Mark Chapter 1
MSB notes on Mark, including a discussion of "The Synoptic Problem".
Mark was a close companion of Peter, and is often mentioned in Acts as "John, who was also called Mark". Mark was Barnabas' cousin. This is the Mark who turned back and left Paul and Barnabas on that first missionary journey. Paul refused to take him on the second journey when Barnabas wanted him with them, causing a rift between Paul and Barnabas that even leads to their separation. This all blows over, and eventually Paul calls John Mark a fellow worker. Peter calls Mark "my son, Mark".
Early church fathers attributed this gospel to Mark. Hieropolis in about 140 AD, talked specifically about the book. He says that Mark was not with Jesus, but was ever with Peter. He says Mark undertook to write down the things Peter told him, but as he was recording what someone else said, the book is not necessarily chronological.
In AD 150, Justin Martyr referred to the Gospel of Mark as the memoirs of Peter, committed to writing by Mark while in Italy. Most believe it was written in Rome, for the benefit of Roman Christians. Iranaeus, in about AD 185, says the book records what Peter preached about Jesus. There is debate as to whether it was written before or after Peter's death in ca. AD 67-68. Consensus is that it was written in about AD 50 - though this is still hotly debated.
2024 - Is this the Mark that ran naked from the scene of Jesus' arrest? Isn't that in here? ...Yes, that's in Mark 14:51. Do we know his mother's name? Yes, we do...12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. [Act 12:12 ESV]. She was one of the "Marys".
This book seems to be written for Roman Christians, particularly Gentiles. The internal evidence is all listed in the MSB, but particularly interesting is that Mark is careful to explain Jewish traditions (which Jews would already know), he leaves out the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and refers only now and then to the OT - since Gentiles would not be as familiar with them anyway.
Mark focuses more on the things Jesus did than on the things Jesus taught. Mark doesn't spend any time on Jesus' birth or early life. He starts at the Baptism by John. Mark highlights the "humanness" of Jesus - emotions, physical limitations, and so on.
There are three big questions about this book: 1, what is the relationship of Mark to Matthew and Luke (The Synoptic Problem), 2, how to interpret the eschatological passages (Chapters 4 (2022 - which does not seem particularly eschatological to me), 13 (2022 - which starts off much like Matthew 24), and 3, were those last 12 verses of the last chapter added much later?
The question of how to explain the similarities and differences between the three Synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - is called the Synoptic Problem. The most commonly accepted theory is called the "Two-Source" theory. This theory says Mark was written first, and then Luke and Matthew used Mark's book, along with a now unknown (MSB calls it imagined and non-existent) source Q after the German word Quelle, meaning "source", that supplied all the material that Mark didn't already mention. The reasons given for accepting the 2 source theory are outlined. They seem more like general observations than compelling arguments to me. And I don't see why it makes a lot of difference whether or not Luke and Matthew had read Mark's book and used it as the "backbone framework" off which they built their own gospels?
In refutation of the 2 source theory - these:
1, Early church fathers were unanimous that Matthew was the first written.
2, Why would Matthew, who was there, depend on someone who wasn't - Mark, even for the account of his own conversion?
3, Statistical analysis (who knows what the details might be) say there are a lot more differences in these gospels than is generally acknowledged, which argues against any one of them depending on the others.
4, They are all somewhat chronological, all record the events in the life of Christ. Of course they will relate things in more or less the same order, as would three writers of American history who put the Revolutionary war before the Civil war in each case. Doesn't mean one was copying from the other.
5, In about a sixth of each of Matthew and Luke, they agree together differently than Mark. Why would both Luke and Matthew change Mark's wording in exactly the same way?
6, The 2 source theory cannot explain why Luke omits the important section in Mark (6:45-8:26). The fact that Luke does omit it indicates that Luke had never seen it, therefore he did not have Mark's gospel as a source.
7, No historical evidence for the Q document exists. It never was there (per MSB) but is "a fabrication of modern skepticism and a way to possibly deny the verbal inspiration of the gospels".
8, All three of them probably knew each other, spent time with each other, discussed Jesus with each other. So some commonalities between their gospels in matters they'd discussed do not indicate directly that they had read each other's books.
Gotta go with John on this one.
This book opens at Matthew 3 so to speak. Mark quotes from the same place in Isaiah as Matthew did.
2022 - Here is that passage:
"2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. 3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." [Isa 40:2-3 ESV]
Note that the "double punishment is mentioned here. I think it refers to the second destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred so near in time to the coming of Christ. It is almost as if this verse is not only Messianic, but foretells WHEN he will come.
Next, note the punctuation in Isaiah as contrasted with Mark. The Isaiah passage starts out as "A voice cries:" and then the message of that cry starts "In the wilderness...". Jesus is forced to take his ministry out of the cities and into the desolate places very early in his ministry. So BOTH John and Jesus were in the wilderness for the most part. This would have been very different from other "prophets" of the time, different from pretenders, and so on. You do not normally rise to fame and fortune in the middle of nowhere. This makes both John and Jesus unique.
2025 - Mark has a distinctive way of writing, at least as this book opens. He makes abundant use of the imperfect tense and the present passive participle, and throws in an aorist occasionally also just to keep it interesting. It comes across not as an active narrative, but as a sort of detached mentioning of the things that happened.
This verse is how Mark puts what John was doing:
4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. [Mar 1:4 ESV]
"a" baptism. Definite article must be missing. (2022 - Yes, it is missing). Baptism for forgiveness. MSB note on this verse first tells us that John is the last OT prophet, and also the announcer of the Messiah. He is the end of Israel, and the beginning of the church (my words). The MSB note continues:
Baptism was the distinguishing mark of John's ministry. It differed from the ritual washings in that it was only done once. THIS INFORMATION: The Jews performed a similar one-time washing of Gentile proselytes, symbolizing their embracing of the true faith. NEVER KNEW THIS! Would love to look into the source of this information. The note continues "That Jews would participate in such a rite was a startling admission that they, although members of God's covenant people, needed to come to God through repentance and faith just like the Gentiles. John's message is again summarized in 7 through vs 8.
2022 - He baptized "for the remission of sins". This is how it is worded in English. The word translated "for" is from "eis", a little word used 1,774 times in the New Testament. You would think that would be enough for us to know what it means and how it is used. But it isn't. I heard a very good explanation of the usages of this word...but I can't remember it precisely. The gist was that the word eis is used two ways, just as we use for in two ways. Here is one way we use it"
He went to the grocery story for groceries. So in this sense, the action was taken to obtain something. This is the usage that those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation use. The other usage means "because of". He went to the grocery store because of groceries. This is not about going to obtain groceries, but going because the store HAS groceries. Because they had groceries, he went to that store. It is this second usage that is applied by those who believe baptism is subsequent to remission, and not its prequel. I believe the examples given in the video I saw were much better than these two I've come up with but the idea is the same. I also note that eis is sometimes translated "in", "into". It is a very common, very useful, and very often used preposition.
Here is the point of all this: You cannot pick out one verse, apply your preferred interpretation, and then make the rest of the Bible conform to that interpretation. It works the other way. You find everything in the Bible that relates to your question and you reach a conclusion based on the preponderance (if I may use a legal term) of the answers given. I think baptism is "because of" salvation, not "to obtain" salvation.
Here is one more verse, by the same writer, and only 4 verses later, and this verse does not use "eis":
"8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."" [Mar 1:8 ESV]. If you take the position that water baptism precedes salvation, doesn't this verse say that Holy Spirit baptism precedes salvation? And if so, that means that God indwells unsaved people with the Holy Spirit, with the third person of the Trinity. The only way around this is to perhaps says that the two are concurrent - indwelling and salvation, water baptism and salvation. If you take that position, then you have to deal with this:
"47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" [Act 10:47 KJV]. In this verse, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in these people who were not yet baptized is evident to all. Some didn't want to baptize them, because they were not Jews. Are we to believe that those making such an argument didn't want them to be saved? Isn't it more likely that they saw water baptism as a Jewish thing that should not be extended to Gentiles? After all, the temple was still in operation at this time and Gentiles couldn't go into the inner parts of that temple and offer sacrifices, Gentiles couldn't be priests in the temple...it was exclusive to the Jews. They felt the same way about water baptism. So they were saying, ok, they have the Holy Spirit, so they are saved - and saved without water baptism, as evidenced by a more powerful baptism - but they are not Jews so they aren't entitled to participate in a Jewish ritual.
The conclusion to me is obvious. Even so, I have heard people say that this cannot be used as a precedent because it was during the "startup" of the church, and many exceptions were made. They equate this incident with the performing of miracles and speaking in tongues, and such things as were only present during the initial days of the church. But those things were done by apostles or those directly empowered by the apostles. Those were the exceptions. Salvation itself, the gospel itself, was NEVER done by exception.
What of the OT saints? They weren't baptized. Now we have an entire testament full of exceptions. But if salvation is by faith alone, then all are saved in the same way.
Enough on that for today.
This is a serious matter, more serious than most people believe. There is no way around the fact that one of these positions is right and one is wrong. It is not an either/or, it is not a "whichever". One is right, one wrong. The one that is wrong is a false gospel. Those who teach the one that is wrong are false teachers. The gospel is too important for us to get wrong. We often think that those who take the opposite view from us on this question are good people but misinformed. That is too lenient. Whichever way you believe, if you sincerely believe it, you must view those with the opposing view as teachers of a false gospel, and these verses address that directly:
"8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." [Gal 1:8-9 KJV]
He says it twice. This is a big deal indeed and we need to stop skimming over it as if it is not a big issue. It is a huge issue.
2023 - This verse:
8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." [Mar 1:8 ESV]
The clear implication is that baptism with water - or John's baptism - is incomplete. It is not a sufficient baptism. Baptism by/with/in the Holy Spirit is the priority baptism, and is to be sought even after water baptism. Water alone is not enough. So those who count baptism necessary for salvation must say something like "during water baptism..." or "at the moment of water baptism..." the Holy Spirit indwells us and we receive that baptism simultaneously with water baptism. But I have never really heard them say that. Maybe they do. We have examples of tongues of fire before baptism, and we have them subsequent to baptism. And here's a question...did the 12 have to get baptized? When did that happen? Who did the baptizing? Do we have any Scriptural indication that they were baptized...other than Paul?
Beginning in 9 we have Mark's account of the baptism of Jesus. It is a little different than Matthew's record:
10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." [Mar 1:10-11 ESV] More of a sense of something violent happening here, a sense of a "sign" in the heavens. Mark then jumps ahead to John's arrest and implies that as John was arrested, Jesus began his own public ministry in Galilee. Jesus' message was that the kingdom of God was at hand, and a call to repentance and belief in the gospel.
2023 - This verse:
8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." ... 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." [Mar 1:8, 15 ESV]. Jesus has repentance coming first, and then belief.
Mark then moves to the calling of the disciples. The first four are mentioned. Simon and Andrew, James and John.
This moves really fast. From vs 4-20, we go from John's appearance baptizing, to Jesus baptism, his temptation, his "first sermon", and the calling of the disciples. That seems like a lot of ground to cover so quickly.
Next, they are in Capernaum - a ways off from the sea of Galilee - and Jesus enters the synagogue. They are amazed at Jesus teaching - as one with authority. There is a demon-possessed man in this synagogue as Jesus is teaching. The demon states his recognition of Jesus as "The Holy One of God". Jesus rebukes the demon, then casts him out. Jesus' reputation spreads far and wide as a result of this event. This is what the new "Chosen" series keeps harping on through Nicodemus. Casting out demons. It is indeed more significant this first time than I would have thought. But they make it casting out of Mary Magdalene, not in the synagogue at Capernaum. The more I read the more I believe that while Chosen might be a good idea, the amount of artistic license they take is well beyond what is reasonable. (2020-No. It is very much worth watching.) 2020-I read in a book I found at Dad's that it may be that demons - Satan's angels, minions, helpers, beings or whatever it really is that demons are - may have been released into the world in huge numbers prior to Jesus appearance as part of some plan of Satan's to try and stop Jesus and his work. The murder of countless male children in and around Bethlehem was, I believed, accomplished with some kind of demonic influence on Herod - either possession by a powerful demon or by Satan himself. So it would not be surprising for Satan to "marshal his forces" to the area where Jesus was. Even if Satan only used them as spies, to report on where Jesus was and what he was doing - to gather intelligence that might be used to kill Jesus early or to prevent the spread of his message...it makes sense that there would be demons in force and in quantity. This is why the gospels are "flooded" with demon stories. It was a unique and unusual time of manifestation of demons in the world. They were less "secret" than they are now.
2025 - A couple of things to note as possible "characteristics" of demonic activity in vss 23-26. First, they could go into synagogues without any problems. A building has no special power to repel demons, so hiding in a church won't protect you. They can speak independently of their hosts. Their hosts are helpless to push them out on their own, and MOST OTHERS either do not recognize that a demon is present (or surely they would have run the man out of the synagogue) and they have little power to banish it. The demon in this case "made a fuss" when Jesus made him leave. He caused convulsions in his host. But it is the demon who cries out loudly as he leaves. The voice of the demon itself was heard. I suspect this voice would be unique enough to sort of confirm that a demon had been present.
To use Mark's word, Jesus immediately heals Simon's mother-in-law of a fever. It also makes it seem as though Simon and Andrew live in Capernaum. (Yes, I was confusing Cana and Capernaum. Capernaum is right on the Sea of Galilee.) So they could have walked from the synagogue to Simon's house in a heartbeat. Also, Simon wouldn't have a mother-in-law if he were not married. That same night, Jesus heals a LOT of the residents of that town. So in Mark's version, Jesus' ministry starts with a huge demonstration of his power to cast out demons and to heal the sick. It starts with miracles.
2025 - This verse: 32 That evening at sundown they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons. [Mar 1:32 ESV]. Jesus was in the synagogue on the Sabbath. So they waited until sundown to do the work of "bringing the sick and demon oppressed" to him, since the Sabbath ended at sundown. So it wasn't just the Pharisees, but all the people who took the rest imposed by the Sabbath very seriously indeed.
Jesus gets up very early the next day and prays, and then moves on to several more towns in the region. Jesus says he wants to preach, because that is why he came out. This verse:
39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons. [Mar 1:39 ESV]
Mark's gospel makes it seem like casting out demons was just about as big a deal as all the healing, as far as Jesus' credentials as Messiah. In this verse, Jesus is preaching and casting out demons, not healing. Are there any prophecies that he would do this? I know there are prophecies that have to do with the healing, but demons? I really don't remember any stories of OT prophets casting out demons either. Never thought about it before, but exorcism may be a uniquely NT thing. Check that book I have now, and see what the OT says about demons.
A leper is healed. Jesus asks him to keep it quiet, but the former leper proclaims it. This miracle, unprecedented in that time, catapults Jesus to such celebrity that he can no longer go into a town without being mobbed. So from here on, he preaches and heals in desolate, out of the mainstream places. The people now come to him, not the other way around. His ministry was a phenomenon.
Healing, casting out demons, curing leprosy. Leprosy was like the "cancer" of that day, the incurable killer. Worse than cancer, leprosy isolated first, and then killed. More like what Alzheimer's is doing today. As leprosy isolated those who contracted it so that their loved ones could not support them, Alzheimer's makes it impossible for the loved ones to communicate with the sufferer even in the same room with them. They watch as the one afflicted slips away, forgets who they are, changes the memories. In lepers, the memories stay and are cherished by the sufferer, though none can be added in the isolation.