God’s law allowed for this kind of sharing among his people (see Deuteronomy 23:25). Thus, though they may have been violating the Pharisees’ rules, they were not breaking any divine law. The Pharisees, however, could not (and did not want to) see beyond their law’s technicalities. The disciples, not being learned in all the details of the law, seemed all the more ignorant to these self-righteous leaders, thus making it less possible for Jesus to be any sort of valuable teacher and leader.

2:25–26       And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.”  This story is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. Each week twelve consecrated loaves of bread, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, were placed on a table in the house of God, here meaning the tabernacle. This bread was called the bread of the Presence (or shewbread). After its use in the temple, it was to be eaten only by priests. On one occasion, when fleeing from Saul, David and his men were given this consecrated bread to eat by Abiathar, the high priest. (First Samuel 21:1 mentions Ahimelech as the high priest. Abiathar was Ahimelech’s son and successor. Jesus obviously knew that Ahimelech was the high priest. Jesus was using a rabbinical method of referring to a section of Scripture. In this section, Abiathar was a more prominent name. Abiathar may have been in training at the time and also involved in the incident.) The priest understood that the men’s need was more important than ceremonial regulations. The loaves given to David were the old loaves that had just been replaced with fresh ones. Although the priests were the only ones allowed to eat this bread, God did not punish David because his need for food was more important than the priestly regulations.

The Pharisees knew the Scriptures thoroughly, yet Jesus’ question, “Have you never read” reveals their ignorance of the true meaning of the Scriptures that they claimed to know so well. Yes, they had read this story many times, but they had obviously not discerned or applied its meaning. Jesus justified his disciples’ action on the grounds that they were hungry and that their need superseded the technicalities of ceremonial law. When Jesus compared himself and his disciples to David and his men, Jesus was saying, in effect, “If you condemn me, you must also condemn David.” Jesus was not condoning disobedience to God’s laws. Instead, he was emphasizing discernment and compassion in enforcing the ceremonial laws, something the self-righteous Pharisees did not comprehend. People’s needs are more important than technicalities.

Do all the good you can, By all the means you can, In all the ways you can, In all the places you can, At all the times you can, To all the people you can As long as ever…… you can!  John Wesley

26. of Abiathar.—The reader will observe that the critical notes correct the reading of the common version here, giving us “in the high-priesthood of Abiathar,” instead of “in the days of Abiathar.” This is doubtless the correct rendering, but it involves an apparent conflict between this passage and the account in 1 Sam. 21:1–6, where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest at the time referred to. Abiathar is there represented as a son of Ahimelech, who took refuge with David after his father and the other priests had been slain by Doeg (1 Sam. 22:18–20), and who was high priest throughout the reign of David. This confusion of the two names is not confined to the New Testament, for in 2 Sam. 8:17, and 1 Chron. 18:16, the names are reversed, and Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar. It is evident that some mistakes of transcribers in this matter have crept into the text of the Old Testament, and it is probable that in a similar way Abiathar has been substituted for Ahimelech in the text of Mark. For other opinions on the subject, see the note on this verse in Lange.

27, 28. sabbath was made for man.—These verses contain an argument not reported by either Matthew or Luke. That the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, implies that when the welfare of man conflicts with the observance of the Sabbath, the latter must give way. But of this, man himself is not to judge, because he can not judge with impartiality his own interests. No one is competent to judge in the case who does not know all that pertains to the welfare of man, and this is known only by the Lord. For this reason Jesus adds, “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath;” that is, as the Son of man came to provide for man’s welfare, and as the Sabbath law might need modification or even abrogation for the highest good of man, therefore lordship over the Sabbath was given to the Son of man. The passage teaches, then, not that men might violate the law of the Sabbath when their welfare seemed to them to demand it, but that Jesus could set it aside, as he afterward did, when his own judgment of man’s welfare required him to do so. He made it clear on this occasion that said law was not to be so construed as to prevent men from providing necessary food on the Sabbath-day.

27–28. The two-part pronouncement at the climax of the story highlights the special circumstances of both David and Jesus and their companions. First, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus would not approve of a legalistic approach to the sabbath in which no work could ever be done regardless of the circumstances. The sabbath law was created to help people, not to harm them. Second, “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” If in the example of David, it was important that David was the anointed king, then in the case of Jesus an even greater one is involved. Jesus had already declared his authority to forgive sins. He now declares his authority to make judgments about the sabbath.²⁸

The term translated “So” at the beginning of v. 28 ties the two statements together.²⁹ If there are circumstances in which the spirit of the sabbath law takes precedence over the letter, then the authoritative Son of Man surely has the right to make this determination. Jesus tries to get the Pharisees to recognize both that in some cases the sabbath law may be broken without guilt and that the Son of Man has the authority to determine such cases.

¹ Matthew places the first three controversy stories in chapter 9 and the last two in chapter 12.

² Guelich, p. 81; Gundry, p. 110.

³ Guelich, p. 81.

⁴ Mark’s reference to the men “digging through” (ἐξορύξαντες, exoryxantes) the roof might be understood with reference to the typical Palestinian roof in which beams of wood were overlaid with thatch and mud, but Mark does not specify what the men dug through. (So I. Howard Marshall, Luke; contra Guelich, p. 85; Gundry, p. 117). Luke 5:19 speaks of lowering the man through “tiles.” Tile roofs have been found on some houses in Palestine. John J. Rousseau and Rami Arav, eds., Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), pp. 128–129.

⁵ So Lane, p. 94.

⁶ See the treatment in Carson, John, pp. 245–246.

⁷ Lane, p. 95.

⁸ Gundry, p. 112.

⁹ G.H. Twelftree, “Blasphemy,” in DJG, p. 75, with references on pp. 75–77.

¹⁰ Lane, p. 96.

¹¹ Guelich, p.88.

¹² Lane, pp. 96–98, incorrectly argues that Mark intends for the readers to see the first clause in v. 10 as Mark’s own editorial comment and not a statement made by Jesus. Contra Lane, see Gundry, p. 118.

¹³ Cf. Brown, pp. 508–512, for a summary of research. Brown thinks it was a pre-Christian messianic title, but admits that the evidence is highly problematic.

¹⁴ I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, updated ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), pp. 77–78.

^[1] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 48.

^[2] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 54.

¹⁵ Thomas E. Schmidt, “Taxes,” in DJG, pp. 805–806.

^[3] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 55–56.

¹⁶ Michael J. Wilkins, “Sinners,” in DJG, pp. 758–760.

¹⁷ The Greek phrase is literally “the scribes of the Pharisees,” an odd phrase occurring only here. The  translation is probably correct in suggesting that it means scribes who were Pharisees. There were scribes associated with other sects.

¹⁸ On the Sanhedrin see the comments at 8:31.

¹⁹ On the Pharisees see Stephen Westerholm, “Pharisees,” in DJG, pp. 609–614.

^[4] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 49–50.

²⁰ E.g., Plutarch, Sayings of the Spartans 230–231. Plutarch, (c. a.d. 50-after 120) cites Pausanias (King of Sparta, 408–394 b.c.) as follows: “The physicians, he said, are not to be found among the well but customarily spend their time among the sick.”

²¹ The Mishnah (c. a.d. 200) states that the weekly days of fasting were Monday and Thursday (Taanith 1.4–5). This may be true of the early first century.

²² Technically, the Pharisees did not have “disciples.” However, the text presumably refers to those who did not become Pharisees but did generally respect and follow their teachings.

²⁴ Lane, pp. 109–110.

²⁵ Cf. the Mishnah Shabbat 7.2 which lists thirty-nine categories of work which must not be done on the sabbath, including reaping, threshing, and winnowing crops.

²⁶ This phrase is from the  translation of Matthew’s account of this story, Matt 12:5. There it applies to the priests serving in the temple on the sabbath, another example Jesus used in defending his disciples’ behavior.

²⁷ The reference to Abiathar the high priest involves one of the most problematic statements in the Gospels. 1 Sam 21:1–6 says that Ahimelech was the high priest who gave David and his men the consecrated bread. There is a contextual connection, however, to Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son. At the same time Ahimelech gave David the bread he let him take the sword of Goliath (1 Sam 21:8–9). Because of this Saul killed Ahimelech and all of his family except Abiathar who escaped and ran to David (1 Sam 22:6–23). The primary issue is whether Mark meant to say that Abiathar was high priest at the time of the bread incident. The debate centers on the translation of the preposition ἐπί (epi) which governs “Abiathar the high priest.” The  translation “when Abiathar was high priest” involves Mark in an error. The  translation “In the days of Abiathar the high priest” allows Mark to identify the incident by the more well known priest, but opens the possibility that Mark did not intend to say that he was high priest at the time. Lane, p. 116, and Gundry, pp. 141–142, are inclined to accept the proposal that epi should be translated something like “at the place about” Abiathar the high priest. They see it as a reference to where the story is found in the Old Testament, analogous to Mark 12:26 “in the account of (epi) the bush.”

²⁸ In the Matthean parallel, Jesus declares “one greater than the temple is here” (Matt 12:6).

²⁹ “So” translates the Greek term ὥστε (hōste).

Jesus had just spent a Sabbath in feverish activity. He had done practically everything except rest. Early in the morning of the next day, he set aside a time of prayer by himself. He spent time in prayer and in silence. Even though he was interrupted, Jesus maintained his intimate fellowship with his Father. By the time the disciples found him, he was ready to face the next challenge.

We must follow Christ’s example by carving out time for worship and prayer. Those who help and serve on Sunday especially need to set aside time with God to restore their strength. Our ability to serve will be hindered if we neglect times of spiritual replenishment.

1:35    In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a deserted place, and there he prayed.  Before the sun came up (the morning, while it was still very dark refers to the last watch of the night, between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.), Jesus went out to a deserted place, the same kind of place where he had met Satan’s temptations (1:12–13). In that deserted place, alone and prior to any other activities, Jesus prayed. During his ministry on earth, Jesus was in constant prayer with the Father. Mark recorded three of these times of prayer: (1) after the successful ministry in Capernaum with the healing of many sick and demon-possessed people; (2) after the miracle of feeding more than five thousand people (6:46); (3) in Gethsemane, just prior to his arrest, trial, and crucifixion (14:32–42).

He prayeth best who loveth best. Samuel Coleridge

What did Jesus pray about? In Mark 14:35–36, Jesus prayed for strength from God to fulfill his mission as planned. After his great successes with the crowds in Capernaum and on the mountainside, his prayers may have focused on fulfilling his mission as Suffering Servant, when it seemed (at least humanly) more strategic to be a conquering king. Popularity was a temptation in itself, for it threatened to turn Jesus away from his mission (“why I have come,” 1:38 ). Jesus had a mission to fulfill—and death on the cross was the key, for only Jesus’ death could accomplish salvation. Jesus, in his humanity, may have continued to face the temptation to turn away from the difficult path and take the easier one. He constantly needed strength from God. Going into the wilderness, alone with the Father, helped Jesus focus on his task and gain strength for what that task entailed.

1:36–37       Simon and his companions went to look for him, and when they found him, they exclaimed: “Everyone is looking for you!”  Apparently the people in Capernaum continued to arrive at Simon Peter’s house the next morning hoping to hear more of Jesus’ teaching and see him perform more miracles. When Jesus didn’t appear, perhaps people began to knock at Simon Peter’s door. When the disciples went to arouse Jesus, they discovered that he was gone. They were surprised that Jesus would not follow up on his great success from the previous day’s ministry in Capernaum, but instead disappeared before anyone awoke. So they went to look for him and bring him back. But Jesus had a mission to fulfill and a very limited time to accomplish it. Their words, Everyone is looking for you, anticipate the even greater popularity that awaited Jesus when he extended his ministry beyond Capernaum (see 1:45).

A praying master, like Jesus, can have no prayerless servants. J. C. Ryle

1:38    Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.”  Not only was Jesus not going to capitalize on his great popularity in Capernaum, he was not even going back into the city. Instead, he was leaving on an extended trip throughout the region, beginning with the nearby villages. Many people needed to hear Jesus preach the Good News of the kingdom of God (1:14–15), as Jesus explained, “That is why I have come.” Jesus could have simply meant that leaving on a preaching mission was why he had “come” out of Capernaum; or he could have meant that preaching the kingdom of God was why he had “come” to earth. In either case, Jesus would not be deterred from his mission to preach the Good News to as many people as possible. His primary mission was to bring people to a place of decision to have faith in God, not merely to remove their pain. Nevertheless, as Jesus preached, he also healed many people and cast out many demons, as he had in Capernaum.

1:39    And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons.  Jesus and the disciples left the early morning bustle of Capernaum behind and began a preaching and healing tour throughout Galilee. The Romans had divided the land of Israel into three separate regions: Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. Galilee was the northernmost region, an area about sixty miles long and thirty miles wide. Jesus did much of his ministry in this area, an ideal place for him to teach because there were over 250 towns concentrated there, with many synagogues where Jesus could proclaim his message, the Good News. Many of the towns were marketing villages that served the rich agricultural community. The Jewish historian Josephus notes that even the small towns had about fifteen thousand people. Though they were the size of towns, they had the cultural dynamics of villages. Jesus’ action of casting out demons verified his authority and power and showed compassion to those who had been possessed and, by Jesus’ word, had been set free.^[1]

The Servant’s Sympathy (Mark 1:29-45)

Two miracles of healing are described in this section, both of which reveal the compassion of the Savior for those in need. In fact, so great was His love for the needy that the Savior ministered to great crowds of people after the Sabbath

had ended, when it was lawful for them to come for help. It would appear that God’s Servant was at the beck and call of all kinds of people, including demoniacs and lepers; and He lovingly ministered to them all.

Jesus and the four disciples left the synagogue and went to Peter and Andrew’s house for their Sabbath meal. Perhaps Peter was a bit apologetic because his wife had to care for her sick mother and was unable to entertain them in the usual manner. We do not know about the other disciples, but we do know that Peter was a married man (Mark 1:30).

Peter and Andrew not only brought their friends James and John home with them from the service, but they also brought the Lord home. That is a good example for us to follow: don’t leave Jesus at the church—take Him home with you and let Him share your blessings and your burdens. What a privilege it was for Peter and his family to have the very Son of God as guest in their humble home. Before long, the Guest became the Host, just as one day the Passenger in Peter’s boat would become the Captain (Luke 5:1-11).

By faith, the men told Jesus about the sick woman, no doubt expecting Him to heal her. That is exactly what He did! The fever left her immediately, and she was able to go to the kitchen and serve the Sabbath meal. If you have ever had a bad fever, then you know how painful and uncomfortable it is. You also know that after the fever leaves you, it takes time for you to regain your strength. But not so in this case! She was able to serve the Lord immediately. And isn’t service to our Lord one of the best ways to thank Him for all He has done for us?

What was the result of this miracle? When the Sabbath ended at sundown, the whole city showed up at Peter’s door! They brought their sick and afflicted, and the Lord (who was no doubt weary) healed them all. The Greek verb indicates that they “kept on bringing” people to Him, so that He must have gone to sleep at a very late hour. Note in Mark 1:32 the clear distinction made between the diseased and the demonized. While Satan can cause physical affliction, not all sickness is caused by demonic power.

Late hours did not keep Jesus from His appointed meeting with His Father early the next morning. Read Isaiah 50:4 for a prophetic description of God’s righteous Servant as He meets the Father morning by morning. What an example for us to follow! It is no surprise that Jesus had such authority and power when His prayer life was so disciplined (see Mark 9:28-29; 6:46; 14:32-38).

However, the crowds wanted to see Jesus again, not to hear His word, but to experience His healing and see Him perform miracles. Peter was surprised that Jesus did not hasten to meet the crowds but instead left for other towns where He might preach the Gospel. Peter did not realize the shallowness of the crowds, their unbelief, and their lack of appetite for the Word of God. Jesus said it was more important for Him to preach the Gospel in other places than to stay there and heal the sick. He did not permit popular acclaim to change His priorities.

Perhaps we can understand our Lord’s concern for a feverish woman, but that He would meet and touch a leper is somewhat beyond our understanding. Lepers were supposed to keep their distance and warn everyone that they were coming, lest others would be defiled (Lev. 13:45-46). This man knew that Jesus was able to heal him, but he was not sure the Master was willing to heal him. Lost sinners today have the same unnecessary concern, for God has made it abundantly clear that He is not willing that sinners perish (2 Peter 3:9) and that He is willing that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:4).

When you read the “tests” for leprosy described in Leviticus 13, you can see how the disease is a picture of sin. Like sin, leprosy is deeper than the skin (Lev. 13:3); it spreads (Lev. 13:5-8); it defiles and isolates (Lev. 13:44-46); and it renders things fit only for the fire (Lev. 13:47-59). Anyone who has never trusted the Saviour is spiritually in worse shape than this man was physically. Jesus had compassion on the man (note Mark 6:34; 8:2; 9:22) and healed him. He did it with His touch and with His Word. No doubt this was the first loving touch this leper had felt in a long time. As with the fever, so with the leprosy: it was gone instantly!

For reasons already stated, Jesus commanded the man not to tell everybody. He was to go to the priests and follow the instructions given in Leviticus 14, so that he might be declared clean and received back into the social and religious life of the community. However, the man disobeyed orders. Jesus told this man to keep quiet, and yet he told everybody. Jesus commands us to tell everybody—and we keep quiet! The crowds that came to get help from Jesus created a serious problem for Him and probably hindered Him from teaching the Word as He intended to do (Mark 1:38).

The ceremony described in Leviticus 14 presents a beautiful picture in type of the work of redemption. The two birds represent two different aspects of our Lord’s ministry: His incarnation and death (the bird put into the jar and then killed), and His resurrection and ascension (the bird stained with the blood and then set free). The blood was applied to the man’s right ear (God’s Word), right thumb (God’s work), and right great toe (God’s walk). Then the oil was put on the blood, symbolizing the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit cannot come on human flesh until first the blood has been applied.

We should learn some important spiritual lessons from this chapter. To begin with, if the Son of God came as a servant, then being a servant is the highest of all callings. We are never more like the Lord Jesus than when we are serving others. Second, God shares His authority with His servants. Only those who are under authority have the right to exercise authority. Finally, if you are going to be a servant, be sure you have compassion; because people will come to you for help and rarely ask if it is convenient!

Yet, what a privilege it is to follow in the steps of Jesus Christ and meet the needs of others by being one of God’s compassionate servants.

Fulfillment (Mark 2:13–22)

It soon became evident that Jesus was deliberately associating Himself with the outcasts of Jewish society. He even called a tax collector to become one of His disciples! We do not know that Levi was a dishonest man, though most of the tax collectors were; but the fact that he worked for Herod Antipas and the Romans was enough to disgrace him among loyal Jews. However, when Jesus called him, Levi did not argue or delay. He got up and followed Jesus, even though he knew that Rome would never give him back his job. He burned his bridges (“And he left everything behind”—Luke 5:28, n), received a new name (“Matthew, the gift of God”), and enthusiastically invited some of his “sinner” friends to meet the Lord Jesus. These were Jewish people like himself who did not follow the Law or appear to have much interest in things religious. It was exactly the kind of people Jesus wanted to reach.

The Call of the Man Whom All Men Hated

Steadily and inexorably the synagogue door was shutting on Jesus. Between him and the guardians of Jewish orthodoxy war had been declared. Now he was teaching, not in the synagogue, but by the lakeside. The open air was to be his church, the blue sky his canopy, and a hillside or a fishing boat his pulpit. Here was the beginning of that dreadful situation when the Son of God was banned from the place which was regarded as the house of God.

He was walking by the lakeside and teaching. That was one of the commonest ways for a Rabbi to teach. As the Jewish Rabbis walked the roads from one place to another, or as they strolled in the open air, their disciples grouped themselves around and walked with them and listened as they talked. Jesus was doing what any Rabbi might have done.

Galilee was one of the great road centres of the ancient world. It has been said that, “Judaea is on the way to nowhere; Galilee is on the way to everywhere.” Palestine was the land bridge between Europe and Africa; all land traffic must go through her. The great Road of the Sea led from Damascus, by way of Galilee, through Capernaum, down past Carmel, along the Plain of Sharon, through Gaza and on to Egypt. It was one of the great roads of the world. Another road led from Acre on the coast away across the Jordan out to Arabia and the frontiers of the empire, a road that was trodden by the regiments and the caravans.

Palestine at this time was divided up. Judaea was a Roman province under a Roman procurator; Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great; to the east the territory which included Gaulonitis, Trachonitis and Batanaea was ruled by Philip, another of Herod’s sons. On the way from Philip’s territory to Herod’s domains, Capernaum was the first town to which the traveller came. It was by its very nature a frontier town; because of that it was a customs’ centre. In those days there were import and export taxes and Capernaum must have been the place where they were collected. That is where Matthew worked. True, he was not, like Zacchaeus, in the service of the Romans; he was working for Herod Antipas; but a hated tax-collector he was. (The Authorized Version calls the tax-collectors, publicans; that is because the Latin word was publicanus; the translation publican which is, of course, nowadays quite misleading, actually goes back to Wycliffe.)

This story tells us certain things both about Matthew and about Jesus.

(i) Matthew was a well-hated man. Tax-gatherers can never be a popular section of the community, but in the ancient world they were hated. People never knew just how much they had to pay; the tax-collectors extracted from them as much as they could possibly get and lined their own pockets with the surplus that remained after the demands of the law had been met. Even a Greek writer like Lucian ranks tax-gatherers with “adulterers, panderers, flatterers and sycophants.” Jesus wanted the man no one else wanted. He offered his friendship to the man whom all others would have scorned to call friend.

(ii) Matthew must have been a man at that moment with an ache in his heart. He must have heard about Jesus; he must have listened often on the outskirts of the crowds to his message; and something must have stirred in his heart. Now he could not possibly have gone to the orthodox good people of his day; to them he was unclean and they would have refused to have anything to do with him.

Hugh Redwood tells of a woman in the dock district in London who came to a women’s meeting. She had been living with a Chinese and had a half-caste baby whom she brought with her. She liked the meeting and came back and back again. Then the vicar came to her. “I must ask you,” he said, “not to come again.” The woman looked her question. “The other women,” said the vicar, “say that they will stop coming if you continue to come.” She looked at him with a poignant wistfulness. “Sir,” she said, “I know I’m a sinner, but isn’t there anywhere a sinner can go?” Fortunately the Salvation Army found that woman and she was reclaimed for Christ.

That is precisely what Matthew was up against until he found the one who came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost.

(iii) This story tells us something about Jesus. It was as he walked along the lakeside that he called Matthew. As a great scholar said, “Even as he was walking along he was looking for opportunities.” Jesus was never off duty. If he could find one man for God as he walked he found him. What a harvest we could gather in if we looked for men for Christ as we walked!

(iv) Of all the disciples Matthew gave up most. He literally left all to follow Jesus. Peter and Andrew, James and John could go back to the boats. There were always fish to catch and always the old trade to which to return; but Matthew burned his bridges completely. With one action, in one moment of time, by one swift decision he had put himself out of his job forever, for having left his tax-collector’s job, he would never get it back. It takes a big man to make a big decision, and yet some time in every life there comes the moment to decide.

A certain famous man had the habit of going for long country walks on Dartmoor. When he came to a brook that was rather too wide to cross comfortably, the first thing he did was to throw his coat over to the other side. He made sure that there was to be no turning back. He took the decision to cross and made sure he was going to stick to it.

Matthew was the man who staked everything on Christ; and he was not wrong.

(v) From his decision Matthew got at least three things.

(a) He got clean hands. From now on he could look the world in the face. He might be very much poorer and life must be very much rougher, and the luxuries and the comforts were gone; but from now on his hands were clean and, because his hands were clean, his mind was at rest.

(b) He lost one job but he got a far bigger one. It has been said that Matthew left everything but one thing—he did not leave his pen. Scholars do not think that the first gospel, as it stands, is the work of Matthew; but they do think that it embodies one of the most important documents of all history, the first written account of the teaching of Jesus, and that that document was written by Matthew. With his orderly mind, his systematic way of working, his familiarity with the pen, Matthew was the first man to give the world a book on the teaching of Jesus.

(c) The odd thing is that Matthew’s reckless decision brought him to one thing he can least have been looking for—it brought him immortal and world—wide fame. All men know the name of Matthew as one for ever connected with the transmission of the story of Jesus. Had Matthew refused the call he would have had a local ill-fame as the follower of a disreputable trade which all men hated; because he answered the call he gained a world-wide fame as the man who gave to men the record of the words of Jesus. God never goes back on the man who stakes his all on him.

^[2]

Of course, the critics had to be there; but our Lord used their questions to teach the guests about Himself and the spiritual work He came to do. He explained His mission by using three interesting comparisons.

Where the Need is Greatest

Once again Jesus is flinging down the gauntlet of defiance.

When Matthew had yielded himself to Jesus, he invited him to his house. Naturally, having discovered Jesus for himself, he wished his friends to share his great discovery—and his friends were like himself. It could not be any other way. Matthew had chosen a job which cut him off from the society of all respectable and orthodox people, and he had to find his friends among outcasts like himself. Jesus gladly accepted that invitation; and these outcasts of society sought his company.

Nothing could better show the difference between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees and orthodox good people of the day. They were not the kind of people whose company a sinner would have sought. He would have been looked at with bleak condemnation and arrogant superiority. He would have been frozen out of such company even before he had entered it.

A clear distinction was drawn between those who kept the law and those whom they called the people of the land. The people of the land were the common mob who did not observe all the rules and the regulations of conventional Pharisaic piety. By the orthodox it was forbidden to have anything to do with these people. The strict law-keeper must have no fellowship with them at all. He must not talk with them nor go on a journey with them; as far as possible, he must not even do business with them; to marry a daughter to one of them was as bad as giving her over to a wild beast; above all, he must not accept hospitality from or give hospitality to such a person. By going to Matthew’s house and sitting at his table and companying with his friends Jesus was defying the orthodox conventions of his day.

We need not for a moment suppose that all these people were sinners in the moral sense of the term. The word sinner (hamartōlos) had a double significance. It did mean a man who broke the moral law; but it also meant a man who did not observe the scribal law. The man who committed adultery and the man who ate pork were both sinners; the man who was guilty of theft and murder and the man who did not wash his hands the required number of times and in the required way before he ate were both sinners. These guests of Matthew no doubt included many who had broken the moral law and played fast and loose with life; but no doubt they also included many whose only sin was that they did not observe the scribal rules and regulations.

When Jesus was taxed with this shocking conduct his answer was quite simple. “A doctor,” he said “goes where he is needed. People in good health do not need him; sick people do; I am doing just the same; I am going to those who are sick in soul and who need me most.”

Verse 17 is a highly concentrated verse. It sounds at first hearing as if Jesus had no use for good people. But the point of it is that the one person for whom Jesus can do nothing is the person who thinks himself so good that he does not need anything done for him; and the one person for whom Jesus can do everything is the person who is a sinner and knows it and who longs in his heart for a cure. To have no sense of need is to have erected a barrier between us and Jesus; to have a sense of need is to possess the passport to his presence.

The attitude of the orthodox Jews to the sinner was really compounded of two things.

(i) It was compounded of contempt. “The ignorant man,” said the Rabbis, “can never be pious.” Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher, was an arrogant aristocrat. One called Scythinus undertook to put his discourses into verse so that ordinary unlettered folk might read and understand them. The reaction of Heraclitus was put into an epigram. “Heraclitus am I. Why do ye drag me up and down, ye illiterate? It was not for you I toiled, but for such as understand me. One man in my sight is a match for thirty thousand, but the countless hosts do not make a single one.” For the mob he had nothing but contempt. The Scribes and Pharisees despised the common man; Jesus loved him. The Scribes and Pharisees stood on their little eminence of formal piety and looked down on the sinner; Jesus came and sat beside him, and by sitting beside him lifted him up.

(ii) It was compounded of fear. The orthodox were afraid of the contagion of the sinner; they were afraid that they might be infected with sin. They were like a doctor who would refuse to attend a case of infectious illness lest he himself contracted it. Jesus was the one who forgot himself in a great desire to save others. C. T. Studd, great missionary of Christ, had four lines of doggerel that he loved to quote:

“Some want to live within the sound

Of Church or Chapel bell;

I want to run a rescue shop

Within a yard of hell.”

The man with contempt and fear in his heart can never be a fisher of men.^[3]

The Physician (vv. 16–17). Jesus did not consider these people “rejects,” even though they had been excommunicated by the religious leaders. Matthew’s friends were patients who needed a physician, and Jesus was that Physician. We have already seen that sin may be compared to sickness and forgiveness to having your health restored. Now we see that our Saviour may be compared to a physician: He comes to us in our need; He makes a perfect diagnosis; He provides a final and complete cure; and He pays the bill! What a physician!

But there are three kinds of “patients” whom Jesus cannot heal of their sin sickness: (1) those who do not know about Him; (2) those who know about Him but refuse to trust Him; and (3) those who will not admit that they need Him. The scribes and Pharisees were in that third category, as are all self-righteous sinners today. Unless we admit that we are sinners, deserving of God’s judgment, we cannot be saved. Jesus saves only sinners (Luke 19:10).

In Jesus’ day, as in the days of the prophets, there were those who claimed to bring spiritual healing to the people, but whose remedies were ineffective. Jeremiah rebuked the priests and false prophets of his day because they were worthless physicians who gave only a false hope to the nation. “They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace’; when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). They applied their weak medicines to the surface symptoms and did not get down deep into the basic problem—the sinful heart (Jer. 17:9). We must beware of such worthless physicians today.

The Bridegroom (vv. 18–20). While the first question they asked had to do with the kind of company Jesus was keeping, their second question raised the issue of why Jesus was having such a good time with these people at the table. His conduct, to them, seemed inappropriate. John the Baptist was an austere man, somewhat of a recluse; but Jesus accepted invitations to meals, played with the children, and enjoyed social gatherings (Matt. 11:16–19). No doubt John’s disciples were a bit scandalized to see Jesus at a party, and the pious disciples of the Pharisees (see Matt. 23:15) were quick to join them in their perplexity.

The Joyous Company Mark 2:18–20

With the stricter Jews fasting was a regular practice. In the Jewish religion there was only one day in all the year that was a compulsory fast, and that was the Day of Atonement. The day when the nation confessed and was forgiven its sin was The Fast, par excellence. But the stricter Jews fasted on two days every week, on Mondays and Thursdays. It is to be noted that fasting was not as serious as it sounds, for the fast lasted from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and after that normal food could be eaten.

Jesus is not against fasting as such. There are very good reasons why a man might fast. He might deny himself things he likes for the sake of discipline, to be certain that he is the master of them and not they of him, to make sure that he never grows to love them so well that he can not give them up. He might deny himself comforts and pleasant things so that, after self-denial, he might appreciate them all the more. One of the best ways to learn to value our homes is to have to stay away from home for a time; and one of the best ways to appreciate God’s gifts is to do without them for a period.

These are good reasons for fasting. The trouble about the Pharisees was that in far too many cases their fasting was for self-display. It was to call the attention of men to their goodness. They actually whitened their faces and went about with dishevelled garments on their fast days so that no one could miss the fact that they were fasting and so that everyone would see and admire their devotion. It was to call the attention of God to their piety. They felt that this special act of extra piety would bring them to the notice of God. Their fasting was a ritual and a self-displaying ritual at that. To be of any value, fasting must not be the result of a ritual; it must be the expression of a feeling in the heart.

Jesus used a vivid picture to tell the Pharisees why his disciples did not fast. After a Jewish wedding the couple did not go away for a honeymoon; they stayed at home. For a week or so open house was kept and there was continual feasting and rejoicing. In a hard wrought life the wedding week was the happiest week in a man’s life. To that week of happiness were invited the closest friends of the bride and the bridegroom; and they were called by the name children of the bridechamber. Jesus likened his little company to men who were children of the bridechamber, chosen guests at a wedding feast. There was actually a rabbinic ruling which said, “All in attendance on the bridegroom are relieved of all religious observances which would lessen their joy.” The wedding guests were actually exempt from all fasting.

This incident tells us that the characteristic Christian attitude to life is joy. The discovery of Christ and the company of Christ is the key to happiness. There was a Japanese criminal called Tockichi Ishii. He was utterly and bestially pitiless; he had brutally and callously murdered men, women and children in his career of crime. He was captured and imprisoned. Two Canadian ladies visited the prison. He could not be induced even to speak; he only glowered at them with the face of a wild beast. When they left, they left with him a copy of the Bible in the faint hope that he might read it. He read it, and the story of the crucifixion made him a changed man. “Later when the jailer came to lead the doomed man to the scaffold, he found not the surly, hardened brute he expected, but a smiling, radiant man, for Ishii the murderer had been born again.” The mark of his rebirth was a smiling radiance. The life that is lived in Christ cannot be lived other than in joy.

But the story ends with a foreboding cloud across the sky. No doubt when Jesus spoke of the day when the bridegroom would be taken away his friends did not at the moment see the meaning of it. But here, right at the beginning, Jesus saw the cross ahead. Death did not take him unawares; even now he had counted the cost and chosen the way. Here is courage; here is the picture of a man who would not be deflected from the road at whose end there loomed a cross.

The garment and the wineskins (vv. 21–22).

The Necessity of Staying Young in Mind Mark 2:21, 22

No one sews a patch of new cloth on to an old garment. If he does the bit that was meant to fill in the hole tears it apart—the new from the old—and the tear is made worse. No one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does the wine will burst the wineskins, and the wine will be lost as well as the wineskins. New skins for new wine!

Jesus knew quite well that he was coming with a message which was startlingly new; and he also knew that his way of life was shatteringly different from that of the orthodox rabbinic teacher. He also knew how difficult it is for the minds of men to accept and to entertain new truth; and here he uses two illustrations to show how necessary it is to have an adventurous mind.

No one ever had such a gift as Jesus for the discovery and the use of homely illustrations. Over and over again he finds in the simple things pathways and pointers to God. No one was ever such an expert in getting from the “here and now” to the “there and then.” For Jesus “earth was crammed with heaven.” He lived so close to God that everything spoke to him of God. Someone tells how, on Saturday afternoons, he used to go for country walks with one of the most famous of Scottish preachers. They used to have long talks together. Telling of it afterwards he said, “Wherever the conversation started, he had a way of cutting straight across country to God.” Wherever Jesus’ eye lighted it had a way of flashing straight on to God.

(i) He speaks of the danger of sewing a new patch on an old garment. The word used means that the new cloth was still undressed; it had never been shrunk; so when the garment got wet in the rain the new patch shrunk, and being much stronger than the old, it tore the old apart. There comes a time when the day of patching is over, and re-creating must begin. In the time of Luther it was not possible to patch up the abuses of the Roman Catholic church; the time for reformation had come. In the time of John Wesley, for Wesley at least, the time for patching the Church of England was done. He did not want to leave it, but in the end he had to, for only a new fellowship would suffice. It may well be that there are times when we try to patch, when what is wanted is the complete abandonment of the old and the acceptance of something new.

(ii) Wine was kept in wineskins. There was no such thing as a bottle in our sense of the term. When these skins were new they had a certain elasticity; as they grew old they became hard and unyielding. New wine is still fermenting; it gives off gases; these gases cause pressure; if the skin is new it will yield to the pressure, but if it is old and hard and dry it will explode and wine and skin alike will be lost. Jesus is pleading for a certain elasticity in our minds. It is fatally easy to become set in our ways. J. A. Findlay quotes a saying of one of his friends—“When you reach a conclusion you’re dead.” What he meant was that when our minds become fixed and settled in their ways, when they are quite unable to accept new truth and to contemplate new ways, we may be physically alive but we are mentally dead.

As they grow older almost everyone develops a constitutional dislike of that which is new and unfamiliar. We grow very unwilling to make any adjustments in our habits and ways of life. Lesslie Newbigin, who was involved in the discussions about the formation of the United Church of South India, tells how one of the things that most often held things up was that people kept asking, “Now, if we do that, just where are we going?” In the end someone had to say bluntly, “The Christian has no right to ask where he is going.” Abraham went out not knowing whither he went. (Hebrews 11:8.) There is a great verse in that same chapter of Hebrews: “By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph bowing in worship over the head of his staff.” (Hebrews 11:21.) With the very breath of death upon him the old traveller still had his pilgrim staff in his hand. To the end of the day, with the evening now upon him, he was still ready for the road. If we are really to rise to the height of the Christian challenge, we must retain the adventurous mind. I received a letter once which ended “Yours aged 83 and still growing”—and with the inexhaustible riches of Christ before us, why not?

Jesus taught two important lessons about His ministry: (1) He came to save sinners, not to call the religious; and (2) He came to bring gladness and not sadness. The third lesson is this: He came to introduce the new, not to patch up the old.

The religious leaders were impressed with our Lord’s teaching, and perhaps they would have been happy to make some of His ideas a part of their own religious tradition. They were hoping for some kind of compromise that would retain the best of pharisaic Judaism and the best of what Christ had to offer. But Jesus exposed the folly of that approach. It would be like tearing patches from a new unshrunk garment and sewing them on an old garment. You would ruin the new garment; and when the old garment was washed, the patches would shrink, rip away, and ruin that garment too (note Luke 5:36–39). Or, it would be like putting new unfermented wine in old brittle wineskins. As soon as the wine began to ferment and the gases formed, the old skins would burst—and you would lose both the wine and the skins.

Jesus came to usher in the new, not to unite with the old. The Mosaic economy was decaying, getting old, and ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13). Jesus would establish a New Covenant in His blood (Luke 22:19–20). The Law would be written on human hearts, not on stones (2 Cor. 3:1–3; Heb. 10:15–18); and the indwelling Holy Spirit would enable God’s people to fulfill the righteousness of the Law (Rom. 8:1–4).

By using this illustration, Jesus refuted once and for all the popular idea of a compromising “world religion.” Well-meaning but spiritually blind leaders have suggested that we take “the best” from each religion, blend it with what is “best” in the Christian faith, and thus manufacture a synthetic faith that would be acceptable to everybody. But the Christian faith is exclusive in character; it will not accept any other faith as its equal or its superior. “There is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Salvation is not a partial patching up of one’s life; it is a whole new robe of righteousness (Isa. 61:10; 2 Cor. 5:21). The Christian life is not a mixing of the old and the new; rather, it is a fulfillment of the old in the new. There are two ways to destroy a thing: you can smash it, or you can permit it to fulfill itself. An acorn, for example, can be smashed with a hammer, or it can be planted and allowed to grow into an oak. In both instances, the destruction of the acorn is accomplished; but in the second instance, the acorn is destroyed by being fulfilled.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, types, and demands of the Law of Moses. The Law was ended at Calvary when the perfect sacrifice was once offered for the sins of the world (Heb. 8–10). When you trust Jesus Christ, you become part of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and there are always new experiences of grace and glory. How tragic when people hold on to dead religious tradition when they could lay hold of living spiritual truth. Why cherish the shadows when the reality has come? (Heb. 10:1ff) In Jesus Christ we have the fulfillment of all that God promised (2 Cor. 1:20).

Freedom (Mark 2:23–3:12)

Piety, Real and False Mark 2:23–28

One Sabbath day Jesus was going through the corn fields. His disciples began to pluck the ears of corn as they made their way along. The Pharisees began to say to him, “Look! Why are they doing what is not allowed on the Sabbath?” “Have you never read,” he said, “what David did when he and his friends were in need and hungry? Have you never read how he went into the house of God, when Abiathar was High Priest, and ate the shewbread—which none is allowed to eat except the priests—and gave it to his friends as well?” “The Sabbath,” he said to them, “was made for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath.”

Once again Jesus cut right across the scribal rules and regulations. When he and his disciples were going through the corn fields one Sabbath day, his disciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat them. On any ordinary day the disciples were doing what was freely permitted (Deut. 23:25). So long as the traveller did not put a sickle into the field he was free to pluck the corn. But this was done on the Sabbath and the Sabbath was hedged around with literally thousands of petty rules and regulations. All work was forbidden. Work had been classified under thirty-nine different heads and four of these heads were reaping, winnowing, threshing and preparing a meal. By their action the disciples had technically broken all these four rules and were to be classified as law-breakers. It seems fantastic to us; but to the Jewish rabbis it was a matter of deadly sin and of life and death.

The Pharisees immediately launched their accusation and pointed out that Jesus’ disciples were breaking the law. They obviously expected him to stop them on the spot. Jesus answered them in their own language. He cited the story which is told in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. David was fleeing for his life; he came to the tabernacle in Nob; he demanded food and there was none except the shewbread. Exodus 25:23–30 tells of the shewbread. It consisted of twelve loaves placed on a golden table three feet long, one and a half feet wide, and one and a half feet high. The table stood in the tabernacle in front of the Holy of Holies and the bread was a kind of offering to God. It was changed once a week; when it was changed it became the property of the priests and of the priests alone and no one else might eat it (Leviticus 24:9.) Yet in his time of need David took and ate that bread. Jesus showed that scripture itself supplies a precedent in which human need took precedence of human and even divine law.

“The Sabbath,” he said, “was made for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath.” That was self-evident. Man was created before ever the elaborate Sabbath law came into existence. Man was not created to be the victim and the slave of Sabbath rules and regulations which were in the beginning created to make life fuller and better for man. Man is not to be enslaved by the Sabbath; the Sabbath exists to make his life better.

This passage confronts us with certain essential truths which we forget at our peril.

(i) Religion does not consist in rules and regulations. To take the matter in question—Sunday observance is important but there is a great deal more to religion than Sunday observance. If a man might become a Christian simply by abstaining from work and pleasure on the Sunday, and by attending church on that day, and saying his prayers and reading his Bible, being a Christian would be a very easy thing. Whenever men forget the love and the forgiveness and the service and the mercy that are at the heart of religion and replace them by the performance of rules and regulations religion is in a decline. Christianity has at all times consisted far more in doing things than in refraining from doing things.

(ii) The first claim on any man is the claim of human need. Even the catechisms and the confessions admit that works of necessity and mercy are quite legal on the Sabbath. If ever the performance of a man’s religion stops him helping someone who is in need, his religion is not religion at all. People matter far more than systems. Persons are far more important than rituals. The best way to worship God is to help men.

(iii) The best way to use sacred things is to use them to help men. That, in fact, is the only way to give them to God. One of the loveliest of all stories is that of The Fourth Wise Man. His name was Artaban. He set out to follow the star and he took with him a sapphire, a ruby and a pearl beyond price as gifts for the King. He was riding hard to meet his three friends, Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, at the agreed place. The time was short; they would leave if he was late. Suddenly he saw a dim figure on the ground before him. It was a traveller stricken with fever. If he stayed to help he would miss his friends. He did stay; he helped and healed the man. But now he was alone. He needed camels and bearers to help him across the desert because he had missed his friends and their caravan. He had to sell his sapphire to get them; and he was sad because the King would never have his gem.

He journeyed on and in due time came to Bethlehem, but again he was too late. Joseph and Mary and the baby had gone. Then there came the soldiers to carry out Herod’s command that the children should be slain. Artaban was in a house where there was a little child. The tramp of the soldiers came to the door; the weeping of stricken mothers could be heard. Artaban stood in the doorway, tall and dark, with the ruby in his hand and bribed the captain not to enter. The child was saved; the mother was overjoyed; but the ruby was gone; and Artaban was sad because the King would never have his ruby.

For years he wandered looking in vain for the King. More than thirty years afterwards he came to Jerusalem. There was a crucifixion that day. When Artaban heard of the Jesus being crucified, he sounded wondrous like the King and Artaban hurried towards Calvary. Maybe his pearl, the loveliest in all the world, could buy the life of the King. Down the street came a girl fleeing from a band of soldiers. “My father is in debt,” she cried, “and they are taking me to sell as a slave to pay the debt. Save me!” Artaban hesitated; then sadly he took out his pearl, gave it to the soldiers and bought the girl’s freedom.

On a sudden the skies were dark; there was an earthquake and a flying tile hit Artaban on the head. He sank half-conscious to the ground. The girl pillowed his head on her lap. Suddenly his lips began to move. “Not so, my Lord. For when saw I thee anhungered and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw I thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked and clothed thee? When saw I thee sick in prison, and came unto thee? Thirty and three years have I looked for thee; but I have never seen thy face, nor ministered to thee, my King.” And then like a whisper from very far away, there came a voice. “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as thou hast done it unto one the least of these my brethren, thou hast done it unto me.” And Artaban smiled in death because he knew that the King had received his gifts.

The best way to use sacred things is to use them for men. It has been known for children to be barred from a church because that church was considered too ancient and sacred for such as they. It can be that a church is more concerned with the elaboration of its services than with the help of its simple folk and the relief of its poor. But the sacred things are only truly sacred when they are used for men. The shewbread was never so sacred as when it was used to feed a starving man. The Sabbath was never so sacred as when it was used to help those who needed help. The final arbiter in the use of all things is love and not law.^[4]

Jesus had already made it clear that He came to convert the sinners, not to compliment the self-righteous. Now He told them that he had come to bring gladness, not sadness. Thanks to the legalism imposed by the scribes and Pharisees, the Jewish religion had become a burdensome thing. The poor people were weighed down by rules and regulations that were impossible to obey (Matt. 23:4). “Life is not supposed to be a funeral!” Jesus told them. “God wants life to be a wedding feast! I am the Bridegroom and these people are My wedding guests. Are not wedding guests supposed to have a good time?”

The Jews knew that marriage was one of the pictures used in the Old Testament to help explain Israel’s relationship to the Lord. They had been “married to Jehovah” and they belonged only to Him (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 31:32). When the nation turned to foreign gods, as they often did, they committed “spiritual adultery.” They were unfaithful to their Husband, and they had to be disciplined. The major theme of Hosea is God’s love for His adulterous wife and His desire to restore the nation to His favor once again.

John the Baptist had already announced that Jesus was the Bridegroom (John 3:29), and our Lord had performed His first miracle at a joyous marriage feast (John 2:1–11). Now He was inviting people to come to the wedding! After all, becoming a Christian is not unlike entering into the marriage relationship (see Rom. 7:4—“that ye should be married to another”). Two people are not married just because they know each other, or even because they have strong feelings about each other. In order to be married, they must commit themselves to each other and make this commitment known. In most societies, the man and woman publicly affirm this commitment when each says, “I do!”

Salvation from sin involves much more than a person knowing about Christ, or even having “good feelings” toward Christ. Salvation comes when the sinner commits himself or herself to Jesus Christ and says, “I do!” Then the believer immediately enters into the joys of this spiritual marriage relationship: bearing His name; sharing His wealth and power; enjoying His love and protection; and one day living in His glorious home in heaven. When you are “married to Christ,” life becomes a wedding feast, in spite of trials and difficulties.

Mark 2:20 is a hint of our Lord’s anticipated death, resurrection, and return to heaven. It is unlikely that His disciples, at that early stage in their training, even understood what He meant. However, Jesus was not suggesting that His absence from earth would mean that His followers would have to replace the feast with a funeral! He was only pointing out that occasional fasting would be proper at a future time, but that joyful celebration should be the normal experience of believers.

The Sabbath was cherished by the Jews as a sacred institution. God gave the people of Israel the Sabbath after they came out of Egypt (Ex. 20:8–11; Neh. 9:14), and it was a special sign between Israel and Jehovah (Ex. 31:13–17). There is no record in Scripture that God ever gave the Sabbath to any other nation. So, when Jesus began openly to violate the Sabbath traditions, it was like declaring war against the religious establishment. He began His campaign by healing a man who had been sick for thirty-eight years (John 5), and then followed with the events recorded in this section.

Jewish tradition stated that there were thirty-nine acts that were strictly forbidden on the Sabbath. Moses had prohibited work on the Sabbath, but he did not give many specifics (Ex. 20:10). It was wrong to kindle a fire for cooking (Ex. 35:3), gather fuel (Num. 15:32ff), carry burdens (Jer. 17:21ff), or transact business (Neh. 10:31; 13:15, 19). But Jewish tradition went into great detail and even informed the people how far they could travel on the Sabbath (200 cubits, based on Josh. 3:4). In short, the Sabbath Day had become a crushing burden, a symbol of the galling religious bondage that had captured the nation.

After healing the man at the Pool of Bethesda, our Lord’s next act of “Sabbath defiance” was to walk through the fields on the Sabbath and permit His disciples to pluck the grain, rub it between their hands, and eat it. It was not illegal for a hungry person to take some of his neighbor’s fruit or grain, provided he did not fill a vessel or use a harvesting implement (Deut. 23:24–25). However, that was not what upset the Pharisees. What upset them was that the disciples had worked on the Sabbath Day!

When you read Matthew’s account of this event, you note that Jesus gave three arguments to defend His disciples: what David did (Matt. 12:3–4), what the priests did (Matt. 12:5–6), and what the Prophet Hosea said (Matt. 12:7–8). Mark’s Roman readers would not be interested in Jewish prophets and priests, so Mark focused on David whom the Romans would recognize as a great hero and king. The argument is reasonable: if a hungry king and his men were permitted to eat the holy bread from the tabernacle (1 Sam. 21:1–6), then it was right for the Lord of the Sabbath to permit His men to eat the grain from His fields. David broke a definite law given by Moses, for the showbread was for the priests only (Lev. 24:5–9); but the disciples had violated only a man-made tradition. God is surely more concerned with meeting the needs of people than He is with protecting religious tradition. The Pharisees had their priorities confused.

Did Jesus make a mistake when He mentioned Abiathar as the high priest? The record in 1 Samuel 21 names Abimelech, the father of Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20), as high priest; so our Lord’s words appear to be a contradiction. They are not. It is possible that father and son each had both names (1 Chron. 18:16 and 24:6; 1 Sam. 22:20 and 2 Sam. 8:17). Also it is likely that our Lord used “Abiathar” to refer to the Old Testament passage about Abiathar rather than to the man. This is the way the Jews identified sections of the Word since their manuscripts did not have chapters and verses such as we have today in our Bibles (see Mark 12:26).

On that same Sabbath Day, Jesus went into the synagogue to worship; and while He was there, He deliberately healed a man. Certainly He could have waited one more day, but once again He wanted to challenge the pharisaical legalistic traditions. This time the Pharisees (Luke 6:7) were expecting Him to heal, so they kept their eyes wide open. Our Lord’s questions in Mark 3:4 were never answered by His enemies. Since evil is at work every day, including the Sabbath Day, why should good not be at work as well? Death is always at work, but that should not hinder us from seeking to save life.

Jesus could see “the hardening of their hearts” (literal translation), and their sin made Him angry. Our Lord never became angry at the publicans and sinners, but He did express anger toward the self-righteous Pharisees (Matt. 23). They would rather protect their traditions than see a man healed! The man, of course, knew little about this spiritual conflict. He simply obeyed our Lord’s command, stretched out his hand, and was healed.

So incensed were the Pharisees over what Jesus had done that they united with the Herodians and started making plans to arrest Jesus and destroy Him. The Herodians were not a religious party; they were a group of Jews who were sympathetic to King Herod and supported his rule. Most of the Jews despised Herod and obeyed his laws reluctantly; so it was surprising that the Pharisees, who were strict Jews, would join themselves with these disloyal politicians. But it was a common enemy—Jesus—that brought the two groups together.

In response to this united opposition, Jesus simply withdrew from there; but He could not prevent the great crowds from following Him. These crowds were dangerous to His cause, of course, because they were not spiritually motivated; and the authorities could accuse Him of leading a popular revolt against the Romans. Yet Jesus received the people, healed the sick, and delivered the demonized. Once again, He warned the demons not to reveal who He is (Mark 1:23–26).

Our Lord had now reached a crisis in His ministry. Great crowds were following Him, but their interest was not in things spiritual. The religious leaders wanted to destroy Him, and even some of Herod’s friends were getting involved. His next step would be to spend a night in prayer (Luke 6:12), call twelve men to assist Him as His Apostles, and preach a sermon—The Sermon on the Mount—explaining the spiritual basis of His kingdom.

He offered them forgiveness, fulfillment, and freedom; but they refused His offer. Have you accepted His offer?^[5]

^[1] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 33–40.

^[2] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 52–55.

^[3] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 55–58.

^[4] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 58–66.

^[5] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 114–119.

By this point in chapter 1, even a casual reader can see Mark’s jumps in narration expressed by words like “at once,” “without delay,” “immediately,” or “straightway.” Most of these translate Mark’s repeated use of euthus (immediately). The expression heightens the sense of rapid development and excitement in the event being described.

After ending his clash with the demons in the synagogue, Jesus immediately confronted the power of disease. He healed Peter’s mother-in-law of a fever. By the time evening arrived, there was a “traffic jam” of the sick and demon possessed, crowding to Jesus for attention. Almost as an afterthought, Mark noted that Jesus was commanding the demons not to identify him. His goal was not to draw attention to himself, but to meet the real needs of others.

1:29    As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew.  As the crowd hurriedly dispersed from the synagogue or continued talking among themselves, Jesus and the four disciples left for their own lodgings. They arrived at Simon Peter’s home, where he lived with his wife (mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:5), his mother-in-law, and his brother Andrew. Jesus and the disciples probably stayed in Peter’s home during their visits to Capernaum (2:1; 3:20; 9:33; 10:10)

1:30    Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her.  Simon Peter’s wife’s mother was in bed, meaning she was lying down; the Greek word katakeimai could be translated “to lie prostrate.” The Greek word for fever in the noun form is also the word for fire; thus, she was burning with a severe fever. Luke (the doctor) wrote in his Gospel that she “was suffering from a high fever” (Luke 4:38 ).

This short passage reveals many details and carefully includes names (1:29). This is the first of many instances throughout this Gospel implying that Simon Peter may have been Mark’s primary source.

It is interesting that Mark records that they told Jesus. These three words give us confidence to come to Jesus with our needs and problems. Often we look everywhere else before turning to God. We look for experts and remedies for everything from psychological ailments to financial shortfalls. But God’s Word teaches us to tell Jesus. All of our problem-solving strategies need to begin with prayer.

1:31    He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her, and she began to serve them.  Without speaking a word, Jesus went to the mother-in-law’s bedside, took her by the hand, and lifted her up to her feet. Jesus’ touch on the woman’s hand brought instant and complete healing, as if she had never been ill. In fact, she went about serving the meal as she had probably planned.

Each Gospel writer had a slightly different perspective as he wrote; thus the comparable stories in the Gospels often highlight different details. In Matthew, Jesus touched the woman’s hand. In Mark, he helped her up. In Luke, he spoke to the fever, and it left her. The accounts do not conflict. Each writer chose to emphasize different details of the story in order to emphasize a certain characteristic of Jesus. Mark showed Jesus’ victory over Satan (1:12–13), his authority over demons (1:23–26), and his authority even over human illness (1:30–31).

Peter’s mother-in-law was healed to serve. Jesus desires that all his disciples be enabled to serve. Yet often we face difficult circumstances with no relief in sight. Peter had obeyed Jesus and left all to follow him; still he had sickness in his family. But Jesus loves us to the end, and he leaves no work half-finished. The fever left Peter’s mother-in-law, and she was completely restored by Christ’s power so that she could serve. Christ gives renewing grace that strengthens us to serve, enables us to persevere, and encourages us to overcome our doubts.

1:32    At evening, when the sun had set, they brought to Him all who were sick and those who were demon-possessed.  The people came to Jesus on Saturday evening after sunset. The day had been the Sabbath (1:21), their day of worship and rest, lasting from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. Jewish law prohibited traveling and carrying burdens on the Sabbath, so they waited until sunset (they needed to first see three stars to know the sun had set). After the sun went down, Sabbath was over, and the people searched for Jesus.

News had spread quickly that the demon-possessed man in the synagogue had been freed from the demon, and the people brought to [Jesus] all who were sick and those who were demon-possessed. The Greek word for “brought” is phero, meaning “to carry a burden or to move by carrying.” Many of the ill people were literally carried to Peter’s home so Jesus could heal them. The verb is in the imperfect tense, signifying continuous action. A steady stream of sick and demon-possessed people were carried to Jesus.

1:33    And the whole city was gathered around the door.  With a touch of hyperbole, Mark described the scene in front of Peter’s house. The crowd must have been immense so that it appeared that the whole city had gathered there. The people who brought the sick, the sick themselves (perhaps on stretchers), and the people who brought the demon possessed settled themselves in front of Peter’s house and awaited the touch of the divine healer. The Greek for “gathered” (episunegmene) literally means “to go with others and settle down together in a group.” This was no unruly mob; the people had come on a mission and were there to stay until their mission was accomplished.

1:34    And Jesus healed many who had various diseases.  Jesus patiently healed all the sick people (the word many is a Hebrew idiom for “all who were brought,” see also Matthew 8:16). Jesus’ touch took away Peter’s mother-in-law’s fever because it could heal any disease. No disease took Jesus by surprise, and no disease was beyond his ability to heal. He healed them all. And as with Peter’s mother-in-law, the healings were complete—as though the people had never been sick.

 He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.  Jesus’ authority over the demons continued to be revealed as he drove out many demons from the demon-possessed people brought to him. Again, Jesus simply had to command the demon to come out, and it obeyed. However, this time Jesus did not even allow the demons to speak because they knew who he was (as the demon-possessed man in the synagogue had proclaimed Jesus as “the Holy One of God,” 1:24).

Why did Jesus not allow the demons to speak? (1) By silencing them, Jesus demonstrated his authority and power over them. (2) Jesus wanted the people to believe he was the Messiah because of what he said and did, not because of the demons’ words. (3) Jesus wanted to reveal his identity as the Messiah according to his timetable, not according to Satan’s timetable. Satan’s purposes would be served if the people followed Jesus for what they could get out of him, not because he was the Son of God who could truly set them free from sin’s guilt and power. Perhaps some would have preferred Jesus to be merely a healer and miracle worker. The demons called Jesus “the Holy One of God” (1:24) because they knew he was the Christ. But Jesus was going to show himself to be the suffering Servant before he became the great King. It is a recurring theme in Mark’s Gospel for Jesus to conceal his true identity. To reveal himself as the Messiah and King too soon would stir up the crowds with the wrong expectations of what he had come to do.

Earlier in chapter 1, Satan attacked Jesus in the wilderness. Then Mark directed our attention to Jesus’ counterattack. He carried the spiritual warfare into the domain of Satan, to those controlled by evil spirits. As will be the case repeatedly, the battle took place in a synagogue on the Sabbath. Perhaps this shows that Satan can be active even in our houses of worship.

Mark draws our attention to the conclusion drawn by the eyewitnesses to what Jesus did that day in Capernaum. The people were struck by his authority. Not only were they amazed by his application of the Scriptures to their own lives, but they were equally amazed by how he fearlessly confronted demonic power.

Our familiarity with the words of Jesus should never lull us into thinking that they have lost power over the centuries. Jesus remains as powerful today as ever, but we must carefully listen and follow all he says to us.

1:21    They went to Capernaum.  Capernaum, located on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, was the largest of the many fishing towns surrounding the lake. Jesus had recently moved to Capernaum from Nazareth (Matthew 4:12–13). Capernaum was a thriving town with great wealth as well as great sin and decadence. Because it was the headquarters for many Roman troops, heathen influences from all over the Roman Empire were pervasive. This was a needy place for Jesus to challenge both Jews and non-Jews with the gospel of God’s kingdom.

 And when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach.  The temple in Jerusalem was too far for many Jews to travel for regular worship, so many towns had synagogues serving both as places of worship and as schools. Beginning in the days of Ezra, about 450 b.c., a group of ten Jewish families could start a synagogue. There, during the week, Jewish boys were taught the Old Testament law and Jewish religion (girls could not attend). Each Saturday, the Sabbath, the Jewish men would gather to hear prayers, the Scriptures read, and an interpretation from a scribe. Because there was no permanent rabbi or teacher, it was customary for the synagogue leader to ask visiting teachers to speak. This is why Jesus often spoke in the synagogues in the towns he visited.

In the presence of Jesus men are disturbed, and this disturbance is the precise act of fishing to which Jesus had called the four fishermen.  William Lawe

1:22    They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.  The Greek word translated “astounded” is a strong word; it could also be translated “astonished” or “amazed.” The people were completely amazed by Jesus’ teaching. The Jewish teachers (the scribes) often quoted from well-known rabbis to give their words more authority. But Jesus didn’t have that need. Because Jesus was the Son of God, he knew exactly what the Scriptures said and meant. He was the ultimate authority. The people had never heard such teaching. He created the urgency and alarm that a real prophet would cause, not the discussion and arguments of scribal tradition. He confronted the people with the claims of God on their lives.

ASTOUNDING AUTHORITY Jesus’ authority extended to every area of spiritual life and concern. He had •      authority in his teaching (1:22, 27) •      authority over demons (1:25; 5:6–7) •      authority to forgive sins (2:10) •      authority over the temple and its administration (11:28–32) •      authority to continue through the disciples the attack against demonic power (3:15; 6:7) Have you given him authority over your life?

The “scribes” (called “teachers of the law” or “lawyers” in some Bible versions) were the legal specialists in Jesus’ day. They interpreted the law but were especially concerned about the “halakah” or “rules” for life that came to be as binding as God’s written law in the Torah. The scribes were the forerunners of the office of rabbi. Their self-assured authority, in fact, became a stumbling block for them, for they denied Jesus’ authority to reinterpret the law, and they rejected Jesus as the Messiah because he did not agree with nor obey all of their traditions.

1:23–24       Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit.  Jesus’ teaching, his powerful authority, and the astonishment of the people just then prompted an outburst by a man who was possessed by an evil spirit. Evil (unclean) spirits, or demons, are ruled by Satan. They work to tempt people to sin. They were not created by Satan, because God is the Creator of all. Rather, the evil spirits and demons are fallen angels who joined Satan in his rebellion and thus became perverted and evil. The Greek is literally “in a spirit, an unclean one.” The evil spirit had entered the man’s body, had taken up residence, and now controlled him. Though not all disease comes from Satan, sometimes demons can cause a person to become mute, deaf, blind, or insane. But in every case where demons confronted Jesus, they lost their power. Thus God limits what evil spirits can do; they can do nothing without his permission. During Jesus’ life on earth, demons were allowed to be very active to demonstrate once and for all Christ’s power and authority over them.

Cried out, “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!”  This cry from the possessed man was the voice of the demon—a horrible sound. The evil spirit knew two facts—that Jesus had indeed come to destroy them (and their power) and that Jesus was the Holy One of God. The demon (indeed all the demons, for the demon used the word “us”) knew Jesus was the Messiah. While the people in the synagogue were astounded at Jesus’ teaching and wondered who this man could be, the demon knew. At this time, people believed that to know a person’s precise hidden name was to be able to gain control over the person. Thus the demon’s first attempt against Jesus was to state his name in public. The demons knew that Jesus’ coming marked the beginning of the end of their power, but they tried every way they knew to break him. Their master, Satan, had tried and failed—the demons would try and fail as well. By including this event in his Gospel, Mark was establishing Jesus’ credentials, showing that even the spiritual underworld recognized Jesus as the Messiah.

DEMONS A man possessed by a demon was in the synagogue where Jesus was teaching. This man made his way into the place of worship and verbally abused Jesus. It is naive to think that we will be sheltered from evil in the church. Satan is happy to invade our presence wherever and whenever he can. But Jesus’ authority is much greater than Satan’s; where Jesus is present, demons cannot stay for long. The demons recognized Jesus’ credentials and authority. The submission that the demons showed here and in 5:1–10 would have registered with the Romans (Mark’s primary audience), who knew and feared the gods of the underworld (Hades). Compare this view of the demons’ encounter with Christ to the false views presented in the fictional media today. Movies show demons as enlarging in power when confronted by the power of Christ and true faith. In reality, demons diminish when they are thus confronted. In movies, demons ridicule and ignore true faith and the authority of Christ. In reality, they have no choice but to succumb.

1:25    But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”  The Greek word translated “rebuke” means to reprove or shame. Jesus judged the demon and then expelled him. He didn’t use incantations or magic words; he simply and sternly commanded him to be silent—a strong word in the Greek that could mean “to muzzle.” The word is used elsewhere for muzzling an ox (for example, 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18). Mark also used the word in Jesus’ command when stilling the storm (4:39). A modern alternative would be “Shut up!”—a colloquial translation that also gives Jesus’ attitude toward Satan. The demon was like a boxer, dancing and jabbing to find a weakness; Jesus was the champion who knocked him out with one punch: “Be silent!”

Why did Jesus tell the demon to be silent? Mark portrays Jesus as silencing the demon almost with a tone of insisting on secrecy (see also 1:34). He also commanded some of those he healed not to publicize their healing (see 1:44; 5:43). He even ordered the disciples to keep insights about his true nature and glory to themselves (see 8:27–30; 9:2–9). Two explanations may help us understand why Jesus asked this:

1. Jesus wanted to contain the enthusiasm for a political messiah. He did not wish to be the people’s king in the way they desired, nor did he want to be a military leader.
2. To confess Jesus’ deity without a proper understanding of his crucifixion is partial and invalid. He did not want people to wildly proclaim him to be God’s Son unless they understood the meaning of his death for them on the cross. This would explain why even his disciples lacked understanding until his resurrection.

EVEN THE DEMONS BELIEVE Some people want to think that knowing about Jesus, or believing in his divinity, is enough for salvation. Here we see that even the demons knew about Jesus and believed in his divinity. As James would later write, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19 ). The knowledge terrified the demons, for it sealed their final doom. But it need not terrify us for we have been offered the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. Don’t stop at the facts—turn to the person, Christ, to save you.

To silence the demon was not enough, for Jesus wanted to free the man possessed by the demon. So Jesus next commanded, Come out of him! again demonstrating his power and authority over Satan and his demons.

1:26    The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.  Without any recourse except to submit to a higher authority, the evil spirit came out of the man. But first, to show its anger and protest, the evil spirit shook the man violently. This could have been a severe spasm or a blow that thrust the man to the ground. With a final shriek, the demon left. The true purpose of demon possession is revealed by this behavior. Demons have a deep-seated desire to do violence and to destroy all who are made in the image of God.

Many psychologists dismiss all accounts of demon possession as a primitive way to describe mental illness. Although throughout history mental illness has often been wrongly diagnosed as demon possession, clearly a hostile outside force controlled the man described here. Mark emphasized Jesus’ conflict with evil powers to show his superiority over them, so he recorded many stories about Jesus driving out evil spirits. Jesus didn’t have to conduct an elaborate exorcism ritual. His word was enough to send out the demons. Jesus’ power over demons reveals his absolute power over Satan, even in a world that seems to be in Satan’s control. Satan is presently under God’s authority; when God chooses to command, Satan must obey. Satan’s workings are only within God’s prescribed limits; he can do no more evil than God allows. In the end, Satan and all his demons will be tormented in the lake of fire forever (Revelation 20:10).

WHY EVIL AT ALL? If God is all-powerful and loves everyone, why is evil not eradicated immediately? The question has puzzled philosophers and theologians for centuries. The Bible’s answer is not in the form of tightly wound logic, but in a story. From Genesis to Revelation, the story reveals God’s redemption of our sin, his victory over evil through Christ, and the ultimate eradication of evil in God’s heavenly kingdom. Sometimes it happens immediately, as it did for this man possessed by an evil spirit. But for most of us, we have to wait for final deliverance until we go to meet him when we die or when Christ returns. When we struggle with tribulations and sorrow now, we must remember that Christ is with us and he has overcome the world.

1:27    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.”  The word “amazed” in the Greek (ethambethesan) carries with it a note of fear or alarm. The people were astonished at Jesus’ teaching and authority (1:22). Jesus’ display of his authority in the showdown with a demon caused a certain terror in the people at what they had witnessed. With a simple and stern command, the evil spirit obeyed and the possessed man was set free.

The people called Jesus’ teaching new; compared to the dry sermons they usually heard from their scribes, his teaching challenged them. Jesus taught with authority; he spoke to the powerful underworld with authority. Surely this man was someone to watch closely.

1:28    At once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee.  The people who left the gathering in the large synagogue in Capernaum had witnessed an authoritative and captivating new teacher with unheard-of power. The news spread at once across the region of Galilee. Jesus’ growing popularity becomes a major theme in chapter 1 (see 1:33, 37, 45). This popularity among the common folk stands in glaring contrast to the religious leaders’ opposition expressed in 2:1–3:6.^[1]

^[1] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 28–33.

Jesus did not approach Simon and Andrew as strangers. We know from the Gospel of John (1:35–49) that they had had previous contact.

Jesus confronted these men with a challenge beyond the one he presented in his public preaching. He called the crowds to repentance and belief. He invited Simon and the others to follow him. They had already repented and believed. Now they were being called into discipleship.

The Lord used their previous vocation as a metaphor of their new calling. The former fishermen would now be fishers of men. God finds a way to make good use of every past experience we have to help us serve him.

1:16    And as He walked by the Sea of Galilee.  The Sea of Galilee is, in reality, a large lake—650 feet below sea level, 150 feet deep, and surrounded by hills. Fishing was the main industry for the approximately thirty towns that surrounded the Sea of Galilee during Jesus’ day. The word “by” means alongside. Jesus was walking on the beach. He knew the fishermen for whom he was searching would be in this location.

 He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.  Fishing with nets was the most common method. A circular net (ten to fifteen feet in diameter) was cast into the sea. Then it was drawn up, and the catch was hoisted into the boat. Their method was like gathering and harvesting. Fishermen on the Sea of Galilee were strong and busy men.

The first pair of men Jesus called to follow him were brothers, Simon and Andrew. This was not the first time Simon and Andrew had met Jesus. Andrew had been a disciple of John the Baptist who, when introduced to “the Lamb of God,” turned and followed Jesus (John 1:35–40). Andrew then brought his brother Simon to Jesus. When Jesus met Simon he said, “ ‘You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas’ (which, when translated, is Peter)” (John 1:42 ). These men understood and believed who Jesus was. Jesus arrived on the shore that day to change their lives forever.

BUSY PEOPLE

People chosen by God for a special mission are never just sitting around, daydreaming, waiting, doing nothing—then suddenly, the CALL! No. Instead, when Jesus selected disciples to train as evangelists, teachers, and missionaries, he looked to hard workers and tradesmen—men in business, men up early, men who were not just talkers, but movers.

People today who are busy at work should be grateful for the energy and intelligence to compete for employment, and for the skill required to achieve results. Such gifts are from God. Such busy people should also be listening, in prayer and meditation, for the call from the Lord that starts something new, a mission suited to their talents, to aid in bringing God’s kingdom nearer to others.

1:17            Then Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”  Jesus told Simon (Peter) and Andrew to leave their fishing business and follow him. “Follow” is a major term to signify discipleship in Mark’s Gospel. It means to accept Jesus as authority, to pursue his calling, to model after his example, to join his group.

• In 2:14, Jesus told Levi, “Follow me.”
• In 8:34, Jesus told the disciples to take up their crosses and “follow me.”
• In 10:21, Jesus told the rich young man to sell all he had and “come, follow me.”
• In John 21:19, just before Jesus’ ascension, Jesus told Peter to “Follow me” even in death.

(See also 1 Peter 2:21 and 2 Thessalonians 3:9.)

In this verse, Jesus was asking these men to become his disciples and then begin fishing for people to also follow Jesus.

In the Old Testament, God is the fisher of men, harvesting them for judgment (Jeremiah 16:16; Ezekiel 29:4–5; 38:4; Amos 4:2; Habakkuk 1:14–17). The urgency for the gathering of souls is that judgment is coming, so they were to bring people in while there was still time. These disciples were adept at catching fish, but they would need special training before they would become able to fish for people’s souls. Fishing for people would be harder and more dangerous. Jesus was calling them away from their productive trades to be productive spiritually by helping others believe the Good News and carry on Jesus’ work after he was gone. These men already knew Jesus, so when Jesus called them, they were willing to follow him. I will make portrays Jesus as the creative agent; our task is to follow him.

1:18 They immediately left their nets and followed Him.  After their previous meeting with Jesus, Simon Peter and Andrew had returned to fishing. But when Jesus called them to follow him as disciples, they immediately left their nets. The judgment was coming; they had to respond at once. Their lives had changed; their allegiance was now to their teacher. One pair left their occupation, the others their father (1:20). Mark taught radical discipleship; a person must leave all behind to follow Jesus.

Every great person has first learned how to obey, whom to obey, and when to obey. William A. Ward

1:19    As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets.  Not far down the beach was another pair of brothers, James and John, Simon Peter’s partners (Luke 5:10). These men were sitting in their moored boat mending the nets. The weight of a good catch of fish and the constant strain on the nets certainly meant that the fishermen had to spend a lot of time keeping their nets repaired and in good shape. Holes had to be mended in preparation for the next night’s fishing.

John had met Jesus previously. In his Gospel, John records his own and Andrew’s discipleship with John the Baptist and then their turning to follow Jesus (John 1:35–39). We have no record of James previously meeting Jesus, but he probably knew about Jesus from his brother. In any case, James and John were also ready for Jesus’ call.

1:20    Immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed him.  Both sets of brothers immediately left behind the lives they had known and embarked on an incredible adventure. Surely the impression Jesus made upon them must have been great, and the certainty of their call must have been strong for them to follow without hesitation. James and John left their father in the boat. Zebedee must have been a very understanding father; perhaps he too believed and would have gone along himself in younger days.

UNDERSTANDING PARENTS

Let’s not forget that Zebedee’s life was changed too. He had to say good-bye to his sons, trusted partners in the business, loyal workers, daily companions. What had he been working for, poor old Zebedee, if not to make his sons more prosperous in business than he had been? But Jesus changed all that.

Parents of children who sense a call to missions should not balk if the family business takes second place to God’s business. Parents who have encouraged their offspring from early childhood to pray and follow Christ should not cry foul when son or daughter puts all of life on the altar of service.

Zebedee adjusted, we hope, and prayed daily for his sons. Parents today may heave a sigh, wonder about practicalities, and worry about a child’s financial security. But then in faith, pray, support, and give those children anew to God.

JESUS TEACHES WITH GREAT AUTHORITY / Mark 1:21–28

Earlier in chapter 1, Satan attacked Jesus in the wilderness. Then Mark directed our attention to Jesus’ counterattack. He carried the spiritual warfare into the domain of Satan, to those controlled by evil spirits. As will be the case repeatedly, the battle took place in a synagogue on the Sabbath. Perhaps this shows that Satan can be active even in our houses of worship.

Mark draws our attention to the conclusion drawn by the eyewitnesses to what Jesus did that day in Capernaum. The people were struck by his authority. Not only were they amazed by his application of the Scriptures to their own lives, but they were equally amazed by how he fearlessly confronted demonic power.

Our familiarity with the words of Jesus should never lull us into thinking that they have lost power over the centuries. Jesus remains as powerful today as ever, but we must carefully listen and follow all he says to us.

1:21    They went to Capernaum.  Capernaum, located on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, was the largest of the many fishing towns surrounding the lake. Jesus had recently moved to Capernaum from Nazareth (Matthew 4:12–13). Capernaum was a thriving town with great wealth as well as great sin and decadence. Because it was the headquarters for many Roman troops, heathen influences from all over the Roman Empire were pervasive. This was a needy place for Jesus to challenge both Jews and non-Jews with the gospel of God’s kingdom.

 And when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach.  The temple in Jerusalem was too far for many Jews to travel for regular worship, so many towns had synagogues serving both as places of worship and as schools. Beginning in the days of Ezra, about 450 b.c., a group of ten Jewish families could start a synagogue. There, during the week, Jewish boys were taught the Old Testament law and Jewish religion (girls could not attend). Each Saturday, the Sabbath, the Jewish men would gather to hear prayers, the Scriptures read, and an interpretation from a scribe. Because there was no permanent rabbi or teacher, it was customary for the synagogue leader to ask visiting teachers to speak. This is why Jesus often spoke in the synagogues in the towns he visited.

In the presence of Jesus men are disturbed, and this disturbance is the precise act of fishing to which Jesus had called the four fishermen.  William Lawe

1:22    They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.  The Greek word translated “astounded” is a strong word; it could also be translated “astonished” or “amazed.” The people were completely amazed by Jesus’ teaching. The Jewish teachers (the scribes) often quoted from well-known rabbis to give their words more authority. But Jesus didn’t have that need. Because Jesus was the Son of God, he knew exactly what the Scriptures said and meant. He was the ultimate authority. The people had never heard such teaching. He created the urgency and alarm that a real prophet would cause, not the discussion and arguments of scribal tradition. He confronted the people with the claims of God on their lives.

ASTOUNDING AUTHORITY

Jesus’ authority extended to every area of spiritual life and concern. He had

•      authority in his teaching (1:22, 27)

•      authority over demons (1:25; 5:6–7)

•      authority to forgive sins (2:10)

•      authority over the temple and its administration (11:28–32)

•      authority to continue through the disciples the attack against demonic power (3:15; 6:7)

Have you given him authority over your life?

The “scribes” (called “teachers of the law” or “lawyers” in some Bible versions) were the legal specialists in Jesus’ day. They interpreted the law but were especially concerned about the “halakah” or “rules” for life that came to be as binding as God’s written law in the Torah. The scribes were the forerunners of the office of rabbi. Their self-assured authority, in fact, became a stumbling block for them, for they denied Jesus’ authority to reinterpret the law, and they rejected Jesus as the Messiah because he did not agree with nor obey all of their traditions.

1:23–24       Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit.  Jesus’ teaching, his powerful authority, and the astonishment of the people just then prompted an outburst by a man who was possessed by an evil spirit. Evil (unclean) spirits, or demons, are ruled by Satan. They work to tempt people to sin. They were not created by Satan, because God is the Creator of all. Rather, the evil spirits and demons are fallen angels who joined Satan in his rebellion and thus became perverted and evil. The Greek is literally “in a spirit, an unclean one.” The evil spirit had entered the man’s body, had taken up residence, and now controlled him. Though not all disease comes from Satan, sometimes demons can cause a person to become mute, deaf, blind, or insane. But in every case where demons confronted Jesus, they lost their power. Thus God limits what evil spirits can do; they can do nothing without his permission. During Jesus’ life on earth, demons were allowed to be very active to demonstrate once and for all Christ’s power and authority over them.

Cried out, “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!”  This cry from the possessed man was the voice of the demon—a horrible sound. The evil spirit knew two facts—that Jesus had indeed come to destroy them (and their power) and that Jesus was the Holy One of God. The demon (indeed all the demons, for the demon used the word “us”) knew Jesus was the Messiah. While the people in the synagogue were astounded at Jesus’ teaching and wondered who this man could be, the demon knew. At this time, people believed that to know a person’s precise hidden name was to be able to gain control over the person. Thus the demon’s first attempt against Jesus was to state his name in public. The demons knew that Jesus’ coming marked the beginning of the end of their power, but they tried every way they knew to break him. Their master, Satan, had tried and failed—the demons would try and fail as well. By including this event in his Gospel, Mark was establishing Jesus’ credentials, showing that even the spiritual underworld recognized Jesus as the Messiah.

DEMONS

A man possessed by a demon was in the synagogue where Jesus was teaching. This man made his way into the place of worship and verbally abused Jesus. It is naive to think that we will be sheltered from evil in the church. Satan is happy to invade our presence wherever and whenever he can. But Jesus’ authority is much greater than Satan’s; where Jesus is present, demons cannot stay for long. The demons recognized Jesus’ credentials and authority. The submission that the demons showed here and in 5:1–10 would have registered with the Romans (Mark’s primary audience), who knew and feared the gods of the underworld (Hades).

Compare this view of the demons’ encounter with Christ to the false views presented in the fictional media today. Movies show demons as enlarging in power when confronted by the power of Christ and true faith. In reality, demons diminish when they are thus confronted. In movies, demons ridicule and ignore true faith and the authority of Christ. In reality, they have no choice but to succumb.

1:25    But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”  The Greek word translated “rebuke” means to reprove or shame. Jesus judged the demon and then expelled him. He didn’t use incantations or magic words; he simply and sternly commanded him to be silent—a strong word in the Greek that could mean “to muzzle.” The word is used elsewhere for muzzling an ox (for example, 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18). Mark also used the word in Jesus’ command when stilling the storm (4:39). A modern alternative would be “Shut up!”—a colloquial translation that also gives Jesus’ attitude toward Satan. The demon was like a boxer, dancing and jabbing to find a weakness; Jesus was the champion who knocked him out with one punch: “Be silent!”

Why did Jesus tell the demon to be silent? Mark portrays Jesus as silencing the demon almost with a tone of insisting on secrecy (see also 1:34). He also commanded some of those he healed not to publicize their healing (see 1:44; 5:43). He even ordered the disciples to keep insights about his true nature and glory to themselves (see 8:27–30; 9:2–9). Two explanations may help us understand why Jesus asked this:

1. Jesus wanted to contain the enthusiasm for a political messiah. He did not wish to be the people’s king in the way they desired, nor did he want to be a military leader.
2. To confess Jesus’ deity without a proper understanding of his crucifixion is partial and invalid. He did not want people to wildly proclaim him to be God’s Son unless they understood the meaning of his death for them on the cross. This would explain why even his disciples lacked understanding until his resurrection.
3. EVEN THE DEMONS BELIEVESome people want to think that knowing about Jesus, or believing in his divinity, is enough for salvation. Here we see that even the demons knew about Jesus and believed in his divinity. As James would later write, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19 ). The knowledge terrified the demons, for it sealed their final doom. But it need not terrify us for we have been offered the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. Don’t stop at the facts—turn to the person, Christ, to save you.

To silence the demon was not enough, for Jesus wanted to free the man possessed by the demon. So Jesus next commanded, Come out of him! again demonstrating his power and authority over Satan and his demons.

1:26    The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.  Without any recourse except to submit to a higher authority, the evil spirit came out of the man. But first, to show its anger and protest, the evil spirit shook the man violently. This could have been a severe spasm or a blow that thrust the man to the ground. With a final shriek, the demon left. The true purpose of demon possession is revealed by this behavior. Demons have a deep-seated desire to do violence and to destroy all who are made in the image of God.

Many psychologists dismiss all accounts of demon possession as a primitive way to describe mental illness. Although throughout history mental illness has often been wrongly diagnosed as demon possession, clearly a hostile outside force controlled the man described here. Mark emphasized Jesus’ conflict with evil powers to show his superiority over them, so he recorded many stories about Jesus driving out evil spirits. Jesus didn’t have to conduct an elaborate exorcism ritual. His word was enough to send out the demons. Jesus’ power over demons reveals his absolute power over Satan, even in a world that seems to be in Satan’s control. Satan is presently under God’s authority; when God chooses to command, Satan must obey. Satan’s workings are only within God’s prescribed limits; he can do no more evil than God allows. In the end, Satan and all his demons will be tormented in the lake of fire forever (Revelation 20:10).

WHY EVIL AT ALL?

If God is all-powerful and loves everyone, why is evil not eradicated immediately? The question has puzzled philosophers and theologians for centuries. The Bible’s answer is not in the form of tightly wound logic, but in a story. From Genesis to Revelation, the story reveals God’s redemption of our sin, his victory over evil through Christ, and the ultimate eradication of evil in God’s heavenly kingdom. Sometimes it happens immediately, as it did for this man possessed by an evil spirit. But for most of us, we have to wait for final deliverance until we go to meet him when we die or when Christ returns. When we struggle with tribulations and sorrow now, we must remember that Christ is with us and he has overcome the world.

1:27    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.”  The word “amazed” in the Greek (ethambethesan) carries with it a note of fear or alarm. The people were astonished at Jesus’ teaching and authority (1:22). Jesus’ display of his authority in the showdown with a demon caused a certain terror in the people at what they had witnessed. With a simple and stern command, the evil spirit obeyed and the possessed man was set free.

The people called Jesus’ teaching new; compared to the dry sermons they usually heard from their scribes, his teaching challenged them. Jesus taught with authority; he spoke to the powerful underworld with authority. Surely this man was someone to watch closely.

1:28    At once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee.  The people who left the gathering in the large synagogue in Capernaum had witnessed an authoritative and captivating new teacher with unheard-of power. The news spread at once across the region of Galilee. Jesus’ growing popularity becomes a major theme in chapter 1 (see 1:33, 37, 45). This popularity among the common folk stands in glaring contrast to the religious leaders’ opposition expressed in 2:1–3:6.^[1]

^[1] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 28–33.

The Testing Time Mark 1:12-13

No sooner was the glory of the hour of the Baptism over than there came the battle of the temptations. One thing stands out here in such a vivid way that we cannot miss it. It was the Spirit who thrust Jesus out into the wilderness for the testing time. The very Spirit who came upon him at his baptism now drove him out for his test.

In this life it is impossible to escape the assault of temptation; but one thing is sure-temptations are not sent to us to make us fall; they are sent to strengthen the nerve and the sinew of our minds and hearts and souls. They are not meant for our ruin, but for our good. They are meant to be tests from which we emerge better warriors and athletes of God.

Suppose a lad is a football player; suppose he is doing well in the second team and showing real signs of promise, what will the team manager do? He certainly will not send him out to play for the third team in which he could walk through the game and never break sweat; he will send him out to play for the first team where he will be tested as he never was before and have the chance to prove himself. That is what temptation is meant to do—to enable us to prove our manhood and to emerge the stronger for the fight.

Forty days is a phrase which is not to be taken literally. It is the regular Hebrew phrase for a considerable time. Moses was said to be on the mountain with God for forty days (Exodus 24:18); it was for forty days that Elijah went in the strength of the meal the angel gave him (1 Kings 19:8). Just as we use the phrase ten days or so, so the Hebrews used the phrase forty days, not literally but simply to mean a fair length of time.

It was Satan who tempted Jesus. The development of the conception of Satan is very interesting.

The word Satan in Hebrew simply means an adversary; and in the Old Testament it is so used of ordinary human adversaries and opponents again and again. The angel of the Lord is the satan who stands in Balaam’s way (Numbers 22:22); the Philistines fear that David may turn out to be their satan (1 Samuel 29:4); David regards Abishai as his satan (2 Samuel 19:22); Solomon declares that God has given him such peace and prosperity that he has no satan left to oppose him (1 Kings 5:4). The word began by meaning an adversary in the widest sense of the term.

But it takes a step on the downward path; it begins to mean one who pleads a case against a person. It is in this sense that it is used in the first chapter of Job. In that chapter Satan is no less than one of the sons of God (Job 1:6); but his particular task was to consider men (Job 1:7) and to search for some case that could be pleaded against them in the presence of God. He was the accuser of men before God. The word is so used in Job 2:2 and Zechariah 3:2. The task of Satan was to say everything that could be said against a man.

The other title of Satan is the Devil; the word devil comes from the Greek diabolos, which literally means a slanderer. It is a small step from the thought of one who searches for everything thing that can be said against a man to the thought of one who deliberately and maliciously slanders man in the presence of God. But in the Old Testament Satan is still an emissary of God and not yet the malignant, supreme enemy of God. He is the adversary of man.

But now the word takes the last step on its downward course. Through their captivity the Jews learned something of Persian thought. Persian thought is based on the conception that in this uerse there are two powers, a power of the light and a power of the dark, Ormuzd and Ahriman; the whole uerse is a battle-ground between them and man must choose his side in that cosmic conflict. In point of fact that is precisely what life looks like and feels like. To put it in a word, in this world there is God and God’s Adversary. It was almost inevitable that Satan should come to be regarded as The Adversary par excellence. That is what his name means; that is what he always was to man; Satan becomes the essence of everything that is against God.

When we turn to the New Testament we find that it is the Devil or Satan who is behind human disease and suffering (Luke 13:16); it is Satan who seduces Judas (Luke 22:3); it is the devil whom we must fight (1 Peter 5:8, 9; James 4:7); it is the devil whose power is being broken by the work of Christ (Luke 10:1–19); it is the devil who is destined for final destruction (Matthew 25:41). Satan is the power which is against God.

Here we have the whole essence of the Temptation story. Jesus had to decide how he was to do his work. He was conscious of a tremendous task and he was also conscious of tremendous powers. God was saying to him, “Take my love to men; love them till you die for them; conquer them by this unconquerable love even if you finish up upon a cross.” Satan was saying to Jesus, “Use your power to blast men; obliterate your enemies; win the world by might and power and bloodshed.” God said to Jesus, “Set up a reign of love.” Satan said to Jesus, “Set up a dictatorship of force.” Jesus had to choose that day between the way of God and the way of the Adversary of God.

Mark’s brief story of the Temptation finishes with two vivid touches.

(i) The beasts were his companions. In the desert there roamed the leopard, the bear, the wild boar and the jackal. This is usually taken to be a vivid detail that adds to the grim terror of the scene. But perhaps it is not so. Perhaps this is a lovely thing, for perhaps it means that the beasts were Jesus’ friends. Amidst the dreams of the golden age when the Messiah would come, the Jews dreamed of a day when the enmity between man and the beasts would no longer exist. “I will make for you a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground.” (Hosea 2:18.) “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid. … The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den; they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain.” (Isaiah 11:6–9.) In later days St. Francis preached to the beasts; and it may be that here we have a first foretaste of the loveliness when man and the beasts shall be at peace. It may be that here we see a picture in which the beasts recognized, before men did, their friend and their king.

(ii) The angels were helping him. There are ever the divine reinforcements in the hour of trial. When Elisha and his servant were shut up in Dothan with their enemies pressing in upon them and no apparent way of escape, Elisha opened the young man’s eyes and all around he saw the horses and the chariots of fire which belonged to God. (2 Kings 6:17.) Jesus was not left to fight his battle alone—and neither are we.^[1]

We expect a servant to be under authority and to take orders, but God’s Servant exercises authority and gives orders— even to demons—and His orders are obeyed. In this section, Mark describes three scenes that reveal our Lord’s authority as the Servant of God.

Scene one—His temptation (vv. 12-13).

This temptation by Satan shows us that though Jesus was human and subject to temptations such as we are, he was also divine because he overcame Satan and was ministered to by angels. Jesus’ temptation was an important demonstration of his sinlessness. He faced temptation and did not give in. As his servants, we will also be prepared for discipleship by testing.

As we study this most condensed account of Jesus’ temptation (see the longer accounts in Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13), we can better understand our own temptations and how to overcome them. With Jesus in the wilderness were the Spirit, Satan, wild animals, and angels. The episode began with the Spirit’s guidance. This shows that God’s leading does not always guarantee safe circumstances. God’s Spirit will lead us, as he led Jesus, into the places we need to go, even though they may be dangerous. As God’s Spirit leads us, we can fully expect to be tempted by Satan and to be exposed to the wildness of the world with both its wonders and its dangers.

1:12    Immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness.  Mark used the word meaning “immediately” several times throughout his Gospel. The word keeps the narrative moving on a fast pace throughout the book, as it chronicles Jesus’ travels throughout his three-year ministry on earth. The word could have the urgency of “right away” or “at once”; at times it meant “in due time,” or even simply “when” or “then.”

Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, takes the offensive against the enemy, Satan, by going into the lonely and desolate wilderness to fight temptation (see 1:13). The word for “drove” is very forceful in the Greek, conveying the meaning of “thrown out” or “cast out.” (Mark used the same word to describe Jesus driving out demons, as in 1:34, 39.) Jesus was “thrust” into the wilderness—he was compelled to go there. This does not imply that Jesus was reluctant, but rather that he was intensely determined to go, in agreement with the Spirit. As with Jesus’ disciples, the Spirit may have in mind to test us in order to prepare us for greater service.

Jesus Begins His Ministry

When Jesus came from his home in Nazareth to begin his ministry, he first took two steps in reparation—baptism by John in the Jordan River, and temptation by Satan in the rough wilderness of Judea. After the temptation, Jesus returned to Galilee and later set up his home base in Capernaum.

Jesus wasn’t tempted inside the temple or at his baptism, but in the wilderness where he was tired, alone, and hungry, and thus most vulnerable. The devil often tempts us when we are vulnerable—when we are under physical or emotional stress (for example, lonely, tired, weighing big decisions, or faced with uncertainty). But he also likes to tempt us through our strengths, where we are most susceptible to pride. We must guard at all times against his attacks.

1:13    And he was in the desert forty days.  In the Old Testament, the desert, or wilderness, was a desolate and dangerous place where wild animals lived (see, for example, Isaiah 13:20–22; 34:8–15). Jesus remained alone there for forty days; Matthew and Luke add that Jesus fasted during that time (Matthew 4:2; Luke 4:2). The number forty brings to mind the forty days for rain in the great Flood (Genesis 7:17), the forty days Moses spent on Sinai (Exodus 24:18), the forty years of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 29:5), the forty days of Goliath’s taunting of Israel prior to David’s victory (1 Samuel 17:16), and the forty days of Elijah’s time of fear in the wilderness (1 Kings 19:8).

 Being tempted by Satan.  The Gospels of Matthew and Luke describe in more detail the temptation endured by Jesus. Satan is an angel who rebelled against God. He is real, not symbolic, and is constantly working against God and those who obey him. Satan tempted Eve in the Garden and persuaded her to sin; he tempted Jesus in the wilderness and did not persuade him to fall. The verb being tempted describes continuous action because Jesus was tempted constantly during the forty days. The word “tempted” means “to put to the test to see what good or evil, strengths or weaknesses, exist in a person.” The Spirit compelled Jesus into the wilderness where God put Jesus to the test—not to see if Jesus was ready, but to show that he was ready for the mission to be accomplished. Satan, however, had other plans; he hoped to tempt Jesus to do evil and thereby thwart his mission.

PRESSURIZED

Jesus left the crowds and went into the wilderness where he was tempted by Satan. To be tempted is not a sin. Tempting others or giving in to temptation is sin. We should not hate or resent times of inner testing because through them God can strengthen our character and teach us valuable lessons. When you face Satan and must deal with his temptations and the turmoil he brings, remember Jesus. He used God’s Word against Satan and won. You can do the same. A person has not shown true obedience if he or she has never had an opportunity to disobey. We read in Deuteronomy 8:2 that God led Israel into the wilderness to humble and test them. God wanted to see whether or not his people would really obey him. We too will be tested. Because we know that testing will come, we should be alert and ready for it. Remember, your convictions are only strong if they hold up under pressure!

Jesus’ personal victory over Satan at the very outset of his ministry set the stage for his command over demons throughout his ministry, but it did not dissuade Satan from continuing to try to ruin Jesus’ mission. For example, the religious leaders would tempt Jesus to prove his power by showing a sign from heaven (8:11) and to test his authority in deciding legal matters (10:2; 12:13–15); Peter would tempt him to stop talking about his death (8:32–33); and ultimately, fear and horror would tempt Jesus to turn away from the cross (14:34–36).

 He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.  As described above, the “desert” or “wilderness” was a dangerous and desolate place, inhabited by wild animals. The wilderness regions of Palestine had animals such as boars, jackals, wolves, foxes, leopards, and hyenas. Mark is the only Gospel writer to mention this, pointing out the hostile nature of the wilderness where Jesus spent forty days being tempted. Perhaps Satan tempted him with fear and with the desire to get back to civilization during those forty days. It is interesting to note that Adam and Eve fell to Satan’s temptations in a beautiful garden where all their needs were met and all the animals were tame; Jesus was tempted by Satan and did not fall as he went without food and the basic necessities and was surrounded by wild animals. John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Regained popularized the theme that Jesus’ victory over Satan in the wilderness reversed the tragic consequences of Adam and Eve’s fall and thereby prepared the way for paradise to be regained.

That angels attended him in no way lessens the intensity of the temptations that Jesus faced. The angels may have given Jesus food and drink because the Greek word diekonoun, usually translated “ministering,” can also mean “serving food” (see 1 Kings 19:5–7 where angels ministered to Elijah). But it is more likely that the angels’ ministry was spiritual in nature—attending to Jesus’ spiritual needs. The verb indicates continuous action. As Satan’s temptations lasted continuously during the forty days, so did the ministrations of the angels.

Angels are continuously present. Hebrews 1:14 defines “angels” as messengers for God and ministers to people. They show compassion for human beings. Passages such as Matthew 18:10, Luke 15:10, Acts 12:14–15, and Revelation 19:10 support the idea of guardian angels. As agents of God, they bring special help to believers (Acts 5:19–21; 12:7–10).

Angels, like these who waited on Jesus, have a significant role as God’s messengers. These spiritual beings were involved in Jesus’ life on earth by (1) announcing Jesus’ birth to Mary, (2) reassuring Joseph, (3) naming Jesus, (4) announcing Jesus’ birth to the shepherds, (5) protecting Jesus by sending his family to Egypt, and (6) ministering to Jesus in Gethsemane.

From Jesus’ temptation we can learn that following our Lord could bring dangerous and intense spiritual battles. It warns us that we won’t always feel good; there will be times of deprivation, loneliness, and hostility. It also shows that our spiritual victories may not always be visible to the watching world. Above all, it shows that we must use the power of God to face temptation, and not try to withstand it in our own strength.^[2]

Fulfillment (Mark 2:13-22)

It soon became evident that Jesus was deliberately associating Himself with the outcasts of Jewish society. He even called a tax collector to become one of His disciples! We do not know that Levi was a dishonest man, though most of the tax collectors were; but the fact that he worked for Herod Antipas and the Romans was enough to disgrace him among loyal Jews. However, when Jesus called him, Levi did not argue or delay. He got up and followed Jesus, even though he knew that Rome would never give him back his job. He burned his bridges (“And he left everything behind”—Luke 5:28, n), received a new name (“Matthew, the gift of God”), and enthusiastically invited some of his “sinner” friends to meet the Lord Jesus. These were Jewish people like himself who did not follow the Law or appear to have much interest in things religious. It was exactly the kind of people Jesus wanted to reach.

Of course, the critics had to be there; but our Lord used their questions to teach the guests about Himself and the spiritual work He came to do. He explained His mission by using three interesting comparisons.

JESUS PREACHES IN GALILEE / Mark 1:14–15

Up to this point, Mark has succeeded in sketching the character of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, the one who could identify with sinful humans without succumbing to sin himself, and the heaven-declared Son of God. Approximately one year elapsed between 1:13 and 1:14, which begins a new section. In this section Mark focuses on Jesus choosing his disciples.

This section also tells how Herod removed John the Baptist from ministry while Jesus’ public ministry was beginning (see John 3:30). Mark then includes a summary of Jesus’ message. Jesus echoed John’s call for repentance and added the challenge that each person must believe the Good News. From the beginning, Jesus did not allow himself to be only a topic for debate or even admiration. He expected those who approached him to believe or to reject him. He never allowed the middle ground of indecision.

1:14    Now after John was put in prison.  Mark mentioned the arrest of John the Baptist as merely a signal for the ministry of Jesus into Galilee, his home region. Luke explained that John was arrested because he publicly rebuked King Herod for taking his brother’s wife. John’s public protests greatly angered Herod, so he put John in prison, presumably to silence him. The family of Herods were renowned for their cruelty and evil; it was Herod the Great who ordered the murder of the babies in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). The Herod who imprisoned John was Herod Antipas; his wife was Herodias, Herod Antipas’s niece and formerly his brother’s wife. The imprisonment of John the Baptist was only one evil act in a family filled with incest, deceit, and murder.

Fractures well cur’d make us more strong.  George Herbert

 Jesus came to Galilee.  Jesus moved from Nazareth, his hometown, to Capernaum, about twenty miles farther north. Capernaum became Jesus’ home base during his ministry in the northernmost region of Palestine, Galilee. Jesus probably moved (1) to get away from intense opposition in Nazareth, (2) to have an impact on the greatest number of people (Capernaum was a busy city, and Jesus’ message could reach more people and spread more quickly), and (3) to utilize extra resources and support for his ministry. Jesus’ move fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 9:1–2, which states that the Messiah will be a light to the land of Zebulun and Naphtali, the region of Galilee where Capernaum was located. Zebulun and Naphtali were two of the original twelve tribes of Israel.

PRISON MINISTRY: We must remember to bring the Good News of God’s kingdom to prisoners like John the Baptist. Being caged, denied the benefit of work and the comfort of family and friends, and always under guard must make a person feel like an animal. Prisons are filled with people who are filled with guilt.

So Jesus taught that prisoners need the Good News; they need relief and restoration. People put in prison because their opinions challenge secular authority (as with John the Baptist) need hope and vindication. All prisoners need to feel like human beings again, important to God, capable of work, needed by someone. As a Christian, you can share God’s Good News with prisoners and be an angel of mercy. Through your words, faith can climb prison walls and set prisoners free.

Proclaiming the good news of God.  What is the good news of God? These first words spoken by Jesus in Mark give the core of his teaching: the long-awaited Messiah had come to break the power of sin and begin God’s personal reign on earth. This was indeed good news from God because most of the people who heard this message were oppressed, poor, and without hope. Jesus’ words were good news because they offered freedom, justice, and hope. Though at first the listeners thought he referred to political freedom and civil justice, true disciples would learn after his crucifixion that the freedom was from sin, the mercy was from God and not people, and the hope was for new life with him.

1:15    And saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near.”  Jews of Jesus’ day understood exactly what Jesus meant when he proclaimed the time is fulfilled. The Greek word used for time, kairos, refers to a particular time period with its beginning marked by an extremely important event. This placed Jesus’ coming in the center of God’s plan for revelation and redemption. The Old Testament prophets often spoke of the future kingdom, ruled by a descendant of King David, that would be established on earth and exist for eternity. Thus when Jesus spoke of the “time” and the presence of the kingdom of God, the Jews understood him to mean that the Messiah had come to “fulfill” or inaugurate his long-awaited kingdom. Jesus reassured them that God was in sovereign control. He had begun to act in a new and decisive way. The most critical time had come. The door to God’s great future had been flung open.

Of course, this caused great excitement among the people. The problem arose, however, in the misunderstanding of the nature of this kingdom. The kingdom of God began when God entered history as a human being. But the kingdom of God will not be fully realized until all evil in the world has been judged and removed. Christ came to earth first as a suffering Servant; he will come again as King and Judge to rule victoriously over all the earth. The kingdom he inaugurated on earth would not overthrow Roman oppression and bring uersal peace immediately. The kingdom of God that began quietly in Palestine was God’s rule in people’s hearts. The everlasting kingdom would not begin for many years (it has not yet begun), yet the kingdom was as near as people’s willingness to make Jesus king over their lives. As Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21 ). The everlasting kingdom may still be many years away for us, yet it is as near as accepting Jesus’ sacrifice for salvation.

Have we felt our sins, and forsaken them? Have we taken hold of Christ, and believed? We may reach heaven without learning or riches or health or worldly greatness. But we will never reach heaven if we die unrepentant and unbelieving.  J. C. Ryle

 “Repent, and believe in the good news.”  Jesus began his ministry with the very word people had heard John the Baptist say: Repent. The message is the same today. Becoming a follower of Christ means turning away from our self-centeredness and “self” control and turning our lives over to Christ’s direction and control. As mentioned in 1:4, repentance has two sides—turning away from sin and believing in the good news. The Good News, the gospel, means that Jesus, the promised Messiah, has come to usher in a new age of God’s dealings with his people.

Verse 15 provides a summary of Jesus’ gospel message and gives us one of the most important expressions of the gospel in the New Testament. The first half details what God has done for us: He has fulfilled the time and brought near the kingdom of God. The second half details what we must do to participate: repent and believe.^[3]

^[1] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 21–24.

^[2] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 17–21.

^[3] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 21–24.

It is clear that the ministry of John was mightily effective, for they flocked out to listen to him and to submit to his baptism. Why was it that John made an impact such as this upon his nation?

(i) He was a man who lived his message. Not only his words, but also his whole life was a protest. Three things about him marked the reality of his protest against contemporary life.

(a) There was the place in which he stayed—the wilderness. Between the center of Judaea and the Dead Sea lies one of the most terrible deserts in the world. It is a limestone desert; it looks warped and twisted; it shimmers in the haze of the heat; the rock is hot and blistering and sounds hollow to the feet as if there was some vast furnace underneath; it moves out to the Dead Sea and then descends in dreadful and unscalable precipices down to the shore. In the Old Testament it is sometimes called Jeshimmon, which means The Devastation. John was no city-dweller. He was a man from the desert and from its solitudes and its desolations. He was a man who had given himself a chance to hear the voice of God.

(b) There were the clothes he wore—a garment woven of camel’s hair and a leather belt about his waist. So did Elijah (2 Kings 1:8). To look at the man was to be reminded, not of the fashionable orators of the day, but of the ancient prophets who lived close to the great simplicities and avoided the soft and effeminate luxuries which kill the soul.

(c) There was the food he ate—locusts and wild honey. It so happens that both words are capable of two interpretations. The locusts may be the animals for the law allowed them to be eaten (Leviticus 11:22, 23); but they may also be a kind of bean or nut, the carob, which was the food of the poorest of the poor. The honey may be the honey the wild bees make; or it may be a kind of sweet sap that distils from the bark of certain trees. It does not matter what the words precisely mean. In any event John’s diet was of the simplest.

So John emerged. People had to listen to a man like that. It was said of Carlyle that “he preached the gospel of silence in twenty volumes.” Many a man comes with a message which he himself denies. Many a man with a comfortable bank account preaches about not laying up treasures upon earth. Many a man extols the blessings of poverty from a comfortable home. But in the case of John, the man was the message, and because of that people listened.

(ii) His message was effective because he told people what in their heart of hearts they knew and brought them what in the depths of their souls they were waiting for.

(a) The Jews had a saying that “if Israel would only keep the law of God perfectly for one day the Kingdom of God would come.” When John summoned men to repentance he was confronting them with a decision that they knew in their heart of hearts they ought to make. Long ago Plato said that education did not consist in telling people new things; it consisted in extracting from their memories what they already knew. No message is so effective as that which speaks to a man’s own conscience, and that message becomes well-nigh irresistible when it is spoken by a man who obviously has the right to speak.

(b) The people of Israel were well aware that for three hundred years the voice of prophecy had been silent. They were waiting for some authentic word from God. And in John they heard it. In every walk of life the expert is recognizable. A famous violinist tells us that no sooner had Toscanini mounted the rostrum than the orchestra felt his authority flowing over them. We recognize at once a doctor who has real skill. We recognize at once a speaker who knows his subject. John had come from God and to hear him was to know it.

(iii) His message was effective because he was completely humble. His own verdict on himself was that he was not fit for the duty of a slave. Sandals were composed simply of leather soles fastened to the foot by straps passing through the toes. The roads were unsurfaced. In dry weather they were dust heaps; in wet weather rivers of mud. To remove the sandals was the work and office of a slave. John asked nothing for himself but everything for the Christ whom he proclaimed. The man’s obvious self-forgottenness, his patent yieldedness, his complete self-effacement, his utter lostness in his message compelled people to listen.

(iv) His message was effective because he pointed to something and someone beyond himself. He told men that his baptism drenched them in water, but one was coming who would drench them in the Holy Spirit; and while water could cleanse a man’s body, the Holy Spirit could cleanse his life and self and heart. Dr. G. J. Jeffrey had a favorite illustration. When he was making a telephone call through the operator and there was some delay, the operator would often say, “I’m trying to connect you.” Then, when the connection had been effected, the operator faded out and left him in direct contact with the person to whom he wished to speak.

John’s one aim was not to occupy the center of the stage himself, but to try to connect men with the one who was greater and stronger than he; and men listened to him because he pointed, not to himself, but to the one whom all men need.^[1]

The Day of Decision Mark 1:9–11

To any thinking person the baptism of Jesus presents a problem. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, meant for those who were sorry for their sins and who wished to express their determination to have done with them. What had such a baptism to do with Jesus? Was he not the sinless one, and was not such a baptism unnecessary and quite irrelevant as far as he was concerned? For Jesus the baptism was four things.

(i) It was the moment of decision. For thirty years he had stayed in Nazareth. Faithfully he had done his day’s work and discharged his duties to his home. For long he must have been conscious that the time for him to go out had to come. He must have waited for a sign. The emergence of John was that sign. This, he saw, was the moment when he had to launch out upon his task.

In every life there come moments of decision which may be accepted or rejected. To accept them is to succeed; to reject them, or to shirk them, is to fail. As Lowell had it:

“Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide

In the strife of Truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;

Some great cause, God’s new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,

Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right

And the choice goes by for ever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.”

To every man there comes the unreturning decisive moment. As Shakespeare saw it:

“There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their lives

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.”

The undecided life is the wasted life, the frustrated life, the discontented life, and often the tragic life. As John Oxenham saw it:

“To every man there openeth A way and ways and a way;

The high soul treads the high way, And the low soul gropes the low,

And in between on the misty flats, The rest drift to and fro.”

The drifting life can never be the happy life. Jesus knew when John emerged that the moment of decision had come. Nazareth was peaceful and home was sweet, but he answered the summons and the challenge of God.

(ii) It was the moment of identification. It is true that Jesus did not need to repent from sin; but here was a movement of the people back to God; and with that Godward movement he was determined to identify himself. A man might himself possess ease and comfort and wealth and still identify himself with a movement to bring better things to the downtrodden and the poor and the ill-housed and the over-worked and the underpaid. The really great identification is when a man identifies himself with a movement, not for his own sake, but for the sake of others. In John Bunyan’s dream, Christian came in his journeying with Interpreter to the Palace which was heavily guarded and required a battle to seek an entry. At the door there sat the man with the inkhorn taking the names of those who would dare the assault. All were hanging back, then Christian saw “a man of a very stout countenance come up to the man that sat there to write, saying, ‘Set down my name, sir’.” When great things are afoot the Christian is bound to say, “Set down my name, sir,” for that is what Jesus did when he came to be baptized.

(iii) It was the moment of approval. No man lightly leaves his home and sets out on an unknown way. He must be very sure that he is right. Jesus had decided on his course of action, and now he was looking for the seal of the approval of God. In the time of Jesus the Jews spoke of what they called the Bath Qol, which means, the daughter of a voice. By this time they believed in a series of heavens, in the highest of which sat God in the light to which no man could approach. There were rare times when the heavens opened and God spoke; but, to them, God was so distant that it was only the far away echo of his voice that they heard. To Jesus the voice came directly. As Mark tells the story, this was a personal experience which Jesus had and not in any sense a demonstration to the crowd. The voice did not say, “This is my beloved Son,” as Matthew has it (Matthew 3:17). It said, “Thou art my beloved Son,” speaking direct to Jesus. At the baptism Jesus submitted his decision to God and that decision was unmistakably approved.

(iv) It was the moment of equipment. At that time the Holy Spirit descended upon him. There is a certain symbolism here. The Spirit descended as a dove might descend. The simile is not chosen by accident. The dove is the symbol of gentleness. Both Matthew and Luke tell us of the preaching of John. (Matthew 3:7–12; Luke 3:7–13.) John’s was a message of the axe laid to the root of the tree, of the terrible sifting, of the consuming fire. It was a message of doom and not of good news. But from the very beginning the picture of the Spirit likened to a dove is a picture of gentleness. He will conquer, but the conquest will be the conquest of love.^[2]

^[1] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 15–18.

^[2] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 18–21.

The Gospel is neither a discussion nor a debate,” said Dr. Paul S. Rees. “It is an announcement!” Mark wasted no time giving that announcement, for it is found in the opening words of his book.

Matthew, who wrote primarily for the Jews, opened his book with a genealogy. After all, he had to prove to his readers that Jesus Christ is indeed the rightful Heir to David’s throne.

Luke emphasized Christ’s humanity, for he knew that his Greek readers would identify with the perfect Babe who grew up to be the perfect Man

John’s Gospel begins with a statement about eternity! Why? Because John wrote to prove to the whole world that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God (John 20:31). The subject of John’s Gospel is the deity of Christ, but the object of his Gospel is to encourage his readers to believe on this Savior and receive the gift of eternal life

Where does Mark’s Gospel fit in? Mark wrote for the Romans, and his theme is Jesus Christ the Servant. If we had to pick a “key verse” in this Gospel, it would be Mark 10:45—“For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

The fact that Mark wrote with the Romans in mind helps us understand his style and approach. The emphasis in this Gospel is on activity. Mark describes Jesus as He busily moves from place to place and meets the physical and spiritual needs of all kinds of people. Mark does not record many of our Lord’s sermons because his emphasis is on what Jesus did rather than what Jesus said.

He reveals Jesus as God’s Servant, sent to minister to suffering people and to die for the sins of the world. Mark gives us no account of our Lord’s birth, nor does he record a genealogy, unnecessary in regard to a servant. In this opening chapter, Mark shares three important facts about God’s Servant.

The Servant’s Identity (Mark 1:1-11)

How does Mark identify this Servant? He records the testimonies of several dependable witnesses to assure us that Jesus is all that He claims to be.

John Mark, the author of the book, is the first witness (v. 1). He states boldly that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It is likely that Mark was an eyewitness of some of the events that he wrote about. He lived in Jerusalem with his mother, Mary; and their home was a meeting place for believers in the city (Acts 12:1-19). Several scholars believe that Mark was the young man described in Mark 14:51-52. Since Peter called Mark “my son” (1 Peter 5:13), it is probable that it was Peter who led Mark to faith in Jesus Christ. Church tradition states that Mark was “Peter’s interpreter,” so that the Gospel of Mark reflects the personal experiences and witness of Simon Peter.

The word gospel simply means “the good news.” To the Romans, Mark’s special target audience, gospel meant “joyful news about the emperor.” The “Gospel of Jesus Christ” is the Good News that God’s Son has come into the world and died for our sins. It is the Good News that our sins can be forgiven, that we can belong to the family of God and one day go to live with God in heaven. It is the announcement of victory over sin, death, and hell (1 Cor. 15:1-8, 51-52; Gal. 1:1-9).

The second witness is that of the prophets (vv. 2-3). Mark cites two quotations from the Old Testament prophets, Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 (note also Ex. 23:20). The words messenger and voice refer to John the Baptist, the prophet God sent to prepare the way for His Son (Matt. 3; Luke 3:1-18; John 1:19-34). In ancient times, before a king visited any part of his realm, a messenger was sent before him to prepare the way. This included both repairing the roads and preparing the people. By calling the nation to repentance, John the Baptist prepared the way for the Lord Jesus Christ. Isaiah and Malachi join voices in declaring that Jesus Christ is the Lord, Jehovah God.

John the Baptist is the next witness (vv. 4-8). Jesus called him the greatest of the prophets (Matt. 11:1-15). In his dress, manner of life, and message of repentance, John identified with Elijah (2 Kings 1:8; Mal. 4:5; Matt. 17:10-13; and note Luke 1:13-17). The “wilderness” where John ministered is the rugged wasteland along the western shore of the Dead Sea. John was telling the people symbolically that they were in a “spiritual wilderness” far worse than the physical wilderness which their ancestors had endured for forty years. John called the people to leave their spiritual wilderness, trust their “Joshua” (Jesus), and enter into their inheritance.

John was careful to magnify Jesus and not himself (see John 3:25-30). John would baptize repentant sinners in water, but “the coming One” would baptize them with the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). This did not mean that John’s baptism was unauthorized (see Matt. 21:23-27), or that water baptism would one day be replaced by Spirit baptism (see Matt. 28:19-20). Rather, John’s message and baptism were preparation so that the people would be ready to meet and trust the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Our Lord’s Apostles were no doubt baptized by John (see John 4:1-2 and Acts 1:21-26).

The Father and the Holy Spirit are Mark’s final witnesses to the identity of God’s Servant (vv. 9-11). When Jesus was baptized, the Spirit came on Him as a dove, and the Father spoke from heaven and identified His beloved Son. The people who were there did not hear the voice or see the dove, but Jesus and John did (see John 1:29-34). The word beloved not only declares affection, but it also carries the meaning of “the only one.” The Father’s announcement from heaven reminds us of Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1.

You will want to note these references in Mark’s Gospel to Jesus Christ as the Son of God—Mark 1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:1-11; 13:32; 14:61-62; and 15:39. Mark did not write his book about just any Jewish servant. He wrote his book about the very Son of God who came from heaven to die for the sins of the world.

Yes, Jesus is the Servant—but He is a most unusual Servant. After all, it is the servant who prepares the way for others and announces their arrival. But others prepared the way for Jesus and announced that He had come! Even heaven itself took note of Him! This Servant is God the Son.

The Herald of the New King – Mark 1:1–8

The key word that I want you to look at is in verse 1. It is the word “gospel.” The word “gospel,” of course, is very familiar to us. Sometimes when we use the word “gospel,” we actually mean a book, like the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, or the Gospel of John.

But in the New Testament, the word “gospel” is never a reference to one of those four books. The word “gospel” in the New Testament always refers to the message of salvation, and that’s its usage here. How are we to understand, then, in the context in which Mark is writing, the usage of this word? How would first century people view its significance? There is, here, given no definition of the word “gospel.” The Greek word euaggelion is the word “gospel” that appears in our English Bible.

But what did the word euaggelion mean to those who would read or hear this book read? Is it a word that is so inimitably Christian that we invented it? Is the word “gospel” our word? Is euaggelion distinctively a New Testament word?

Well, the answer to that question is no. It’s a very old word. And it was a very familiar word, both to Jews and to Gentiles, long in usage and rather specific in its meaning. Yes, the word euaggelion means good news, joyous message, glad tidings. But it had a more technical usage, both in the minds of the Jews and the Gentiles as well. And remember now, Mark is writing from Rome to Roman Christians and Roman non-Christians, primarily then a Gentile audience.

It’s important, then, to consider how they would understand this word, since he doesn’t define it for them. But let’s, first of all, wonder how the Jews would understand it. There certainly were Jews among the Christians. There were certainly Jews among the non-Christians who would read and have read and continue to read this book.

So, what does gospel mean to them? How does it connect to them? Well, it is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The Old Testament written originally in Hebrew, but there is a Greek version of it in which the word euaggelion is the best translation of the Old Testament word. For that, I would take you back to listen carefully to Isaiah chapter 40.

Isaiah chapter 40. This is a very important chapter, by the way, Isaiah 40, because it looks forward to the coming of Messiah in the far distant future. It also looks forward in the near future to the children of Israel being released from captivity and going back to their land. That is why chapter 40 begins, “‘Comfort, O comfort My people. Speak kindly to Jerusalem. Call out to her her warfare has ended, her iniquity has been removed, she has received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.’” Her punishment is over; it’s time for restoration. That’s what Isaiah is saying. And that looks in the near future from Isaiah’s vantage to the return from the Babylonian captivity, and from the far viewpoint to the future coming of Messiah.

Dropping down to verse 9 in that chapter we read this, “Get yourself up on a high mountain” – and there’s an announcement coming; find the highest point to make the announcement so you can be heard by most people – “O Zion, bearer of good news” – and there is the word in the Septuagint, euaggelion, good news – “Lift up your voice mightily, O Jerusalem, bearer of good news; lift it up, do not fear. Say to the cities of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’ Behold, the Lord God will come with might, with His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him and His recompense before Him.”

It is announcing the good news of the arrival of God. That is its usage. It refers to the ascent of God to rule, “The Lord God will come with might, with His arm ruling for Him.” When you’re talking about good news, you’re talking about this is the best news possible. Remember now, these are people who are captive. They are being told, “There is coming a restoration. The punishment and chastisement is over; you’re going back, and the Lord is going to ascend again into His throne, and He is going to rule over you.”

In the forty-second chapter – or the fifty-second chapter of Isaiah, we find a similar usage of this in the same context. Verse 7, Isaiah 52, “How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news” – again this is the same good news – “who announces peace, who brings news of happiness, who announces salvation” – and what is going to bring happiness, and peace, and salvation? – “Say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’”

So, while the word euaggelion might have some broad meanings, its technical meaning was to describe the very best news possible, which was the ascent of a new King, the ascent of a sovereign to His throne over His people to produce salvation and peace and happiness. That is the way the Jews would view it, and that is the way it is used there by Isaiah.

Both passages consider, then, the return of the Jews from Babylonian exile. When they go back to their land and God again will dwell in Zion, God again will ascend to His throne. A new temple will be built, which is like God’s palace in which He dwells. And during the time of captivity, remember the temple had been destroyed, as it were. God’s palace had been turned to rubble. The people had been carried away. God had dwelt with the exiles in Babylon, according to the prophet Ezekiel.

But the day would come, says Isaiah, when the people will go back, and God will go back with them and ascend to His throne. This will happen in the near future. And it did, in the great return of the Jews from Babylonian exile and the rebuilding of the temple, and God again taking His place as the sovereign over His theocratic nation Israel.

So, it is a word of enthronement. It is the word of the good news of a sovereign ruler taking His throne. And the imagery is of God, the God of Israel, the only true God, establishing His throne in Jerusalem.

In the near fulfillment, that happened in the return from Babylon. In the far fulfillment, that is the messianic promise that the King will come in the future and establish His kingdom in Israel, and set up His rule and His throne there, and that will happen when Jesus returns and sets up His millennial kingdom.

So, the word has reference to the arrival of a king, the ascent of a king in Jewish usage. What about pagan usage? How would the Romans understand that word since they didn’t necessarily have any Jewish history? Well, let me read you an inscription. This is an inscription from the Roman world. The date is 9 B.C. Okay? Before Christ. This is the inscription, “The Providence, which has ordered the whole of our life” – translated into English, obviously – “showing concern and zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving it to Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men and by sending in him, as it were, a savior for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere. The birthday of the god Augustus is the beginning for the world of the euaggelion” – of the gospel – “that has come to men through him.”

How interesting. They used the word euaggelion on that occasion, in that inscription, to describe the arrival of Caesar Augustus. Caesar Augustus is – “by the Providence,” it says – the one who will bring to us the work of a benefactor, the work of a savior, make war cease, create order everywhere. It is the arrival of a god. The good news, then, is that Augustus Caesar has arrived. That actual inscription was dedicated to him, apparently, on his birthday. Then, as a technical term again to refer to the ascendancy of the triumph of an emperor.

So, the Jews and the pagans would both see that word as signifying the arrival of a new monarch, and that would signify the arrival of a new era. And the new era would be an era of order and peace and salvation and blessing.

So, Mark chooses a word that spreads itself across Jew and Gentile, and indeed, he is about to write the history of a new King. A new King. The good news is about to be told, at least this is the beginning of the good news. The story is still being written, for the King has not fully taken His throne which one day He will in an earthly way and finally in the new heaven and the new earth as an eternal King.

But Mark will begin to tell the story of the arrival, and ascendency, and establishment, and enthronement of the new King who is far more glorious than all other kings, and His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is the new King.

This is the story of the new King who has arrived, who is about to inaugurate His kingdom and bring a new era of salvation, blessing, peace, and order to the world. One historical writer says, “The parallel between ‘evangel’” – or the gospel – “in the imperial cult and the Bible is Caesar and Christ, the emperor on the throne and the despised rabbi on the cross confront each other. Both are gospel to men. They have much in common, but they belong to two different worlds.”

So, Mark begins his historical account of the life of Jesus with language that would make his Roman readers know that the new and most glorious King has come, and He sets Himself against all other kings, including Caesar. He is the theme of this history. And this is only the beginning of His story. And what is His name? Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus identifies His human name, Yeshua or Yehoshua in Hebrew – basically, Joshua – meaning Yahweh is salvation. Yehoshua – Yahweh is salvation. That’s His name. “Call Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins,” Matthew 1:21. His title – His name is Jesus, His title is Christ. That is not a name; that is not His last name. That’s a title. Royal title. The Anointed One. That’s what Messiah means. Christ and Messiah are the same thing. It means Anointed One. It’s a royal title. His human name is Jesus. His royal title is Messiah, the Anointed One. Simply King. And his lineage? He is the Son of God. One in nature with God, coeternal and coequal.

And thus does Mark introduce us to the beginning of the history of King Jesus. The beginning of the history of King Jesus, the Son of God. Not the Son of some other earthly monarch.

In John 1:49, “Nathanael said to Jesus, ‘You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.’”

A new King with a radically new kingdom, unlike any other king and any other king, and one who sets Himself above all other kinds and all other kingdoms, one whom the Bible calls the King of Kings. This is the beginning of the good news of His ascent to His throne.

He proves Himself to be the divine King, the Son of God, by His words and His deeds in the first half of Mark’s Gospel. He proves Himself to be the Son of God and the promised King in the second half by His death and resurrection. So, at first it’s His deeds and words that prove who He is; in the back half it’s His death and resurrection that prove who He is. And in the very middle, the very summit of the book, Peter makes the confession, “You are the Christ” – or better – “You are the King; You are exactly who You claim to be.”

And so, this is a book about the arrival of the greatest King ever, the new King; the new King introducing a new kingdom and a new era for the world. And it’s only the beginning of the story, because the story will go on through all of human history and finally be consummated in the new heaven and the new earth when He will rule and reign forever and ever.

So, Mark establishes then what this book is about in his opening sentence. Now, he establishes several truths about the new King. Let me give you five of them. Okay? Truths about the new King. Number one, the promise of the new King. The promise of the new King. Verses 2 and 3, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.”‘”

Those are prophecies attributed to Isaiah. It is the only Old Testament prophecy in Mark’s introduction. You will find through the book of Mark that there are a number of prophecies. In fact, they’re in bold type, or in upper case letters. So, this is the only prophecy in Mark’s introduction. This is the only one that he uses in the beginning.

What is notable about it is it isn’t particularly about the King; it’s about the herald of the King. And Mark, remember, is writing to Gentiles. He’s writing to Roman Christians – and, of course, Roman non-Christians – who will hear his history read. He is not concerned primarily about the Jews, so he doesn’t frontload his book with a lot of prophecies. He doesn’t make efforts to connect the arrival of Jesus with the Old Testament, say, by giving genealogies like Matthew and Luke are so careful to give. He doesn’t give specific prophesies about Jesus, such as the virgin birth, Bethlehem, called out of Egypt. And there are a number of prophesies that Matthew refers to and Luke refers to. None of those does Mark refer to in the beginning of his history. It is simply enough to say, “He is the Son of God.” He is the Son of God.

Mark knows, however, that if Gentiles are to look at the story of this new King and see it as sort of an authentic arrival of a new King, then they would expect that there would be some kind of authoritative, credible herald who would announce the arrival of the King, because that’s exactly the way it was in their world. No king ever arrived and said, “Hey, I’m the king, and I’m here.” The king always had a forerunner. The king always had an entourage. The king always had some coming before him to prepare the way and make the people ready, and then was appropriately introduced by someone who bore authenticity and authority to make that introduction.

So, Mark, consistent with the Gentile approach to how kings were announced, goes to the Old Testament for the only time in the beginning of his Gospel, not to find a prophecy about Jesus, but to find a prophecy about His herald, to give authenticity to His herald.

With all the Old Testament texts that connect to Jesus Christ, Mark uses prophecy not about the new King at all, but about His forerunner, the one who is to proclaim His arrival. This would be in the kind of official structure of what people in the Gentile world will be used to.

So, there is coming a messenger. That’s identified in verse 2, “I send My messenger.” And he further identifies the messenger as someone who will be a voice crying in the wilderness. This is from the ancient prophets. He’s quoting from the ancient prophets, and he labels this from Isaiah the prophet. Certainly Isaiah was well-known to even Gentile Christians because of his vast book, much of which was centered on the arrival of Messiah, the servant of Jehovah, as Isaiah identifies Him. So, he draws prophecies out of Isaiah.

By the way, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all use – all use these prophecies to label John the Baptist as the fulfillment. John the Baptist is the fulfillment of these prophecies, and all four Gospel writers indicate that. “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet” – or preferably “as it has been written.” The new King is not a new plan; the new King is not an afterthought. This is the plan that God was working out in ancient times. The plan is one culminating in the arrival of the new King, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The Gentile readers need to know that the one who announced His arrival is the one prophesied by the ancient prophets, and by the notable prophet Isaiah from the Old Testament. He is an official, divinely commissioned herald for the new King. And so, he’s the one being described in these prophecies.

Now, just as a note, it says, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,” then you have a quote in verse 2, and a quote in verse 3. Verse 2 is actually Malachi 3:1; and verse 3 is Isaiah chapter 40, verse 3. This is not an uncommon thing to do, to refer to only one of the Old Testament prophets, the more prominent one, the more notable one, and tuck in another prophecy by another prophet, since it was all the Word of God.

These prophecies go together so perfectly, and both refer to the same person, so they may have been frequently used together. Malachi is the introductory one; Isaiah is the more important one. But both are general references. If you go back, they’re – and this is something you need to know that New Testament writers do. Sometimes they quote exactly from the Hebrew; sometimes they quote from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament; sometimes they make sort of a general reference to a text, and sometimes it’s an interpretive reference. Because remember now, the New Testament writers are inspired by God. And so, when they interpret an Old Testament text, they interpret that in an inspired way.

So, they always give the true interpretation of the text. Sometimes you’d directly quote it; sometimes it’s an interpretive quote. Here you have some interpretive quotation, certainly in the case of Malachi 3:1.

But let’s look at Malachi 3:1 in the text of Mark 1. Malachi 3:1 records, “Behold, I send My messenger” – and Malachi says – “before Me.” Here you have an interpretation of that, “Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way.” Obviously, You and Your refers to the coming King. But before the King comes, ahead of Him comes the messenger. So, this is a prophecy that there will be one who comes before the King comes, whose job will be to prepare His way.

Like all prophets, this is a messenger. All prophets are proclaimers. He’s a preacher. He will make a strong call for people to prepare for the arrival of the new King. Malachi 3:1 is a direct reference to this messenger, this herald of the coming new King.

And then, in Isaiah 40 and verse 3, we read as recorded here in Mark 1:3, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.’” Now remember, I read you earlier – right? – from Isaiah chapter 40, the opening, and then down in verses 9 and 10, Isaiah prophesied the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. He prophesied they would come back to Israel; they would go through the wilderness, and God would lead them. And when they arrived, God would be with them, and He would ascend to His throne, and again He would rule over them.

And so, in the near intention of that prophecy, He was talking about the return from the Babylonian captivity and the ascendancy of God to His sovereign place over a reconstituted Israel. And that would require making ready the way of the Lord. God would lead them back from captivity, would make the path for them, make the road for them, and they would head back, and God would be with them. In the future sense, one would come who would make the road ready for the new King. Make the road ready for the new King. And this, of course, is here associated with the forerunner of Jesus, namely John the Baptist. There was to come one who would herald the new King’s arrival, call people to prepare for His glorious ascent to His throne and the establishment of his kingdom of salvation, and blessing, and peace.

Now, the Romans would get this. The Gentiles would get this. The Jews would get this. This is not an ordinary monarch. This is no typical King, however, because of the nature of His person. First of all, He’s not the Son of some other king; He is the Son of God. That sets Him apart from all others. He is God the Son; that is to say He’s coequal, coexistent, coeternal with God.

So, let’s go from the promise of this new King to the person of this new King. Now, I want to show you something. What we already know is His name is Jesus, His title is King – that’s what Christ means – His heritage is the Son of God. But I want you to notice how deeply this is in the text of these prophesies.

Verse 2, from Malachi 3:1, “‘Behold, I send My messenger’” – literally, in the text of Malachi – “‘before Me.’” God says, “I send My messenger before Me.” God is saying, “The King who is coming, the King who My messenger announces is Me.” That is a very important statement. “‘He’ is ‘Me.’ – who will prepare My way.” That is to say the King who is coming is one with God. The King who is coming is God. That’s why John opens his Gospel saying, “We beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father.” “I send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way.”

“The messenger is – the messenger is announcing Me, announcing My arrival.” And then, of course, Malachi 3 continues to say this, “And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple.”

So, He goes from “before Me” to “the Lord will suddenly come to His temple.” And you remember, when the Lord arrived, the first public thing He did was go to the temple and cleanse the temple. So, He came suddenly to His temple.

The one coming then is King. Coming as King, He ascends to His temple, His palace. He finds it a den of thieves and cleans it out. But who is He? It is Yahweh. It is God. It is God. You see it even further in the second Old Testament promise, verse 3, from Isaiah 40, verse 3, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness” – that’s the messenger; that’s what he does; that’s where he does it. And what does he say? “‘Make ready the way of’” – whom? – “‘the Lord’” – o Kýrios. Again, Yahweh, God, the Son of God, God Himself. Yahweh, the Lord. Of course, verse 8, “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Who else could give the Holy Spirit but the Lord Himself? The new King. The new King who is coming. The new King is none other than God. The testimony to that reality is given at His baptism. If you go down to verse 11, Jesus is being baptized, “A voice came out of the heavens” – this is the voice of the Father – “‘You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

Now, the world has never seen a King like this. God Himself will come to His people as God Himself came to His people when they returned from the exile in captivity. God Himself will come to His people. God Himself, God the Son will be the new King.

The good news is that God has come. God, the God of the uerse, has broken into history to provide salvation, and blessing, and peace, and His name is Jesus. King Jesus, Son of God. The new King is here. The new kingdom is here. It’s a new day for the whole world. It’s a new day for human history; salvation has arrived. This is the good news.

In the Greek and Roman world, euaggelion was often used in the plural. Lots of good news. In the New Testament, it’s never used but in the singular; there’s only one good news, for there’s no other salvation except that in Christ. The new King is God come down to bring salvation, peace, order, and blessing.

Then we meet the prophet of the new King. Verse 4, here’s the messenger who is the voice crying in the wilderness, “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness” – there’s the fulfillment of the prophecy. The word “wilderness” the same word as desert. “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching.” John the Baptist. Why do you think they called him that?

Why would you call anybody John – actually, in the Greek, it’s John the Baptizer. It should be John the Baptizer. Why would you call anybody John the Baptizer? Because that’s the thing that’s so distinguishing about him.

When you read through the New Testament, you have a Mary, and then the Mary’s identified by some other name. Right? Like we saw last time. Mary, the mother of John Mark; or, Mary Magdalene; or, Mary, the mother of our Lord; or, Mary, the wife of Clopas. You’ve got to have some way to identify what Mary you’re talking about. Well, you need some way to identify what John you’re talking about, too. John’s a very common name in Hebrew. And so, it is John the Baptizer, because that’s what’s most inimitable about him. And that would set him apart from everybody else, because nobody else did that. I don’t want to get you to think that the idea is that in Israel every church had a baptistery. There weren’t any churches, first of all, and there weren’t any baptisteries.

The Jews didn’t baptize. They had ceremonial cleansings; they had ceremonial washings and all of that. But they only had one baptism that they did, and it was a one-time symbolic event they did to a proselyte who came out of Gentileism into Judaistic religion, wanted to become a worshipper of the true God, and they put him through a proselyte baptism or her through a proselyte baptism, an immersion in water to symbolize that they were being purified from their former life and entering into the clean religion, as it were, of Judaism. This is proselyte baptism. It wasn’t a common thing; it wasn’t an occurrence that happened all the time. And that’s why you could identify one as John the Baptizer, because that was so unusual.

Furthermore, he appears in the wilderness, in the desert. In fact, in John 3:23, it places Him about 25 to 30 miles south of the Sea of Galilee, along the Jordan River. And up and down that river he went for the duration of his ministry, preaching out in the desert, away from all the cities and all the towns and all the people. He was in that wilderness, basically, his whole life. According to Luke 1:80, he spent his life in the wilderness. He was a wilderness guy. He was a desert man.

Now, John the Baptist – there’s a lot of wonderful stories about him, true, given by Matthew, given by Luke. Some things told by John. We could talk about the fact that he was miraculously conceived, because his parents were too old and had been barren. That’s a wonderful story. We could talk about the fact that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. We could talk about the fact that he was a relative of Jesus, that Mary and Elizabeth got together, when they both knew that God had done a miracle of conception in them. We could talk about the fact that he was the culmination of Old Testament prophetic history, the last prophet, and there hadn’t been one for 400 years. We could talk about the fact that Jesus said – Matthew 11:11 – “He’s the greatest man that ever lived up until his time,” because he was given the greatest responsibility any man ever had: to point to the Messiah, to announce the new King. Mark leaves all that out. He leaves it all out.

He just say this about him, verse 6, “He was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locust and wild honey.” Well, you might find that a little bit strange. It really isn’t. If you’re out in the desert to start with, locust and wild honey would be a good way to sustain yourself, because from what we understand, there was plenty of that available. And if you lived out in the wilderness of the desert your whole life, you wouldn’t care about fashion. You’d basically care about staying warm, because it can be freezing cold out in that desert.

He is a very familiar man in ancient history. Even Josephus, the Jewish historian, writes about him and says, “He was a good man who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue and piety toward God and come to baptism.”

But the only thing Mark tells us about him is his style. Now, what is this about? “He was clothed with camel’s hair.” That doesn’t mean hide; that means camel’s hair woven. They would take camel’s hair; they would make a thread out of it, and then they would weave a garment out of it. It would be a – kind of a rough garment. It was a hairy garment.

And then he had a leather belt around his waist. That’s a rough leather belt. And that’s what it tells us about him. His lifestyle, however, has a parallel. It says the same thing, by the way, in Matthew 3:4. But his lifestyle has a parallel. What was he trying to do looking like that?

Well, if you go back – you don’t have to turn to it; I’ll read it to you – but if you go back to, well, Zechariah 13, it talks about some false prophets, and it associates, in verse 4, false prophets who desire to deceive putting on a hairy robe. Now, why would a false prophet, who wanted to deceive, put on a hair robe? Because a hairy robe was associated with a true prophet. A true prophet.

When it says – when Jesus said, “Beware of wolves who come in sheep’s clothing,” look, that isn’t a wolf with a sheep hid over his head. That’s a false teacher in wool. Again, a hairy garment as opposed to something made out of linen or cotton. That’s the garb of a prophet. And more notably than that, if you go back to 2 Kings, chapter 1, you meet Elijah the Tishbite. This is what it says about him, verse 8, “He was a hairy man” – that does not comment on his bodily hair but on the garment that he wore – “He was a hairy man with a leather girdle bound about his loins.” This Elijah the Tishbite. This guy set the fashion for prophets.

If you wanted to be taken seriously as a prophet, you found a hairy robe and a leather belt, and you made sure that you conveyed that you were a prophet in the way that you looked. And even false prophets would deign to put on that hairy robe, and that leather belt to appear as if they were prophets.

Well, John was a prophet. Not only was he a prophet, but he was a prophet who came in the spirit and power of Elijah. That’s right. He was one who came with an anointing from God on his head.

Listen to Luke 1:15, “He will be great in the sight of the Lord. He will drink no wine or liquor. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. He will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him, before for the King, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

You remember that in Malachi 3, there was the promise that we just read that there is coming a messenger. A little more is said about that messenger in Malachi 4:5, “I’m going to send you Elijah the prophet.” John, it says, was come in the spirit and power of Elijah. And Jesus said, in Matthew 11:14, “If you are willing to accept” – meaning Me and My gospel – “John himself is that Elijah.”

However, you remember they didn’t accept. They killed both John the Baptist and Jesus. So, there’s another time when Jesus will return, and before His second coming, there will be another in the spirit and power of Elijah. Did John understand that? Of course he understood that. The prophecy came to his parents before he was ever born, that he would minister in the spirit and power of Elijah. He identified with Elijah from the get-go. That’s why he wore what he wore. That’s why he lived the way he lived. He lived against the grain of the culture. He even ministered near where Elijah did. Read 2 Kings chapter 2, verse 4 to 12.

Now, his diet was locust. By the way, according to Leviticus 11:22, that was the only insect you could eat. Good protein, good source of mineral. If you want to prepare some, here’s how you do it. You yank off the wings and the legs, and then, depending on your preference, you can roast the body, boil it, dry it, grind it up and bake it in your bread with salt. It provided protein. And honey, wild honey was everywhere, and it was sweet, and it was good.

Do you notice this about John the Baptist? He didn’t care to identify with the people. He cared to identify with the prophet. I think any preacher makes a bad mistake when he tries to identify with the line of the people rather than the line of the prophets. You want to stand in the great tradition of the prophet; you want to speak like a prophet; you want to act like a prophet; you want to look like a prophet.

Now, what was his message? Well, let’s go to number four to the preparation. The preparation. What was he saying? What did they need to do? Back to verse 4. He was preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. That’s what he was doing. In ancient times, the envoy of the arriving king would go before him, remove all the obstacles in the path; sometimes they’d carve a path; sometimes they built a road; sometimes they’d make a bridge, removing the obstacles. And then they would make sure the people were ready to receive this new King.

What was the way the people were to prepare for the arrival of this king? A baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. They needed to have their sins forgiven. In order to have their sins forgiven, which God would mercifully do, they needed to repent of their sins. And to demonstrate their repentance, they would be willing to undergo a baptism. The baptism didn’t bring forgiveness of sin; it only declared their intention. That’s why John, as I said, was labeled the baptizer. The Jews had ceremonial washings, no baptisms except for proselyte baptism.

So, a Jew would be saying, by doing that kind of one-time symbolic baptism, “I’m no better than a Gentile. I am no better than a Gentile. I am no more ready to meet the new King, I am no more ready for God to ascend to His throne, I am no more ready for God to establish His kingdom and make me a part of it than a Gentile.” That is a huge admission, for the Jews had been trained pretty much to resent and hate the Gentiles and think of them as outside the covenant.

He’s calling the Jews to declare themselves no better than Gentiles, to turn many of the hearts of the people toward righteousness, away from rebellion, as Luke 1 put it. And to mark that repentance, that deliberate metanoia which means a turning, a genuine turning. They would need to bring forth the fruit of repentance. Do you remember how John the Baptist said that? Matthew 3:8 records it; Luke 3:8 records it. Luke says, “Bring forth fruits fitting for repentance.” Prove it. The first step would be to be willing to undergo a proselyte baptism and view yourself as if you were no better than a Gentile. Radical, radical repentance. And this was the message that came from God to John, Luke 3:2, “The Word of the Lord came to him,” and this is what He said. This is not baptism in Jesus’ name. We know that because John the Baptist’s followers were later baptized by Paul in Jesus’ name, according to Acts 19.

Now, you need to know one other thing about the context of John’s message. His preaching was judgment preaching. In Luke 3 you can read it yourself. He preached judgment. He said things to the people, “You brood of snakes, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” He said, “When the King gets here, He is going to baptize with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand; He’s going to separate the wheat from the chaff, and He’s going to burn the chaff.”

He was a judgment preacher – fierce judgment preacher. That’s what drove the people to want to deal with their sins. The fear that when the Messiah finally came, when the new King ascended to His throne and established His kingdom, they’d be on the outside looking in. And so, he was a judgment preacher. Judgment was coming. But while God was a God of judgment, He was also a God of grace, and He offered forgiveness of sins for those who repented.

Well, everybody practically wanted to be a part of the Messiah’s kingdom. They didn’t want to get left out. They knew their own heart’s sinfulness. So, according to verse 5, all the country of Judea was going out to him, all the people of Jerusalem. They were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. This looks like a national revival.

“By making this pilgrimage” – Mark Horne writes – “to the Jordan, those who believed John’s message showed that they wanted to be visibly separated from those under judgment when the Lord come. They wanted to be members of the future purified Israel. Undergoing John’s baptism helped them anticipate that they were not only God’s covenant people, but that they would remain in that covenant after God cast others out. In order to be assured that they would be included in the future forgiven Israel whose iniquity would be removed, they needed to repent and ask for personal forgiveness now.” End quote. That’s what they were doing. So, they came confessing, being baptized.

However, this was, as good as it might have looked, pretty superficial, wasn’t it? By the time it’s all over, and the true believers are gathered in Jerusalem, after the ascension of Jesus, there’s 120 in the upper room. And here, hyperbolic language to be sure, “all” the country of Judea was going out to him, “all” the people of Jerusalem. Massive constant, steady stream day after day after day.

Why the wilderness? Why the wilderness? William Lane writes – and I think it’s well stated – “The summons to be baptized in the Jordan means that Israel must once more come to the wilderness. As Israel long ago had been separated from Egypt by a pilgrimage through the waters of the Red Sea, the nation is exhorted again to exercise separation. The people are called to a second exodus in preparation for a new covenant with God.

“As the people heed John’s call and go out to him in the desert, far more is involved than contrition and confession. They return to a place of judgment, the wilderness, where the status of Israel as God’s beloved son must be reestablished in the exchange of pride for humility. The willingness to return to the wilderness signifies the acknowledgement of Israel’s history as one of disobedience and rebellion, and a desire to begin once more. Let’s go back to the wilderness, before we ever came into the land, and start all over again.”

Finally, Mark leaves the promise, the person, the prophet, the preparation, and focuses on the preeminence of the new King. The preeminence of the new King. This is the sum of John’s ministry. He was preaching, verse 7, “And he was saying, ‘After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I’m not fit to stoop down and untie the tong of His sandals. I baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

This is what is most true about the forerunner: he points to Christ; he point to Church; he points to Christ. Never points to himself. John 3:30, “I must decrease, He must increase.” This is a model for any preacher. Don’t identify with the people, identify with the prophets. Don’t look like the people; look like the prophets. Maintain the dignity of that office handed down. And don’t point to yourself; point to Christ.

“After me the One” – literally definite article – “After me the One is coming who is mightier than I.” How mighty is He? He’s the Lord; He’s Yahweh; He’s Kurios; He’s God the Son; He’s the King – King Jesus. How far above me is He? Huh.

Here’s the negative. “He is so much mightier than I, that I’m not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals.” You know what? That was the lowest possible job that any servant could have. That was it. That was the bottom. If you were the servant who untied your master’s sandals, you were the scum of the scum of the scum. Dirty feet.

Old quotes from Hebrew sources. “A Hebrew slave must not wash the feet of his master, nor put his shoes on him.” That’s beneath the dignity of a Hebrew slave. Another one, “All services which a slave does for his master, a pupil should do for his teacher, with the exception of undoing his shoes.”

John says, “I’m below the people who do that. I’m not even up to the level of those who would untie His shoes. That’s how low I am.”

Well, that’s the picture, but what’s the reality? Verse 8. Why am I so different? Why are we so infinitely separated? “Because I baptize you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

“All I can do is stick you in the water; He can transform you on the inside.” This refers to the soul-transforming work of salvation, being born of the water and the Spirit. This is not some Pentecostal second baptism; this is the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit of Titus 3. This is the new covenant: purification, cleansing, transformation, regeneration, new birth.

John says, “I can’t do that. Only God gives the Holy Spirit. So, the new King, He will give you the Holy Spirit.” With the Holy Spirit comes salvation, sanctification, service.

So, Mark begins the language – with the language of good news. Good news means there’s a new King who is God Himself, bringing a new kingdom. It’s a kingdom of forgiveness, blessing. It comes to those who repent. It’s the culmination of all past redemptive history and the door to all future glory. The herald has come to announce His arrival. And the rest is His story, which he picks up in verse 9.

Jesus Himself as a man wrote no book, not even His own history. There is no autobiography. But the Spirit of God selected four men to write histories of the life of Jesus, His work, His death, and His resurrection. They are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Since the Holy Spirit inspired each writer, each of the gospels is without error. It is God-breathed. To borrow the language of Paul, or in Peter’s words, 2 Peter 1:20 and 21, no Scripture has come by any human origination, but “holy men were moved by the Spirit of God,” and thus they wrote.

So we’re not surprised then that though Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their histories independently of each other at different times and in different places, the four are in perfect harmony because the divine author, the Holy Spirit, superintended each writer.

But here you have in these four gospels, as they are called, historical accounts that are perfectly compatible; the story of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God as Mark puts it, from four perspectives. Now, this is Mark’s history. And it is unique from the others, and we’ll see its uniqueness a little bit this morning, and a lot as we go through.

By the time the gospels were written, there were already other New Testament books in existence. The book of James, from which I read this morning was already in existence. The book of Galatians had already been written by the apostle Paul. They were the two earliest New Testament books and they were written before any of the gospels was written. There certainly is reason for that in one sense. The people needed direction as given in Galatians, so that they could be protected from the false gospel that the Judaizers were preaching. The suffering persecuted believers needed comfort and encouragement, and that’s why the book of James was written.

But it wasn’t as crucial early on that the gospels were written because eyewitnesses who had been with Christ and seen Christ and heard Christ were still alive. And so there were plenty of folks who could give testimony to the story of Jesus Christ. The last apostle, John, died after 90 A.D. The gospels then begin to appear about midway through that first century. The first one that was written was Matthew. The next one that was written was Mark. And then came Luke. And about 30 years later, around 90 A.D., the gospel of John.

But before the gospels were written, there were many eyewitness accounts, there were many living eyewitnesses of the life of Christ. And there were some written fragments that Luke refers to in Luke chapter 1 verses 1 and 2. So those written testimonies to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, as well as the verbal story of eyewitnesses, constituted the source of the truth about Christ before the gospels were written. By the middle of the first century, the eyewitnesses begin to die off. And it is really imperative that the record be written down. And so the Holy Spirit selects the men to do that, Matthew, then Mark, then Luke and then John.

After the four gospels were written, no other writings about Jesus Christ were ever accepted by the believers as authoritative and inspired Scripture. It is these four gospels and no more. The uersal affirmation of the early church was that these were the true gospels. Yes, later on spurious gospels appeared with false identification, like the gospel of Peter, the gospel of Thomas, etc., etc. They were Gnostic, anti-God, Satanic forgeries intended to confuse people and undermine the truth.

But the uersal testimony of the church was that these are the four gospels. They have withstood the scrutiny of scholastic effort through the two thousand years since they were written. Their harmony is magnificent. It is unequivocal. It is true that they had one single divine author because they are in perfect harmony with each other. Somewhere between 50 and 60, Matthew writes. Somewhere around 60, 61, Luke writes. In 90 John writes. And you can slip Mark in there between Matthew and Luke, perhaps in the late 50s.

You would think then that Mark being the second gospel written would be viewed as elevated in its rank. But it always ends up last. And I’m living testimony to that fact. But I started with – with John and then I did Matthew, and then I did Luke, and finally I get around to Mark. Why? Because Mark does not contain the discourses and the theology that the other gospels contain. John is the great Christological masterpiece that presents the person of Christ as evidenced by His claims and His miracles.

Matthew and Luke are replete with discourses in which we get the instruction of Christ. Mark doesn’t have those great discourses anywhere near to the degree that the other gospels do. In fact, there are only two chapters in Mark that are really discourse chapters – would be chapter 4 in which Mark gives us the parables of Jesus, and chapter 13 which is Mark’s presentation of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus teaching on His Second Coming. Here and there scattered through Mark there are some segments of teaching, of course, but it is primarily an action gospel.

And it is kind of a newspaper edition. It is fast paced, the Word immediately appears over 40 times, it moves, it moves, it moves, it moves. It’s an action gospel. In the ancient world, most of the people were illiterate, particularly in the Roman world. And this gospel of Mark was written by Mark in Rome to Roman Christians. So they were, for the most part, illiterate; it, therefore, had to be read to them. It is like a fast-paced story that can be grasped and it can hold your interest when it is read. It does have some charm that is different than the others, as we will see.

But let’s get to know the author. If you look at the first verse, you will not find his name. But then again, no author of any of the four gospels identifies himself as the author. While the story of Matthew’s conversion and Matthew’s inclusion among the apostles appears in Matthew, Matthew never says he’s the author. Luke never appears in his gospel at all, nor does he claim to be the author of it.

John, while appearing in his gospel necessarily because he’s an intimate apostle of Christ, never refers to himself as John, but always by some other descriptive, like “the one whom Jesus loved.” So we don’t have these gospels beginning with a claim to authorship. It is clearly an indication of the fact that these authors wanted to give all the glory to Christ. They wanted the story to be about Him and they hid themselves, as it were, behind the history of the One who should receive the preeminence.

However, we still know unequivocally that Mark wrote this, that Matthew wrote his, that Luke wrote his, and that John wrote his. That is the uersal testimony of the early church going all the way back to the first century. But let’s meet the author. Since he doesn’t appear in Mark and he doesn’t appear in Matthew, or Luke or John, we have to find he first place where he shows up and that’s in the book of Acts, Acts 12. Let’s go to Acts 12, get to know Mark.

Now when you come to the twelfth chapter of Acts, just to give you a little bit of historical settings so you know where we are. You’re at a point of very significant transition. The gospels end with the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ brings the story of Christ on earth to an end. The book of Acts then, which picks up the history and is written by Luke, begins with Jesus spending 40 days after His resurrection, teaching His disciples things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, getting them ready to fulfill the commission that comes in chapter 1 verse 8, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, you’ll be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost part of the earth.”

So He equips them for world ministry, if you will, by 40 days of teaching things concerning the Kingdom of God. And then the Spirit of God comes. The Spirit comes upon them, empowers them for that ministry and the gospel is launched. In the first twelve chapters, the story is told of the gospel in Judea and Samaria. Starting in chapter 13, it’s the gospel in the uttermost part of the earth. In the first twelve chapters, the gospel in Judea and Samaria, the primary preacher, the dominant preacher is Peter.

In the second half, the gospel “to the uttermost part of the earth,” the dominant preacher is Paul. So the book of Acts splits into the first half being Peter, the second half being Paul. The first half, Judea/Samaria, the second half the uttermost part of the earth, fulfilling the mandate of chapter 1 of verse 8. So when we come to chapter 12, we are at the end of the ministry of the apostle Peter. Peter has dominated the apostolic preaching of the gospel, and dominated the growth of the church in Judea and Samaria.

And he is about to fade and the apostle Paul is to ascend to the stage or the expansion of the gospel to the uttermost part of the earth. The first half of the book of Acts is closing as we come to verse 1, chapter 12. “Now about that time.” What time? Well if you go back, go back to verse 27.

Some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. You always go down from Jerusalem, even if you go north, because Jerusalem is elevated. They went down from Jerusalem and then headed north to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. This took place in the reign of Claudius Caesar in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.

What we learn here is that there is a famine coming, prophesied by the inspiration of God, and there’s going to be a need to relieve the distress of the believers in Jerusalem because of the famine. So the church at Antioch, the believers at Antioch, the brethren, disciples at Antioch determined to collect a contribution and to send it to Jerusalem to be distributed to the believers there who would be in the famine. And they did it, verse 30, and they sent it in charge of Barnabas and Saul, or Paul, to the elders of the Jerusalem church.

So that’s the time it is. It’s the time of famine and the time of the gifting coming from the Antioch church by the hands of Barnabas and Saul to the elders at the church of Jerusalem. At that time, Herod – this would be Herod Agrippa I. He was educated in Rome. He cultivated favor with the Jews. He was a politician’s politician. He didn’t really like the Jews but he knew it was to his advantage if he was to be wealthy and prosperous and powerful, to court their favor.

So you have that very statement made, verse 3, “When he saw that it pleased the Jews.” That’s what drove Herod. He was not a Jew, he was an Idumaean, but he was kind of a petty king in that part of the world. And he prospered much better if he pleased the Jews. And so that’s what he did. And knowing what pleased the Jews, verse 1, “He laid hands on some who belong to the church in order to mistreat them.” He launches a persecution against the church. The church now is resented. It is hated by the Jews, as you well know.

And so Herod launches a persecution, verse 2. He had James, the brother of John, one of the apostles, put to death with a sword. This is the first apostle martyred. Stephen, not an apostle, has been martyred. This is the first of the apostles to be martyred, none other than James, the brother of John. And when he saw that pleased the Jews. which predominantly refers to the Jewish leaders and all who were under their influence, he proceeded then to arrest Peter. If they liked the death of one apostle, let’s kill another one. So he arrests Peter.

It was during the days of unleavened bread, which meant the city was full of pilgrims, seized him, put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him. What does that mean? It simply means twenty-four hours a day each of those squads had a six-hour turn, and so for 24 hours they guarded him. They had him chained as well.

Did they think he could somehow manipulate the chains? No, but they were well aware of his power and influence in the growing church which is numbering in the thousands and thousands and thousands by now, if not the tens of thousands. And they knew that there could be some who would come and release him. And so they put him in the care of soldiers twenty-four hours a day, not just inside a cell, not just chained but guarded, intending to wait till the Passover was over to minimize the trauma to the people and then bring him out and bring about his death.

So Peter was kept in prison, verse 5. But prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God. So the church is praying. That’s their strategy, not to break into the prison and get him out, but to pray. The very night that Herod was about to bring him forward, Peter was sleeping. This would be the last time that this could happen because the next day he would be brought out and executed like James was. He’s sleeping between two soldiers. How close are they guarding him! They’ve got him sleeping between two of them and he is bound with two chains; guards in front of the door watching over the prison.

“And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell, struck Peter’s side, woke him up, said, ‘Get up quickly,’ his chains fell off his hands. The angel said to him, ‘Gird yourself, put on your sandals. Get your inner tunic, get your sash, tie it up, put on your sandals.’ And he did so and he said to him, ‘Wrap your cloak, that’s your outer garment, around you and follow me.’ He went out, continued to follow, didn’t know that what was being done by the angel was real but thought he was seeing a vision.”

He had had a vision back in chapter 10. So he knew that – that a vision could happen and he wasn’t sure. I mean, it’s in the middle of the night and he’s not sure exactly what’s going on. “And they passed the first and second guard. They came to the iron gate that leads into the city which opened for them by itself. They went out, went along one street.

Immediately the angel departed from him. The angel took him where he needed to go. Now he’s in the street alone. Came to himself, he said, ‘Now I know for sure the Lord has sent forth His angel, rescued me from the hand of Herod, from all that the Jewish people were expecting.’” So this affirms again that Herod was trying to please the Jews and the Jews were expecting to do away with Peter.

“When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark.” Here’s the first time we meet John Mark. John was a Jewish name, Mark was a Gentile name. Now it doesn’t tell us anything about him. It just says Peter went to the house of Mary. The fact that the house is identified with a woman rather than a man, probably means it’s a widow.

So here’s a widow with a name that just about every other woman in the New Testament gospel account has, Mary. So in order to distinguish this Mary from all the other Marys, it is the Mary who is the mother of John, who is also called Mark. That’s the only reason his name is even mentioned here. At this point, he’s a nondescript guy. He’s only a way to identify his mother. Peter went to this house because no doubt the church met in this house, which meant that Peter had probably many times been to that house. Nobody needed to take him there which meant that Peter knew John Mark and John Mark knew Peter, though John Mark was very young.

The year the best we can discern is 44, 14 years after the death of Christ. Peter’s been powerful preacher of the gospel since the Day of Pentecost for those 14 years, essentially. So he’s well known. And he goes to a familiar place, meets with a dear widow who is the mother of John Mark. People are in her house praying. He knocks on the door, servant girl named Rhoda comes to the door to answer.

She recognizes Peter’s voice and she’s so joyful, she doesn’t even open the gate. She just turns around, ran in, announced, “Peter is standing in front of the gate.” And they said to her, “You are out of your mind.” Great faith, huh? Let’s have a prayer meeting but let’s not believe it could ever happen. She kept insisting, “It is so, it is so.” And they kept saying, “Nah, it’s his angel.” That’s probably sarcasm.

Peter continues knocking. “When they had opened the door, they saw him and were amazed. Motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had let him out of the prison and he said, ‘Report these things to James.’” This is not James the brother of John. He’s been martyred. This is James the half-brother of our Lord who is the author of the epistle of James and was the leader of the Jerusalem church. So Peter says, “Tell James” – because he’s the leader of the church – “and the brethren. He left and went to another place.”

So here, for the first time, we meet John Mark, incidentally. And the first time we meet him, he has a connection to Peter, even if it’s a very loose connection. But we know he knows Peter. We know Peter’s been to his house because he went there, a familiar place. And that plays out very importantly in the future of his life.

James, as I said, the brother of John, had been already martyred. This James, our Lord’s half-brother, was also martyred. Tradition says 62 A.D. they threw him off the pinnacle of the temple and he was smashed on the ground below. And they took clubs and beat any remaining life out of him.

Why do I tell you this story? Because it is the first mention of John Mark. No writer of any gospel gives us his name, so this is where we meet him. And we meet him in connection with Peter. File that in your mind. It tells – tells us nothing about him, character, nothing. We just know his name. Now, let’s follow history a little bit. Go to the end of chapter 12. Barnabas and Saul have come from Antioch, right? They’ve come with a gift to – to bring relief to the Jews, to the believers in Judea, Jerusalem because of the famine. They deliver their relief and then they go back to Antioch.

Remember now, Saul is in the church in Antioch. He’s returning with Barnabas. They serve as pastors of the church at Antioch. So they were sent with the gifts. They go back. However, “Barnabas and Saul return from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission to bring the gift, taking along with them John who is also called Mark.”

Well this is very interesting. They return to Antioch to their responsibility and the only person they take with them is this young man named John Mark. This is a first indication of his usefulness, the first indication of his character. Was he a preacher? No. Was he a pastor? No. An evangelist? No. Was he an apostle? No. Was he a prophet? No. Was he a leader? No. He was none of those things. He is really a nondescript guy.

You say, “Well why out of all the options would they take him?” Colossians 4:10 says that Mark was the cousin of Barnabas, the cousin of Barnabas. So Barnabas knew him, trusted him, knew something about his talents and his gifts and suggested to Paul to – to bring him along because he could help them not only in the journey but he could help them in the ministry in Antioch. And, by the way, Barnabas was a Levite, and if you were a Levite, you served the priests in the temple. All the way through Jewish history, those from Levi who made up the Levites, served in the temple and assisted the priests. Barnabas was a Levite.

If this man is his cousin, then perhaps he too was in the Levitical family descent. Therefore, he had perhaps served in the temple, was used to serving, had experience in temple service and temple worship, and had the attitude of one who serves. John Mark then goes back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. He remained there. He stayed there. He was faithful there until Paul and Barnabas were ready to leave.

You remember the story. Look at chapter 13 verse 1. “Now there were in Antioch in the church that was there, prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon, called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen and Saul.” Please notice Mark’s name isn’t there, he wasn’t a pastor, he wasn’t a teacher. And they were ministering to the Lord and they were fasting and the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart from me, Barnabas and Saul, for the work to which I’ve called them. They fasted and prayed. Laid hands on them. Sent them away.” That’s the first missionary journey.

Now Paul and Barnabas go on the first missionary journey to the world. They go down to Seleucia, verse 4, sail to Cyprus. “When they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews and they also had” – guess who? – “John Mark as their” – What? – “helper.” That’s the operative word to understand this man. He is a helper.

He had proven to be helpful to them in the time that they had used him in Antioch. I don’t know – we don’t know exactly how much time had gone on, but he had proved to be so helpful to them there that they decided to take him with them on the first missionary journey. That, by the way, friends, is the only description of him that tells us anything about the kind of ministry that he had. He was a helper. So they took him along. It wasn’t easy. Tough ministry.

They ran into Elymas, the magician in verse 8, who was opposing them. It was tough. He was identified as one full of deceit, son of the devil, verse 10, “enemy of righteousness.” And there was a miraculous handling of him in verse 11. So, right from the very beginning, it was tough going, tough travel and opposition. Come down to verse 13. “Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos. Came to Perga in Pamphylia. John left them, returned to Jerusalem.”

This is a sad moment. A deserter, he left them. He disappeared. He disappears from the New Testament record, by the way, for a few years. He left. And he didn’t go back to Antioch. That wouldn’t sit well with the Antiochian church had sent him out trusting he would serve the two preachers. So he went to Jerusalem. He disappears for a few years. The next time he’s on the scene is in chapter 15. Turn to chapter 15 verse 36. A few years have passed. John Mark hasn’t been an issue because he’s not around. But Paul has not forgotten his defection, his desertion, his cowardiceness – his cowardice, I should say, his weakness.

They have a conversation in verse 36. They have come back from the first journey. They’ve given the full report of what God did on their first missionary journey. Time has gone by. Paul finally says to Barnabas after some time has passed, “Let’s return, visit the brethren in every city.” Let’s go on the second missionary journey, go back to the places where we founded the church, planted the church, proclaimed the Word of the Lord and see how they are doing.

Barnabas wanted to take John called Mark along with them also. But Paul kept insisting, which means Barnabas kept insisting. They both kept insisting. “Barnabas said I want to take John Mark. I want to take John Mark. Paul kept insisting I’m not taking John Mark. I am not taking John Mark. He insisted that “they should not take him along who had” – and here’s the operative word – “deserted.” That’s the only way to define what had happened.

There’s no reason given for his leaving in chapter 13. There’s no rhyme or reason for it in that context, but here we learn he was a deserter. He deserted them in Pamphylia and hadn’t gone with them to the work. The discussion got so heated, it became what verse 39 calls “a sharp disagreement,” so sharp that not only did John Mark’s cowardice cause him to have a relationship severed with Paul, but it caused Paul to have a severed relationship with his companion Barnabas.

So Barnabas took Mark with him and went on a trip to Cyprus where he was from, to – to proclaim the gospel there. Paul chose Silas to take Barnabas’ place and “traveled through” – verse 41 says – “Syria and Seleucia, strengthening the churches.” Paul’s refusal to take John Mark was legitimate. He didn’t trust him. He had showed he lacked courage, strength, commitment. He was a defector. He was a deserter. Barnabas, by the way, takes John Mark and Barnabas disappears for two years in the history. We don’t know where he is for two years. John Mark disappears for ten years, ten years.

Ten years later he shows up again. Turn to Colossians 4. His name shows up in a letter written from Paul to the church at Colossae. By the way, Paul is in Rome when he writes this letter. When he was in Rome the first time as a prisoner – and he had two imprisonments. The first time and then he was released, and then he had ministry and then he was imprisoned again in Rome a second time and he was martyred. This is the first imprisonment. He is in his first imprisonment in Rome and he writes three letters; Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon.

Chapter 4 verse 10, “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner.” He’s a prisoner in Rome. From prison he writes these letters, including this one. “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner” – another believer in prison – “sends you his greeting and also Barnabas’ cousin Mark,” Wow! Ten years later Paul’s a prisoner in Rome and guess who’s his companion? The defector, Mark. “about whom you received instruction, if he comes to you, welcome him.” Something dramatic has taken place. Something dramatic. In his letter to Philemon, verse 23, at the end of that letter, “Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you as do Mark and Luke,” and some others.

Here we are ten years later. Paul is in Rome. Mark is in Rome with Paul again. And Paul says, “I’m sending Mark on my behalf. When he gets there, welcome him.” He’s back in the good graces of Paul. How long did that relationship last? Turn to 2 Timothy. Second Timothy, Paul wrote from his second imprisonment some years later. It’s – it’s his last letter, 66, 67 A.D. Twenty-two, twenty-three years since the incident of Peter’s release from prison.

This is the end for him. He says, “I’m ready to be offered. Time of my departure is at hand.” He’s going to have his head chopped off, and he did. But he has this last letter to Timothy. Verse 9, says to Timothy, “Make every effort to come to me soon. Come, I want your fellowship, Timothy.” Why? “Demas, having loved this present world has deserted me.” He had another deserter, Demas. Gone to Thessalonica; Crescens, he’s gone to Galatia; Titus, he’s gone to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Then he tells Timothy, do this, “Pick up” – Whom? – “Mark, bring him with you for he is useful to me for ministry.”

From the time of his first imprisonment, he had Mark at his side. A few years later in his second imprisonment on the brink of his death, he wanted Mark with him. So I say to you, this is the story of the restored deserter. What kind of privilege is that, folks? What kind of privilege is that? For a guy who’s not an apostle, not a prophet, not a pastor, not a teacher, not an evangelist, not a leader, just a helper, to be given the privilege of serving alongside the apostle Paul, defecting from that privilege and being restored years later to become so intimately associated with Paul, so loved by Paul, so trusted by Paul that Paul would send him to the Colossian church on his own behalf. And that when Paul is facing death at the end of his life, the one person he asks to come in addition to Timothy is bring Mark.

You’re not surprised by that, are you? That the Lord would use people like that? Those are the only kind of people there are, recovering sinners, restored deserters, recovered defectors. Now. that part of the story is interesting, isn’t it? His relationship to Paul is monumental. Can’t imagine a simple, humble helper being an intimate friend and companion of the great apostle Paul. But his relationship to another apostle is far more significant. That other apostle is Peter. Certainly it would be the privilege of all privileges for a failure, defector, deserter, rejected by Paul to be restored in grace to become the helper and friend of that marvelous man. How could he expect that kind of honor?

But he had even more than that. He became the companion and confidant of Peter. If Paul was the greatest apostle in terms of the volume of things that he wrote. Peter was Christ’s most intimate friend. What kind of privilege would it be to spend years alongside Paul and years alongside Peter? Did he know Peter? Sure he knew Peter. Peter had come to his house many times in the years of the early church. Had he heard Peter preach? Absolutely he heard Peter preach.

But it wasn’t the early acquaintance with Peter that was so significant, it was the later acquaintance with Peter. Remember those ten years when John Mark disappears? Part of the time he was with Peter. You remember when he left, he went back to Jerusalem? He didn’t stay in Jerusalem. Peter took him somewhere. Turn to 1 Peter chapter 5 and I’ll tell you where. First Peter chapter 5, Peter writes his letter that we know as 1 Peter, his first general epistle, and he is in Rome when he wrote this letter, Peter is. He is in Rome.

He is writing in Rome to the Roman believers and others beyond. He makes reference to Rome in chapter 5 verse 13. “She” – meaning the church – “who is in Babylon.” That’s a code word for Rome. And the reason he uses a code word is because persecution has begun to break out, severe deadly persecution. And so in a cryptic way he substitutes Babylon for Rome so as not to exacerbate the persecution. “She” – the church – “chosen together with you who is in Babylon,” – or Rome – “sends you greetings.” The greetings extend from the church in Rome to the other churches that will read the letter. “And so does my son, Mark.” My son, Mark?

Oh, not his physical son, but his spiritual son. No doubt Mark had come to Christ listening to Peter preach way back when he was young. No doubt Peter was the first great impactful spiritual influence on his young life. Peter was responsible for his conversion. There is consistent historical testimony that goes all the way back to the first century that after Paul left his first imprisonment in Rome, after he had been there with Mark, after he had written Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, he left Rome, was let out of prison, came back at a later time.

But in the middle period of time, Peter went to Rome. Peter went to Rome. The consistent historical testimony is that Peter spent at least a year there, maybe more than a year. and he was in Rome and he was preaching constantly the gospel day after day after day after day. He died in Rome as a martyr in the summer or the autumn of the year 64 A.D., right at the time Nero burned the city and blamed the Christians and launched the persecution. And while Peter was there, he sends greetings and he says, “So does my son, Mark.” Mark was with Peter in Rome.

Can you imagine being the companion of the apostle Paul? That would – that would be enough. But then to be the companion of Peter? And he was, just an astonishing privilege. He wrote it from Rome. And he was in Rome with Peter. You say, “Why is that important? Why does that matter?” Because Mark’s gospel is the product of Peter’s eyewitness testimony. The source for Mark from a human viewpoint is Peter.

His gospel is based on Peter’s eyewitness accounts of the life of the Lord Jesus, which Peter rehearsed day after day after day after day, as he went out into the streets and the buildings of Rome and preached the gospel with Mark at his side. And, believe me, Mark had heard it before that, going all the way back to his childhood.

This is Peter’s account through John Mark, not an apostle, not a prophet, not a pastor, not a leader, not a teacher, just a helper. He is given this immense incredible privilege of writing what he calls the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who controlled all the information that had come to him through Peter, he wrote this gospel.

Matthew, a former tax collector; Luke, a Gentile; John, a brash son of thunder, and Mark, a defector. And you ask, “Why did the Lord choose those people?” Because those are the only kind of people there are. Sinful, unqualified people, forgiven sinners to choose from. You say, “But are we sure John Mark is the author since his name isn’t in the gospel?” Uersal church testimony going back to the first century, at the top of each gospel on the original manuscript it says Kata Mattaion, Kata Markon, Kata Lotkan, Kata Johannen; according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John. The title “according to” goes way back before the early church fathers. It was unequivocally affirmed, never disputed, never debated.

And the ancient writers actually say that Mark wrote from material he heard from Peter. In fact, the testimony goes on. It’s wonderful testimony. Somebody like Polycarp – Polycarp, one of the early church fathers who knew John, had a student by the name of Papias who wrote, “Mark, who was an interpreter of Peter, wrote with exactness.” You have Justin, lives from 100 to 150, in his famous Dialogue with Trypho, speaks of the memoirs of Peter being the gospel of Mark. He says Mark wrote in Rome after Peter’s death. You have Irenaeus around 200, you have Origen around 230, Clement, the year 300, Eusebius, 362, they all say the same thing.

Here’s a quote from Eusebius, “So great a light of religion shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with all kinds of entreaties urged Mark, whose gospel is extent, seeing that he was a follower of Peter to leave them in writing a record of the teaching transmitted to them orally. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so they became responsible humanly for the Scripture that is called The Gospel According to Mark.”

They prevailed upon Mark to write it down. This is the true authentic work of John Mark, inspired by the Holy Spirit, protected, controlled to be inerrant revelation concerning the life, ministry, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. But it’s only the beginning of the story, only the beginning, and that’s how it starts, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. The ending hasn’t been written yet. This is just the very, very beginning. And, in fact, it ends in a very strange way.

The legitimate ending is in chapter 16 verse 8. That’s where it really stops. And to show you how much a beginning without an end it is, here is the last verse of Mark. Just listen. “They went out, fled from the tomb for trembling and astonishment had gripped them, they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.” End. In fact, that is such a strange ending that a false ending was added later, which you’ll see in brackets in your Bible. It doesn’t appear in the early manuscripts. But that’s so consistent with Mark.

This is the beginning, this is not the end, the story has no end. If you want the rest of the story, go to the book of Acts. It was written from Rome to Roman Christians. It is the memoirs of Peter. We know it was written to Gentiles because of its Gentile character. Jewish material is always explained because the Gentiles didn’t understand it. We’ll see that as we go through. There is no genealogy because Gentiles didn’t care about a Jewish genealogy. There are Latinisms all through Mark because the Romans spoke Latin.

Whenever there’s an Aramaic term, it is explained because they wouldn’t know it, they don’t speak Aramaic. When they refer to time, chapter 6 verse 48, chapter 13 verse 35, it’s Roman time. The style of Mark is fast paced like a sprint; no introduction, no conclusion. It’s just the beginning. The content focuses on action, very few teaching sections. Chapter 4, chapter 13, a few teaching spots scattered around here and there, but mostly it’s action intended to be read aloud, experienced by the hearers.

The theme is Jesus Christ the Son of God. The structure, real simple. There’s a midpoint in the book. Sixteen chapters, go to the middle, chapter 8 verse 29 and right in the middle of the book you hear this confession from Peter, “You are the Christ.” That is the pinnacle confession of the book. Everything in the front leads up to it. Everything in the back goes from it. The front half proves Jesus is the Christ by His deeds and words. The second half proves Jesus is the Christ by His death and resurrection. But everything moves to that pinnacle that He is the Christ. The goal of the book is for you to confess that Jesus is the Christ.

It has the same objective as John, who writes in John 20:31, “These things are written that you may believe and believing have life in His name.” It’s an evangelistic book. The first half is filled with confusion, the people are confused. In fact, the only people who aren’t confused about Jesus in the first half of Mark are the demons. In the second half, it’s not confusion, it’s hostility. But the pinnacle is the confession of Peter. And isn’t it what you’d expect from one who was a disciple of Peter, one who drew his gospel from Peter.

He would make Peter’s confession which Peter must have given every day that he was with Mark when he preached. He must have said, “I believe He is the Christ, I’ll tell you the story. One day we were here and Jesus said, ‘Who do men say I am?’ And we said, ‘You’re Jeremiah one of the prophets.’ And then all of a sudden out of nowhere, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ That’s what I said, that’s what I believe.” That’s the pinnacle of Peter’s testimony and that’s the pinnacle of the gospel of Mark. And it’s to bring all of us to that conviction.

What a privilege for this helper, the most unlikely of people. In fact, if I redo Twelve Ordinary Men, I’ll change it to Thirteen Ordinary Men, throw Mark in there as an Appendix, a very ordinary man. And God gave him privilege beyond calculation to be an intimate companion of Paul, an intimate companion of Peter, helping both of them. But beyond that, giving him the privilege to write one of four inspired gospels. Don’t underestimate what God is able to do with helpers.

Father, we thank You for this wonderful testimony to Your grace that’s bound up in the heart of this man in his life. We’re – we’re thrilled to be his students now, as we embark upon the story as he told it and as You directed him. We’re just so blessed, Lord, so blessed to have another opportunity to look at the life of Christ, to be caught up in the glory of His person, His work, His words, His ways, to walk with Him through the world, to see His life from another angle. What a privilege.

Christ is all and all to us, He is everything to us. He is our life. We thank You that we see in this juxtaposition between the all-glorious Christ and Mark, a distinction that is part of our own lives. Here is a gospel written about the sinless Son of God by a sinful man, written about the almighty courageous strong Son of God by a cowardly, weak man. Here is the story of a sinless one written by a sinner. Here is the story of perfect righteousness written by a man in desperate need of grace.

(Available online at: www.gty.org/sermons/41-1/mark-the-restored-deserter© Grace to You. All rights reserved. You may reproduce this Grace to You content for non- commercial  purposes in accordance with Grace to You’s Copyright Policy.

The drama of Mark’s Gospel peaks in Caesarea Philippi.

It’s a religious mecca. Every major religion can be found here. Temples dot the landscape. Priests stride the streets.

Jesus and his followers are here? Why? If Jesus preached a sermon, it’s not recorded. If he performed a miracle, we don’t know it. As far as we know, all he did was ask two questions.

The first, “Who do people say that I am?”

The disciples are quick to respond. They’ve overheard the chatter. “Some say you are John the Baptist. Others say you are Elijah, and others say you are one of the prophets.”

Good answers. True answers. But wrong answers.

Jesus then turns and asks them the question. The question. “But who do you say that I am?”

He doesn’t ask, “What do you think about what I’ve done.” He asks, “Who do you say that I am.”

He doesn’t ask, “Who did you think I was when the crowds were great and the miracles were many?” He asks, “Who do you think I am. Here against the backdrop of religion. Me, a penniless itinerant surrounded by affluent temples. Who do you say I am?”

He doesn’t ask, “Who do your friends think … Who do your parents think … Who do your peers think.” He poses instead a starkly personal query, “Who do you think I am?”

The disciples aren’t as quick to respond. One ducks his eyes. Another shuffles his feet. A third clears his throat. But Peter lifts his head. He lifts his head and looks at the Nazarene and speaks the words heaven has longed to hear. “You are the Christ.”

You have been asked some important questions in your life: Will you marry me? Would you be interested in a transfer? What would you think if I told you I was pregnant?

You’ve been asked some important questions. But the grandest of them is an anthill compared to the Everest found in the eighth chapter of Mark. Who do you say that I am?^[1]

ACTION—moving, doing, helping, getting going, making things happen. Some people think, some talk, but a few get involved; not content to observe from the sidelines, they get into the game—they get into life! This describes Mark and his father in the faith, Peter. And it’s the picture of Jesus that Mark presents in this Gospel.

The Gospel of Mark is the shortest of the four records of Jesus’ life, and it covers only three and a half years. On the first page, Mark jumps into the action, with John the Baptist’s fiery preaching and the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Then, moving swiftly through Jesus’ baptism, temptation in the desert, and call of the disciples, Mark focuses his attention on Jesus’ public ministry. He is interested in Christ’s works, not just his words. In fact, Mark records eighteen of Jesus’ miracles and only four of his parables.

Although Mark presents events in chronological order, he gives little or no historical linkage between the events. And to keep things moving and heighten the sense of action, Mark continually uses the phrase “straightway” () or “immediately.” Readers feel, “Jesus is on the move; we’d better stay alert, or we’ll miss something!”

Writing to a Roman audience, Mark does not have to recite Jesus’ genealogy or refer to Old Testament prophecies that have been fulfilled. Gentiles don’t need a Jewish history lesson; they need a clear picture of Christ. And the Romans believe in power and action. So Mark makes sure they have a no-nonsense, concise, action-packed summary. Mark pictures Jesus as powerful—giving sight to the blind, raising the dead, calming stormy seas, restoring deformed bodies. But he shows Jesus using this mighty power to help others, taking the form of a servant, not a king. Mark weaves the servant theme throughout his book and presents the servant Jesus as an example to follow: “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” (10:44–45 ).

The Gospel of Mark is a short, action-packed account, bustling with life and focused on Christ’s purpose. As you study Mark, be ready for fast-paced, nonstop action, be open for God’s move into your life, and be challenged to move into your world to serve.^[2]

AUTHOR

Mark (John Mark): cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10) and close friend of Peter (1 Peter 5:13)

The book of Mark names no one as author. Since the second century a.d., however, church leaders and scholars have accepted John Mark as the one who wrote this Gospel. (John is his Jewish name and Mark, Marcus, his Roman name.) The early church fathers unanimously accepted Mark’s authorship. Papias (a.d. 110) makes the earliest statement to this effect:

• Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he remembered, whether of sayings or doings of Christ, but not in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I have said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his instruction as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake when he wrote down thus some things as he remembered them, for he concentrated on this alone—not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, p. 39)

Other church fathers, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, confirm this assessment of Mark as the author.

Mark was young, perhaps in his teens, at the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Evidently his mother, Mary, was a well-to-do widow who had come to faith in Christ. Many surmise that Mary’s house was the site of the Last Supper (14:12–26) and the home where the disciples gathered at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4); some believe that Mark was the young man who ran away naked when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane (14:51–52). Regardless of the truth of these speculations, Scripture clearly states that fourteen years after the tumultuous events leading to the Crucifixion, in about a.d. 44, the church gathered at Mary’s house to pray. King Herod had begun to persecute believers; he had executed James, the brother of John, and was holding Peter in prison. The church was praying for Peter’s release. Luke explains that after Peter had been miraculously released from prison, “he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark” (Acts 12:12 ). Mark was deeply involved in the drama of the Jerusalem church and was well-known to Peter and the other disciples.

In Colossians 4:10, Paul reveals that Mark is the cousin of Barnabas. Perhaps that is what motivated Barnabas and Paul to take Mark with them back to Antioch from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25). Soon thereafter, Barnabas and Paul were commissioned by the church in Antioch to begin their first missionary journey (Acts 13:1–3), and they included Mark as their helper (Acts 13:5). Early in the trip, however, at Perga, Mark abruptly left and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Luke gives no reason for Mark’s departure (perhaps he was homesick, fearful, or ill). Later, however, when Paul and Barnabas began to plan the second journey, Mark became the cause of a sharp disagreement between the two men. Barnabas wanted to include Mark again, but Paul was strongly opposed because Mark had “deserted” them on the previous trip. So Barnabas and Paul parted company. Barnabas sailed to Cyprus with Mark, while Paul chose Silas and traveled to Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:36–41).

We know little else about John Mark. Evidently, he and Paul reconciled completely because later he joined Paul in Rome, during Paul’s first imprisonment (a.d. 60–62) and was a comfort to him there (Colossians 4:10–11; Philemon 24). During Paul’s second imprisonment and just before his death, he asked Timothy to bring Mark to Rome, “because he is helpful to me in my ministry” (2 Timothy 4:11 ). Mark must have matured emotionally and spiritually through the years and under the mentoring of cousin Barnabas.

Mark also enjoyed a very close relationship with Peter. In fact, Peter may have led Mark to Christ because he calls Mark “my son” (1 Peter 5:13). After Paul’s release from prison in a.d. 62, Mark may have stayed in Rome (also called “Babylon”—1 Peter 5:13) to work closely with Peter. Mark probably left Rome in about a.d. 65 or 66, during Nero’s intense persecution. Both Paul and Peter were executed by Nero in about a.d. 67 or 68. According to tradition, Mark died soon after.

John Mark provides a sterling example of how a young Christian can grow and mature. Perhaps basking in the attention of the spiritual giants Paul and Barnabas, and excited by the prospect of reaching the world with the gospel, he had sailed to Cyprus on the first missionary journey. A short time later, however, when the going got tough, Mark returned home. Whatever Mark’s reason for leaving, Paul didn’t approve; in fact, he wanted nothing to do with Mark after the incident. Yet fifteen years later, Mark was serving as a ministry companion to both Peter and Paul, and later he wrote the Gospel bearing his name. Little is known about Mark during those years, except that Barnabas took personal interest in him, encouraging Mark by continuing to work with him in ministry.

Do you know any “Marks”—young, Christian diamonds in the rough? What can you do to be their “Barnabas”?

 Four scenes from his life emerge from the sacred records.

Scene I: He appears in Acts 12:12 as the son, perhaps the only son, of Barnabas’ sister Mary, whose commodious house was a gathering place for the church in Jerusalem. To this place Peter went to greet the assembled Christians who were praying when he was released from prison by an angel. The size of the house with a courtyard and gate, together with the appearance of a servant girl named Rhoda, indicates the wealth and influence of the home. If the young man (Mark 14:51) who fled leaving his linen garment behind was Mark (the same being most probable), his type of clothing would also fit in with the affluence suggested by the residence. All in all, the scene is one of honor, influence, tranquillity, and faith, Barnabas being one of the most distinguished leaders in the early church.

Scene II: Desertion from the mission field. Mark accompanied Barnabas and Saul on the first missionary journey and shared in the successful advocacy of the gospel throughout Cyprus (Acts 12:25), but he abruptly quit the mission at Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13; 15:38). There is no way to tell if: (a) he was merely homesick, (b) upset by the ascendancy of Paul over his uncle Barnabas, (c) intimidated by the audacity and scope of Paul’s plans which obviously included the whole world, or (d) discouraged by the trials and hardships of missionary life. One thing is absolutely certain: he did not turn back “because he objected to the offer of salvation to the Gentiles on condition of faith alone”!^[1] It is a fact known to all men that Paul never offered salvation to any person on condition of faith alone. Mark’s turning back resulted in a rift between Paul and Barnabas, a division, however, which was later healed.

Scene III: Back in Jerusalem. The old ways, however, had lost their charm for Mark. As soon as another missionary journey was planned, he was ready to go (Acts 15:37); but Paul’s confidence had been shaken, and he was unwilling to have him in the company. Like many another who turns back from a post of honor, Mark found the road back difficult; but he remained faithful.

Scene IV: Restoration. Eleven years later, John Mark was with Paul in Rome (Col. 4:10f; Philemon 1:24). The breach had been healed. He was one of the faithful who stood by Paul, an honored “fellow worker” and a “comfort” to the great apostle to the Gentiles. It appears that Paul may have sent him on a mission to Asia Minor where he met Peter in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). The final glory of John Mark, aside from the “crown of life” laid up for all who love the Lord’s appearing, consisted of two things: (1) Paul’s last letter pleaded for Mark’s companionship (2 Tim. 4:11), and (2) when the Holy Spirit chose an author of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, Mark’s name, save one alone, led all the rest.

That John Mark was indeed the author of the second Gospel may not be doubted. Cranfield declared that: We may take it as virtually certain that the Mark who is the associate of Peter and the author of the Gospel and the Mark of Acts and the Pauline epistles are one and the same person.^[2]

Albert Barnes opened his mouth even wider, affirming that: The uniform testimony of the fathers is that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and that he wrote this Gospel under the eye of Peter and with his approbation. It has come down to us with the sanction of Peter’s authority. Its right to a place among the inspired books has never been questioned. That it was written by Mark, that it was with Peter’s approbation, that it was a record of the facts which Peter stated in his ministry, and that it was therefore an inspired book, has never been questioned.^[3][3]

^[1] Max Lucado, Life Lessons from the Inspired Word of God: Book of Mark, Inspirational Bible Study Series (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1997), 7–10.

^[2] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), x–xii.

¹ ISBE, Vol. III, p. 1987.

² C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge Uersity Press, 1966), p. 6.

³ Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1955), Matthew and Mark, p. 328.

^[3] James B. Coffman, Commentary on Mark, The James Burton Coffman Commentaries (A. C. U. Press, 1984), Mk.