eksousia - InDepth Bible Commentaries by Dr. David Darnell

GETTING OUR FACTS ON STRAIGHT 1 

Mark 1:1, Greek Text with Translation 

1.1 �Áñ÷� ôï� å�áããåëßïõ �Éçóï� ×ñéóôï� [õ�ï� èåï�]. 

1.1 Beginning of the Good News of Jesus, Anointed One, [Son of God]. 

Mark 1:1, Translation with Footnotes 

2 

3 4 5 6 7 8 

1.1 Beginning of the Good News of Jesus, Anointed One, [Son of God] 

1 

The story is told of a group of four-year-olds in a Sunday school class in Chattanooga. 

Their enthusiastic teacher looked at the class and asked the question: "Does anyone know 

what today is?" A little four-year-old girl held up her hand and said, "Yes, today is Palm 

Sunday." The teacher exclaimed, "That's fantastic. That's wonderful. Now does anyone 

know what next Sunday is?" The same little girl held up her hand and said, "Yes, next Sunday 

is Easter Sunday." Once again the teacher said, "That's fantastic. Now, does anyone know 

what makes next Sunday Easter?" The same little girl responded, saying "Yes, next Sunday is 

Easter because Jesus rose from the grave." But before the teacher could congratulate her, 

the little girl continued, "But if he sees his shadow, he has to go back in for seven weeks." 

I have entitled this study “Getting Our Facts on Straight,” because sometimes we get 

confusing ideas about the Christian faith, and the meaning of its basic affirmations. Here we 

are going to deal with five of those affirmations, or facts, contained in the words of this first 

sentence in Mark. 

2 

The earliest inscription found in Greek manuscripts is KATA MARKON, “ACCORDING 

TO MARK.” It is found at the top of Sinaiticus (see), Vaticanus (see), and a few other Greek 

manuscripts. A later inscription, Euvvagge,lion Kata. Ma,rkon, Euaggelion Kata Markon, 

“Good News According to Mark,” is found at the top of Alexandrinus, Bezae, L, W, Theta, 

Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 1, 33, 2427, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate and 

some manuscripts of the Old Latin. 

A longer inscription, To. Kata. Ma,rkon ,Àgion Euvagge,lion, To Kata Markon 

Hagion Euaggelion, literally “The According to Mark Set-apart Good News” is found at the top 

of Minuscules 209, 579, some other Greek manuscripts and the Clementine Latin Vulgate 

(see). We think that the earliest copies of the Gospel had no inscription, and that the first 

verse may well have served as the first inscription. Later, the first and shortest inscription was 

written, and then that earliest inscription gradually grew longer across the centuries, using the 

noun euvagge,lion, euaggelion found in the first verse, meaning originally “a message of good 

news,” but now used as a title for a writing. In this way, the noun Euvagge,lion, Euaggelion 

became the name for the first four writings of the New Testament. The noun had been used 

earlier, but as a description of the message that was preached wherever the followers of 

Jesus went, not as the title of a writing. 

3 

Verse 1 is an introductory statement of Mark's Theme, alerting the reader of Mark as 

to the true identity of the chief character of its story. Before we enter into our study of this 

(continued...) 

1

3 

(...continued) 

verse 1:1, there are some questions which we should ask ourselves: 

1. If you decide to tell the story of Jesus to someone who has never heard it before, 

where should you begin? Where did Mark begin? Where did the other Gospel-writers begin? 

2. What does the word “gospel” mean? Is it a new word, beginning with the Christian 

faith, or does it have a background in the Jewish Bible? Does it have another background in 

the Roman Empire? 

3. What does the name “Jesus” mean? Does it occur in the Jewish Bible? 

4. What does the title (not “name”) Christ mean? Does it have a background in the 

Jewish Bible? When you came before the church to make the confession that “Jesus is the 

Christ,” what did you mean? What should you have meant? 

5. What is a “textual variant,” or a “variant reading”? How can we determine what was 

written in the original manuscript of Mark? Did that original manuscript have the phrase “Son 

of God” at the close of verse 1, or is this an addition made by later copyists of the Greek text? 

6. As we begin our study of Mark, what do you think its overall message is? 

4 

The feminine singular noun VArch,, Arche, “Beginning,” stands as the opening word of 

Mark, with no definite article (such as “The beginning”), and with no verb following it. It seems 

apparent that the reference is simply to a "first point" or “beginning” of the story of the Good 

News, and that “beginning” is the ministry of John the Immerser in the wilderness. 

In the LXX, Hosea 1:2 begins with the phrase avrch. lo,gou kuri,ou pro.j Wshe, arche 

logou kuriou pros Osee, “beginning of Lord's word to Hosea" (with no definite article in the 

Hebrew or Greek, and with no verb following it, a very close parallel to Mark 1:1). 

Each Gospel has its chosen "beginning point": 

For John, the beginning point of the Good News about Jesus reaches back far beyond the 

creation of the world, when the Word “was being with God." 

For Matthew, the story begins with the genealogy of Jesus that reaches back to David and to 

Abraham. 

For Luke, the beginning point of the Good News is the story of the birth of John the Immerser. 

For Mark the beginning point of the Good News is the ministry of John the Immerser in the 

wilderness. 

Dogmatic conclusions concerning the “beginning," then, are out of place. Each author 

begins the story at a point that seems best to him, and there is no unanimity as to where the 

story of the Good News begins. 


2

4 


Where will you begin, in telling the Good News to your families and friends and even 

strangers? Many a believer in the present time begins to tell the Good News by telling about 

the transformation of life that happened to them through knowledge of Jesus. What about 

you? Where will you begin the story? Or do you tell the story? 

Any church that wants to grow must take seriously this task of telling the Good News. 

Every member of the church must become thoroughly acquainted with that story, and look for 

ways to tell the story to others–in our families, at our businesses, in our communities. Where 

will you begin? 

5 

The phrase is tou/ euvaggeli,ou, tou euaggeliou, “(Beginning) of the Good News.” The 

noun euvagge,lion, euaggelion, means “Good News.” 

Here, in this first verse in Mark, the noun does not mean “the written book of the Good 

News,” but rather “the story of the Good News,” which Mark is now writing down for his 

readers, to enable them to understand the Good News by reading, in place of what until the 

time of his writing had been largely a spoken, or preached message. As Lane states, “In the 

initial phrase of Mark's Gospel...the word 'gospel' has not yet come to mean a written 

document. It refers to a living word of hope from the lips of an appointed messenger." (P. 44) 

It is the message about Jesus, who he is, and what he has accomplished--and the wonderful 

benefits of forgiveness, new life, and eternal hope that he gives to all humanity, in fulfillment of 

the Jewish Bible’s predictions. 

As France states, “Mark’s book is intended...to pass on the good news about Jesus. 

This news has been hitherto the subject of primarily oral declaration...but Mark’s book is an 

attempt to communicate it in written form...Euaggelion, Euaggelion denotes the content 

rather than the form of the book.” (Pp. 52-53) 

We think that because of Mark’s use of this noun in its opening verse, later copyists 

began to use the noun in the titles given at later times, not only to Mark, but also to Matthew, 

Luke and John: To. Euvagge,lion kata. Ma,rkon, To Euaggelion kata Markon, “The Good 

News (or ‘Gospel’) according to Mark,” To. Euvagge,lion kata. Matqai/on, To Euaggelion 

kata Matthaion, “The Good News (or ‘Gospel’) according to Matthew,” etc. 

There is a background for this noun “Good News” in the Hebrew Bible, which uses the 

phrase hb'ÞAj hr'îAfB., besorah tobah, "good news,” and also the piel verb rFEB;, basser, 

“to tell good news” along with the piel participle rFeøb;m., mebhasser, "one telling good news,” 

which is used to describe the runner who comes from the battlefield with the glad news of 

victory. 

But beyond this "secular" use, there is the religious use of these words in Isaiah 40:9, 

9; 41:27; 52:7, 7; 60:6 and 61:1 where the great victory of YHWH, his kingly rule, and the 

dawn of the new age in the overthrow of Babylon, and the return of the Jewish captives to 

3 

(continued...)

5 


Israel are described as a story of “good news” that is to be told to the Jewish captives in 

Babylon. 

The Prophet is the herald (rFeøb;m., mebhasser) who comes to the captives before their 

return from Babylonian captivity to Zion. He tells the “good news” that YHWH has won the 

victory over Israel’s captors, the Babylonians, giving them release from captivity, sending them 

back to their homes in Israel. It is truly “good news.” See the article by Gerhard Friedrich in 

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, II, pp. 708-09) 

This is obviously important background for the use of "Good News" in the New 

Testament, and especially as found here in Mark 1:1. It is the conviction of Mark that just as 

the deliverance of the ancient Jewish people from Babylonian captivity was “good news,” so 

there is joyful good news to be proclaimed because of what is happening in the coming of 

Jesus. In him, Almighty God has been powerfully at work in human history, winning a great 

victory over sin, and evil, and death, bringing forgiveness, hope, life and freedom to all the 

peoples of the earth, in fulfillment of the promises made to Israel in the Jewish Bible. Now, 

as Mark writes his Gospel, the story of what has happened through Jesus is the "Good 

News." 

This is the background for this word “good news” in the Jewish Bible. But there is yet 

another important background for the language of the New Testament that must be 

considered. In the Roman Empire, the Roman Emperor was considered to be a "divine man" 

(qei/oj avnh,r, theios aner). Plutarch stated that "The ruler is divine by nature. His power 

extends to men, to animals, to the earth and to the sea. Nature belongs to him; wind and 

waves are subject to him.” (De Fortuna Romanorum, 6). “He works miracles and heals men. 

He is the savior of the world who also redeems individuals from their difficulties...He has 

appeared on earth in human form...Extraordinary signs accompany the course of his life. 

They proclaim the birth of the ruler of the world...His ordinances are glad messages and his 

commands are sacred writings...The first evangelium [‘good news’] is the news of his birth.” 

The birthday of the god, that is, the Roman Emperor, was for the world the beginning of the 

joyful messages which have gone forth because of him.”' (Priene Inscription, 105:40) 

Friedrich states that “...Humanity, sighing under a heavy burden of guilt, wistfully longs for 

peace. Doom is feared because the gods have withdrawn from earth. Then suddenly a new 

era dawns for the whole world. This å�áããÝëéïí, euaggelion is celebrated with offerings and 

yearly festivals. All cherished hopes are exceeded. The world has taken on a new 

appearance." (Ibid., pp. 724-25) 

Friedrich comments that "The imperial cult and the Bible share the view that accession 

to the throne, which introduces a new era and brings peace to the world, is a gospel for 

[humanity]...To the many messages [of the births of the various Roman Emperors], however, 

the New Testament opposes the one Gospel, to the many accessions [or, coronations] the 

one proclamation of the âáóéëåßá ôï� èåï�, basileia tou theou [Kingdom of the God]. The 

New Testament speaks the language of its day. It is a popular and realistic proclamation. It 

knows human waiting for and hope of the ��e��,a, euaggelia [plural] and it replies with the 

å�áããÝëéïí, euaggelion [singular]...Caesar and Christ, the emperor on the throne and the 


4

5 


despised rabbi on the cross, confront one another. Both are [good news to humanity]. They 

have much in common. But they belong to different worlds." (P. 725) 

So the “Good News” concerning Jesus has a solid background in the Jewish Bible, in 

its story of the divine victory that enabled the Jews to return home from Babylonian captivity; 

but it also has a solid background in the Roman Empire’s view of the birth of an Emperor, 

which was proclaimed as “good news.” All of this is in the background of this word used by 

Mark. God has acted powerfully through Jesus, bringing a new day of salvation, hope and 

freedom to all the peoples of the earth. If it was good news that an emperor had been born 

(as it was in Rome), how much more so is it good news that a Savior has been born, and that 

through his life, death and resurrection, eternal salvation and freedom have come! That’s the 

“Good News.” 

6 

The “Good News” that Mark is written to tell is centered in VIhsou/ Cristou/, Iesou 

Christou, “Jesus, Anointed One.” Let us look first at the name “Jesus.” VIhsou/j, Iesous, 

“Jesus,” is rooted in the Jewish Bible, in the common Hebrew personal name [;vuäAhy>, 

Yehoshu(a, “Joshua,” (which means "YHWH is salvation"). That name was later shortened 

into [;WvåyE, Yeshu(a, translated into Greek by VIhsou/j, “Jesus.” It is a name that was 

commonly used among the Jews in first century Israel. 

“YHWH is salvation”–that’s the meaning of the name “Jesus.” In Matthew 1:21 Joseph 

is told, "...You shall call his name 'Jesus,' because he will deliver his people from their 

missings-of-the-mark (or ‘save his people from their sins’)." It is the profound conviction of the 

New Testament that YHWH, the personal God of Israel, was indeed present in human history 

in Jesus, accomplishing his purposes of victory, deliverance and freedom, not only for Israel, 

but for the entirety of the human race. Thus the name "YHWH Is Salvation" is deeply 

appropriate for Jesus. This personal name for the God of Israel, YHWH, is found over 6,000 

times in the Hebrew Bible, but never occurs in the New Testment. Sometimes we are asked, 

“Where is YHWH in the New Testament?” The answer is that the name of YHWH is in the 

name Jesus; every time we say that name (which occurs more than 900 times in the New 

Testament) we are saying “YHWH is Salvation.” YHWH’s salvation is in Jesus. 

7VIhsou/ 

×ñéóôïõ, Iesou Christou, “(Good News of) Jesus, Anointed One (or, ‘Christ’)”– 

the second half of this phrase uses the genitive form of the noun Cristo,j, Christos, which 

means "Anointed One." It is not a name, but rather, is a title (even though when the phrase is 

used so often, as it is, it becomes a two-fold name). It is the noun used in the Greek 

translation of the Jewish Bible to translate the Hebrew noun ��, mashiach, which means 

"anointed one." The verb ��, mashach means "to smear," or "to anoint." It is used of 

painting a house, or of rubbing a leather shield with oil. But the most common use of the verb 

in the Jewish Bible is for the anointing of the High Priest, or of the King. See Franz Hesse, 

"Chrio, ktl.," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, IX, p. 498) 

When the brother of Moses, Aaron, was chosen to be the High Priest for Israel’s 

worship in the Tabernacle, he was given the title ��, hammashiyach, "the anointed 


5

7 


one." And when Saul or David were divinely chosen to be King of Israel, the Prophet Samuel 

came to them and "anointed" their heads with oil, thereby signifying that they had been 

selected to be King over Israel; as a result, they were known in Hebrew by the title �� 

��, meshiyach YHWH, “YHWH’s Anointed,” or ��, hammashiyach, "the Anointed 

One"--that is, the one who had been chosen to be King, and whose choice had been 

symbolized by this special anointing with oil. The word is also used as a description of the 

Persian Emperor Cyrus, who is called by Isaiah 45:1 "YHWH's anointed one." But still, "the 

Anointed One," used by itself, most commonly refers to that person selected and set apart to 

serve as either the High Priest, or the King of Israel. 

There are many prophecies in the Jewish Bible that point forward into the future to a 

“coming one,” a “new David,” who would serve as YHWH's chosen king over his people. See 

such passages as Isaiah 9:1-7; 11:1-11; Micah 5:1-4; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Ezekiel 17:22-24; 

34:23-24; 37:22-24, and Zechariah 9:9. It was on the basis of such passages that the 

"messianic hope" developed in Israel--the hope for a "coming Anointed One" whose coming 

would mean salvation, deliverance and freedom for the people of Israel. That coming one 

would do the work of a great High Priest in bringing forgiveness, but would also do the work of 

a great King, in shepherding the people, and leading them to victory and freedom. 

This New Testament document–Mark--written in the first century--announces “Good 

News” to its readers. It is the same “Good News” that the followers of Jesus (the 

“Ambassadors,” or “Apostles,” and their numerous fellow-workers) have gone out into the 

world telling by word of mouth. But now, in the sixties of the first century, as the story of those 

who were eye-witnesses is reaching its end (traditionally it is held that both Peter and Paul 

died in Rome near the end of the sixties, in the persecution of the Emperor Nero), it has 

become necessary to record their “Good News” in a permanent way, so that all the world may 

hear and know–hence the writing of Mark, and then of Matthew, Luke, and John. They all 

have it in common that they are written accounts of that story, that “Good News,” that the long 

hoped-for "Anointed One" has come. The “new David,” who acts as God’s chosen King, and 

High Priest, Jesus--the subject of Mark’s story–has come, and through him God has 

accomplished a great victory on behalf of all humanity, imparting forgiveness, life, eternal hope 

and freedom, just as the Jewish Bible had foretold. That's the “Good News,” the best news 

that human ears have ever heard. 

The question is raised from the Greek text concerning whether the genitive phrase 

VIhsou/ Cristou/, Iesou Christou, "of Jesus, Anointed One," should be understood to mean 

"about Jesus Anointed One," or "from Jesus Anointed One." The fact is that both meanings 

are commonly meant by the genitive case. And, in fact, Jesus is depicted in Mark as both the 

proclaimer of the Good News (it comes “from him”), and at the same time the content of the 

Good News (he is the chief subject of Mark; it is “about him”). 

8 

The phrase õ�ï� èåï�, huiou theou, “Son of God,” is read by a corrector of 

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus (4 century A.D.), Bezae (5 century), L (8 century A.D.), W (5 

th th th th 

century A.D.), Minuscule 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the entire Latin tradition, the 

Syriac tradition, the Coptic tradition, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (made before 395 


6

8 


A.D.). This same phrase, but with the genitive definite article, õ�ï� tou/ èåï� huiou tou theou, 

th 

literally “Son of the God,” is read by Alexandrinus (5 century A.D.), Families 1 and 13 of 

th 

Minuscules, Minuscule 33 (9 century A.D.), and the Majority Text. This is strong attestation, 

but there is also fairly strong attestation for omission of the phrase altogether–it is missing in 

th th th 

the first writer of Sinaiticus (4 century A.D.), Theta (9 century A.D.), Minuscule 28 (9 

century A.D.), Lectionary 2211, a few other Greek manuscripts, a few manuscripts of the 

nd 

Sahidic Coptic and also in Origen (who died 254 A.D.). Irenaeus (2 century A.D.) and 

Epiphanius of Constantia (who died 403 A.D.) not only omit this phrase, but also omit the 

words VIhsou/ Cristou/, Iesou Christou. Minuscule 1241 has the phrase uiòu/ tou/ kuri,ou, 

huiou tou kuriou, “Son of the Lord.” Such variant readings are typical, whenever the name of 

Jesus and his titles are involved. 

Metzger states that "The absence of [‘Son of God’]...may be due to an oversight in 

copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the [sacred names]. On the other 

hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed) to expand 

titles and quasi-titles of books." Metzger explains that "Since the combination of [a number of 

major Greek manuscripts] in support of [‘God's Son’] is extremely strong, it [is] not advisable to 

omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the 

possibility of scribal expansion, [it is best] to enclose the words within square brackets." (A 

Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 73) 

Whether the words "Son of God" actually appeared in the original Greek text of Mark 

1:1 or not, it is certainly one major thrust of this document that Jesus of Nazareth is both 

YHWH God's "Anointed One," and his unique "Son." See: 

Mark 1:11 (at Jesus’ immersion, a voice from heaven proclaims, “You are my Son, the 

beloved one”); 

Mark 3:11 (the unclean spirits fall down before Jesus, shouting “You are the Son of God”); 

Mark 5:7 (the wild-man, filled with demons in Gerasa, states, “What have you to do with me, 

Jesus, Son of the Most High God?”); 

Mark 9:7 (at his transfiguration, again a voice comes from heaven saying, “This is my Son, the 

Beloved”), and especially 

Mark 15:39--the confession of the Roman military officer stationed at the foot of the execution 

post on which Jesus died, "Truly this man was God's Son." (�Áëçè�ò ï�ôïò � 

�íèñùðïò õ��ò èåï� �í, Alethos houtos ho anthropos huios theou en). 

We conclude that whether or not this phrase, “Son of God” was in the original text of 

Mark 1:1 or not, it is certainly an integral part of Mark’s teaching concerning who Jesus is. 

"Son of God" was a name given to Greek rulers from 331 B.C. onwards, being used 

especially by the Ptolemies, the Greek rulers of Egypt from 323 to 30 B.C. In the Roman 


7

8 


Empire, the Roman Emperor (for example, Augustus Caesar) was given the title Divi filius, 

"God's Son." But among the Stoic philosophers of the first century, this title was given to 

every human being, since all humanity (in their view) is "God's Son" (which is the view of 

Genesis 1 and 10). For the Jewish Bible, this same conviction holds true--that the entirety of 

the human race, including females as well as males, are the "children of God,” who bear the 

divine image and likeness, and who are commissioned by God to “rule” in this world. 

But there is also a background in the Jewish Bible, where three times the King of 

Israel is called "God's Son"--see 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7, and 89:26-27--in such a way as 

to point out the King's unique privilege and authority to rule on behalf of YHWH. See Georg 

Fohrer’s article Huios...Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VIII, p. 351. 

Reynolds Price has written, "The Good News According to Mark has proved the most 

enduringly powerful narrative in the history of Western civilization, perhaps in the history of the 

world. As the oldest of the four Christian gospels, basic to the composition of at least two of 

the other gospels, it has exerted an enormous and continuous influence over Western 

thought and action since its birth somewhere between A. D. 65 and 70...It has succeeded on a 

literally unimaginable scale in the first aim of all narrative--the compulsion and maintenance of 

belief...Mark labors (and it is part of his charm and power that he labors visibly; he is not a 

born writer) to compel our belief that a Galilean named Jesus discovered himself in early 

manhood to be the Son of God, that his discovery was confirmed by mighty acts over the 

powers of evil and the forces of nature, but that he met with incomprehension from family and 

pupils, ultimately discovered a sacrificial destiny for himself, and advanced toward the spiritual 

nexus of his country [Jerusalem and its Temple] to engage that destiny--killed in agony at the 

hands of uncomprehending strangers and apparently raised from death in invisible but eternal 

triumph. Why does Mark wish us to attend and believe a story initially so incredible in detail 

and so repugnant in its picture of humankind? Because unlike most storytellers he believes 

his tale to be necessary for life--all human life in its significant eternal aspect..." (In the 

foreword to David Rhoads and Donald Michie's Mark As Story, Pp. xi-xii) 

The author of this first-century document wants to impress readers with the uniqueness 

of Jesus. In the earliest manuscripts there is no title, only this introductory statement of verse 

1--which makes no mention at all of the author, who he is, where he lives, or anything of that 

nature, which we today would so much like to know. But the author instead wants his readers 

to look at Jesus--the Anointed One, and God's Son. Throughout this document, the author 

has taken great pains to select materials that have come to him from eye-witnesses, and from 

the oral and written traditions that grew out of the life and teachings of Jesus. These traditions 

circulated among the earliest disciples of Jesus wherever they lived and gave their witness. 

The author has selected from those stories, teachings, traditions, and parables, and has 

"edited" them, putting them together in such a way as to make them serve his overall purpose 

--to convince the readers that Jesus was, and is, far more than just another ordinary human 

being, or just another religious leader and teacher, or even another in the line of Israel's great 

Spokespersons, sent from God. Jesus is far more than that, this author claims, using every 

literary skill he possesses. 

8 

(continued...)

8 


He is the long-awaited and divinely promised "Anointed One," the one sent from God to 

be the King and the High Priest of his people, in fulfillment of his promises to the Jewish 

people. Not, to be sure, a "conquering King," or a "political messiah" that so many Jews 

eagerly expected; but rather, a "suffering servant King," who willingly stooped to serve, and 

who has given himself up as a willing sacrifice for the goings astray of all humanity in his death 

upon a Roman execution post, as the great High Priest who brings people God’s forgiveness, 

and teaches them God’s way. Through his ministry, he is calling to himself the "New Israel of 

God," a body of disciples, who will share with him in extending his sacrificial ministry of loving 

forgiveness and guidance to all the peoples of the earth. All of this is "Good News"--because 

the long hoped-for King of God's people has come--and he will continue to come, throughout 

history, as the "Lord of History," who comes with the clouds of divine judgment, both to judge 

and destroy wicked oppression, and to bring deliverance to the oppressed. It is "Good News," 

because in this one, all humanity's needs and aspirations for divine rule and guidance in 

human history are fully met. What the Roman Emperor could never deliver, in spite of the 

grandiose claims made by Rome's religious leaders, this one, Jesus, fully delivers. That's the 

Good News that Mark wants its readers to know and believe. 

9

PREPARING THE WAY FOR THE COMING ONE 

Mark 1:2-8, Greek Text with Translation 

1.2 Êáè�ò ãÝãñáðôáé �í ô� �Çóáú� ô� ðñïöÞô�, 

�Éäï� �ðïóôÝëëù ô�í �ããåëüí ìïõ ðñ� ðñïóþðïõ óïõ, 

�ò êáôáóêåõÜóåé ô�í �äüí óïõ� 

1.3 öùí� âï�íôïò �í ô� �ñÞì�� 

´ÅôïéìÜóáôå ô�í �ä�í êõñßïõ, 

å�èåßáò ðïéå�ôå ô�ò ôñßâïõò á�ôï�, 

1.2 Even as it has been written in the Isaiah, in the Spokesperson, 

Look! [I,] I am sending the messenger of mine before your face, 

who will prepare the pathway of yours; 

1.3 a voice crying out in the wilderness: 

"Make ready the Lord's pathway. 

Make straight the paths of his," 

1.4 �ãÝíåôï �ÉùÜííçò [�] âáðôßæùí �í ô� �ñÞì� êá� êçñýóóùí âÜðôéóìá ìåôáíïßáò å�ò 

�öåóéí �ìáñôé�í. 1.5 êá� �îåðïñåýåôï ðñ�ò á�ô�í ð�óá � �Éïõäáßá ÷þñá êá� ï� 

´Éåñïóïëõì�ôáé ðÜíôåò, êá� �âáðôßæïíôï �ð� á�ôï� �í ô� �ÉïñäÜí� ðïôáì� �îïìïëïãïýìåíïé 

ô�ò �ìáñôßáò á�ô�í. 

1.4 John came, [the one] immersing in the wilderness, and proclaiming an immersion 

of turning around for forgiveness of missings-of-the-mark. 1.5 And all the country of Judea 

was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem, and they were being immersed by him 

in the Jordan River, confessing out the missings-of-the-mark of theirs. 

1.6 êá� �í � �ÉùÜííçò �íäåäõìÝíïò ôñß÷áò êáìÞëïõ êá� æþíçí äåñìáôßíçí ðåñ� ô�í 

�óö�í á�ôï�, êá� �óèßùí �êñßäáò êá� ìÝëé �ãñéïí. 1.7 êá� �êÞñõóóåí ëÝãùí, 

�Åñ÷åôáé � �ó÷õñüôåñüò ìïõ �ðßóù ìïõ, 

ï� ï�ê å�ì� �êáí�ò êýøáò ë�óáé ô�í �ìÜíôá ô�í �ðïäçìÜôùí á�ôï�. 

1.8 �ã� �âÜðôéóá �ì�ò �äáôé, 

á�ô�ò ä� âáðôßóåé �ì�ò �í ðíåýìáôé �ãß�. 

1.6 And the John was being dressed in (a) camel's hair (robe), and a leather belt 

around the waist of his, and eating grasshoppers and wild honey. 1.7 And he was 

proclaiming, saying, 

The one stronger than me is coming after me-of 

whom I am not worthy, having stooped down to loosen the thong of the 

sandals of his. 

1.8 I, I immersed you people in water; 

but then he, he will immerse you in Set-apart Spirit. 

10

Translation with Footnotes 

9 10 11 

1.2 Even as it has been written in the Isaiah, in the Spokesperson, 

9 

Before we enter into our study of Mark 1:2-8, there are some questions which we 

should ask ourselves: 

1. Mark obviously wants readers to realize that its story has precedents or parallels in 

the Jewish Bible–specifically, in what great Spokesperson? What is the precedent, or the 

parallel? Do you think Mark means there is a “new exodus from captivity” occurring in Jesus? 

What does that mean? 

2. Is Mark's writing the "Word of God," or is Mark a human witness to "the Word of 

God"? Can you find any evidences of Mark's human frailties (even mistakes) in this text? 

Compare question 7. 

3. What do "angels" look like? Can you conceive of John the Immerser as being the 

"angel of the Lord"? 

4. Archaeology has established the fact that the "Essene" community at Qumran 

practiced immersion in water. What is the relationship between John's immersion and theirs? 

Do you think John may have been a member of the Essene community? 

5. What is an "immersion of turning around" (or, a "baptism of repentance")? Is it 

something that can be accomplished in one ritual act? Can you legislate such an act? 

6. What does the word "sin" mean in the Bible? Does immersion in water have any 

real relationship to the "forgiveness of sins"? How do you understand this? 

7. Does Mark commit the "all-fallacy" in this passage (and elsewhere in Mark)? Does 

Mark’s author sometimes say "all" or "everyone" when he really means "some," or "many"? 

Why do you think this exaggerated language is used here? 

8. Can divine forgiveness be obtained by those who are unwilling to openly admit their 

missings-of-the-mark (“sins”), and genuinely turn away from them? 

9. Who does John's clothing remind you of in the Jewish Bible? Who does he remind 

you of today? Would John, in such clothing, be welcome in our congregation today? 

10. What does John's diet imply concerning his life-style? 

11. What was the content of John's preaching? 

12. While John immersed in water, what kind of immersion would the one coming after 

him practice? 

13. Have you been "immersed in the Spirit"? What does "Spirit immersion" mean? Is 

it a once-for-all experience? Can you legislate such an experience (compare question 5)? 


11

9 


And if you do, what happens to the experience? 

14. If John immersed in water, but Jesus immerses in the Spirit of God, why should 

disciples of Jesus continue to practice immersion in water? 

10 

There is some ambiguity with reference to what the coordinating conjunction Kaqw.j, 

Kathos, “Even as,” should be related to. Normally, it should be referring to what has just been 

said, i.e., in verse 1, as France states: “...The quotations of verses 2-3 are syntactically 

linked with verse 1 by the use of Kaqw.j, Kathos; it is through the fulfillment of these scriptural 

passages that the good news finds its beginning. The passages quoted are not, however, 

prophecies about the coming of the Messiah [which is what verse 1 is about], but about one (a 

‘messenger,’ a ‘voice’) who is to precede the coming of God to judge and save, and that 

forerunner is immediately identified in verse 4 as John the Immerser. The immediate 

fulfillment of these scriptural models is therefore to be found apparently not in Jesus but in 

John.” (P. 61) 

We understand and agree with France, but still think there is the possibility that the 

phrase “Even as...” is here related to the opening phrase of verse 4, “John came...” in 

fulfillment of these passages, although there is no other similar use in the Greek New 

Testament; in every other instance of this conjunction, it refers to what has just been stated, 

not to something to follow. We think this may be an exception to the general rule. 

11 

The phrase ô� �Çóáú� ô� ðñïöÞô�, to Esaia to prophete, literally, “in the Isaiah, in 

the Spokesperson,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Delta, Minuscules 33, 565, 892, 

1241, 2427, some other Greek manuscripts, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac margin, 

the Coptic tradition and Origen (who died 254 A.D.; in part). It is changed to read �Çóáú� ô� 

ðñïöÞô�, Esaia to prophete, literally, “in Isaiah, in the Spokesperson,” by Bezae, Theta, 

Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscule 700, Lectionaries 844, 2211, a few other Greek 

nd 

manuscripts, Irenaeus (2 century A.D.), Origen (who died 254 A.D., in part), and Epiphanius 

of Constantia (who died 403 A.D.). It is read toi/j profh,taij, tois prophetais, “in the 

Spokespersons,” by Alexandrinus, W, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” a few 

manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, the Harclean Syriac, some manuscripts of the Bohairic 

Coptic (see) and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.). These variant readings 

do not change the meaning of Mark. 

This last variant is obviously late, attempting to correct the original text, since the 

quotations that follow in verses 2 b, c, and 3, have been taken, not just from Isaiah, but from 

Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1, in addition to the quotation from Isaiah 40:3. Thus, in 

actuality the quotations are from "the Spokespersons" (broadening the normal definition to 

include the divine prediction found in the Torah [Exodus], and not just in Isaiah, or Malachi). 

The question arises, did the author of Mark have a copy of Isaiah that read this way, 

including the words of Exodus 23:20 along with the words of Malachi 3:1? Or, has the author 

quoted from a source in which various sayings from biblical writers have been grouped 

together under common themes? Or, is this his own personal combination of texts? 


12

12 13 

Look! [I,] I am sending the messenger of mine before your face, 

11 


There is little problem here for those who acknowledge the human element in biblical 

writings; but for those who insist that every word in the entire Bible is the "verbally inspired 

Word of God," who like Zig Ziglar believe every word in the Bible, "from Genesis through 

maps," is infallibly divinely dictated, this is indeed a problem. For the obvious fact is that the 

quotation is not taken just from Isaiah the Spokesperson, but from three different portions of 

the Jewish Bible, from Exodus and Malachi, as well as from Isaiah (see footnotes 13, 14 

and 15). How do you explain this matter? 

12 

Immediately following the word ��u,, Idou, “look,” the nominative first person 

singular pronoun evgw,, ego, “I,” is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, L, W, Families 1 and 13 

of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” the Clementine Latin Vulgate, the Harclean 

Syriac, a few manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic, some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic, 

Origen (who died 254 A.D.) and Eusebius of Caesarea (who died 339 / 340 A.D.). The 

pronoun is not found in Vaticanus, Bezae, Theta, the first writer of Minuscule 28, 

Minuscules 565, 2427, Lectionary 2211, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, 

some of the Old Latin witnesses, the Coptic tradition and the Latin translation of Irenaeus 

(which was written before 395 A.D.). Whether the personal pronoun is read or not, the 

statement means the same thing. Because of this disagreement among the textual witnesses, 

the pronoun is placed in the text, but within brackets, to indicate uncertainty as to its originality. 

This variant, along with thousands of other such variants found throughout the textual 

tradition of the New Testament, makes it clear that later copyists and translators of these 

documents were not “wooden literalists” who insisted that every word must be exactly and 

exclusively copied and translated as found in the original. No, these textual workers, while 

respecting and faithfully transmitting the text that they found written before them, felt free to 

slightly change and adjust the text, using synonyms, supplying subjects, emphasizing 

statements, even offering the earliest form of “commentary” on the text through their usually 

slight additions, subtractions and changes. We deeply appreciate all of these dedicated 

textual workers across the centuries–who have succeeded in handing down to us the 

amazingly well preserved text of Mark and the entire Greek New Testament. But at the same 

time, we recognize them as genuine scholars of the text, and contributors to its richness, who 

were not simply mindless copiers of letters and words. It is a true privilege to be able to share 

in that tradition–for it is our experience that study of these variants constantly refocuses our 

attention on the text, making us pay closer attention to our own translations. 

13 

The words of this first line of the quotation appear to have been taken from the Greek 

translation of Exodus 23:20, which says in Hebrew, "Look. I am sending a messenger [the 

Samaritan Pentateuch, along with the Greek translation, and the Latin Vulgate, all read ‘my 

messenger’] before you, to guard you on the way, and to bring you to the place which I have 

prepared." The words are very similar to those found in the Hebrew text of Malachi 3:1, "Look 

at me--sending my messenger...", but the Greek translation of Malachi 3:1 is quite different. It 

is possible that the two readings (Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1), so similar in nature, have 

been combined in this quotation. 

13 

(continued...)

who will prepare the pathway of yours; 14 

13 


The divine promise in Exodus comes immediately following the giving of the Ten 

Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) and the “Covenant Code” (Exodus 20:18-23:19). It is a 

statement that encourages obedience to these laws that have just been given (23:20-33). In 

it, YHWH promises to be with the people of Israel as they go on their way into the futureguarding 

them and guiding them to their divinely prepared destination. The voice of this 

"messenger" will be the divine voice, and Israel must listen to and obey that voice. 

That means that the entirety of the divine will has not been given in the Ten 

Commandments and in the Covenant Code. There will be a continuing, on-going revelation of 

the word of YHWH to his people to guard them and to guide them. YHWH's Word to Israel is 

not a "static word" from Israel's past, put down in concrete forever. Rather, it is a living Word 

that comes to them anew, again and again, in each new situation. In this way, the Torah 

(YHWH's teaching of his people) is guarded against the distortion of being viewed as a 

legalistic, closed system of religion that refuses to acknowledge the on-going nature of divine 

self-revelation, and that closes itself up to anything new and different in its future. If Israel will 

only understand this, it will not close its mind and its heart to the coming of challenging 

Spokespersons such as Isaiah, or Jeremiah–or to the great messengers of YHWH such as 

John the Immerser–or to the “Coming One” (Jesus of Nazareth) whom he preceded and 

announced. 

Of course, this does not mean that Israel must listen to and follow just any voice that 

comes to them in the future–for as Israel’s history proves, all too often there were false 

prophets and misleading teachings that were given to the nation. The people of Israel had to 

be careful, and examine thoroughly the credentials of those claiming to speak for God. But 

when they ascertained that the ones speaking were indeed from God, it was their duty to 

follow that on-going revelation of God. Everything that Israel needed to know had not been 

said and written down in the past–she would be constantly in need of divine guidance. 

14 

The phrase e;mprosqe,n sou, emprosthen sou, “(who will prepare your pathway) 

before you” (which has been taken from Matthew 11:10) is added to the original text at this 

point, by Alexandrinus, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” 

the Old Latin Manuscripts f, a corrector of ff, l, the Clementine Latin Vulgate, the Harclean 

Syriac, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic, the Bohairic Coptic (in part), and Eusebius of 

Caesarea (who died 339 / 340 A.D.). This added phrase is not found in Sinaiticus, 

Vaticanus, Bezae, K, L, P, W, Theta, the first writer of Minuscule 700, Minuscule 2427, 

Lectionary 2211, some other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin 

witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic, the Bohairic Coptic (in 

nd 

part), nor in the Latin translation of Irenaeus (who lived in the 2 century A.D., and whose 

writings were translated into Latin before 395 A.D.). Whether read or not makes no difference 

for the meaning of Mark, but once again demonstrates the freedom felt by later copyists and 

translators to make such minor changes to the text being copied or translated, sometime being 

motivated by the desire to make each of the Gospels say the same thing. 

This second line of the quotation, “who will prepare your pathway,” is taken from 

Malachi 3:1, which says literally in Hebrew, "Look at me, sending my messenger. And he will 


14

1.3 a voice crying out in the wilderness, 15 

14 


clear away a road before me." The Greek translation is somewhat different, "Look--I, I am 

sending out the messenger of mine, and he will look upon a road before me." The Greek 

translation is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew, changing "clear away" to "look upon." 

But the quotation here in Mark, while a very exact translation of the Hebrew, changes "before 

me" to "before you", and, from "my pathway" to "your pathway." It is obvious from these facts 

that the quotation is not by any means an "exact" quotation, and that the author of Mark has 

used the text of the Jewish Bible in a free manner–not in a legalistic, word for word, exact 

way. Instead, the text has been adapted and suited to the new situation. 

The Jewish Bible--as demonstrated by these quotations from Exodus 23:20 and 

Malachi 3:1--looks out into the future, in confidence that the "Word of God" is an "on-going" 

Word, that will come again and again in Israel's future, a Word that cannot be confined to a 

code of divine laws given once and for all in the Jewish Bible, in spite of the great importance 

and continuing relevance that the Bible must play in Israel’s religion. This is clear from a 

quotation that comes from the very heart of the Torah (Exodus 23:20; see footnote 13); it is 

even clearer in the latest of Israel's Spokespersons (Malachi 3:1) Both the Torah and the last 

of the Jewish Spokespersons in their Bible look out into the future, with the expectation of a 

continuing divine self-revelation, a coming of the divine messenger to "clear the way" for God's 

people. If this is what Mark means by these two quotations, his point is both clear and 

compellingly correct. From beginning (Torah) to end (Malachi, last of the writing 

Spokespersons), the Jewish Bible proclaims the necessity for openness to additional 

revelation, to the future coming of God’s Word. 

France comments, “John’s function is to prepare the way, but for whom? Malachi 3:1 

and Isaiah 40:3 speak of preparing for the coming of o` ku,rioj, ho kurios, ‘the Lord’ (which in 

the Old Testament context can only mean God), and John predicts the arrival of one who is 

ivscuro,teroj, ischuroteros, ‘stronger,’ and who will dispense the Spirit as the prophets had 

said that Yahweh would do in the last days. Thus verses 2-8 appear to leave no room for a 

human figure in the eschatological [‘final’] drama other than John himself, the forerunner sent 

to prepare for the [final] coming of God...When in verse 9 an obscure Northerner (VIhsou/j avpo. 

Nazare.t th/j Galilai,aj, Iesous apo Nazaret tes Galilaias, ‘Jesus from Nazaret of the 

Galilee’) appears on the scene, it is not immediately obvious what connection he has with the 

role either of John the forerunner or of the expected ivscuro,teroj, ischuroteros, ‘stronger 

(one),’ and it will be the function of verses 10-13 to begin to spell this out. The rest of the 

book will continue to guide the reader to an answer to this question.” (P. 62) 

15 

All of verse 3 is a quotation from Isaiah 40:3. This third line of the quotation is an 

exact translation into Greek of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 40:3. The only problem is that the 

words "in the wilderness" can be taken either with what precedes, "A voice crying out," or with 

what follows, "In the wilderness make ready the Lord's pathway." 

The dative singular noun �ñÞì�, eremo, translated "in (the) wilderness," simply means 

"in (the) abandoned (land)." It can be used of an abandoned wife, or cause, or locality. Such 

an abandoned locality does not have to be a desert. It simply indicates any place that is 


15

15 


"without inhabitants," that is "empty," "thinly populated." In Biblical Theology, the "wilderness" 

period of Israel's wandering for forty years is treated in a two-fold manner. On the one hand it 

is referred to as that period of Israel's history marked by disobedience and rebellion--see for 

example Hebrew 3:1-4:13. 

But on the other hand, it is sometimes remembered as a special time of divine grace, a 

time when YHWH God did marvelous signs and wonders for his people--see, for example, 

Hosea 1-3; Acts 7:36, 38, 44; 13:18; John 6:31, and 49. Gerhard Kittel, in the article e;rhmoj, 

eremos in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (II, pp. 657-60), states that 

"Emphasis on the saving aspect of the wilderness period creates in Judaism a tendency to 

ascribe to it everything great and glorious...There thus arises the belief that the last and 

decisive age of salvation will begin in the e;rhmoj, eremos, and that here the Messiah 

[Anointed One] will appear. This belief led revolutionary Messianic movements to make for 

the e;rhmoj, eremos [i.e., to go into the desert to begin their movement] (Acts 21:38)." (P. 

658) 

This article by Kittel was written before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and 

therefore does not acknowledge the importance of the "wilderness" motif for the Essenes of 

Qumran. But today, with those scrolls available to us, we can see that Isaiah 40:3 and the 

"voice in the wilderness" played a central role in that sectarian movement in Judaism in the 

second and first centuries before the coming of Jesus, and also during the first century of the 

Christian era. 

See, for example, 1QS VIII 12-16, "And when these things come to pass for the 

Community in Israel at these appointed times, they shall be separated from the midst of the 

habitation of perverse men to go into the wilderness to prepare the way of 'him' as it is written, 

'In the wilderness prepare the way of... [The name Yahweh, forbidden to be uttered, is 

replaced by the pronoun 'him' (huha). In the subsequent quotation from Isaiah 40:3, four dots 

are substituted for the four letters of this name...] Make straight in the desert a highway for our 

God.' This (way) is the study of the law which he has promulgated by the hand of Moses, that 

they may act according to all that is revealed, season by season, and according to that which 

the Spokespersons have revealed by his Holy Spirit'..." A. Dupont-Sommer comments that 

"The retreat into the desert is no doubt meant to be taken here in its literal sense; it is the 

retreat of the Essenes to Qumran." (The Essene Writings from Qumran, p. 92) 

Again, in 1QS IX 19b-21a, "This is the time to prepare the way, to go into the desert. 

And he shall instruct them in all that has been found that they may do it at this time, and that 

they may be separated from all who have not departed from all perversity." We think that the 

Essenes who lived in the southwestern section of the ancient City of Jerusalem left Jerusalem 

and its Temple, considering the nation and its priesthood hopelessly apostate and corrupt, to 

go "into the wilderness," down into the deepest, most desolate valley possible, the Jordan Rift 

Valley, on the western side of the Dead Sea (at a place later to be called "Qumran"), there to 

build a monastic type of community dedicated to the study of the Jewish Bible and related 

literature (including documents from both the "Apocrypha" and the "Pseudepigrapha"), under 

16 

(continued...)

"Make ready the Lord's pathway. 

15 


the leadership of the "Teacher of Right Relationships." This biblical text, Isaiah 40:3, 

obviously played a very powerful, formative role in that sectarian movement. 

S. Talmon, in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, pp. 

946-49, down-plays the importance of the "wilderness motif" for Biblical Theology, insisting 

that "In the Old Testament world of ideas, the Promised Land lies beyond the fringes of the 

desert, which is the symbol of chaos and waste. The opposition between the two is 

conceptualized in the contrast of Jerusalem-Zion versus Sinai." Talmon may be correct, in 

holding that too much can be made of the importance of the "wilderness" for Biblical Theology. 

However, the Essenes of Qumran went out into the wilderness to prepare the way; and later 

messianic pretenders went out into the wilderness to prepare the way for entry into rulership in 

Israel and a new beginning for its religion. We believe that these movements show that the 

"wilderness motif" was of great importance to these late pre-Christian and immediately post- 

Christian movements. The leaving of the inhabited areas of Jerusalem and Judea to go into 

the wilderness signified the failure of the religious establishment, and the necessity for a new 

beginning. Added to the Essenes in Qumran is the movement of John the Immerser, which 

begins in the wilderness, "preparing the way” for a great new revelation of God and a new 

work in Israel’s history. Not only is the desert a symbol of chaos and waste, it is also a symbol 

of YHWH’s romance of Israel, in its “honeymoon” period. 

France comments that “...The wilderness was a place of hope, of new beginnings. It 

was in the wilderness that Yahweh had met with Israel and made them into his people when 

they came out of Egypt. That had been the honeymoon period, before the relationship 

became strained... 

“So as the prophets looked back to the comparative purity of Israel’s wilderness 

beginnings, the hope grew that in the wilderness God’s people would again find their true 

destiny. ‘Behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to 

her...And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came 

out of the land of Egypt’ (Hosea 2:14-15; compare Ezekiel 20:35-38). The voice in the 

wilderness (Isaiah 40:3-5) which introduces...Isaiah’s great vision of restoration, is followed by 

the recurrent theme of a new Exodus, a new beginning in a wilderness transformed by the 

renewing power of Israel’s God (Isaiah 41:18-20; 43:18-21; 44:3-4, etc.). 

“It was this wilderness hope which inspired not only the men of Qumran to go out into 

the wilderness to wait for God’s coming in power, but also several less otherworldly would-be 

leaders of Israel in the troubled days of the Roman occupation. Theudas, who appears in 

Acts 5:36, led his followers down to the Jordan (i.e., that same ‘wilderness’ area where John 

had baptized), where they were attacked and routed by the procurator Fadus (Josephus, 

Antiquities of the Jews 20.97-98). Later, under Felix, an Egyptian ‘prophet’ collected a band 

of freedom fighters around him in the wilderness before leading them in an ill-fated assault on 

Jerusalem (Josephus, Jewish War 2.261-63; Antiquities of the Jews 20.169-72; Acts 

21:38)” (P. 57) 

17

Make straight the paths of his," 16 

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

1.4 John came, [the one] immersing in the wilderness, and proclaiming an 

16 

The third person singular genitive pronoun á�ôï�, autou, “of him,” or “his,” is changed 

to read tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n, tou theou hemon, “of the God of ours,” by Bezae (see) and the 

majority of the Old Latin witnesses. The interpolated scripture from a portion of Isaiah 40:4-8, 

which has been quoted in Luke 3:5-6, is read here at Mark 1:3 by W and the Old Latin 

Manuscript c (see). We consider both of these variant readings to be of the nature of “early 

commentary” on the original text made by later copyists of Mark, while the interpolation from 

Luke 3 is an attempt to make Mark read the same as Luke. But neither of these variant 

readings should be looked upon as part of the original text–rather, they are examples of how 

an ancient text “grows” across the centuries of transmission. Even if, however, these variant 

readings should be taken to be original, they do not change the meaning of Mark. 

At the close of this fifth and last line of Mark’s quotation, there is a significant change 

from the text of Isaiah 40:3. Both in Hebrew and in the Greek translation, it reads "Make 

straight the pathway of our God." But in Mark's quotation, "of our God" is changed to read 

"his paths" (plural instead of singular, along with the indefinite "his" which may refer to God, 

but may also refer to the "Coming One" to whom John the Immerser points). For Isaiah, this 

joyful call means "Get ready, prepare for the coming of YHWH, who will deliver his people 

from their Babylonian captivity, leading them through the desert-wastes back to their homeland 

in Israel." 

Westermann comments on Isaiah 40:3 that "Verse 3, vague and cryptic, introduces a 

new factor, 'A voice cries'. Whose the voice is, is deliberately left unsaid...The person of the 

hearer is of no importance, and is to remain in the dark...Comfort is to start with the 

preparation of a way....Israel's comforting begins with the preparation of a way, for the way 

spoken of is the one which brings her through the desert back home." (Isaiah 40-66, pp. 36- 

37) 

With this quotation come connotations of "divine deliverance from captivity," and of a 

"new exodus" in the present conditions of chaos and confusion. The author of Mark is not a 

biblical "literalist," who takes great care to quote biblical passages exactly, and word for word 

(see footnotes 13, 14 and 15). Rather, he takes up the biblical text and applies it freely to the 

present situation. The author of Mark knows that it is not exactly the same situation that 

existed in the time of Isaiah 40; but he also recognizes that very similar conditions exist, and 

the same divine action is at work in human history, bringing deliverance to the people of God. 

He treats the Jewish Bible’s statement as “precedent” and as “parallel” to what is happening 

with this “coming one” predicted by John, five centuries after the time of Isaiah 40. And he 

knows that the prerequisite for the coming of divine deliverance is repentance, radical change 

on the part of the people of God. There is a human role--it is the role of preparation, of 

making straight the pathways for the divine coming, and God, through his spokesperson John, 

is bringing that repentance into being. 

17 

But who is this "John"? The name �ÉùÜííçò, Iowannes comes from a Hebrew name, 

put into Greek letters–!nxwy, Yochanan (sometimes !nxwhy, Yehochanan), which means 


18

17 


"YHWH has been merciful," one of the most common personal names used by Jews both in 

biblical times (some 33 times in the Hebrew Bible) and subsequently. 

But which "John" is this? Mark assumes that its readers will recognize the one of 

whom he writes. And in the subsequent statements, it becomes clear that this is the wellknown 

"John the One Immersing" of Christian tradition, the Jewish Spokesperson who cried 

out powerfully against Israel's missings-of-the-mark (especially of the King, Herod Antipas, 

resulting in John’s beheading), and who pointed beyond himself to the "Coming One," who 

would accomplish wondrous things far beyond John’s ability to accomplish. 

18 

France comments that “According to one strand of Jewish belief, prophecy had 

ceased with Malachi, whose book came to a close with the prediction of the return of Elijah to 

herald the Day of the Lord. To present John as a prophet was, therefore, for those who 

subscribed to this view of prophecy, a daring and far-reaching claim.” (P. 62) 

19 

The definite article �, ho, “the one,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Delta, 

Minuscules 33, 892 (see), 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Bohairic Coptic. It is 

not read by Alexandrinus, W, a corrector of Bezae, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, 

Minuscules 28, 700, Lectionary 2211, the Latin Vulgate or some of the Old Latin witnesses. 

Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark. Because of the evenly 

balanced nature of the textual evidence, the article is included in the text, but surrounded by 

brackets, as a sign of uncertainty as to its originality. 

20 

Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament... 

states that the Greek verb bapti,zein, baptizein means "dip, immerse; dip oneself, wash (in 

non-Christian literature also 'plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm'; figurative, 'soak')." (P. 131) To 

continue to use the non-translated, but transliterated “baptize" is unnecessary and confusing 

to readers of the Bible. The word should be translated by such English words as "immerse," 

or "dip,” regardless of the ritual practices of our modern churches. 

And so here, we should translate o` bapti,zwn, ho baptizon, by “(John,) the one 

immersing...” Mark has this same present active participle as a description for John at 6:14 

and 24. But at 6:25 and 8:28 Mark has the adjectival phrase, Iwa,nnhj o` baptisth,j, Ioannes 

ho baptistes, i.e., “John the Immersist,” which has been transliterated into English as “John 

the Baptist.” This adjectival phrase, o` baptisth,j, ho baptistes, “the Immerser,” or “the 

Baptist,” is found regularly in Matthew and Luke. John does not use either o` bapti,zwn, ho 

baptizon, “the one immersing” or o` baptisth,j, ho baptistes as a name for John, but does 

use the phrase +Hn...o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwn, En...ho Ioannes baptizon, literally “the John was 

immersing,” i.e., a sentence, not a title. 

Lane claims that John's immersing in the Jordan was "wholly novel." He notes that "It 

has been conjectured that John's baptism was derived from the Jewish practice of baptizing 

proselytes, or from the rites of initiation practiced at Qumran. No clear line of dependence can 

be shown in support of these theories. Baptism appears rather as a unique activity of this 

prophet, a prophetic sign so striking that John became known simply as 'the Baptizer.'" (P. 49) 


19

20 


Schweizer notes that "The historical antecedents of John and his baptism are unclear. 

Ceremonial washings were practiced by the Dead Sea community, whose members immersed 

themselves regularly. John's baptism differed from theirs in that it was not repeated [How 

does Schweizer know this? We think this is probably correct, but are not sure; at any rate, 

there is no evidence for its being repeated], and in that it involved the participation of the one 

who baptized [whereas in Jewish immersions-washings the individuals immersed or washed 

themselves]. The chief difference was that John invited all the people to the baptism, not just 

a choice group who were members of a particular order. Recently some have held the opinion 

that at one time John had been a member of the Qumran community; this is misleading, 

because this Jewish 'order' had separated itself from the nation by its fanatical observance of 

the law [while John, instead of separating himself from Israel, was proclaiming to the Israelites 

from Judea and Jerusalem, the Jewish capital-city and center of its religion]. Furthermore, 

John's baptism...is conspicuous in its contrast to ceremonies which were repeated regularly... 

John in a sense, would have classified all Israel with the unclean Gentiles by his practice of 

baptizing Jews. It is more likely that he revolutionized the purification ceremonies which were 

practiced by the shore of the Dead Sea..." (Pp. 35-36) 

We understand and appreciate these warnings against a too close identification 

between John’s immersion and the ritual immersions of Qumran (and Jewish proselyte 

immersion as well). But it seems obvious that there was some relationship involved, and that 

John and his practice of immersion did not just appear “out of the blue,” nor was it “wholly 

novel” as Lane claims. We believe that John has taken up a widely known and practiced 

Jewish religious ritual, and has filled it with revolutionary new meaning. What had become a 

legalistic observance in order to assure ritual purity, becomes with John an immersion that 

symbolizes entrance into a life-long “turning-around,” a return to God and his will, awaiting the 

coming divine action in history–something that defies legalistic manipulation. Further, it is an 

“immersion of repentance” that is demanded of all Israel, not intended specifically for non- 

Jews. 

We understand the procedures for an “immersion in water”–but what about an 

“immersion into turning-around”? How can you be sure that this has occurred? Legalistic 

interpreters of religion like to fasten on immersion in water–for that is an act that can be 

legislated, and measured–you have either done it, or you haven’t. But what about an 

“immersion of repentance”? How can you measure that? How can you legislate it? 

Repentance, or “turning around,” has to do with the innermost thoughts and commitments of 

the human heart–how can that be rigidly legislated? How can it be determined whether or not 

a person has done that? Only the individual involved can answer, and even that answer has 

to be somewhat tentative and uncertain. 

21 

The exact location of John's practice of immersing is unknown, due to the ambiguity of 

the phrase "in the wilderness (or ‘desert’),” which could mean almost anywhere in southern 

Judea, the "Negebh," if this was the only thing said. But it is said that John was immersing in 

the Jordan River--see verse 5--and so we should think of somewhere along the barren, 

uninhabited areas of the Jordan River Valley, perhaps near the Dead Sea, to the south of 

Jericho. Because of Mark's later statement that Judea and Jerusalem came out to him for 

immersion, we should undoubtedly think in terms of the area near Jericho. Guelich mentions 


20

21 


that “The ford of Chadschle located south of Jericho near the Wadi-el-Kelt has been the 

traditional location of John’s baptism.” (P. 20) 

The Fourth Gospel is more precise than Mark in naming the location for John's 

immersing--see John 1:28, "These things happened in Bethany, beyond the Jordan, where 

John was immersing." But the problem is that no "Bethany" beyond the Jordan has yet been 

discovered. Compare also John 3:23, "And John was also immersing in Ainon, close to 

Saleim, because there was much water there..." Here again, the problem is that neither of 

these geographical locations is known today. The only thing that is clear from this last text is 

that biblical baptismo,j, baptismos demands "much water," just as we would expect if we 

consistently translated the Greek word by its proper English equivalent, "immersion." A few 

gallons of water just won’t do for immersion! 

22 

The phrase � âáðôßæùí �í ô� �ñÞì� êá�, ho baptizon en te eremo kai, “the one 

immersing in the desert and,” is read by Sinaiticus, L, Delta, a few other Greek manuscripts 

and the Bohairic Coptic. It is changed to read � âáðôßæùí �í ô� �ñÞì�, ho baptizon en te 

eremo, “the one immersing in the desert,” (without the conjunction êá�, kai, “and”) by 

Vaticanus, Minuscules 33, 892 (see), 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts and some 

manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic. It is read âáðôßæùí �í ô� �ñÞì� êá�, baptizon en te 

eremo kai, “immersing in the desert and,” by Alexandrinus, W, Families 1 and 13 of 

Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Harclean Syriac, and the Sahidic Coptic (?). It is read �í 

ô� �ñÞì� âáðôßæùí êá�, en te eremo baptizon kai, “in the desert immersing and,” by a 

corrector of Bezae, Theta, Minuscules 28, 700, Lectionary 2211, the Latin Vulgate and 

some of the Old Latin witnesses. The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, 

but probably indicate that there has been a problem in the primitive text, resulting in the 

copyists and translators dealing with this problem in their own individual ways. 

France thinks that the source of these last two variants is that “Scribes who were 

familiar with the more usual form Iwa,nnhj o` baptisth,j, Ioannes ho baptistes, i.e., ‘John the 

Immersist,’ failed to recognize the title, and so attempted to construe the sentence with 

bapti,zwn, baptizon as a participle parallel to khru,sswn, kerusson, ‘proclaiming,’ ‘preaching,’ 

to describe John’s activity.” (P. 61) 

Due to the divided nature of the witnesses, the phrase “the one” is placed within 

brackets, to indicate uncertainty as to its originality. See footnote 19. 

23 

The masculine singular present participle êçñýóóùí, kerusson means “proclaiming,” 

"announcing," "making known,” “heralding,” “preaching.” It is the most common New 

Testament word for "preaching.” Thus John is pictured as a "preacher," as a "herald." 

Strangely, instead of being described as a "proclaimer of the Good News," John is 

described as a "proclaimer of an immersion of turning around." Although John pointed out into 

the future to the soon-coming "stronger one," and the marvelous works he would do, John’s 

proclamation centered in the need of his hearers to enter into a life-long "turning around," in 

preparation for the coming of that “stronger one,” and to symbolize that turning around through 

being immersed into such a reversal of their life-direction. See the next footnote for a 


21

24 25 

immersion of turning around for forgiveness of missings-of-the-mark. 1.5 And all the 

23 


discussion of this. The proclamation of Jesus was centered in the "Good News of God"--see 

Mark 1:14-15--but also called for genuine turning around. The difference in the proclamation 

of John and Jesus is the difference between preparation and fulfillment. 

24 

This is a strange description of John's immersion: "an immersion of turning around." 

What can this mean? And how can a person do this? To be “immersed in water” is easily 

understandable, and easily accomplished. “That’s the command, and that’s what I did.” So 

the person having been immersed can claim. But what about being “immersed into turningaround”? 

It isn’t something easily done, nor is it easy to say “I’ve accomplished it,” for in fact, 

it can never be completed, but demands a whole life of continual turning to God. What do you 

think? 

It is in fact a new “mind-set” that John is calling for (just as Jesus will likewise call for in 

his preaching and teaching)–something that is not learned, or accomplished “in a moment at 

the initial point of commitment, but requires a lifetime of metanoi,a, metanoia, repentance. But 

it is to such a revolution of attitudes and values that Jesus will call people when he announces 

the coming of the kingdom of God, and ìåôáíïßá, metanoia appropriately expresses the idea. 

The continuity in this respect between the ministries of John and Jesus (and his disciples) is 

therefore noteworthy.” (France, pp. 66-67) 

The noun ìåôáíïßá, metanoia, commonly translated "repentance" means "a turning 

around," "a change of mind." In the New Testament, this Greek word has been deeply 

influenced by the Hebrew word ��, shubh, and by the religious demand for radical 

conversion to be found in the great Hebrew Spokespersons from Amos to Jeremiah. It 

means "a turning about," "a conversion," always in terms of relationship with YHWH God, an 

act of deep-seated "penitence" that marks the beginning of a new religious and moral life, 

characterized by loving obedience to the will of God, and the transformation of society in the 

name of God. 

In the Jewish Bible, there are two forms of "repentance" to be found. The first is that 

of public, ritual expressions of repentance. They were symbolic actions to be undertaken by 

the entire people, as a sign of their sorrow for mistakes committed, and as a means of 

requesting divine mercy and forgiveness. They involved special days of going without food 

and drink, the wearing of "sack-cloth" and sitting in ashes, accompanied by the throwing of 

ashes in the air. A number of liturgies expressing national penitence were developed, and are 

to be found in the Psalms--see, for example, Psalms 44 and 106. 

But there is also to be found in the Jewish Bible a sharp criticism of these external 

expressions of penitence. See such passages as Amos 5:21-24; Hosea 6:4-6; Isaiah 58:5- 

7; Joel 2:12-13 and Zechariah 7:4-10. At the heart of this criticism of the external forms and 

rituals of penitence is the recognition that "The people's penitence is not firmly anchored at the 

depth where it becomes genuine encounter with God. It does not lead...to a personal and 

existential relation between God and man." And, we may add, it does not lead to a genuine 

commitment to establishing justice and right relationships in the community. What the 

Spokespersons demand is that every person must return to a loving, obedient relationship with 


22

24 


YHWH God, something much deeper than simply external expressions of penitence. What 

must be done is a “turning around” that transforms the individual and his surrounding world, so 

far as he can influence that world. This is the second form of penitence, the only form that 

YHWH God is interested in. 

"All prophetic criticism is agreed that the penitence of the people lacks the one thing 

that matters, namely, that in penitence one is before the God of unconditional requirement, 

that one has to take him with full seriousness, that it is not enough to be sorry for past sins and 

to pray for their remission or for the aversion of calamity...What counts is a turning from the 

sinful nature as such. If the external form is severed from what it is designed to express, if it 

becomes autonomous, it sinks to the level of magic and acquires a significance which the 

prophets could never accord it...The general or public character of penitence can easily mean 

that the individual, though he participates, is not fully and personally involved. 'The very 

custom carries with it the danger that in distress the lips make confession...but there is no 

forsaking of the old ungodly nature.' [quoting J. Hempel] In the last resort, then, the prophets 

frequently perceive in this kind of penitence a veiling of the seriousness of the relationship 

between God and man, and so they are forced to protest against it." E. Wuerthwein, 

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, IV, pp. 982-83. 

With all of this in mind from the Jewish Bible, we again ask the question, What can 

Mark mean by its phrase, an "immersion of turning around"? In a profound way, this 

statement combines within itself both the external religious ritual (a dipping in water), and the 

deeply internal relationship with God (genuine turning around of life to God and neighbor). In 

this preparation for the coming one, neither extreme will be embraced, ritual without 

commitment, or commitment without ritual: religious ritual will not be abolished, but neither will 

it be allowed to substitute for a deeply personal relationship with Almighty God. This "turning 

around,” signified by immersion, must result in a new relationship with God that embraces and 

transforms every area of human life; it must express itself in confident, exclusive trust in God, 

and in obedience to his will in every way, including turning away from everything ungodly or 

harmful. All of this is involved in the religious meaning of immersion. It speaks symbolically of 

"turning around," of redirecting human thought and life towards God and his Kingdom. It is 

nothing if it is only empty ritual; it is truly something only if its symbolism is fulfilled in trusting, 

obedient relationship with God, which results in a transformation of society in the name of 

justice and right relationships. 

J. Behm agrees with this in his discussion of "The Concept of Conversion": 

"Conversion was the basic note in the message of the Baptist...What John advances is the 

ancient prophetic summons for conversion, for a break with the ungodly and sinful past, for 

turning to God, because God, active in history, turns to man. But the summons is more 

categorical than it was on the lips of any prophet, for it stands under the urgency of the [final] 

revelation of God...With the preaching of conversion John connects the baptism of conversion 

...The meaning is that the complete change of man's nature for the coming age is God's work 

in baptism. Through the...sacrament of John's baptism God fashions for himself a community 

of the converted who are given a place in the coming salvation. [Turning around] is both 

God's gift and man's task...At the portal of the New Testament we thus find a concept of 

conversion which transcends Judaism and renews the ultimate insights of the prophetic piety 


23

24 


of the Old Testament (compare Jeremiah 31:33; Psalm 51:10), but with a new...certainty." 

(Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, IV, pp. 1000-01) 

Lane states that "The summons to be baptized in the Jordan meant that Israel must 

come once more 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 experience 

separation; the people are called to a second exodus in preparation for a new covenant with 

God...They return to a place of judgment, the wilderness, where the status of Israel as God's 

beloved son must be re-established in the exchange of pride for humility. The willingness to 

return to the wilderness signifies the acknowledgment of Israel's history as one of rebellion 

and disobedience, and a desire to begin once more. John's proclamation of the forgiveness of 

sins provides the assurance that God extends grace as well as judgment." (Pp. 50-51) 

France adds that “Mark is already signaling the dismissal of the institutional life of Israel 

which will be a recurrent theme of his gospel.” (P. 63) John’s call to Israel to come out into 

the wilderness to receive an immersion for forgiveness of missings-of-the-mark implies that 

they can no longer find such forgiveness in the Temple-rituals in Jerusalem. There must be a 

break with the past, and a radical new beginning. “...John’s baptism was for Jews; to ask them 

to undergo the same initiatory ritual as was required of a Gentile convert was a powerful 

statement of John’s theology of the people of God, one which is reminiscent of the ‘remnant’ 

theology of the prophets. To be born a Jew was not enough [nor was it enough to share in the 

priestly rituals of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem]; it was only by metanoi,a eivj av ,fesin 

a`martiw/n, metanoia eis aphesin hamartion, ‘repentance for forgiveness of missings-of-themark’ 

that one could be truly counted among the people of God.” (P. 66) 

25 

Both in the Jewish Bible and in the Christian Bible, the words used for “missing-of- 

the-mark,” or "sin,” taJx, chatta)th (almost 300 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible) and 

a`marti,a, hamartia (almost 175 times in the Greek New Testament) are basically words that 

mean "missing of the mark" and "going astray (from the divine pathway)." The word spoken 

by YHWH's servants to Israel was a sharp indictment that Israel had broken its relationship 

with YHWH God--just as a wife "commits adultery" against her husband, or a son breaks off 

his loving relationship with his father. "Missing of the mark" is not so much a matter of 

violation of rules and laws, but a matter of broken relationships--first with God, and then with 

other human beings. But the Good News that rings out in the New Testament is that YHWH, 

the God of Israel has entered into the human predicament of broken relationships, of all sorts 

of "missings of the mark," and grants full forgiveness to all his people when they turn to him in 

penitence. That is the meaning of John's immersion of turning around. It "leads to [divine] 

forgiveness of missings of the mark." It is the human way of acknowledging, and reaching out 

to accept that divine forgiveness. 

That John’s repentance-immersion was eivj a;fesin a`martiw/n, eis aphesin 

hamartion, “for forgiveness of missings-of-the-mark,” expresses “‘the highest hopes’ of the 

prophets (Schniewind...e.g., Jeremiah 31:34 [‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember 

their missing-of-the-mark no more’]; Isaiah 33:24; 53:5-6 [the suffering servant is crushed for 

our iniquities; YHWH has laid on him the iniquity of us all]; Ezekiel 18:31; 36:25-27; 


24

26 27 

country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem, and they were 

25 


Zechariah 13:1 [a fountain opened to cleanse from missing-of-the-mark and impurity]; Micah 

7:18)...” (Guelich, p. 19, who goes on to note that the main words used here, repentance, 

baptism, forgiveness of sins, and the Spirit, “all appear in the Essene writings.” (P. 20) See 

1QS 3.6-8; 11.14; CD 3.18; 4.6, 9.10; 1QH 4.37; 7.30; 11.10, 30-31; 16.12. 

There are those who strongly object to this connection of repentance-immersion with 

the forgiveness of sins, insisting that it is too "sacramental," that it places far too much 

significance on an external ritual. Those who make this objection commonly insist that divine 

forgiveness is simply a matter of personal relationship between the individual and God, and 

has nothing to do with religious rituals and ceremonial washings. On the other hand, there are 

those who stress passages such as this, insisting that immersion in water confers divine 

forgiveness of missings of the mark. 

Both views, we think, are extreme. Genuine biblical religion teaches that the human, 

personal relationship with God should be expressed in meaning-full religious symbolism, 

including acts such as prayer, praise, and covenantal acts such as immersion and 

communion. But if these symbols and acts do not come from the heart, involving a close 

interpersonal relationship with God and transformation of life, they are meaningless and 

hypocritical--even destructive. But as genuine expressions of that deeply personal 

relationship, they are of great religious worth and value. 

26 

The geographical name �Éïõäáßá, Ioudaia "Judea" comes from the Hebrew personal 

name ��, Yehudah, “Judah," and is in actuality an adjective which means "Judean 

(country or land)." Ordinarily the name is used to describe the southern part of Palestine in 

contrast to Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Idumaea. Sometimes it is used in a wider sense to 

include the entire region occupied by the Jewish nation. But here it means the southern part 

of Palestine, from just north of Jerusalem and south into the Negebh. 

27 

This is a good example of what we call "the all fallacy." Compare footnotes 141, 149, 

165, 168 and 185. It is so tempting to speakers to say "everything," and "everybody," when 

what is really meant is "many," or "a large number." So it is here. Mark states that "the whole 

region of Judea" and "all the people of Jerusalem" were going out to John and being 

immersed by him. Perhaps the reason for this exaggeration is that Mark wants its readers to 

know that “all Israel” was being called to share in John’s immersion. But it soon becomes 

obvious that this is not to be taken literally–since many of the people of Judea and Jerusalem 

paid no attention to John, and the majority of Israel’s leaders rejected his ministry completely. 

See the explicit statement made in Luke 7:30 that the "Separatists and the lawyers set aside 

the counsel of God to them, not being immersed by him,” and Mark makes it fully clear as it 

continues that not by any means did all of Judea and Jerusalem respond to John’s message. 

For those who hold that every word in the Bible was written by the finger of God, this 

constitutes a difficulty. But for those who recognize the human element in the biblical writings, 

alongside the divine Word that comes through those writings, such a "fallacy" is no problem, 

but only to be expected in such an inspired but nonetheless very human writing. Compare 

footnote 11. 


25

28 

being immersed by him in the Jordan River, confessing out the missings-of-the-mark of 

27 


France comments that “In view of the clearly negative attitude towards Jerusalem in the 

rest of the gospel, it is important to notice that here and in 3:7-8 Mark recognizes a popular 

response to the preaching of both John and Jesus among the Judeans.” (P. 68) 

France quotes Myers to the effect that “By picturing the crowds coming from Jerusalem 

to the ev,rhmoj, eremos, ‘wilderness,’ Mark is making his own ‘subversive’ point. ‘According to 

the dominant nationalist ideology of salvation history, Jerusalem was considered the hub of 

the world to which all nations would one day come...Mark turns this ‘circulation’ on its head: far 

from embarking on triumphal pilgrimage to Zion, the crowds flee to the margins, for purposes 

of repentance.” (P. 68) 

28 

The phrase u`pV auvtou/ evn tw/| VIorda,nh| potamw/|, hup’ autou en to Iordane potamo, 

“by him in the Jordan River,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Minuscules 33, 892, 1241, 

2427, Lectionary 844, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts f, l, the Latin 

Vulgate and the Coptic tradition (see). It is changed to read �í ô� �ÉïñäÜí� �ð� á�ôï�, en to 

Iordane hup’ autou, “in the Jordan by him,” by a corrector of Bezae, W, Theta, Minuscules 

28, 565, 700, Lectionary 2211 (see) and the Old Latin Manuscript a. It is changed to read �í 

ô� �ÉïñäÜí� ðïôáì� �ð� á�ôï�, en to Iordane potamo hup’ autou, “in the Jordan River by 

him,” by Alexandrinus, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text” and the Harclean 

Syriac. Here again, the variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but reflect 

slightly differing ways of saying the same thing. The copyists and translators do not consider 

themselves “slaves” to the exact wording of the original being copied and translated; rather, 

they consider themselves free to make just such slight alterations to the text–but without 

changing its meaning. 

Here the specific place of John's immersing is given--"in the Jordan River." The Jordan 

River arises at the foot of Mount Hermon in the northeastern part of Israel, flows through the 

Sea of Galilee, and then continues on some eighty miles, to empty into the Dead Sea. The 

straight-line distance is about eighty miles, but the River itself goes close to two hundred 

miles, due to the many twists and turns that the Jordan makes between the Sea of Galilee and 

the Dead Sea. There are numerous sites all along the River where immersion is possible. 

Modern tourists in Israel are taken to a beautiful place for immersion in the Jordan River just 

south of the Sea of Galilee. But it is obvious from the fact that it was the people of Judea and 

Jerusalem coming to be immersed, that the lower, much muddier part of the Jordan River is 

meant, somewhere near the ancient (and modern) City of Jericho, just to the north of the Dead 

Sea. Compare footnote 21. 

Guelich notes that “Since the lower Jordan Valley belongs to the wilderness area... 

John’s preaching ‘in the wilderness’ and his baptizing ‘in the Jordan’ do not necessarily stand 

in conflict...Early rabbinic tradition specifically excludes the Jordan River as a place of 

purification (Mishnah Parah 8.10)” (p. 20) since its waters are “mixed,” i.e., co-mingled with 

the water of the Yarmuk. 

26

theirs. 29 

30 31 32 33 

1.6 And the John was being dressed in (a) camel's hair (robe), and a leather belt 

29 

The "confession" made by those coming to John for immersion was that they had 

"missed the mark." The participle used here, �îïìïëïãïýìåíïé, eksomologoumenoi, means 

"confessing out," "admitting," "acknowledging." The verb from which this participle comes 

occurs some 85 times in the Greek Bible, especially in the Psalms as a term used in worship. 

As France notes, “We cannot reconstruct a liturgical practice from the simple phrase 

evxomologou,menoi ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n, eksomologooumenoi tas hamartias auton, 

‘confessing out the missings-of-the-mark of theirs’; there is no indication whether the 

confession was silent or aloud, and if the latter to whom it was addressed.” (P. 68) 

30 

France comments that “The description of John’s clothing and diet serves further to 

reinforce his prophetic image.” (P. 69) 

31 

The phrase êá� �í � �ÉùÜííçò, kai en ho Ioannes, literally “and was being the John,” 

is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Minuscule 33 (see), Lectionary 2211 (see), a corrector 

of Minuscule 565, Minuscules 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, 

some of the Old Latin witnesses and some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic. It is changed 

to read �í äå �, (the definite article is omitted by Alexandrinus, Bezae, W, Delta and many 

other Greek manuscripts) �ÉùÜííçò, en de ho Ioannes, “but then the John was being,” by 

Alexandrinus, Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, (in a different word-order 

by Minuscule 28), the “Majority Text,” the large majority of Old Latin witnesses, the Harclean 

Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). The variant reading does not 

change the meaning of Mark, but reflects a different way of saying the same thing on the part 

of later copyists and translators, who obviously felt the freedom to make such changes to the 

text being copied and translated, along with the common differences among copyists as to 

whether or not to use the definite article with nouns and names. 

32 

The accusative feminine plural noun ôñß÷áò, trichas, literally “hairs” is changed to 

de,rrin, derrin, “skin (or leather) covering” by Bezae and the Old Latin Manuscript a, which is 

an attempt by these copyists to relate John’s clothing to the statement in Zechariah 13:4. It is 

used here in description of a piece of clothing made from camel-hair. See the next footnote. 

33 

Otto Michel states that "This is a cheap and hardwearing garment...and not the apron 

of so much Christian art. [A mixture of camel's hair and wool is softer--see Mishnah Kilayim 

9:1.] Even externally the prophet stands out from his contemporaries, and especially from the 

leaders in Jerusalem...He is under a special biblical discipline marked by freedom in respect of 

needs...Those who have insight and faith, however, discern the true prophet behind the 

externally unassuming and rigorous garb (compare the rough garment of Zechariah 13:4; 

Isaiah 20:2). Indeed Ahaziah knew Elijah by his hairy garment and leathern girdle (2 Kings 

1:8). Was John trying even in this way to make it plain to believers that he was the returning 

Elijah? John wears desert clothing and eats desert food." (Theological Dictionary of the 

New Testament, III, p. 593) Strangely, Guelich does not think that there is any direct 

reference to 2 Kings 1:8, and that “John’s garb, therefore, corresponds to the nomadic attire 

of the wilderness in general and to prophetic dress in particular (so Zechariah 13:4; Hebrews 

11:37...” (P. 21) 

27

34 35 36 37 38 

around the waist of his, and eating grasshoppers and wild honey. 1.7 And he was 

34 

It has been held that the "leather belt" was a large, "corset-like" piece of leather which 

would keep John from injuring his back in performing multiple immersions (assuming that such 

was the custom in immersion; sometimes it is the custom for the person being immersed to 

bend over in the water, and the minister simply places his hand on his head as he goes under 

the water), but the purpose of the belt is not indicated by the text. It is more probable that this 

is mentioned in order to identify John with the expected "Elijah" of Judaism. See Malachi 4:5- 

6. 

35 

The phrase êá� æþíçí äåñìáôßíçí ðåñ� ô�í �óö�í á�ôï�, kai zonen dermatinen peri 

ten osphun autou, “and a leather belt around his waist,” is omitted by Bezae and the majority 

of Old Latin witnesses. We see no reason for this omission, unless it be that the eye of the 

copyist and translators skipped from the final -ou of kamelou to the final -ou of autou, leaving 

out the intervening words. The omission, however, does not change the meaning of Mark–it 

only leaves out one of Mark’s graphic descriptions of John. 

36 

The �êñßäáò, akridas, a feminine plural accusative noun which means “locusts” or 

"grasshoppers," is the name of insects still eaten by the poorer people in Arabia, Africa, and 

Syria (not to mention the Navajo Indians of New Mexico and Arizona.). There has been a 

widespread tradition that instead of meaning "grasshoppers," this word refers to "carob pods" 

("St. John's bread"). But there is no evidence to support this supposition. 

France comments that “John’s diet, if simple and monotonous, was nutritious. 

VAkri,dej, Akrides are the only type of insect permitted as food in the Mosic law (Leviticus 

11:20-23; compare CD [The Damascus Document] 12:14-15 for their use as food at 

Qumran, roasted or boiled); they are still eaten with relish by those in whose lands they 

flourish.” (P. 69) Guelich comments that “‘locust,’ like fish, served as suitable substitute for 

meat in the ancient world...Mark 1:6 would correspond to Luke 7:33 // Matthew 11:18)... 

which declares that John neither ate meat nor drank wine, a practice found among late Jewish 

prophets.” (P. 21) 

37 

"Wild honey" means the honey of bees that is found in the open field. It is obvious 

that John's clothing and diet indicate that he is not an integral part of organized society, but 

lives in the wild, open country, wearing the roughest of clothing, and eating only the simplest of 

food. See footnote 33. Of course, even so, John would have to be dependent on others for 

acquiring his camel’s hair garments and his leather belt. 

38 

France comments on John’s message that the one coming after him is stronger than 

he is: “The context supplies two clues: first the image of the slave undoing the sandal thong, 

a social metaphor which still leaves open the question of what sort of superiority is involved 

(taking off the master’s sandals was a slave’s role, though interestingly one which was felt to 

be too low for a Hebrew slave...and specifically excluded from the otherwise menial duties of a 

rabbi’s disciple)...John places himself below either (he is not fit to do what is too demeaning 

even for them) in relations to the ivscuro,teroj, ischuroteros, stronger one; and secondly the 

contrast of two levels of baptism (verse 8), which focuses the issue on the nature and spiritual 

efficacy of the newcomer’s mission.” (P. 70) The immersion of this “coming one” is far 

superior to the immersion administered by John. 

28

39 

proclaiming, saying, 

40 41 

The one stronger than me is coming after me– 

39 

Compare footnote 23. Guelich notes that “John’s proclamation in 1:7-8 focuses 

exclusively on the [final] salvation with no trace of the judgment theme present in Q (Matthew 

3:7-12 // Luke 3:7-9, 16-17).” (P. 22) 

40 

Guelich notes that “Various forms of the root underlying ‘greater than I’ (ivscuro,tero,j 

mou, ischuteros mou) appear in the LXX and New Testament with reference to God (e.g., 2 

Samuel 22:31; 23:5; Psalm 7:12; compare 1 Corinthians 10:22; Revelation 18:8), angels 

(Revelation 10:1; 18:21), the oppressors (Isaiah 49:25; compare 53:12; Revelation 6:15; 

19:18) and Satan (Mark 3:27). A similar expression occurs in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:6 

(compare mega,lhj, megales–LXX) in reference to the messiah...The comparison within the 

context of John’s ministry (1:4-8) does suggest a radical break between himself, the precursor 

of the way, and the one who comes as God’s [final] agent of salvation. The latter’s ‘strength’ 

or ‘greatness,’ if not referring to God himself, comes from God as seen in his work. 

Consequently the designation the ‘Greater One’ corresponds in part to the biblical attribution 

of greatness or strength ultimately to God.” (P. 22) 

But who is this “stronger one” who is coming after John? Different answers have been 

given to this question: 

# 1 It is God himself 

# 2 It is the Messenger (or, Angel) of the Lord 

# 3 It is the Anointed One, the “Messiah” 

# 4 It is the “Son of the Person” 

# 5 It is the “final prophet” 

# 6 It is an unknown final figure 

It seems clear that answer # 1 is given on the basis of the Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1, 

two of the passages being quoted by Mark. Answer # 2 is based on Exodus 23:20, where 

YHWH promises that he will send his messenger (or “angel”) before them, guiding them on 

their way. Answer # 3 is based on Mark 1:1, 13-14, and the later content of the entirety of 

Mark; but if this is the case, why does not Mark use clearer language, as in 1:1? Answer # 4 

is based on the predictions of Daniel 7:13-14 combined with Jesus’ constant self-identification 

as “The Son of the Person.” Answer # 5 is based on Moses’ prediction in Deuteronomy 

18:15, 18, a prediction that played a role in the first century expectation–see John 1:21 and 

Acts 7:37. 

France comments that “Neither the Old Testament passages produced in verses 2-3 

as models for John’s role as forerunner nor the specific role which he assigns to the 

ivscuro,teroj, ischuroteros, stronger one in verse 8 could be expected in themselves to 


29

42 

of whom I am not worthy, having stooped down to loosen the thong of the 

40 


suggest a human figure. It is Yahweh who will follow the forerunner in both Malachi 3:1 and 

Isaiah 40:3, and in Old Testament thought it is Yahweh himself who will pour out his Spirit in 

the last days (Isaiah...44:3 (I, YHWH, will pour my Spirit upon your descendants); Ezekiel 

36:26-27 (YHWH promises to give his people a new heart and a new Spirit); 39:29 (YHWH 

promises to pour out his Spirit on Israel); Joel 3:1-2 [English, 2:28-29 (YHWH promises to 

pour out his Spirit on all humanity], etc. It says a lot for the underlying christology of Mark’s 

gospel that he can allow the Baptist’s words, which in themselves point directly to the coming 

of God, to be read as referring to the human Jesus. For him, apparently, the coming of Jesus 

is the eschatological [final] coming of God... 

”For the time being, however, the coming one is incognito (and will remain so for the 

actors in the story, since the revelations in verses 10-13 are not publicly available, but offered 

only to the privileged insight of the reader).” (P. 70) 

41 

The genitive singular pronoun ìïõ, mou, literally “than me,” is omitted by Vaticanus, 

Delta (see), Minuscules 1424 (see), 2542 (see) and Origen (in part; he died 254 A.D.). The 

omission does not change the meaning of Mark. Sometimes the phrase “coming after 

someone” can mean as a student, or disciple. But here it is apparently a temporal statement, 

the stronger one is coming later, as John’s work reaches its completion. John's preaching is 

centered, not on himself, but on the one coming after him. That one, insists John, is much 

"stronger" than he is. 

John is pictured in the New Testament as certainly a "strong" person--in his life-style, 

in his proclamation, in his brave (many would say "fool-hardy") confrontation of the Romanapproved 

ruler Herod Antipas and his brother’s former wife, Herodias (see Mark 6:14-29). He 

is indeed "strong"--but he points to one coming after him who is "stronger," who accomplishes 

a work John himself would never attempt, and could never accomplish. 

Compare Isaiah 49:26 (YHWH is the “mighty one of Jacob”) and 53:12 (YHWH will 

give the suffering servant “a portion with the great”). This "coming one" may appear to be 

weak--indeed, his story is one of suffering, rejection, and death. Nonetheless, in him is the 

real strength--he is truly the "stronger one.” This one coming after John has an immersion 

which is far greater than John's. There may be in this way of describing Jesus a hint of the 

parabolic language to be found in Mark 3:27, where Jesus is described as being "stronger" 

than the adversary, the "strong one." 

42 

The aorist participle êýøáò, kupsas, “having stooped down,” is omitted by Bezae, 

Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules, the first writer of Minuscule 28, Minuscule 565, 

Lectionaries 844, 2211, a few other Greek manuscripts and the majority of Old Latin 

witnesses. The omission does not change the meaning of Mark, and we see no reason for 

the omission–perhaps the eye of the copyist skipped from the final -j of i`kano,j, hikanos to 

the final -j of êýøáò, kupsas. Whether read or not makes little difference for the meaning of 

Mark. 

30

sandals of his. 43 

44 45 

1.8 I, I immersed you people in water; 

46 47 

but then he, he will immerse you people in Set-apart Spirit. 

43 

The statement means that John, in comparison with Jesus, is not even worthy of 

being his humble slave, stooping to perform menial tasks for him, such as untying the thong of 

his sandals. Perkins comments, “One who is unworthy to untie the sandals of another 

establishes a social distance greater than that between a master and a slave.” (P. 533) 

It is an emphatic way of saying, "Don't look to me--look beyond me to the one coming 

after me. He is so much stronger, so much more important than I am, that there can be no 

comparison." Many later disciples of Jesus, who have given their lives to proclaiming Jesus as 

“Lord and Savior,” have that same feeling towards themselves in comparison with Jesus-- 

“Don’t look at me–look at the one I proclaim.” 

44 

Following �ì�ò, humas, “you people,” the preposition evn, en, “in” or “with” is 

interpolated into the text by Alexandrinus, Bezae (see), L, W, Theta (see), Families 1 and 13 

of Minuscules, the “Majority Text” and the majority of the Old Latin witnesses. The preposition 

is not found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Delta, Minuscule 33, the first writer of Minuscule 892, 

Minuscule 2427, Lectionary 2211, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate or 

Origen (who died 254 A.D.). Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of 

Mark. 

45 

Or, "I immersed you people ‘with’ water." The dative case of the noun water, �äáôé, 

hudati, can be read either "in water,” or “with water,” even without the preposition, since this is 

the meaning of the dative case. 

As Guelich points out, this statement of John “...sets the baptism of ‘the Greater One’ in 

antithetical parallelism to that of the Baptist.” (P. 24) 

46 

The preposition �í, en, “in” or “with” is omitted by Vaticanus, L, Minuscule 2427, the 

Old Latin Manuscripts b, t and the Latin Vulgate. It is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 

Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” the 

majority of Old Latin witnesses, a large number of Latin Vulgate manuscripts and by Origen 

(who died 254 A.D.). Here again, whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of 

Mark, since both words in the phrase ðíåýìáôé �ãß�, pneumati hagio, literally “in (or ‘with’) 

Spirit, Set-apart One,” are in the dative case, which implies either “in” or “with.” 

47 

This enigmatic statement of John calls for reflection and comment. John comes as a 

divine Spokesperson, performing a "priestly" role through immersing people in a waterimmersion, 

similar to, but quite distinct from the ritual washings commonly practiced among 

first-century Jews. It was a “ritual act,” but it involved something far greater than ritual–it 

meant their willingness and commitment to enter into a life-long repentance, of turning their 

lives around to be open and obedient to the will of God. Their immersion was only the symbol 

of entrance into that kind of life-long commitment, that would have to be renewed day after 

day, until the close of their lives. 

31 

(continued...)

47 


While this seems unusual and demanding, it is the fact of religious experience that a 

“one-time” repentance is inadequate, and we need to be constantly turning back to God, 

throughout our lives. 

This coming one, who is "stronger" than John, and to whom John points, will also do 

much more than simply impart another priestly "water-immersion." In his immersion, the 

presence of God himself will be the "element" in or with which people are immersed. John 

immerses the people in water, calling them to "turn around," to "return" to a personal life-long 

relationship with Almighty God. He invites them to symbolize and seal that "turning around" by 

an immersion in water, with all its connotations of renewal and washing, and its promise of 

forgiveness; but the entrance into a life of penitence is to be the consequence of their 

immersion, and without that subsequent change of life-style, the immersion will have been 

meaningless. 

The one who is coming, who is incomparably greater than John, will immerse the 

people into God’s Set-apart Spirit. In this coming one, the one stronger than John, symbolism 

and preparation will give way to divine reality. What is partial and incomplete will be replaced 

by the complete and enduring. Far more than any priestly ritual of cleansing, through this 

coming “strong” or great one, God's people will be filled and renewed by the presence of God 

himself, in his life-giving Spirit. That is what Jesus enables, as he draws us close to God, to 

God’s teaching and guidance, to God’s forgiveness and new life, to God’s hope for the future. 

What Jesus accomplishes is the fulfillment of Israel's long hope for a blessed future--compare 

Joel 2:28-29; Isaiah 44:3, and Ezekiel 36:25-27 (“I will sprinkle clean water on you...A new 

heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the 

heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you...”) See footnote 40. 

The time of the coming one is the long hoped-for time of God's people being ushered 

into a new, complete, life-long relationship with God's own presence, in a new and vibrant way 

that they have never before experienced. In this new relationship with God, there will be a 

great advance beyond simple religious ritual and ceremonial washings. This "coming, stronger 

one," who imparts Set-apart Spirit, will enable his disciples to enter into full, direct relationship 

with the divine. Nothing partial, nothing simply symbolic about his "immersion"--it's the real 

thing. 

"Then," it may be asked, "Why do many of the followers of Jesus still practice the ritual 

of water-immersion?" "If Jesus imparts the 'real thing' of immersion into God's own Spirit, over 

against the ritual immersion in water of John, why should we today continue that practice?" 

In answer to that question, the Quakers have chosen to completely do away with 

external rituals such as immersion in water, and a number of Christian denominations have 

down-played the importance of water-immersion. Those who insist on continuing the practice 

of water-immersion (such as we do) need to respond to this very important question. 

We suggest a two-fold response: (1) We today, while living in the time of fulfillment, 

still in many ways live in the "time of preparation." We still need, like the disciples of John, to 

make our hearts ready for the coming of this stronger one, and it is still helpful to us to 


32

47 


symbolize that preparation through religious rituals such as immersion in water. Especially 

does this become clear in the very next verse of Mark, where Jesus, the "stronger one" 

himself comes to the Jordan River to be immersed in the water of Jordan by John. If Jesus 

felt the need for immersion in water, should not his disciples feel that need much more? 

(2) But, if we think that an external ritual can take the place of the "real thing"--that of 

truly being "immersed into the reality of God's presence in our lives"--then we will be just as 

guilty as the Jews in the time of the great Spokespersons of Israel, allowing external ritual to 

take the place of spiritual reality. That is, while we may practice water immersion as a helpful 

symbolism of our faith, openly confessing our missings-of-the-mark, and our deep need of 

divine forgiveness and grace, we must place our emphasis on the spiritual reality of immersing 

our entire lives into God's living and abiding presence, never pretending that our waterimmersion 

can substitute for the "real thing.” 

Today, in Central Christian Church of Frisco, I believe that God is preparing us for a 

great new future. The City of Frisco is exploding around us. New people from all over Texas, 

and the United States, and other nations, from Africa, and Latin America, and Asia, are 

moving in among us to be our neighbors. We are blessed with a truly “central” location, and 

with fine facilities that can be used powerfully for ministry to our city. The Lord holds a truly 

wonderful future in his hands. 

But for that future to become reality, we need to be prepared. In a symbolic way, we 

need to go out into the wilderness, to turn our lives around, to let God fill our hearts anew, and 

be ready to welcome his future with gladness. We in Central Christian Church have to be 

willing to break with the past, to turn our lives around, and to welcome God’s new future. God 

is doing a new thing in our midst–a wonderful, powerful new relationship with God is coming– 

will we be ready to welcome it, and share fully in it? 

33

PRAYER 

O Lord our God, we know from history that every time You have acted in history for the 

salvation of Your people, You have sent Your messengers, proclaiming Your coming action, 

telling Your people to get ready, to prepare the way for the coming blessed future. 

In order to prepare for Your future, we have to let go of the past. Just as John the 

Baptist called the people of Jerusalem and Judah out into the wilderness–leaving behind the 

Temple with its priesthood and long-time traditions, so it is with us, whenever You begin to do 

something new in our midst. The people could no longer rest on their religious customs and 

traditions–they had to get ready, get prepared for a new beginning, making straight the paths 

for Your coming, being ready for Your work in their midst. 

John immersed the people in the Jordan River–but much more than that, he immersed 

them into a life-long repentance, committing themselves to daily turning their lives around, to 

live new lives of constant readiness to do Your will. That wasn’t something easy to do–but 

something that demanded day-by-day listening for Your voice, and penitence every day of 

their lives. John announced the One much greater, much stronger than himself Who was 

coming, Who would immerse the people in Your Spirit. John’s immersion was only 

preparatory; the coming One’s immersion would be the real thing, uniting the people with God 

in a definitive way that John himself could not accomplish. It was a wonderful future that was 

coming. 

Today, here in Central Christian Church, we believe that You are preparing us for a 

great new future. The City of Frisco is literally exploding all around us, with new residents 

from all over Texas, and the United States, and many other nations, moving in among us to be 

our neighbors, and school-mates, and business associates, and friends. And here we are, 

blessed with a truly “central” location, with fine facilities that can be used powerfully for ministry 

to our city. 

But for that future to become reality, we need to be prepared. In a symbolic way, we 

too need to go out into the wilderness, to turn our lives around, to let You fill our hearts anew, 

and to become ready to welcome Your future with gladness. Like Israel of old, we have to be 

willing to break with our past, to turn our lives around, and be ready to welcome Your new 

future. 

Yes, Lord God, You are doing a new thing in our midst–a wonderful, powerful new 

ministry is awaiting our church. We pray with all our hearts that You will enable us to welcome 

that future, and enter into it fully! So be it. 

34

WHO IS THIS JESUS-- 

WHO WILL PLAY THE LEADING ROLE IN MARK’S STORY? 


1.9 Êá� �ãÝíåôï �í �êåßíáéò ôá�ò �ìÝñáéò �ëèåí �Éçóï�ò �ð� Íáæáñ�ô ô�ò Ãáëéëáßáò êá� 

�âáðôßóèç å�ò ô�í �ÉïñäÜíçí �ð� �ÉùÜííïõ. 1.10 êá� å�è�ò �íáâáßíùí �ê ôï� �äáôïò å�äåí 

ó÷éæïìÝíïõò ôï�ò ï�ñáíï�ò êá� ô� ðíå�ìá �ò ðåñéóôåñ�í êáôáâá�íïí å�ò á�ôüí� 1.11 êá� 

öùí� �ãÝíåôï �ê ô�í ï�ñáí�í, 

�� å� � õ�üò ìïõ 

� �ãáðçôüò, 

�í óï� å�äüêçóá. 

1.12 Êá� å�è�ò ô� ðíå�ìá á�ô�í �êâÜëëåé å�ò ô�í �ñçìïí. 1.13 êá� �í �í ô� �ñÞì� 

ôåóóåñÜêïíôá �ìÝñáò ðåéñáæüìåíïò �ð� ôï� �áôáí�, êá� �í ìåô� ô�í èçñßùí, êá� ï� �ããåëïé 

äéçêüíïõí á�ô�. 

1.9 And it happened in those days--Jesus came from Nazaret of the Galilee, and he 

was immersed into the Jordan by John. 1.10 And immediately, coming up out of the water, 

he saw the heavens being split, and the Spirit like a dove, coming down into him. 1.11 And a 

voice came out of the heavens, 

You, you are the Son of mine, 

the loved one-in 

you I took delight. 

1.12 And immediately the Spirit drives him out into the wilderness. 1.13 And he was 

being in the wilderness forty days, being tested by the Adversary. And he was being with the 

wild animals; and the messengers were ministering to him. 

Translation with footnotes: 48 

48 

Before continuing this study of Mark, please consider the following questions, giving 

your answers to them: 

1. On the map of first-century Israel, can you find Nazaret? How do you spell this 

name? What is its location? How important was this city or village? What does Mark say 

about Jesus' birth in Bethlehem? 

2. What does Mark tell its readers about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, or about his youth? 

How does this compare with John, or with Luke, or with Matthew? 

3. One of the primary literary devices of Mark is its constant use of the adverb 

"immediately." Can you tell how often Mark uses this word, and compare its lack of use in the 

other Gospels? 

35 

(continued...)

48 


4. What form of "baptism" does Mark picture Jesus as undergoing at the hands of 

John? Why did Jesus feel the need for being immersed by John? Was it for the forgiveness 

of sins? 

5. When Mark pictures the heavens as "splitting" following Jesus' immersion, what does 

this imply? Where does this verb occur elsewhere in Mark? 

6. When Mark describes the Spirit as "descending like a dove," what does this mean? 

Is the Spirit a bird? Or is this symbolic language, meant to tell the reader something else? 

7. If the Spirit descended on Jesus at his immersion, what does this tell us about 

Jesus? How would you compare this with the coming of the "Glorious Radiance of Yahweh" 

into the Jewish Tabernacle (Exodus 40:36-38), and into the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 

8:10)? Is Mark implying that Jesus is somehow the “New Temple,” the new “place” where 

God’s glorious radiance dwells, and reveals itself? 

8. Are there passages in the Hebrew Bible that are related to the divine voice that 

spoke at Jesus' immersion? What about Psalm 2, Genesis 22:2, and Isaiah 42:1? And if 

these passages are being referred to by the divine voice, what does this imply concerning the 

work of Jesus as King, High Priestly Sacrifice, and Servant of Yahweh? 

9. Was it God's will for Jesus to be tested by “the Adversary” (or, "Satan")? Who does 

this remind you of in the Jewish Bible? Why would God demand this of his Son? Do you 

think Jesus was genuinely tempted to do wrong? What about yourself? If you have been 

immersed, and are truly a follower of Jesus, do you still undergo temptation? 

10. What does it mean to say that the biblical “Adversary” or "Satan" does not come 

from "outside" God's good creation, but rather from the "inside"? Is the biblical "Adversary" 

divine? Or, is the satanic, demonic tempter actually one of God's own creatures, fulfilling 

divine purposes? How can you explain this? 

11. According to the entire Bible, what is the origin of evil? Does it come from the 

Devil, or Satan? 

12. According to you, what is the origin of evil in your life? 

13. What is the significance of Jesus' being with the wild beasts in the wilderness? 

Concerning the meaning of Mark 1:9-11, Guelich makes the following statement, 

raising a number of questions: “This pericope [unit of Scripture] consists of the baptismal 

event (1:9) and an ensuing revelatory scene (1:10-11) formally described as a ‘callingvision’...based 

on the Old Testament calling of a prophet...[But what is Mark’s intention in 

telling this story?] Was it to interpret...his baptism with sinners as the atoning servant...? Was 

it the moment of his calling...the birth of his messianic consciousness...or the clarification and 

confirmation of his person and ministry?...Or was it a scene to reveal him to Israel and / or to 

John...or to give him a sign or impulse to begin his ministry?...Did the community create the 


36

49 50 51 52 53 

1.9 And it happened in those days--Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and 

48 


tradition for Christological reasons to set Jesus’ sonship and messianic role at the outset of his 

ministry...? Was it intended paradigmatically as the prototype for Christian baptism...?” (P. 

30) We think that this is Mark’s way of introducing the reader to the knowledge of who Jesus 

is, and the nature of the combat into which he was entering in his ministry. Prepared with this 

knowledge, the reader is enabled to understand the following story in terms of its heavenly 

dimension. See France’s comment in the next footnote. 

49 

France comments on verses 9-11 that “This pericope [portion of scripture] is normally 

entitled ‘the Baptism of Jesus.’ But the baptism itself is recounted with minimal detail in verse 

9, while the rest of the pericope is devoted to a description of what Jesus saw and heard 

immediately afterwards...It is these disclosures which are of primary importance, and they form 

the high point of the prologue’s presentation of the true identity of Jesus the Messiah. The 

only passage in the rest of the gospel which will offer a similarly exalted view of Jesus is the 

transfiguration story [Mark 9:2-13], where the voice of God will again be heard declaring the 

identity of Jesus.” (P. 73) 

“The form of the revelation is threefold. The ‘tearing’ of the heavens vividly indicates 

the supernatural dimension of the truth about to be declared about Jesus. The descent of the 

Spirit marks him out as the one anointed to bring good news, and confirms the divine 

presence and power in his mission. And the voice of God, with its echoes of Old Testament 

messianic themes, commissions him to undertake his God-given role, but also, much more 

importantly, identifies him as the Son of God...From his baptism on, whatever may have been 

the case before, Jesus is equipped with the knowledge that he is Cristo,j, Christos and uiò.j 

qeou/, huios theou, [‘Anointed One’ and ‘Son of God’], and Mark’s narrative will enable his 

readers to see those truths worked out on the earthly scene, and to assess with this privileged 

insight the responses of the other actors in the story to whom this revelation has not yet been 

given.” (Ibid., p. 74) 

50 

Mark’s opening phrase, Êá� �ãÝíåôï, Kai egeneto, “And it happened...” is a clear 

indication of Semitic background for Mark’s language, as this phrase is commonly found in the 

LXX or Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It is possible to translate “And 

so it happened. In those days...”, but this is unlikely. France comments that “Mark stands in 

the tradition of the great chroniclers of the acts of God in the Old Testament.” 

There are variant readings for this phrase. Vaticanus, Minuscule 2427 and a few 

other Greek manuscripts read only the one word, �ãÝíåôï, egeneto, “it happened.” Theta, 

Lectionary 2211 and a corrector of the Old Latin Manuscript r, read only the first word, Êá�, 

Kai, “And...” W, the Old Latin Manuscripts aur, ff2, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic 

and the Bohairic Coptic (in part), read the phrase �� de,, egeneto de, literally “but then 

it happened...” Neither variant actually changes the meaning of Mark. What they show is the 

lack of familiarity on the part of later copyists and translators with this Semitic type of 

language, and their inclination to minimize or avoid it. 

51 

Guelich notes that “The absence of a birth narrative (compare Matthew 1-2; Luke 1- 

2) more than likely arises from his intention to introduce Jesus in the framework of redemptive 


37

54 55 

he was immersed into the Jordan by John. 1.10 And immediately, coming up out of the 

51 


history (1:2b-15) as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise for the day of salvation (1:1-2a), the 

proclaimer of the ‘good news’ (1:14-15), rather than from any lack of knowledge about such a 

narrative.” (P. 31) 

52 

The spelling Íáæáñ�ô, Nazaret, is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Gamma, Delta, 

Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 2427, 2542, Lectionaries 844 and 2211 plus a 

large number of other Greek manuscripts. But alternative spellings for this city-name are 

found in the textual tradition. ��e,q, Nazareth (our modern spelling) is found in Bezae, 

K, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 1424, a large number of other 

Greek 

manuscripts, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic. The spelling 

��a,t Nazarat is found in Alexandrinus, P and a few other Greek manuscripts. 

It is obvious that the name of this home-town of Jesus was largely unknown–not only in 

earlier Jewish sources (the name of this city is not found in the Jewish Bible, the Mishnah or 

Talmud, nor in the writings of Josephus, who was the Governor of Galilee in the first century, 

and who names a large number of cities and villages in Galilee, but never mentions Nazaret), 

but also by later copyists and translators, who had no knowledge of exactly how to spell the 

name. In truth, Jesus came from an “unknown” home-town (compare John 1:46). However, 

archaeological evidence shows that the town was in existence in the first century and earlier. 

It was simply too small and insignificant to have found mention in Jewish sources (other than 

the New Testament). 

France comments that “Among John’s crowd of southerners Jesus [from Nazaret of the 

Galilee, i.e., a ‘northerner’] seems an improbable candidate for the role of [stronger one].” (P. 

75) 

53 

Nazaret of Galilee is located on the northern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon (or, 

"Valley of Jezreel"), the central plain that reaches from Haifa and Mount Carmel on the west, 

stretching across central Israel to the Jordan River on the east. Nazaret is on the side of a hill 

that faces to the east and southeast; it is some 15 miles to the southwest of the Sea of 

Galilee, some 20 miles from the Mediterranean, and is some 1230 feet above sea level. From 

Jerusalem to Nazaret is about 105 miles; from Tel-Aviv to Nazaret is about 65 miles. Most of 

the people living in Nazaret today are Christians, but there are also Muslims, and a growing 

Jewish population in "Upper Nazareth" (where a Ford motor plant is located). 

Mark tells the reader nothing concerning Jesus' birth, and mentions nothing concerning 

Bethlehem, or the birth stories associated with the first two chapters of Matthew and the first 

two chapters of Luke. For Mark, the story of Jesus begins with the proclamation of John the 

Immerser in the wilderness, and Jesus' coming to John to be immersed by him in the Jordan 

River. Mark is not interested in the birth of Jesus, or in his youth, or in any background 

information concerning this one who is the central subject of his writing. Later, in Mark 6:1-6 

some tiny elements of such information will be given (nothing concerning the birth), but not 

here at the beginning. 

38

56 57 58 59 60 

water, he saw the heavens being split, and the Spirit like a dove, coming down 

54 

France describes it as a “striking paradox” that “Jesus, having arrived on the scene, 

immediately [was immersed by John]. John has proclaimed one who will be himself [an 

immerser] (verse 8), and indeed with a type of [immersion] which John cannot match. Yet 

here he is, being [immersed] by John. Matthew 3:14-15 will try to unravel this puzzle, but 

Mark is content to leave the paradox sharply posed by the juxtaposition of verses 8 and 9 

without any explanation.” (P. 75) 

The language used by Mark is very difficult to understand in terms of "pouring" or 

"sprinkling" as the "kind of baptism" practiced by John. Rather, just as the Greek word 

bapti,zein, baptizein has been shown to mean "immerse" or "dip" (see footnote 20 on 1:4), so 

the language used here of Jesus' being “baptized into the Jordan" implies immersion. See 

footnote 56 for a similar observation. 

Lane points to verse 8, in which Jesus is described as the one who immerses with the 

Set-Apart Spirit, which stands in sharp contrast with verse 9, in which Jesus comes as an 

humble penitent, to receive John's immersion. "By skillfully placing verses 8 and 9 next to 

each other Mark portrays the enormous contrast between the baptism which the Lord is to 

perform and that to which he himself submits. Central in verse 8 is the giver of life, actively 

creating the people of God; in verse 9 it is the same one in the role of the lowly penitent, 

passively receiving the sign of repentance on behalf of the people of God. In submitting to 

John's baptism Jesus acknowledges the judgment of God upon Israel." (P. 54) As U. Mauser 

has pointed out, here the "Messianic Secret" appears at its clearest. 

France notes that “Commentators have speculated on the significance of Jesus’ 

[immersion], and have usually (and probably rightly) explained it either on the theological 

ground of the necessity for the savior to be identified with those he comes to save (sometimes 

adding the perspective of vicarious ‘sin-bearing’ drawn from Isaiah 53) or on the more 

historical ground that by accepting [immersion] Jesus identified with the ideology of the 

[Immerser’s] movement which was to be the launching pad for his own, making his 

[immersion] in effect a ‘vote’ for John’s vision of a restored people of God. But such 

explanations have no obvious basis in the text of Mark...Thus the paradox of the [immerser 

immersed] (and of the [stronger one] with the wrong credentials) stands out in all its starkness, 

without theological alleviation.” (Pp. 75-76) 

55 

The adverbial phrase êá� å�è�ò, kai euthus, "and immediately," occurs again and 

again throughout Mark--some 25 times. See footnotes 101, 115, 123, 148, 153, 210 and 215. 

By itself, euthus occurs some 15 times, a total of some 40 occurrences in Mark. By contrast, 

the adverb occurs only once in Luke, only some 7 times in Matthew, and only some 3 times in 

John. It is obvious that this is a vocabulary trait of the author of Mark, and that in this story 

one of the major emphases is that of action, and of immediate continuity. Mark is a Gospel 

that concentrates on action, rather than on teaching, while the other Gospels concentrate on 

teaching, rather than on action. 

56 

This language implies that Jesus "went down into the water" for his immersion. Of 

course, this may be understood of walking down into the knee-deep or waist-high-deep water, 

to stoop and let John pour water upon his head, and then Jesus' "coming up" out of the waters 


39

56 


of the Jordan. But, combined with the previous statement that John baptized him "into the 

Jordan," the words are better understood as a description of Jesus' "coming up" from his 

immersion beneath the waters of the Jordan. (See footnote 54.) 

57 

All that Mark says is that Jesus (“he”) saw the Spirit descending like a dove, with 

nothing being said concerning John or anyone else seeing it. Guelich notes that “‘He saw’ 

(ei=den, eiden) can only refer to Jesus, the subject of 1:9 and the one addressed in 1:11.” (P. 

32) 

58 

The accusative plural present passive participle ó÷éæïìÝíïõò, schizomenous means 

"being split," "being divided," "being torn apart." This same verb, in the aorist passive form 

�ó÷ßóèç, eschisthe, “it was split,” or “it was torn apart,” is used at Mark 15:38 concerning the 

"tearing apart" of the Temple veil upon the death of Jesus, and nowhere else in Mark is the 

verb found. In this last passage, the emphasis is that the old barrier between people and 

direct access to the divine presence has been ended. Maurer holds that "It is very probable 

that the reference is to the curtain before the Holy of Holies...Mark 15:38...He regards the 

incident as an intimation of the end of the temple and hence also of the ancient cultus 

[worship] of Israel. This happening in the Jewish temple and the confession of the pagan 

centurion are thus complementary. The rent in the veil of the temple proclaims the negative 

side, the imminent end of Old Testament worship, while the confession of the officer opens 

up the way of the Gospel to the Gentiles." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 

VII, p. 961) 

Here, it is probable that what is intended is that the heavens are no longer "closed," that 

divine communication and openness is happening once again, not only through John and his 

preaching, but especially through Jesus and his ministry. Maurer, in the article just quoted, 

states that "Heaven torn open at the baptism of Jesus is a motif in eschatological revelations 

which God gives at turning-points in the history of His people...The Marcan text stands 

particularly related to Isaiah 64:1, 'Oh that you would rend the heavens [LXX: �íïßî�ò ô�í 

ï�ñáíüí, anoikses ton ouranon, ‘you might open the heaven...’], that you would come 

down.'...Jesus is the bringer of acts of God which have not been perceived from all eternity 

and which no eye has yet seen nor ear heard, Isaiah 64:4-5." (P. 962) Guelich holds that 

“Mark 1:10 may in fact be a play on the prayer of Isaiah 63:19 [Massoretic text; 64:1 in 

English] for Yahweh ‘to rend the heavens and come down.’” (P. 32) 

See the following passages from the Jewish Bible: “...And the heavens were opened, 

and I saw visions from God.” (Ezekiel 1:1) “Just as Eleazar was finishing his prayer, the king 

arrived at the hippodrome with the beasts and the whole wanton array of his army. And the 

Jews observed it and raised a great cry to heaven that made the surrounding valleys ring with 

the sound and struck uncontrollable terror in all the hosts. Then the great and glorious, allconquering 

and true God revealed his holy face and opened heaven's gates, from which 

descended two angels, clothed in glory and of awe-inspiring appearance, visible to all except 

the Jews, and they confronted the forces of their adversaries...” (3 Maccabees 6:16-19a) 

In the New Testament, see the following passages. [The martyr Stephen states,] “I see 

the heavens having been opened, and the Son of the Person standing at the right hand of 


40

58 


God.” (Acts 7:56) [Peter, on the rooftop in Caesarea,] “...sees the heavens having been 

opened, and a vessel coming down...” (Acts 10:11) [The visionary John states,] “...And looka 

door having been opened in the heaven, and the first voice which I heard like a trumpet, 

speaking with me, saying, 'Come up here, and I will show to you the things that must 

happen..." (Revelation 4:1); “And I saw the heaven having been opened, and look--a white 

horse...” (Revelation 19:11). 

In all of these passages, the heavens having been opened means that divine revelation 

is being described. But as Maurer points out, none of these passages is so appropriate as 

Isaiah 64, which is part of a national lament in a time of desperate suffering. The 

Spokesperson calls to mind the mighty acts of YHWH that have been done on Israel's behalf, 

but also acknowledges Israel's tragic rebellion, leading to divine judgment upon them (63:7- 

10). This is followed by an urgent appeal to YHWH to come to the deliverance of his people-this 

YHWH who has in times past placed his Set-apart Spirit in their midst (63:11), doing 

mighty works of salvation, leading them to rest through his Set-apart Spirit (63:14). The urgent 

prayer is that YHWH will "Look down from heaven and see" (63:15), renewing his compassion 

and mighty acts. The prayer continues, “Oh, that you would rend (T'[.r;Ûq', qara(ta; translated 

into Greek by avnoi,xh|j, anoikses, ‘might open’) the heavens, and come down....” (64:1) 

For Mark, Israel's prayer of national lamentation has been answered by what has 

happened in Jesus. This one, the long hoped-for Anointed One and Son of God, is the one in 

whom and through whom divine revelation is once more occurring. This is a basic claim of 

Mark. And while it is quite true that numerous bizarre claims have been made throughout the 

ages concerning "heavenly revelations," here is a claim that must be taken seriously by 

anyone seeking to do justice to the Christian faith, with its mighty impact on human history. 

59 

The stronger one, who will immerse in the Spirit, “is here himself equipped for that 

role, as the Spirit descends into him.” (France, p. 78) The statement is not that the Spirit is a 

"dove," but that the Spirit descended "like a dove,” thereby notifying the reader of the use of 

simile, and warning against a literal interpretation. It is obvious that the whole account is 

surrounded with mystery and with the incomprehensible--as no interpretation is attempted, and 

the description is very indefinite and guarded. 

Doves were associated with the gods in ancient Greece, especially with female deities, 

as is pointed out by Heinrich Greeven in his article on doves in Theological Dictionary of the 

New Testament (VI, pp. 63-72). Symbolically, the dove easily serves in poetry, proverb, and 

metaphor as a symbol for good attributes in human beings. It is valued for its simplicity, 

tender affection, its chastity and faithfulness, its timidity, and its gentleness. Especially 

because of its use in the flood story of Genesis 6-9 (8:8, 12) [the dove also appears in a 

similar way in the Epic of Gilgamesh], the dove became popular in Jewish and Christian 

symbolism as the bearer of the good news of peace, and of the cessation of hostilities. 

Greeven notes that "Helpless in the hands of its enemies, the dove is a symbol of 

Moab, of Judah, and of the troubled worshiper. Its cooing is understood as complaint...Its 

meaningless fluttering to and fro is compared to the vacillation of Ephraim between Assyria 


41

61 62 63 

into him. 1.11 And a voice came out of the heavens, 

59 


and Egypt, Hosea 7:11. The turtle-dove as a migratory bird knows its season, but God's 

people refuse all knowledge of God's judgment, Jeremiah 8:7. Nevertheless, as a returning 

flight of pigeons, Israel will come back to their houses from Assyria, Hosea 11:11. God will 

not surrender the life of his turtle [dove] to the beasts [Psalm 74:19]..." (p. 67) 

Greeven holds that in Mark, "What is stressed is simply that the Holy Spirit here 

revealed Himself in a particular way...The question arises why the Spirit appears as a dove 

rather than an eagle or sparrow or some other being...Those who heard the account would 

find in this form of the Spirit, not an astonishing oddity, but a confirmation of the real descent. 

This all makes sense when one takes into account the many associations which had linked the 

dove and deity both in the Old Testament and generally in Asia Minor throughout the 

centuries...The image is in any case so impregnated with symbolic power in proverb and saga, 

in cultic use and custom, in the sacred records of patriarchs and prophets, that in the hour 

when God acknowledged His Son the dove could be the recognizable and almost exclusively 

suitable phenomenal form of the Holy Spirit of God. The fact that in Judaism the dove could 

mediate the Bath Qol [literally, ‘Daughter of the Voice,’ that is, the Voice of God Speaking, or 

echoing, in human hearing] makes all the more natural its appearance in connection with the 

heavenly voice (both dove and voice come from the heavens)." (Pp. 68-69) 

France notes that “...Whereas in verse 3 we heard a voice evn th/| evrh,mw|, en te eremo, 

‘in the wilderness,’ this one comes evk tw/n ouvranw/n, ek ton ouranon, ‘out of the heavens,’ 

and the words spoken leave no room for doubt that the speaker is God himself. These words 

are therefore of the highest importance; whatever the verdicts which people in Mark’s story 

may reach on the question of 8:29, ‘Who do you say that I am?’, the reader is left with no 

option, when the identity of Jesus is twice declared explicitly on the highest possible authority.” 

(P. 79) 

60 

Following the participle êáôáâá�íïí, katabainon, “coming down,” the phrase kai. 

me,nwn, kai menon, “and staying,” is interpolated into the Marcan text (from John 1:33) by 

Sinaiticus, W (see), Minuscule 33, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, some 

manuscripts of the Old Latin and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). Here again we witness the role 

of the copyists and translators as “editors” of the original text, willing to make slight additions to 

that text, in order to “enhance” its meaning, supplementing its statement with a phrase taken 

from another Gospel (something like an early attempt at “harmonization of the Gospels”), yet 

without changing the meaning of Mark. 

61 

Instead of the preposition å�ò, eis, “into,” which is read by Vaticanus, Bezae, Family 

13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts, the preposition ep v, 

ep’, “upon,” is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, L, W, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, 

Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text” and the Syriac tradition. We think that this variant reading is 

an example of later copyists substituting a synonym for a word in the original text, in order to 

“enhance” its meaning, still without changing the meaning of Mark. But we are not sure as to 

which reading is “the variant”–the evidence is so evenly divided, that either preposition may 

have been original. 

42

62 

In Isaiah 63, Israel remembers how YHWH, Israel's "Father," has placed his Set-apart 

Spirit in her midst in times past, leading them to rest--see 63:10, 11, and 14. Now, in Jesus, 

that Set-apart Spirit once again comes, to live in Jesus--enabling Jesus to "immerse" all of 

God's people in the Set-apart Spirit. See Mark 1:8 with its footnote 47. Israel's hope for the 

coming future was a hope that YHWH God would once again send his Spirit into the midst of 

his people–see such passages as the following: “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all 

people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young 

men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in 

those days." (Joel 2:28-29) 

“For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring 

you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will 

cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart, and 

put a new Spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 

And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my 

laws. You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your 

God. I will save you..." (Ezekiel 36:24-29a) 

Some seek to point to the exact "date" of this divine outpouring of the Set-apart Spirit, 

holding that this promise was not fulfilled until the Day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2. 

Certainly that glorious experience of the early disciples of Jesus on the Day of Pentecost was 

a remarkable fulfillment of these divine promises, but it was not their exclusive fulfillment. The 

outpouring of the Set-apart Spirit is not subject to human calculations and setting of dates, nor 

can it be made subject to rigid outlines of biblical “dispensations.” Rather, the promise is 

fulfilled on many occasions, in many varied experiences--sometimes openly, publicly, and 

sometimes very mysteriously and personally. But none of these outpourings is more important 

than this occasion recorded by Mark--when the Set-apart Spirit came down into Jesus, the 

Anointed One, God's Son--the one who embodies the New People of God, the New Temple, 

the Dwelling-Place of God's Spirit. Compare again the stories of the coming of YHWH's 

"glorious radiance" to fill the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34-38) and the Temple of Solomon (1 

Kings 8:10-11). 

Guelich comments that “The importance of the event lies in the Spirit’s coming. It 

corresponds to the Old Testament hope integral to the age of salvation (e.g., especially 

Isaiah 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; compare 63:10-64:1)...The Spirit comes, therefore, as God’s enabling 

presence to equip Jesus for his ministry.” (P. 35) 

63 

The phrase �ãÝíåôï �ê ô�í ï�ñáí�í, egeneto ek ton ouranon, “it came out of the 

heavens,” is read by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, L, W (see), Families 

1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 2427, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of 

the Old Latin witnesses, the Syriac tradition and the Coptic tradition. The first word of this 

phrase is dropped, so that it is changed to read �ê ô�í ï�ñáí�í, ek ton ouranon, “out of the 

heavens,” by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Bezae, the Old Latin Manuscripts ff2 and t. It is 

read evk tw/n ouvranw/n hvkou,sqh, ek ton ouranon ekousthe, literally “out of the heavens it 

was heard,” by Theta, Minuscules 28, 565, Lectionary 2211 (see) and a few other Greek 

manuscripts. We think these variant readings are the work of later copyists and translators 

who wanted to slightly change the reading of the original text, getting rid of a “Semitism,” and 


43

64 65 

You, you are the Son of mine, 

63 


substituting for it language more familiar to later peoples (compare footnote 50). The variant 

readings do not change the meaning of Mark. 

The voice of God had seemingly departed from Israel following the destruction of the 

Second Temple (see 1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27 (there was great distress in Israel, such as had 

not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them); 14:41). Zechariah and 

Malachi had been the last of the Spokespersons, and Israel awaited expectantly the renewal 

of the divine voice, the speaking of God to his people for more than four long centuries. 

Compare footnotes 13 and 14 on Mark 1:2, with their discussion of the Jewish Bible's 

promise of YHWH's continuing self-revelation to his people. But when would this divine 

promise be fulfilled? With the coming of John the Immerser, seemingly the prophetic voice to 

Israel was being renewed. Here was one who looked, acted, and spoke like the ancient 

Spokesperson Elijah--see footnote 33 on Mark 1:6. But John confessed that his mission and 

message were only partial and preparatory, and he pointed beyond himself to the coming one, 

far greater than himself, in whom the fullness of the Set-apart Spirit would be present among 

God's people. 

Now, Mark claims, the Spirit is indeed present, having come down into Jesus; and with 

the Spirit comes a "voice from the heavens." The heavenly "silence" is definitively broken. 

The longing of God's people for the heavens to open, and for the divine voice to be once more 

heard among his people is met. This Jesus of Nazareth is the one in whom both the Spirit and 

the voice of God are present in human history. Schweizer comments that "...This endowment 

of the Spirit takes place at the end of the times when the Spirit had long since been silenced... 

This event is stamped hereby as the beginning of the new age of God." (Theological 

Dictionary of the New Testament VI, p. 400). Again, Schweizer states, "...Institution into the 

office of the eschatological [‘final’] king is put already at baptism and the earthly work of Jesus 

is understood as the regency promised to the house of David and executed by God's 

commission." (Ibid., VIII, p. 368) 

We must not read over Schweizer’s comment lightly–here, Schweizer tells us, is Mark’s 

depiction of the “coronation” of Jesus, as bearer of the Spirit, and as “King.” We who have 

been taught that Jesus did not become “King” until after his resurrection and ascension to 

God’s right hand, must consider this passage in Mark very carefully. We would say that the 

coronation of Jesus as King took place at his immersion, and at his ascension; and that the 

out-pouring of the Spirit has taken place at many times in the past (Isaiah 63), at the 

immersion of Jesus, and following the ascension, as described in Acts 2. These biblical facts 

do not fit well with “dispensational schemes” such as that of Alexander Campbell, who sought 

to sharply distinguish between the “Mosaic dispensation” and the “Christian dispensation” 

which began at Pentecost. What do you think? What do you make of modern views that the 

Kingdom is still in the future, certainly not already present in the life of Jesus? 

64 

The language of the heavenly voice is directed to the second person singular, su. ei=, 

su ei, “You, you are...” It is not directed to John, or to the crowds coming to him for 

immersion. 

44

the loved one-- 

in you I took delight. 66 

65 

France comments that “...One thing is clear beyond doubt: Jesus is here explicitly 

identified in the terms used in Mark’s heading, uiò.j qeou/, huios theou, ‘Son of God.’ In the 

narrative that follows there will be secrecy and paradox, but here in the prologue there is open 

declaration. The reader need be in no doubt, whatever the reactions of the actors in the 

story.” (P. 79) 

66 

The heavenly voice speaks in language very familiar to, indeed taken from the Jewish 

Bible; yet the divine words are not an exact quotation of any one passage from the Jewish 

Bible. Three specific passages come into consideration: Psalm 2:7; Genesis 22:2 and 

Isaiah 42:1. There are specific words or phrases that apparently have been taken from each 

of these three important passages, and deeply important implications concerning who Jesus is 

can be drawn from each of them. In their light, we see Jesus as the one who fulfills Israel's 

universal kingly (royal), priestly (sacrificial), and prophetic (imparting of the Word of God to the 

nations) tasks. 

Psalm 2:7 I will speak out concerning YHWH's decree. 

He spoke to me: 

"You, you are my son. 

I myself this day have given you birth." 

In verses 7-9 of Psalm 2, the words spoken by YHWH to his Anointed One are quoted. 

The Anointed One himself is the speaker, who tells of the divine "decree" concerning him, and 

his role in history. He tells of the divine authorization that forms the legitimating, empowering 

basis for his reign over the nations of the earth (a universal reign, never in fact, accomplished 

by any historical Jewish king; but in fact accomplished by Jesus of Nazareth). What the 

Anointed One does, he does only in response to the divine mandate; he does not act on his 

own, but on God's authority. Compare 2 Samuel 7 (especially verse 14), where the 

Spokesperson Nathan's divine word to David becomes the legitimating authorization for his 

kingdom, and YHWH proclaims that David's "seed" will be God's "son." It is the claim of 

Psalm 2 that Israel's Anointed One has heard God's call to him, proclaiming him to be God's 

"Son" in a unique way. The divine word to the Anointed One is a creative word that brings to 

birth--that brings into being a new order for God's people. On the day of the Anointed One's 

hearing God's voice, he has been "born"--that is, he has entered into a new relationship with 

God, and has received the gift of divine, universal authority over the nations. 

If the heavenly voice is understood as being rooted in this 2nd Psalm, then it should be 

understood as the "divine legitimation" of Jesus as God's "Anointed One," the one chosen by 

God to be the universal ruler over his people. Surely this is appropriate in the context of Mark, 

which is seeking to depict Jesus as both Anointed One and Divine Son--compare 1:1, with its 

footnotes 7 and 8. This Jesus whom Mark takes as its subject, is announced by the divine 

voice to be God's universal King. The second passage under consideration is: 

45 

(continued...)

66 


Genesis 22:2 And He said, 

"Take now, your son, 

your unique one, 

whom you love, 

Isaac..." 

This divine command cuts like a knife into the heart of Abraham, plunging deeper and 

deeper with each advance. It is Abraham's son; it is his unique son; it is the one he has come 

to love so deeply; it is Isaac, the bearer of the divine promise for Abraham's future. The 

Hebrew word $dyxy, yechiydhekha is translated in the Greek by the phrase ô�í �ãáðçôüí, 

ton agapeton (in the accusative), "the loved one," the same phrase, � �ãáðçôüò, ho 

agapetos (in the nominative) that is used here in Mark 1:11. This phrase occurs three times 

in Genesis 22:2, 12, 16 with reference to Isaac, Abraham’s beloved son, whom he is 

commanded to offer as a sacrifice. 

Elsewhere in the Greek Bible it occurs at: Judges 11:34 (Codex Alexandrinus has 

the feminine singular avgapath,, agapate, for Jephthah’s beloved daughter, whom he will 

sacrifice in fulfillment of his vow); Psalms 37:21 (38:20 in English; only the Greek translation 

has the adjective); 44:1 (45:1 in English; title of a royal psalm, singing the praises of Israel’s 

king); 59:7 (60:5 in English; God’s people are called his “beloved ones”); 67:13 (68:12 in 

English; apparent mistranslation in Greek); 83:2 (84:1 in English; the courts of the Temple are 

described as “beloved’); 107:7 (108:7 in English; God delivers the people who are beloved); 

126:2 (127:2 in English; God grants sleep to his beloved ones); Isaiah 5:1 (in parable or 

allegory, a vineyard that belongs to “my beloved,” probably meaning God); 26:17 (only in 

Greek); Jeremiah 6:26 (Judah is called to wail as for a beloved son); 38:20 (31:20 in English; 

Ephraim is YHWH’s beloved son); Amos 8:10 (on YHWH’s “day” Israel’s mourning will be like 

that for a beloved son); Zechariah 12:10 (Israel will mourn over one they have pierced as for 

a beloved son); 13:6 (Greek is slightly different from the Hebrew; wounds were received at the 

house of a beloved one); Tobit 3:10 (only in Codex Sinaiticus is the young woman called 

avgaphth,, agapete, “beloved”); 10:13 (Edna addresses Tobias as a;delfe avgaphte,, adelphe 

agapete, “brother, beloved one”); Ode 5:17 (bad things have happened tw/| avgaphtw/| sou, “to 

the beloved of yours”); 10:2 (based on Isaiah 5; a song for my beloved one); Sirach 15:13 

(the Lord hated an abomination, and it is not “beloved” by those who fear him); Baruch 4:16 

(the beloved ones of a widow); Susanna 1:63 (young men, beloved ones of Jacob); 

Matthew 3:17 (same as Mark 1:11); 12:18 (quotation of Isaiah 42:1); 17:5 (Jesus is 

declared God’s beloved one at the transfiguration); Mark 1:11 (here); 9:7 (same as Matthew 

17:5); 12:6 (thinly veiled parable / comparison concerning the vineyard owner’s beloved son); 

Luke 3:22 (same as Mark 1:11); 20:13 (same as Mark 12:6); Acts 15:25 (Paul and Barnabas 

are described by the Jerusalem council as “beloved ones”); Romans 1:7 (Paul describes all 

the believers in Rome as “beloved ones”); 11:28 (the Jews are “loved ones” on account of the 

Patriarchs); 12:19 (Paul calls his Roman readers “beloved ones”); 16:5, 8, 9, 12 (Paul calls 

individuals in Rome “beloved ones”); 1 Corinthians 4:14 (Paul describes the recipients of his 

somewhat harsh letter “beloved ones”), 17 (Timothy is Paul’s “beloved one”); 10:14 (same as 


46

66 


4:14); 15:58 (same); 2 Corinthians 7:1 (same); 12:19 (same); Ephesians 5:1 (Paul exhorts 

his readers to behave like “beloved ones”); 6:21 (Paul describes Tychicus as a “beloved one”); 

Philippians 2:12 (same as 1 Corinthians 4:14); 4:1,1 (same); Colossians 1:7 (Paul 

describes Epaphras as a “beloved one”); 4:7 (same), 9 (same, but concerning Onesimus), 14 

(same, but concerning Luke); 1 Thessalonians 2:8 (the Thessalonians have become 

“beloved ones” to Paul); 1 Timothy 6:2 (slaves should serve believing masters as “beloved 

ones”); 2 Timothy 1:2 (Paul addresses Timothy as his “beloved son”); Philemon 1:1 

(Philemon is addressed as Paul’s “beloved one”), 16 (Philemon should treat his returning slave 

as a “beloved one”); Hebrews 6:9 (readers are addressed as “loved ones”); Jacob (“James”) 

1:16 (same); 19 (same); 2:5 (same); 1 Peter 2:11 (same); 4:12 (same); 2 Peter 1:17 (the 

divine voice concerning Jesus at the transfiguration); 3:1, 8, 14 (all addressing the readers as 

“beloved ones”), 15 (Paul is a “beloved one”), 17 (readers addressed as “loved ones”); 1 John 

2:7 (same); 3:21; 4:1, 7, 11 (all the same); 3 John 1:2, 5, 11 (all the same); Jude 1:3; 17; 20 

(all the same). 

It should be concluded from all of these occurrences that the only really important 

passages for background of the divine statement to Jesus is to be found in Genesis 22, 

concerning Isaac, Abraham’s “beloved one” (and perhaps the similar statement concerning 

Jephthah’s daughter). Both of these individuals are “beloved” by their father, but have a 

sacrificial destiny confronting them. 

If the heavenly voice in Mark is understood in terms of Genesis 22:2, then the thought 

of the divine Son, loved by God, but still offered up as a divine sacrifice, can be heard in these 

words. And in fact, this is the major emphasis of Mark--that this divinely chosen one, Jesus, is 

none other than God's unique and beloved Son, whose death on the Roman execution-post 

constitutes a divine sacrifice on behalf of the world of humanity. This was the divine destiny 

given to him at his immersion. The third passage under consideration is: 

Isaiah 42:1 Look--my servant: 

I will take firm hold of him, my chosen one. 

My inner being has been pleased-- 

I have placed my Spirit upon him. 

He will bring forth justice for the nations. 

Isaiah 42:1-9 is the first of the four (or more) "Songs of the Servant" to be found in 

Isaiah 40-55. YHWH directs attention to his servant, stating that he will turn toward him, 

empowering and guiding him with his "hand." This servant of YHWH has been "chosen" by 

YHWH--which means that the servant is the personification of Israel, the people of God, his 

"chosen ones." YHWH states that he has found deep satisfaction and pleasure in this 

"servant," this "chosen one," upon whom he has laid his hand. The divine pleasure is not 

superficial or transient; it is deep and abiding. This "servant" will stand in the same unique 

position of divine choice and pleasure in which the great law-giver and leader Moses stood, as 

well as did Saul and David, the first two Kings of United Israel (in the Jewish Bible, Moses, 

Saul, and David are all called God's "chosen one"). It is also the position in which the people 

of Israel, the descendants of Jacob have stood, as the "chosen" people of YHWH God. This 

"servant" is equipped for his task through the divine placing of the Spirit upon him--just as has 


47

67 68 69 

1.12 And immediately the Spirit drives him out into the wilderness. 1.13 And he 

66 


been true of all of YHWH's servants, the Spokespersons. 

The divinely given "task" for this servant of YHWH is not, however, a limited task, in 

comparison with that of many of the Spokespersons of Israel, who were called to speak 

YHWH's word to Israel (though sometimes to the other nations). Rather, his task is to "bring 

forth divine justice for the nations." That is, this "servant of YHWH" will be instrumental in 

enabling divine justice to be known and done throughout the world of humanity. 

The heavenly voice at Jesus' immersion is closely related to this divine word in Isaiah 

42:1--especially because of its mention of YHWH's "pleasure" or "delight" in him, and because 

of the mention of the divine placing of the Spirit upon him, which is so prominent in the context 

of Mark 1. Thus, the connotations of the "Servant of YHWH" may be seen as fundamental to 

the understanding of Jesus and his mission in the world. Indeed, the ministry of this Anointed 

One is in truth the fulfillment of the mission and ministry of YHWH's servant as described in 

the so-called "Servant Songs of Isaiah." 

Instead of selecting only one of these passages from the Jewish Bible as throwing 

light on the meaning of the heavenly voice, it is best to recognize that the central content of all 

three of these passages is to be heard in this unique divine statement made to Jesus at the 

time of his immersion in the Jordan. The heavenly voice, then, should be understood as a 

"divine legitimation" of Jesus as the divinely chosen "Anointed One," which means “King” of 

God's people. He is also the one who has been called to fulfill a most important sacrificial role 

as the "Unique, Beloved Son" of God, who has a sacrificial destiny in a similar fashion to that 

of Isaac in the Book of Genesis. In addition to all of this, he is the one who has been called 

to the prophetic task described in the "Servant Songs" of Isaiah--a universal task of bringing 

divine justice to all the nations of humanity. 

In Mark, all of these three divinely given tasks are pictured as being fulfilled in the life, 

ministry, death, resurrection and on-going ministry of Jesus through his followers. And here, 

at his immersion, this recording of the words of the divine voice enable the reader, from the 

very beginning, to understand the meaning of Jesus in his life, ministry, and sacrificial death. 

France comments that “The divine declaration, and the whole experience of which it 

forms a part, is not phrased in such a way as to suggest that Jesus at this point becomes 

something which he was not before. The [passage] has sometimes been spoken of as 

marking Jesus’ adoption as Son of God. Such a view cannot be derived from Mark’s 

wording...The voice declares what Jesus is, not what he has now become...Clearly for Mark 

Jesus does not have to wait until the resurrection to become God’s son; he is so already, and 

there is no hint that even at his baptism this is a new factor. What is new here is the launching 

into the public exercise of the role for which he, as Son of God, is thus prepared.” (Pp. 83-34) 

67 

Here again we meet Mark's "language of immediacy" and of action. Compare 

footnote 55. 

68 rd 

The 3 person singular, present indicative active verb �êâÜëëåé, ekballei, means "he 


48

70 71 72 73 

was in the wilderness forty days, being tested by the Adversary. 

68 


(or ‘it’) drives out," "expels," literally, "throws out." Sometimes the verb is used in a less 

forcible sense, "to send out," "to take out," or "to remove." But here it is best understood of 

the divine "forcing" of Jesus to go out into the face of testing and trial. Jesus is not pictured as 

willingly walking out into the face of temptation and trial–he is “driven out” by the divine Spirit. 

France comments that “Whereas Matthew and Luke speak here of the ‘leading’ of the Spirit, 

Mark uses the more vivid verb �êâÜëëåé, ekballei...” (P. 84) 

The language is violent in nature; it is not an "easy" task or ministry to which this 

divinely chosen, beloved Son of God is called. Rather, it is to a difficult struggle to the finish 

with all the powers of evil, a struggle which will end in terrible suffering and death, and with the 

anguished cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34) Indeed, Jesus 

is destined to experience the same tragic sufferings and harsh testings that have been 

experienced by the people of God across the centuries–especially those of Israel during its 

time of “testing” in its “Wilderness Wanderings” (as described in Exodus, Numbers and 

Deuteronomy) and the terrible sufferings (a “testing” by the Adversary, Satan, with YHWH’s 

permission) of the ancient biblical character Job. 

69 

Again (see footnote 15 on Mark 1:3) the phrase "into the wilderness" is ambiguous at 

best, due to the existence of so many "wilderness areas" in and around Israel and the Jordan 

River. Traditionally, the location in the wilderness has been found on a mountain directly to 

the west of the ancient City of Jericho. In the Middle Ages this mountain came to be known by 

the Latin name of Mons Quarantana, "Mount of the Forty (i.e., ‘forty days of temptation’)." 

The Latin name has been retained by the Arabs in the name Quarantal by which this barren, 

steep mountain cliff is known today. It is the site of a monastery, which is appropriately named 

"The Monastery of the Temptation." As France notes, “Now Jesus is being taken to a scene 

away from humanity altogether. The specific location within the general area of the 

uninhabited lands around the Jordan is of course impossible to determine.” (P. 85) 

70 

The phrase �í ô� �ñÞì�, en te eremo, “in the wilderness,” is read by Sinaiticus, 

Alexandrinus, Bezae, L, Theta, Minuscules 13, 33, 579, 892, 2427, a few other Greek 

manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, some manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Coptic tradition, Origen 

(who died 254 A.D.) and Eusebius of Caesarea (who died 339 / 340 A.D.). It is changed to the 

one word evkei/, ekei, “there,” by K, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 69, 565, 700, 1424, 

2542, some other Greek manuscripts, and the Sinaitic Syriac. It is changed to the combined 

reading evkei/ evn th|/ evrh,mw|, ekei en te eremo, “there in the wilderness,” by W, the “Majority 

Text,” the Peshitta Syriac and the Harclean Syriac. The first variant appears to be an attempt 

by later copyists to simplify and shorten the original text; the second variant is an attempt to 

combine the first variant with the original reading. Neither variant changes the meaning of 

Mark. 

71 

Horst Balz holds that "...The forty days of the temptation are linked directly to the 

baptism by John and they are thus given programmatic significance as an anticipation of 

Jesus' true obedience to his Messianic commission...In Mark 1:13 the stay in the wilderness is 

a type of God's special nearness and also of testing...When it is said that Jesus was 'with the 


49

71 


wild beasts' and that the angels ministered to him, this defines the desert as the place of 

eschatological paradisal peace." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VIII, pp. 

138-39) But as we will see in footnote 72, Lane and France give a very different interpretation 

of the matter. 

72 

Genesis 3, at the entrance to the canonical Jewish Bible, pictures YHWH God as 

requiring obedience from his human creatures, and testing them concerning their loyalty to his 

word. According to the Genesis story, YHWH God's commandment to humanity, forbidding 

their eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" seems arbitrary. But the 

commandment enables the possibility of a relationship--whether of obedience or disobedience 

--between YHWH God and his human creatures. It is best to see this divine commandment in 

this light, and in the light of Deuteronomy 8:2, "Remember how YHWH your God led you all 

the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what 

was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands." 

As France comments, “Israel’s wilderness period [of forty years] was one of peirasmo,j, 

periasmos, ‘testing’ (LXX Deuteronomy 8:2, 16 uses the verb evkpeira,zw, ekpeirazo, and 

the whole of Moses’ discourses in Deuteronomy 1-11 presents the period as one of testing, in 

preparation for the establishment of the nation in Canaan), and now it is appropriate for the 

one who comes to deliver Israel himself to undergo an analogous ‘testing.’” (P. 85) 

For Biblical Theology, one of the most important and lengthy themes is that of “Testing 

in the Wilderness,” which plays such a key role in both Exodus and Numbers, as well as in 

Deuteronomy, and then in later Psalms (such as Psalm 95; compare Hebrews 3:1-4:11). 

Mark lets its readers know that this same theme is to play an important role in the life and 

ministry of Jesus. 

Humanity, then, according to the biblical story, is subject to YHWH God's will, and must 

obey his commandment with childlike obedience, no matter what human feelings or thoughts 

may be, no matter how arbitrary the divine commandment may seem to be. God wants his 

human creatures to be tested in this way. The challenge of this biblical view is that whenever 

humanity takes it upon itself to decide what is good and evil, in disregard of the divine 

commandment, it brings death upon itself. For humanity thereby rejects YHWH God as its 

ultimate ruler, and takes upon itself the right to judge and determine what is good and what is 

evil--apart from the commandment or will of YHWH God. Making itself into a miniature "god," 

humanity suffers the consequence of disobedience to the living God–suffering, pain, and 

death. The biblical story claims that YHWH God wants humanity to be tested in regard to this, 

and nothing less is required of the divine “Son of the Person.” 

Yes, it is this same "testing" which Jesus, the Anointed One and Son of God, 

undergoes in the wilderness for forty days (just as Israel of old underwent a similar “testing” for 

forty years in the wilderness.). Will this one--marked out by the heavenly voice to be the High 

Priest and King of God's people, with a sacrificial destiny, called to be YHWH's "Suffering 

Servant"--submit himself to this unbelievably difficult and demanding divine call, laid upon him 

at the time of his immersion? Or will he "rebel in the wilderness," like Israel did during her 

period of "wilderness wanderings" and divine testing? Will he refuse to listen to the divine 


50

72 


command, like the first humans in Genesis 3? This is the profound meaning of Jesus' testing 

in the wilderness for forty days. He has been called to be the King, the High Priestly sacrifice, 

and the Suffering Servant, who will bring justice to the nations--but will he be true to this 

calling? Will he endure the ultimate testing? Where the earlier Adam, and Israel of old failed, 

will he succeed? This is the meaning of the testing. His response to the test will be spelled 

out in the remaining chapters of Mark. 

In the Book of Hebrews, this matter of the "testing" of Jesus plays a prominent role. 

See the following passages: “For in that he himself has suffered, being tested, he is able to 

help those who are being tested.” (2:18) “For we do not have a High Priest who is not able to 

sympathize with our weaknesses; but one who has been tested in every way as we are, 

without missing of the mark.” (4:15) “Who, in the days of his flesh, having brought both 

requests and prayers, with strong cries and tears, to the one able to save him from death, and 

having been heard due to his respect for God, even though being (God's) Son, he learned 

obedience from the things he suffered. And having become complete, he became a source of 

eternal deliverance to those who obey.” (5:7-9) 

This matter of the Son of God's being radically tested and tried, was brought to 

prominence by the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. This movie, misrepresented and 

condemned by many without even having been seen, and subjected to widely varying criticism 

by those who saw it, draws attention to the humanity of Jesus, and his struggle with real 

temptation--especially as regards using force to accomplish his mission, and with regards to 

his sexual desires to have a wife and family. Those who see Jesus as a God only apparently 

human, are deeply disturbed by, and resentful of, such an understanding of Jesus. But those 

who take his humanity seriously, believing that he was tested "in every way as we are” 

(Hebrews 2:18), can feel the deep pull to resort to force to accomplish the purposes of the 

Kingdom, and can sympathize with the longing of this one who (if indeed, he was divine) 

created sex and the human family, to share in the earthly joys of marital intimacy and the love 

of children and grandchildren. Many, on this basis, have gone away from this movie with a 

deepened love for Jesus, who struggled with these all-so-human urges, and yet who willingly 

went to a sacrificial death on a Roman execution-post as the "Lamb of God." 

France comments that “The immediate agent of the peirasmo,j, peirasmos, ‘testing,’ is 

of course Satan, but the whole experience was initiated by the Spirit and is thus to be seen in 

a positive light...Mark here reflects the tension which runs throughout the biblical presentation 

of Satan as at the same time both implacably hostile to God and yet operating, despite 

himself, within God’s overall sovereignty.” (Pp. 85-86) 

73 

The genitive singular noun ôï� �áôáí�, tou Satana, “by the Adversary” has been 

taken over from the Hebrew noun !jvh, hassatan, “the adversary." In the Genesis story of 

the temptation and fall of the first human beings, there is a "satanic" or "adversarial" figure at 

work--although this word is not used in the story. Rather, it is the "serpent," one of YHWH 

God's creatures, of whom it is explicitly stated that YHWH God had “made him,” that plays this 

satanic or adversarial role. This creature of YHWH God is a "tempter" and "seducer" of the 

innocent woman; it intentionally denies YHWH God's command--and thus is pictured in the 


51

73 


Genesis story as playing a "demonic" or "satanic" or "devilish" role. 

But for the specific use of this definite noun, “the Adversary,” in connection with the 

terribly harsh testing of an individual, we are reminded of the story of Job, as recorded in Job 

1-2. Indeed, we may hold that Jesus not only experiences the same kind of “testing” that 

Adam and Eve endured (unsuccessfully) in the Garden of Eden, and Israel went through 

(unsuccessfully) in the forty years of “Wandering in the Wilderness,” but Jesus has also 

experienced the same kind of “Satanic testing” that the ancient biblical character Job endured, 

as described in the Book of Job. Although the uniquely beloved Son of God, he has endured 

terrifying suffering, not just to the point of death (like Job), but all the way to death. And on 

that way, he has met the cynical doubts and cruel rejections of the very people who should 

have loved and welcomed him. He too has cried out in his agony, asking God “why?” as did 

Job; but like Job of old, he too has remained faithful to the end, refusing to turn away from 

God and the divine will. 

And, just as in the Book of Job, “the Adversary,” the "demonic" or "satanic" is not 

pictured as "divine," as is the case in Persian dualistic religion, with its “God of Light” (“Ahura- 

Mazda”) over against the “God of Darkness” (“Ahriman”) and as is also the case in some 

Christian views. Neither does the "demonic" or "satanic" come from "outside" YHWH God's 

good creation. It comes from "within"; it originates with one of YHWH God's own creatures. In 

the Genesis story, the serpent that YHWH God made urges the first woman to eat from the 

forbidden tree--and thereby humanity is confronted with a "test" which YHWH God evidently 

wants to take place--for he is the one enabling it to occur. So it is with the "testing" of Jesus-which 

results from the Spirit's driving Jesus out into the wilderness. In the Book of Job, it is 

not some evil, “second God” who afflicts and tests Job, but rather, one of God’s own 

messengers, who is only doing what God allows him to do. 

From the Genesis story, it may be concluded that there is a subtle way in which God's 

good creature tempts and seduces humanity, enticing human beings to trust its voice rather 

than trust the voice of YHWH God; the voice of the creature subtly invites humanity to allow it 

to take over the rightful place of God himself. There is a profound truth in this--all humanity, in 

all of history, is constantly surrounded and threatened by this "demonic" or "satanic" danger. 

The mysterious figures of "the satan," "the devil," and the "demons" all refer to this constant 

danger. And from the Book of Job, we may conclude that God the creator allows his servants 

to be tested–dreadfully, and terrifyingly–but still never forsakes his servants, but reveals 

himself to them in the midst of their trials, and saves them. All of this is in the background of 

this story in Mark 1. 

And yet, as France notes, “In Mark...there is no specification of the nature of the 

peirasmo,j, peirasmos, ‘testing,’ no reference to the recently affirmed title ‘Son of God,’ no 

dialogue between Jesus and the devil, no quotation of Scripture, and therefore no overt link 

with the desert experiences of Israel described in Deuteronomy 6-8. But the Marcan account 

is distinctive not only for its brevity, but also for the fact that its mere 30 words contain 

elements absent from the Q tradition [by which France means, the stories in Matthew and 


52

was with the wild animals; and the messengers were ministering to him. 74 

73 


Luke]: the repeated mention of the evrhmo,j, eremos, ‘wilderness,’ the designation of the 

dia,boloj, diabolos (Q) as Satana/j, Satanas, ‘Satan,’ (though this name is used in Matthew 

4:10), the clause kai. hv/n meta. tw/n qhri,wn, kai en meta ton therion, ‘and he was being with 

the wild animals, and the role of the angels (in Matthew but not in Luke)... 

”The only active verbs have as their subjects not Jesus or Satan, but the Spirit 

(evkba,llei, ekballei, ‘he throws out’) and the angels (dihko,noun, diekonoun, ‘they were 

ministering’)... 

“So the scene in the wilderness (away from ordinary human contact) displays the 

dramatis personae [the leading characters in the drama] of the coming conflict, not in terms 

of Jesus’ human supporters and opponents, but in the superhuman dimension. The tableau 

neatly arranges them into two camps: on the one side, supporting Jesus, are the Spirit and 

the angels; on the other, Satan and the wild animals. The reader who remembers this scene 

when the story begins will be able to see Jesus’ conflicts and triumphs in their true light, for 

behind the earthly scenes in Galilee and Jerusalem lies a supernatural conflict. From time to 

time its supernatural dimension will again come to the surface, when Jesus confronts demonic 

power, and when the privileged three disciples are allowed to see his heavenly glory on the 

mountain. But this opening scene reminds us that even in the human encounters of Jesus’ 

ministry, there is another dimension, sharply brought to our attention in 8:33 when Peter’s very 

human misunderstanding provokes Jesus to address him as Satana/, Satana, ‘Satan.’” (Pp. 

83-84) 

Evil is dreadfully real, and a present danger to all of us--not a "supernatural devil," 

dressed in a red suit, and carrying a pitch-fork in his hands--but the constant "tempter" and 

"seducer," that comes to us in a thousand different ways, with its enticing invitation to put 

something other than God on the throne of our hearts, to listen to the voice of something less 

than God rather than to obey the voice of our Creator God. But such testing and trial and 

temptation are not apart from the divine will–no, the God who created us, wants his creatures 

to endure just such testing. 

Jesus, even though God's Unique and Beloved Son, the Anointed One, is pictured by 

Mark as being forced out into the wilderness to undergo that same kind of "testing" by the 

Adversary. Like Job before him, he will be pictured in Mark as crying out to God, asking to be 

spared from having to drink “the cup of suffering,” and even asking why God has forsaken him. 

But like Job, he will not turn away from God, but will endure the destiny of suffering sent from 

God, victoriously. 

74 

It may be that Mark intends for its readers to picture Jesus as the "second Adam"-who, 

victorious over the satanic "testing," restores paradise, surrounded by the wild animals 

that are no longer antagonistic, just as in the story of that "first Adam" (Genesis 2-3, in which 

the animals originally are friendly to human beings, and only became hostile as the result of 

the human failure in testing), and in which the heavenly messengers are present to minister to 

God's obedient Son. This is Schweizer’s view: 


53

74 


"According to Isaiah 11:6-7, peace will reign among the wild animals in the kingdom of 

the Messiah. God's angels protect the righteous one of Psalm 91:11-13 and the wild animals 

cannot harm him (similarly Job 5:22). The Jewish Testament of Naphtali 8:4 promises the 

righteous: 'And the devil shall flee from you, and the wild beasts shall fear you...and the 

angels shall cleave to you." According to Jewish tradition the battle with the wild animals 

began with the Fall; previously Adam had been lord over them and the angels roasted meat 

and filtered wine for him. Accordingly, when the church told this story it was thinking that 

Jesus had come as the righteous one of the end-time. He, like Adam, was led by God into 

temptation immediately after his commissioning; but, unlike Adam, Jesus withstood his 

temptations and thereby restored paradise." (Pp. 42-43) Guelich understands the story in a 

similar fashion: Whereas Adam succumbed to his tempter resulting in hostility within creation 

and hardship in his own life, Jesus overcame the tempter, restored harmony within the 

creation, and lived by God’s sustenance as a sign of the new creation. Jesus is the second 

Adam, the obedient one.” (P. 39) 

Lane, however, holds that "Mark's reference to the wild beasts in 1:13 serves to stress 

the character of the wilderness. Jesus confronts the horror, the loneliness and the danger with 

which the wilderness is fraught when he meets the wild beasts. Their affinity in this context is 

not with paradise, but with the realm of Satan." (P. 61) France agrees with Lane, referring to 

Psalm 91:11-13, and stating that “The protective ministry of angels over against the wild 

beasts in that last passage forms a suggestive background to Mark 1:13...Biblical usage 

suggests, therefore that qhri,a, theria, ‘wild animals,’ are to be understood, where there is no 

indication to the contrary, as hostile and dangerous to humans, who need protection from 

them...It is through the protection of the angels (as in Psalm 91:11-13) that Jesus is able to 

survive meta. tw/n qhri,wn, meta ton therion, ‘with the wild animals.’ oi` av,ggeloi dihko,noun 

auvtw/|, hoi aggeloi diekonoun auto, ‘the messengers / angels were ministering to him,’ 

supplies the opposite side to the hostility of Satan and the animals. Jesus is not alone in his 

conflict (compare Matthew 26:53 for the availability of angelic help). If angelic protection is 

afforded to all who ‘make Yahweh their refuge’ (Psalm 91:11-13), how much more to the Son 

of God?” (Pp. 86-87) 

However we may interpret this (either interpretation is possible), the overall point of 

Mark is obvious. It is that this Jesus, who is the one chosen by God to be the Anointed One, 

King of his people, and who is his "Son," the “beloved one,” called by God to fulfill a sacrificial 

destiny, and who has been commissioned to be God’s “Servant,” bringing justice to the 

nations, will have to fulfill his divinely given role by confronting terrifying evil and harsh testing. 

He has been legitimated as God's Son and chosen King by the heavenly voice; like 

Abraham's unique, beloved son Isaac, is destined for a sacrificial role; he is the “Servant,” with 

a universal mission. And he has said "yes" to this terrifyingly difficult divine call, this "Heavenly 

Mission Impossible." Like the first Adam in the Garden of Eden, and like Israel in its 

wilderness wanderings, and like the ancient Job, this great Son of God is destined by God to 

face satanic, adversarial, demonic testing. But he, in contrast to the first Adam and also in 

contrast to historical Israel, will come through the testing victoriously. In him, all the terrible 

power of evil has met its match. Like Job, he will suffer deeply, and be led to cry out, asking 


54

74 


God “Why?” But like Job, he will not turn back, but will fulfill his divinely mandated role, 

thereby becoming what Job believed would one day happen–a divine Redeemer, standing 

upon the earth (Job 19:25). 

55

PRAYER 

O Lord, our God, we have come to lift up our hearts to You in worship, and to renew our 

vows to be Your people here in this time and place. We have asked You to revive us again, 

and we have asked You to pour Your power upon us. We believe this will happen, if we are 

willing and responsive to Your command. But we also know how easy it is to get caught up in 

the concerns and ways of the world around us, and to be misled by the temptations that 

surround us in this life. 

One thing we know from Mark’s Gospel–if we are going to participate in the great 

future that You are planning for us, we are going to have to prepare ourselves, by returning to 

You in humility, confessing our wrongs, committing ourselves to live every day of our lives in 

openness to Your will, to Your call. 

You want us to rule this good earth that You have given us–not in harshness, not by 

abusing it, but by making our homes, our businesses, our personal lives, and this congregation 

Your agents of goodness, and truth, and loving service to others. You want us to give, lovingly 

and generously, of everything we have and are, to enable Your Kingdom to accomplish Your 

mission of justice and mercy in this earth. 

Today, we pray, enable us to open wide new doors here in this congregation, and in our 

community. Let us begin to reach out to others, to get to know them, and to do whatever is 

necessary to truly serve them. Enable us to build a strong congregation, with sufficient 

resources and strength to teach the good news to all people in our reach, to feed the hungry, 

to clothe the naked, to minister to the sick, such as Bill Holder, for whom we pray today. Open 

our eyes to opportunities for ministry all around us--to those in prisons, to orphans and 

widows, to those who never worship, or study Your Word. Let us become a people who are so 

nourished and fed by Your Word that we will become Your agents in furthering the Good News 

as much as we possibly can. We know that’s what You want for us, and it’s what we want too. 

Just as Jesus committed Himself to Your service in his immersion, and just as He 

endured Satanic testing, so prepare us to commit ourselves to Your mission in our world, 

regardless of the testing that we will encounter. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen. 

56

TWO FACTS AND TWO DEMANDS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD 


1.14 Ìåô� ä� ô� ðáñáäïè�íáé ô�í �ÉùÜííçí �ëèåí � �Éçóï�ò å�ò ô�í Ãáëéëáßáí 

êçñýóóùí ô� å�áããÝëéïí ôï� èåï� 1.15 êá� ëÝãùí �ôé 

ÐåðëÞñùôáé � êáéñ�ò 

êá� �ããéêåí � âáóéëåßá ôï� èåï�� 

ìåôáíïå�ôå 

êá� ðéóôåýåôå �í ô� å�áããåëß�. 

1.14 But then after the John’s being arrested, Jesus came into the Galilee, proclaiming 

the Good News of the God, 1.15 and saying that, 

The time has been fulfilled, 

and the Kingdom of the God has drawn near. 

Turn around! 

And put confidence in the Good News! 

Mark 1:14-15, Translation with Footnotes: 75 

75 

Before entering into the study of Mark 1:14-15, see if you can give satisfactory 

answers to the following questions: 

1. If Mark 1:14 holds that Jesus’ ministry in Galilee did not begin until after John the 

Immerser was imprisoned, how is it that the story of John’s imprisonment is not told until Mark 

6:14-29? What does this mean for the “chronological” understanding of Mark? 

2. How do you define the word “Gospel”? Where did this word come from? Can you 

give four or five different modern definitions of this word? 

3. What is “the Good News” according to Mark? 

4. People who want an exact “Gospel Plan of Salvation” could consider this passage 

as giving such a plan, made up of two facts, and two commands. What are they? And if this 

is “the Gospel Plan of Salvation,” why is it never repeated in these same words, or even in this 

same manner? Why is it that using this methodology, a number of different “plans” can be 

drawn up, equally well based on scripture, consisting of five, or ten, or 613, or only 1 

command? 

5. What is the biblical context for Jesus’ statement that “the time has been fulfilled”? 

Do you agree with Jesus that with his coming, and the proclamation of the Good News of God, 

the time of preparation and waiting had ended, and the time of the fulfillment of the divine 

promises had arrived? 

6. If the Kingdom of God has drawn near, what does that mean? How far off can it be? 

Do you think that Jesus means, “Since the King has come, all who receive him and follow him 


57

76 77 78 79 80 

1.14 But then after the John’s being arrested, Jesus came into the Galilee, 

75 


thereby enter the Kingdom of God”? If not, why not? 

7. What all is involved in the imperative command “turn around”? Especially, if this 

command is the fulfillment of the teaching and demand of the great Spokespersons of Israel 

such as Amos or Jeremiah, what does this require? Can a person truly “turn around” without 

doing everything possible to transform the surrounding world in the name of justice and right 

relationships? 

8. What does Jesus mean by the demand “Put confidence in the Good News”? What 

are the consequences if a person does just that? What about yourself? Do you have 

confidence in the Good News? 

76 

France comments on 1:14-15 that these two verses “play a crucial role in Mark’s 

story, as the reference point for all subsequent mentions of the proclamation initiated by Jesus 

and entrusted by him to his followers. Here is the essential content of the euvagge,lion 

[euaggelion, ‘Good News’] to which the people of Galilee are summoned to respond.” (P. 90) 

77 

The opening phrase of verse 14, Ìåô� äå, Meta de, “But then after,” is read by 

Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, L, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the 

“Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Harclean Syriac, 

some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic, the Bohairic Coptic (in part) and Origen (who died 

254 A.D.). The phrase is changed to read kai. meta,, kai meta, “and after,” by Vaticanus, 

Bezae, Minuscule 2427, the Old Latin Manuscripts a, ff2 and some manuscripts of the 

Bohairic Coptic. The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but is an example 

of later copyists and translators using synonyms for words found in the original. 

78 

The phrase is ô� ðáñáäïè�íáé ô�í �ÉùÜííçí, to paradothenai ton Ioannen, literally 

“the being handed over (or, ‘arrested’), the John” (John’s name with the definite article that 

precedes it is in the accusative case, and serves as the subject of the infinitive verb. 

79 

For a complete statement concerning the arrest and imprisonment of John the 

Immerser, see Mark 6:14-29, with its accompanying footnotes. This statement makes it 

obvious that Mark is not attempting to follow an exact chronological scheme in telling the story 

of Jesus; otherwise 6:14-29 would have to be inserted before this point. But Mark has placed 

the story in its present position for theological reasons, not chronological reasons--to show the 

kind of hostile world into which Jesus came, and into which the disciples of Jesus must go. 

This statement of Mark that Jesus’ ministry in Galilee began after the imprisonment of John 

the Immerser means that “The role of the forerunner is over; the time of fulfillment has come.” 

(France, p. 90) Compare footnote 72. 

France comments that “In Mark’s account Jesus visits Jerusalem only once, and the 

whole story seems designed to build up to that visit...All this contrasts strongly with the pattern 

presented in the Gospel of John, which has Jesus making frequent journeys between Galilee 

and Jerusalem (generally in connection with Jewish festivals), so that even in the period 

before Jesus’ dramatic entry to the city in John 12:12-19 he seems in this gospel to have 


58

81 82 83 84 

proclaiming the Good News of the God, 1.15 and saying that, 

79 


spent at least as much time in Judaea as in his own territory. This Johannine pattern seems 

historically more probable...All this suggests that Mark’s simple outline of an extensive 

ministry in and around Galilee followed by a lengthy and carefully marked journey southwards 

culminating in a single climactic visit to Jerusalem owes more to his dramatic reshaping of the 

story than to a naive recording of events just as they happened.” (P. 12) 

80 

The phrase å�ò ô�í Ãáëéëáßáí, eis ten Galilaian, literally “into the Galilee,” is rooted in 

the Hebrew name lylgh, haggaliyl, the name of a “land” in the northern part of Palestine, 

from the Valley of Esdraelon (or "Jezreel") northwards. It was bounded on the east by the 

Jordan River, the Sea of Galilee, and Syria; on the northwest by Tyre and Sidon (Phoenicia), 

and on the west by the Mediterranean Sea down to Mount Carmel. Galilee itself was divided 

into "Upper" (northern) and "Lower" (southern) Galilee. Following the death of Herod the 

Great in 4 B.C., the area of Galilee was one of the four divisions of the country, and was given 

to one of Herod's sons to rule, Herod Antipas (who ruled Galilee from 4 B.C. until 39 A.D.; see 

Mark 6:17). 

In Hebrew, lylgh, haggaliyl means literally "the circle," and was used to describe the 

"circuit" or "district" in northern Israel that belonged largely to the Tribe of Naphtali. Most of 

the ministry of Jesus that occurred in Galilee occurred in the southern area of Galilee, or 

"Lower Galilee." 

Jesus, having come to John from Nazareth of Galilee (Mark 1:9, see footnotes 52 and 

53), to be immersed by him in the Jordan River, is described as having spent 40 days in the 

wilderness, being tested by the Adversary. Now, following his successful endurance of that 

testing, he returns to the same area of Israel, to “the Galilee,” to begin his ministry. In verses 

14-15, a summary of the basic content of his message is given. Then, in 1:16-3:6, the nature 

of his surprising ministry, and the opposition that began to rise against it is described. 

81 

The masculine singular present active participle khru,sswn, kerusson, “proclaiming,” 

or “preaching,” or “heralding,” is commented on by France as follows: “There is an important 

element of continuity between John and Jesus. The same participle khru,sswn which 

described John’s ministry (verse 4) now describes that of his successor, and at least one of 

the elements in that proclamation is the same [i.e., metanoei/te, metanoeite, ‘turn around!’, 

‘repent!’]...Is Jesus then, just a herald of a future act of God? Verse 15, as we shall see, 

forbids this conclusion.” (Pp. 90-91) 

82 

Immediately following the words ô� å�áããÝëéïí, to euaggelion, “the Good News,” the 

phrase th/j basilei,aj, tes basileias, “of the Kingdom,” is added to the original text by 

Alexandrinus, Bezae, W, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some manuscripts of the Old 

Latin, the Peshitta Syriac and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). The interpolated phrase is not 

found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the first writer of 

Minuscule 28, Minuscules 33, 565, 579, 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old 

Latin Manuscripts b, c, ff2, t, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Harclean Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic 


59

82 


tradition, the Bohairic Coptic (in part) nor in Origen (who died 254 A.D.). 

We think this variant reading has been added to the original text of Mark as an early 

commentary (and a helpful and correct commentary at that) by later copyists and translators 

who felt that the addition would help readers in understanding the meaning of Mark. Again we 

note that these later textual workers were not “mindless copiers,” but rather, while deeply 

respecting and faithfully passing on the original text handed down to them, still felt the freedom 

to make such additions in order to enhance that text. This is a good, even if small, example of 

how the text of the New Testament books “grew”–as copyists and translators added in words 

and phrases that they felt enhanced, or explained the meaning of the original text. Here, it is 

interesting to see in this example one of the great “Alexandrian” Uncials, Alexandrinus, 

joining in this reading found in the “Western” manuscripts, headed up by Bezae. 

The story is told of a group of four-year-olds in a Sunday school class in Chattanooga. 

Their enthusiastic teacher looked at the class and asked the question: "Does anyone know 

what today is?" A little four-year-old girl held up her hand and said, "Yes, today is Palm 

Sunday." The teacher exclaimed, "That's fantastic. That's wonderful. Now does anyone 

know what next Sunday is?" The same little girl held up her hand and said, "Yes, next Sunday 

is Easter Sunday." Once again the teacher said, "That's fantastic. Now, does anyone know 

what makes next Sunday Easter?" The same little girl responded, saying "Yes, next Sunday is 

Easter because Jesus rose from the grave." But before the teacher could congratulate her, 

she continued, "But if he sees his shadow, he has to go back in for seven weeks." 

I suspect that we would find some similar misunderstandings if we asked the question 

today, "What is the "Gospel"? The assumption that is commonly made is that we all know 

what the Gospel is. We expect our preachers to "preach the Gospel," and we expect our 

teachers in Christian Education to "teach the Gospel." But the fact is that many of us are very 

uncertain as to what the Gospel really is. The following definitions have been given: 

1. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. 

2. One of the first four books of the New Testament, describing the life, death, and 

resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

3. A popular style of religious music. 

4. Something, as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true. Harry Truman 

defined the Gospel as a "strong moral code," rooted in the teaching of the Bible. 

5. Anything that is preached, coming from the Bible. 

6. The story of what God is doing in and through his Anointed One, Jesus, on behalf of 

the sinful, broken nations of humanity–bringing forgiveness, and newness of life, and undying 

hope to all, through what he has done and is doing, thereby establishing his “Kingdom.” 

In the light of these definitions, what would you say it means to "preach the Gospel"? 

How will you define this word “Gospel”? 

83 

I n Mark 1:4 it is said that "John came...proclaiming an immersion of turning around..." 

Here, in very similar fashion, it is said that Jesus came...”proclaiming the Good News of the 

God..." See the preceding footnote for the interpolation "proclaiming the Good News of the 


60

The time has been fulfilled, 85 

83 


Kingdom of the God." It is obvious from the textual evidence that the original reading was 

"proclaiming the Good News of the God," but it is also clear from Mark that the "Good News of 

the God" has to do with God's kingdom, or kingly rule in human history, a rule that was being 

manifested with renewed power in the life and ministry of Jesus. 

As France notes, this phrase, to. euvagge,lion tou/ qeou/, to euaggelion tou theou, “the 

Good News of the God,” while it appears occasionally in Paul’s writings (Romans 1:1; 15:16; 

2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:2, 8, 9; compare 1 Peter 4:17), “is unique here in the 

gospels.” (P. 91) 

The question is raised as to whether "the Good News of the God" means "the Good 

News about the God," or "the Good News that comes from the God." The phrase can be 

understood in either way, and probably should be: it is "the Good News that comes from God, 

and that centers in God and his saving actions." 

The alternative reading, "the Good News of the Kingdom of the God," points in the right 

direction. Jesus proclaims the Good News of the God, the story of God's kingly rule that is 

now present, being "initiated" and fulfilled through the deeds and teachings of Jesus. With 

Jesus’ coming, and his mission, there is an “in-breaking of the Kingdom of the God,” an inbreaking 

of the Kingdom that will not be complete until all earth’s peoples have heard and 

shared in that Good News. The “Good News” is that the King has come, to lead both Israel 

and the nations out of the terrifying problems of sin, and sickness, and death, that so threaten 

humanity’s existence. The King’s coming means the presence of the Kingdom of the God, 

doing battle with evil. 

84 

The phrase êá� ëÝãùí, kai legon, “and saying,” is read by Vaticanus, K, L, W, Delta, 

Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 

2427, 2542, a large number of other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old 

Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac and the Bohairic Coptic tradition. It is 

changed to only the second word, ëÝãùí, legon, “saying,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus, 

Alexandrinus, Bezae, Gamma, a large number of other Greek manuscripts, the majority of 

the Old Latin witnesses, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and a few manuscripts of the 

Bohairic Coptic. The phrase is completely omitted by the first writer of Sinaiticus, the Old 

Latin Manuscript c, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic, the Sinaitic Syriac and by Origen 

(who died 254 A.D.). These two variant readings of the text do not change the meaning of 

Mark, and in fact, the phrase is not essential for the meaning. Later copyists and translators 

are not afraid to drop such phrases from the original text, when they consider them 

unessential. And so, in this example, we see that not only does the original text “grow” and 

“expand” as a result of copying and translation–it also sometimes “shrinks,” or is shortened by 

omissions such as this. 

85 

The phrase ÐåðëÞñùôáé � êáéñ�ò, Peplerotai ho kairos, literally “It has been fulfilled, 

the time,” is changed to the plural, ��n�� i ��oi,, Peplerontai hoi kairoi, 

literally “They have been fulfilled, the times,” by Bezae and the majority of the Old Latin 

witnesses. This variant reading changes the meaning slightly, moving it from a matter of one 


61

85 


time that has been fulfilled, to the larger matter of “the times” that have been fulfilled. The 

verb ÐåðëÞñùôáé, peplerotai is in the perfect tense, meaning it has already happened–not 

that it is now happening, or will shortly happen in the future. The time “has been fulfilled.” 

This means that the period of promise, of expectancy, of preparation and waiting for the 

coming King and his Kingdom, has ended. It means that now the period of completion, of 

reception and of participation has arrived. It is very important that the second phrase, "And 

the Kingdom of God has drawn near" should be interpreted in the light of this first phrase. 

As France comments, “The reference here is clearly to the fulfilment of prophetic hope 

in the time of messianic deliverance. The idea is not simply that an allotted time has elapsed 

(that would have been better expressed by cro,noj, chronos, as in Acts 7:23), but that the 

decisive moment (kairo,j, kairos) has now arrived. The use of the perfect tense 

[peplh,rwtai, peplerotai, ‘it has been fulfilled’] indicates that this is not an announcement of 

something future, even imminent; the state of fulfilment already exists.” (P. 91) 

Readers of the writings of the great Spokespersons in the Jewish Bible are 

occasionally pointed out into the future, to a divinely determined "time" or "days" when YHWH 

God will be revealed in saving, judging power, when his enemies will be destroyed, and when 

his Kingdom will come. Statements such as the following occur: 

Isaiah 2:2, “In the last days, the Mountain of YHWH's House will be established as 

chief among the mountains...and all nations will stream to it...” 

Isaiah 27:7 “In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all 

the world with fruit...” 

Jeremiah 31:31-34 "’The time is coming,’ declares YHWH, ‘when I will make a new 

covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah...’" 

Jeremiah 33:14-16 "’The days are coming,’ declares YHWH, ‘when I will fulfill the 

gracious promise I made to the House of Israel and to the House of Judah. In those days and 

at that time I will make a rightly related branch sprout from David's line; he will do what is just 

and in right relationship in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live 

in safety...’" 

Joel 3:1 “In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and 

Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and bring them down to the ‘Valley of YHWH Has 

Judged’...” 

Daniel 2:28 “...There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King 

Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come...” 

Daniel 2:44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that 

will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms 


62

86 87 

and the Kingdom of the God has drawn near. 

85 


and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.” 

Daniel 10:14 “Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in 

the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.” 

These sayings (along with others) occur often enough to cause readers of the Jewish 

Bible to look forward into the future with eager expectancy, waiting for that divinely promised 

time to come, when God's eternal kingdom or "house" is divinely established, when the 

divinely chosen King has come, and rules over that Kingdom, and the nations of the earth are 

called to share in that Kingdom. "What a wondrous time that will be" thinks the reader of 

these writings in the Jewish Bible. “But is it true? Will that time of blessing ever come?” This 

question plagued the hearts of Bible-believing Jews in the first century. 

Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the Good News of the God (and his Kingdom), 

saying that "The time has been fulfilled." That is, the divinely promised time of the coming of 

God's chosen King and his eternal Kingdom have arrived. Jesus tells the people of the first 

century world that then and there, they were living in the "time of fulfillment," in the time when 

the promises of God were being brought to completion in his life and ministry. Jesus does not 

say, "The time will soon be here, say in three years, after my suffering and death, on the Day 

of Pentecost"; he does not say “The time is coming, in 2,000 years,” but rather, "The time has 

been fulfilled." 

Of course, for many first century Jews (and for many others still today), such a 

proclamation seems impossible and mistaken. "How can it be? Where are the thunder, the 

heavenly armies, the divine victory over all Israel's enemies? Where are the official leaders of 

the Nation of Israel? This lone individual, who has no armies and no credentials, who simply 

involves himself along with low-class fishermen in ministry to common people, especially to 

the poor, demon-possessed, sick and dying people of Galilee--can all of this be the 'fulfillment' 

of Israel's hope for the coming of God's Kingdom? No. It can never be." 

But, insists Mark, what is involved here is nothing less than that. With the coming of 

this man, Jesus from Nazareth, the divinely promised time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom 

of God is present as possibility–since if the King is here, and people follow the King, they will 

enter into that Kingdom. Unlikely, yes; seemingly impossible, yes; contrary to public opinion, 

yes; but nonetheless, true. 

86 

What does the phrase "the Kingdom of the God" mean? Does it have reference to an 

earthly government that is ruled by God (a “Theocracy”), over against others that are not ruled 

by God? Or does it mean "The eternal spiritual sovereignty of God" (so, The American 

Heritage Dictionary), or the "realm" over which that divine sovereignty extends"? 

Consideration of the "Kingdom of God" reaches into the very heart of Biblical Theology. 

The way we understand God as "King," and the nature of his "Kingdom" are of basic 

importance for our understanding of the Bible and of religion. For the Jewish Bible, YHWH 

God is "King"--he always has been King, he is King in every present time, and he will be King 


63

86 


forever--in every future time (see Psalms 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 145). That is, his 

"Kingdom" is eternal--since he has created everything that is, and since his power rules over 

the entire universe. 

But oftentimes his divine Kingship is denied and substitute kingdoms are set up, as 

petty earthly "kings" are given divine honors, and there are those who allow earthly "kings" to 

rule over them, rather than submitting themselves to the true King, YHWH God. Thus, a 

contradiction is formed in human history; it is the absurd spectacle of a divine King, who is 

King over all, but whose Kingdom is rejected in favor of petty earthly "kingdoms," and 

substitute "kings" that are allowed to take over his rightful divine throne. 

Nonetheless, in spite of these distortions, YHWH God's Kingdom still rules over human 

history, even in and through those petty kingdoms which consciously reject his royal 

sovereignty (as the "wrath of human beings" ultimately fulfills the divine purpose). And the 

possibility is always present that human beings will turn from their idols, from their substitute 

"kings" (or "gods"), to acknowledge their one true King, and serve him. Whenever and 

wherever that happens, there the Kingdom of YHWH God is present, not only in the history of 

Israel, but also in the history of all peoples and nations (such as Nebuchadnezzar of 

Babylon–see the Book of Daniel). 

That divine rulership has been a fact in human history in the past; it is a possibility in 

every present; and it is "coming" in every human future. Even though humanity (including 

Israel) consciously rejects the divine King, still his Kingdom comes. That is, YHWH God 

continues to act in sovereign power in human history, bringing his purposes to pass. YHWH 

had entrusted his Kingdom into the "hands of the sons of David" in ancient times (2 

Chronicles 13:8). But his Kingdom is predicted as "coming" in that divinely promised future 

foretold by the great writing Spokespersons recorded in the Jewish Bible. 

Mark wants its readers to know that in Jesus and his Message, the Kingdom of God 

has drawn near–the King has come, and it is possible for those who believe the Message, and 

who turn their lives around in genuine penitence, to enter into that Kingdom. That’s the Good 

News. 

87 rd 

The 3 person singular, perfect indicative active verb �ããéêåí, eggiken, means "has 

drawn near," "has come close," "has approached,” or “is at hand.” There are some New 

Testament students who have insisted that this statement of Jesus means that the Kingdom 

of God had "come close," but that it had not yet arrived--it was still in the future–indeed, it 

would not come until some three years later, on the Day of Pentecost, following the 

resurrection and ascension of Jesus, or according to others, not until some 2,000 years or 

more in the future, when the so-called “Rapture” occurs, and Jesus returns from heaven to 

earth, to reign over his Kingdom. 

But Jesus is not talking about a “future Kingdom.” He is talking about a Kingdom that 

has drawn near, that is “at hand.” 

64 

(continued...)

87 


As France comments, “If Jesus is understood to have proclaimed as ‘near’ something 

which had still not arrived even at the time when Mark wrote his gospel (let alone 2,000 years 

later) [this would be an embarrassment]...Mark’s use of the perfect tense suggests that 

something more is intended than a statement of imminence, when he could well have used the 

present evggi,zei, eggizei, [‘is drawing near’]...The preceding clause allows no such ambiguity; 

the kairo,j, kairos has been fulfilled, so that the logic of the two parallel clauses fixes the point 

of reference as present rather than future. Jesus is not predicting some future event, but 

announcing the time of fulfilment...This conclusion is strengthened when we remember the 

emphasis of the prologue on the role of John as the forerunner; it would be odd if the one who 

succeeds him also turns out to be no more than a herald of something which lies still in the 

future.” (P. 92) 

I think we should understand Jesus as meaning that the Kingdom of God had drawn 

near to humanity as possibility. It had not drawn near to force them into it, but it had drawn 

near in such a way that they could choose to enter into it, and become a part of it, if they so 

desired. That is, the Kingdom of God had drawn near, because the chosen King was present, 

and if those who saw and heard so chose, they could make him King of their lives, and enter 

into his Kingdom. But there was also the possibility that they would be unwilling to recognize 

him as the divinely chosen King, and would refuse the opportunity for entering into the divine 

Kingdom. 

The Kingdom, then, is not viewed in this statement as "having drawn near" so much in 

point of time, as in point of "possibility." 

An excellent study of the Kingdom of God is to be found in G. R. Beasley-Murray's 

Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986). In this book, the 

English Baptist scholar Beasley-Murray (then teaching in America) shows how there are many 

sayings and parables of Jesus which describe the "Coming of the Kingdom in the Present," 

alongside other sayings and parables of Jesus which describe the "Coming of the Kingdom in 

the Future." There have been many scholars who have chosen to emphasize the "present" 

nature of the Kingdom while de-emphasizing or even denying any "future" view of the Kingdom 

in the teaching of Jesus. There are others who have just as strongly rejected any idea of the 

"present" nature of the Kingdom in the teaching of Jesus, while affirming that Jesus looked 

forward only to a future "coming" Kingdom. Beasley-Murray holds that both elements are 

genuinely present in the teaching of Jesus, and holds that both must be accorded a place in 

our understanding of this profound subject. 

As has been noted, this statement of Jesus, that "The Kingdom of the God has drawn 

near," is immediately preceded by the statement, "The time has been fulfilled"--and this 

sharply narrows the range of possible meanings of this second statement. If the divinely 

promised time had been fulfilled, that means that the divinely promised time had come, that 

people were no longer living in the time of expectation and preparation, but were now living in 

the time of reception and fulfillment. It means that the Kingdom of God, promised in the 

Jewish Bible to be "coming" in the future, was now present with the coming of Jesus, the 

King. 

65 

(continued...)

Turn around! 88 

87 


Beasley-Murray holds that this first phrase, "The time has been fulfilled," means "...the 

measure of time assigned by God for the fulfillment of the promise of the kingdom has been 

'filled up,' and so come to its end. If it has reached its limit, there is no further waiting." He 

quotes Trilling as stating, "One must read the prophets to grasp the immense dynamic of the 

expectation, the unbroken and ever newly awakened faith in an absolute future of God. Only 

then does one know what this statement says in which the faith of early Christianity has 

become shaped. The unsurpassable future of God has begun." And, Beasley-Murray adds, 

"This underscores the inadequacy of the notion voiced by some scholars that Mark 1:15 

means that the time of waiting is over and the kingdom is to come in the near future. If the 

time before the kingdom is finished, the time of the kingdom has begun." (Jesus and the 

Kingdom of God, p. 73) 

In further discussion of this passage, Beasley-Murray states, "The general thrust of 

[Jesus'] teaching on the kingdom of God...implies that in his word and work there is an 

initiation of the sovereign action of God that brings salvation and is to end in a transformed 

universe. It is precisely this thrust of the proclamation--the decisive beginning of the promised 

coming of God to bring the saving sovereignty--that makes [the verb ‘has drawn near’] so 

suitable a term to employ in this summary of his message of the kingdom." (P. 74) 

Understanding and acceptance of this clear teaching of Mark is devastating to many 

dogmatic views of the Kingdom that have been held–such as the view that the Kingdom did 

not come until the Day of Pentecost following the death and resurrection of Jesus, as held by 

J.W. McGarvey and many others (asking the question, “How could Jesus be ‘King’ before his 

‘coronation’ which occurred only after his resurrection and ascension?” It has always been 

tempting for legalistic understanding of the New Testament to set forth exact time tables, and 

demand conformity to them–even though the biblical documents themselves will not allow 

such a rigid interpretation.). It is also devastating to the “futurist” interpretations of the 

Kingdom held by many “dispensationalist” theologians” in the twentieth century and still today, 

who hold to “gap theories,” and insist that the Kingdom will not come until some future time 

(the exact date of which they have been constantly tempted to set, and have consistently been 

proven wrong). 

No, the words of Jesus are: “The time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has 

drawn near.” We must let our views of the Kingdom conform to that statement–not attempt to 

force Jesus’ statement to conform to our dogmatic views. 

88 

France comments on the two demands made by Jesus in the last half of verse 15 that 

“With the beginning of Jesus’ ministry...a new era of fulfilment has begun, and it calls for 

response from God’s people. That response is summed up in the twin imperatives metanoei/te 

kai. pisteu,ete, metanoeite kai pisteuete [‘turn around and believe, place confidence’]...Both 

verbs recall the regular prophetic call to Israel to return (bwv, shubh) to their covenant 

obedience and to be faithful to Yahweh (!mI ßa/h,, he)amin), which conveys more the sense of 

trust than of ‘belief’ in the merely intellectual sense)...pisteu,ein evn tw/| euvaggeli,w|, pisteuein 


66

88 


en to euaggelio [‘to believe in the Good News’] probably denotes not only an intellectual 

acceptance that the ‘news’ is true, but a response of acceptance and commitment.” (P. 93) 

For this first of the two imperative verbs, metanoei/te, metanoeite, “turn around,” 

“repent,” see footnote 24 on this subject at Mark 1:4. Just as John the Immerser had 

proclaimed "an immersion of turning around (or ‘repentance’) leading to the forgiveness of 

missings-of-the-mark," so now Jesus makes a very similar demand upon those who hear his 

message. They are called to make a radical change, a complete "turning around" of their 

lives, a deep inner and personal "return" to God as their King and Savior, a “turning around” 

which will change not only their own lives, but their society around them, as much as they can 

influence it. 

As is discussed in footnote 24, the verb metanoei/n, metanoein came to mean in 

Classical Greek simply to have an "after-thought," a "change of mind." But as used in Biblical 

Theology, there is a much deeper meaning involved. Because in biblical literature this verb is 

used to translate the Hebrew verb bWv, shubh, it carries with it many of the connotations of 

the usage of that verb in the Hebrew Bible. In the great Hebrew Spokespersons beginning 

with Amos, and continuing through the preaching of Jeremiah, this verb is used to indicate a 

"turning-around," a "conversion," always with reference to the relationship of human beings 

with YHWH God. It means an act of deep-seated "penitence" that forms the basis for a new 

life, returning to a loving, obedient trust in God and his word, and resulting in a transformation 

of human society in terms of genuine justice and right relationships. 

In Jewish history, there were certain public acts or rituals of penitence--days of going 

without food, times in which "sack-cloth" was worn, when people sat in ashes, or threw ashes 

on their heads, repeating liturgies of penitence, such as that found in Isaiah 63:7-64:12. 

These public acts were very similar to a modern day Presidential call for a national day of 

prayer and penitence, in which many people participate, but in which there is sometimes little 

real depth of emotion or commitment. 

The Spokespersons of Israel issued strong denunciations of those public acts and 

rituals, insisting that true "returning" or "penitence" must involve far more than the wearing of 

"mourning clothes" or the repetition of liturgies of penitence. See, for example, Joel 2:12-13, 

"’Even now,’ declares YHWH, ‘return to me with all your heart, with abstinence from food, and 

weeping, and mourning.’ Tear your heart and not your garments. Return to YHWH your God, 

for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in unfailing love, and he 

relents from sending calamity.” That means “returning" demands far more than outward acts 

and public liturgies--it demands the deeply personal "return" to YHWH God with all the heart, 

with all the self. But it also demands far more than simply "personal" relationship with YHWH-it 

also demands total commitment to the renewal of society, the transformation of every broken 

or oppressive relationship in society. 

In Isaiah 58:5-7, YHWH asks: “Is this the kind of abstinence from food I have chosen, 

only a day for a person to humble himself? Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed, and for 

lying on sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call an 'abstinence from food,' a 'day 


67

And put confidence in the Good News! 89 

88 


acceptable to YHWH'? Is not this the kind of abstinence from food I have chosen: to loose 

the chains of injustice, and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free, and break 

every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry, and to provide the poor wanderer 

with shelter--when you see the naked, to clothe him...?" It is crystal clear from such a passage 

that for the Spokespersons of Israel, genuine "turning back" to YHWH involves a complete 

personal return that is expressed in loving deeds that transform and heal every broken 

relationship in society. 

So, what did Jesus demand when he issued this call for "turning around"? In direct line 

with the Spokespersons of Israel in the Jewish Bible, he means much more than simply 

external rites and public rituals. He means, like they did before him, a deeply personal 

renewal of the individual's relationship with God, combined with a genuine commitment to 

transform society in the name of the God of love and justice. His call involves entering into the 

same kind of loving ministry to which he was committed, and which is exemplified in his life. It 

has nothing to do with some "magical" ritual or sacrament that can gain the divine forgiveness 

apart from radical, deep-seated personal and social transformation in the name of God. 

Disciples of Jesus in the present age need to hear this important fact. 

89 

The verb ðéóôåýåôå, pisteuete, “believe,” or "put confidence (in)," is a key verb for 

Biblical Theology. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, it is used to translate the 

Hebrew verb !ymah, he)emin, “to believe,” or “to confirm" or "to support," or “to place 

confidence in.” 

Some of the great texts in the Jewish Bible that deal with the necessity for "putting 

confidence" in YHWH and his word are: “And Abraham put confidence (or ‘believed’) in 

YHWH; and he considered it a right relationship for him." (Genesis 15:6--a very important 

text, which states that father Abraham's "right relationship" with YHWH was based upon his 

"putting confidence" in YHWH and his promise; Abraham not only intellectually believed 

YHWH's promise, but he built his entire future upon that divine word.) 

See also Exodus 4:1, 5, 8, 9, and 31 (where the matter of Israel's “believing,” or "placing 

confidence" in the revelation of YHWH to Moses is discussed). “And Israel saw the great 

hand with which YHWH had acted against Egypt; and the people were in trembling awe at 

YHWH; and they put confidence (or ‘believed’) in YHWH and in his servant, Moses.” (Exodus 

14:31; compare 19:9; Numbers 14:11; 20:12; Deuteronomy 9:23; 2 Kings 17:14; Psalm 

78:22, 32; 106:12, 24; 116:10; 119:66.) 

Jonah 3:5 “The people put confidence (or ‘believed’) in the God.” That is, they 

accepted and placed confidence in the message which Jonah proclaimed, and placed their 

confidence in the God of whom Jonah spoke. 

Isaiah 7:9 “If you do not have confidence (‘believe’), you will not understand.” The 

Hebrew text reads, "If you do not have confidence, you will not be made confident." This was 

an important text in the thinking of Augustine. 


68

89 


Isaiah 28:16 “The one who has confidence (or, ‘who believes’) will not be put to 

shame.” 

Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses--it is a saying of YHWH--and my servant whom I 

have chosen; so that you people may know, and may place confidence (or ‘believe’) in me, 

and may understand that I am he.” 

Isaiah 53:1 “Who has placed confidence (or ‘believed’) in our report?” 

It is obvious from these passages that one of the major ways of describing the proper 

relationship between human beings and YHWH God is to speak in terms of "placing 

confidence" in YHWH and in his self-revelation, in his word, in the message which he sends 

through his servants, the Spokespersons. This is why we conclude that to "put confidence in 

the Good News" means to give intellectual assent to the truth and validity of the Good News, 

that is “to believe it is true”; but it also involves much more than that. It demands the placing 

of one's personal "backing"--confirmation and support--behind the truth of that message. 

Biblical "faith" is much more than simply intellectual agreement; it involves a personal 

commitment to, and a life-long involvement with and support of that Good News. 

There are many people who ardently claim to "believe" in the Good News, but who do 

not at the same time commit their futures to that message, nor are they willing to build their 

lives upon its validity. They are unwilling to commit their time and their resources to the 

support and furtherance of that Good News. And the fact is, they are not "putting confidence 

in the Good News" in the way Jesus intends. 

What would it mean if all of us today who profess to be disciples of Jesus genuinely 

"put our confidence" in the Good News of Jesus? What would happen in our personal lives? 

What would happen in the society which we are helping to form? What changes would be 

made? How would we spend our time and our money? What investments would we be 

making? If we should dare to "turn around and put our confidence in the Good News," what 

would this mean for our marriages and families? What would it mean for our world outreach 

and church growth programs? What would it mean for our use of educational buildings and 

sanctuaries? What would it mean for our colleges and seminaries? 

Two facts, and two demands: the time has been fulfilled; the Kingdom of God has 

drawn near. Turn around. And place confidence in the Good News. That’s what we must 

believe, and that’s what we must do, if we want to be disciples of Jesus. What about you? 

69

PRAYER 

Lord Jesus, You truly came to earth at the “fulness of the times.” The Bible of the Jews 

was full of promises, pointing out into the future, when the “New David” would come, and when 

the eternal Kingdom would be established. But with your coming, the time of fulfillment had 

arrived. It was no longer a matter of waiting, and hoping, and expecting–it was a matter of 

acceptance, and entrance, and joyous new beginnings. You had come as God’s chosen King, 

and with You, the Kingdom had drawn near. All who heard Your call, and responded to that 

call in a positive way, entered into Your Kingdom. You told everyone who heard You that in 

order to enter the Kingdom, they had to turn their lives around, to turn back to God in deep 

and lasting sincerity. And they had to place their confidence, their faith, in the Good News that 

You were proclaiming. Only in this way could they enter the Kingdom, and become a part of 

its eternal future. 

It wasn’t the kind of Kingdom that most of the Jews expected. They wanted a 

conquering King, with heavenly armies marching at his side, driving out the Romans, leading 

the Jews to victory over their enemies. Instead, Your Kingdom was one of stooping to serve, 

of reaching out to the untouchables, of healing the sick, of giving sight to the blind, of enabling 

the lame to walk, of loving the unlovely. It was more like a world-wide fishing expedition, going 

to all the unreached and needy and hurting peoples of the earth, proclaiming God’s love and 

forgiveness and the light of a new day of hope. No it wasn’t what most of the Jews expected, 

or wanted, but that Kingdom has had far more power, and far more successes than any of 

earth’s mightiest empires. All of those empires quickly disintegrate and fail, to be followed by 

another and another. But Your Kingdom will never end. 

Lord, let us today enter Your Kingdom. Let us quit thinking that it’s a Kingdom far off in 

the future, and realize that the Kingdom has drawn near to us, and that we can enter it by 

turning our lives around to follow You, placing our confidence, our trust, in the Good News You 

have proclaimed to us. 

And now, Lord, as we part from this service of worship, let us continue our worship 

today, and every day of the coming week--through loving and serving others, especially our 

family members, and our neighbors, and the people with whom we work. Amen! 

70

LET’S GO FISHING ! 


1.16 Êá� ðáñÜãùí ðáñ� ô�í èÜëáóóáí ô�ò Ãáëéëáßáò å�äåí �ßìùíá êá� �ÁíäñÝáí ô�í 

�äåëö�í �ßìùíïò �ìöéâÜëëïíôáò �í ô� èáëÜóó�� óáí ã�ñ �ëéå�ò. 1.17 êá� å�ðåí á�ôï�ò � 

Éçóï�ò, Äå�ôå �ðßóù ìïõ, êá� ðïéÞóù �ì�ò ãåíÝóèáé �ëéå�ò �íèñþðùí. 1.18 êá� å�è�ò 

�öÝíôåò ô� äßêôõá �êïëïýèçóáí á�ô�. 

1.16 And going along beside the Sea of the Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, the 

brother of Simon, throwing circular (nets) in the sea--for they were fishermen. 1.17 And the 

Jesus said to them, "Come--behind me! And I will cause you to become 'fishers of people.’" 

1.18 And immediately, having left the nets, they followed him. 

1.19 Êá� ðñïâ�ò �ëßãïí å�äåí �ÉÜêùâïí ô�í ôï� Æåâåäáßïõ êá� �ÉùÜííçí ô�í �äåëö�í 

á�ôï� êá� á�ôï�ò �í ô� ðëïß� êáôáñôßæïíôáò ô� äßêôõá, 1.20 êá� å�è�ò �êÜëåóåí á�ôïýò. êá� 

�öÝíôåò ô�í ðáôÝñá á�ô�í Æåâåäá�ïí �í ô� ðëïß� ìåô� ô�í ìéóèùô�í �ð�ëèïí �ðßóù 

á�ôï�. 

1.19 And advancing a little further, he saw Jacob, the one of the Zebedee, and John, 

the brother of his–and (he saw) them in the boat, repairing the nets. 1.20 And immediately he 

called them. And leaving the father of theirs, Zebedee in the boat with the hired workers, they 

departed behind him. 


90 

Before going further with this study, please attempt to answer the following questions: 

1. Locate the Sea of Galilee on a first-century map of Israel. What are its dimensions, 

north to south, and east to west, at its widest part? What is its depth? Name the cities and 

villages surrounding the Sea of Galilee in the time of Jesus. Especially note the location of 

Capernaum, which became the center of Jesus' Galilean ministry. 

2. What does this story of Jesus walking along the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and 

calling various people to "become fishers of people," tell us concerning the nature of the 

Kingdom Jesus rules over as Anointed One? Is the task of "winning people" optional for his 

disciples? Or, is it in fact the primary reason for the existence of his disciples? 

3. What relationship does this story have with the later statements in Mark 14:28 and 

16:7, concerning where the disciples of Jesus will find the risen Lord? 

4. We will be looking closely at the evidence concerning the nature of the disciples of 

Jesus. Are they here pictured as "unlearned peasants," who could only speak Aramaic? Or, 

do their very names, combined with the archaeology of first-century Galilee, lead us to 

conclude that they were most probably bi-lingual, speaking both Aramaic and Greek, and 

perhaps Latin and other languages? What about the names of Jesus' first disciples? 

71 

(continued...)

91 92 93 94 

1.16 And going along beside the Sea of the Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, 

90 


5. What can William Wuellner's book concerning the fishing industry in first-century 

Galilee reveal about the people inhabiting the shores of Galilee in the time of Jesus, and 

especially concerning the cities (or villages) of Bethsaida, Tarichaea, Magada, and Tiberias? 

6. In the light of Wuellner's study, how would you describe the "tax-collectors" who 

worked along the shores of the Sea of Galilee? 

7. As Jesus went along, and called to people to follow behind him, was he in fact 

gathering together his Kingdom, his Church? What does this have to do with the nature of the 

Church in our own time? What does the symbolism of "fishing for people" mean for the nature 

of the modern Church? Is the Church of Jesus seriously intended to be a "world-wide fishing 

fleet"? 

8. Is the name "James" genuinely found in the Bible, or is it a peculiarity of English 

translations? How did the Semitic name "Jacob" become "James"? 

9. What does this "thumb-nail sketch" tell us about the cost of discipleship? 

91 

In verse 9 Mark has stated that Jesus "came from Nazareth of Galilee" to be 

immersed by John in the Jordan River. Immediately following his immersion, Jesus has been 

driven out into the wilderness, for testing. And then Mark relates, Jesus has returned into 

Galilee as a proclaimer of the Good News of God. In verses 14-15 we have been told the two 

facts, and the two demands contained in that Good News: 

(1) The time has been fulfilled. 

(2) The Kingdom of God has drawn near. (These are the two central facts.) 

(3) Turn around! 

(4) Put confidence in the Good News! (These are the two central demands.) 

Now, Mark launches out into its description of Jesus and his ministry together with his 

disciples, and the murderous opposition which he will soon begin to face from the Jewish 

leaders, in a series of “thumb-nail sketches,” small “vignettes,” or short depictions in words of 

what this Kingdom of God looked like in the ministry of Jesus–to the end of chapter 1. 

In this first of these “thumb-nail sketches,” 1:16-20, Mark lets us know that the Kingdom 

that Jesus says has come near is not at all what most would think. It doesn't come with the 

legions of heaven suddenly invading Israel's shores, or with Jesus marching at the head of his 

disciples into Jerusalem to claim kingship over Israel--rather, it comes with Jesus, walking 

along the shores of the Sea of Galilee, quietly, and with little fanfare, calling individuals to 

follow after him, and as his followers, to begin to be transformed into "fishers of people." 

That's how, according to Mark, the Kingdom begins and is entered into--through 

following Jesus in his quiet work of "fishing for people". This work of reaching out to others, of 

"catching people" in “heavenly nets,” bringing them into the Kingdom of God, is not peculiar to 

Jesus, but is a work into which he calls and commissions his disciples, enabling them to do 


72

91 


their work. Here is the King--but what a contrast to Caesar, with his pomp and circumstance. 

Here is the Kingdom--but a far cry from Imperial Rome with its triumphal arches, massive 

buildings, gladiatorial arenas, powerful legions, and hopeless slaves. Here is the lowly 

Servant-King; here are his "armies"--common fishing people, being transformed by Jesus into 

becoming "fishers for people.” And those who are caught, are not used or abused by his 

followers, but rather are blessed and enriched by becoming sharers in that Kingdom that 

knows no end. 

France comments that “After the ringing announcement of verses 14-15 we are 

prepared for stirring events of at least national, if not cosmic, importance. What we find is very 

different: ‘...Jesus wandering by the sea, bidding some common laborers to accompany him 

on a mission. The world seems very much intact!’ (Myers)... 

“Mark’s readers are being prepared not to expect the coming of God’s kingship to 

conform to conventional standards of importance...The Messiah himself refuses to assert his 

authority by an impressive show of divine (still less of worldly) pomp and pageantry. The 

kingdom of God comes not with fanfare but through the gradual gathering of a group of 

socially insignificant people in an unnoticed corner of provincial Galilee. The parable of the 

mustard seed (4:30-32) will merely put into words what has been happening in practice from 

the first days of Jesus’ ministry, the launching of a movement of ultimately huge dimensions 

which yet in its beginnings is so unimpressive as to be barely noticeable on the world stage.” 

(P. 94) 

92 

It will soon become obvious that for Mark, this matter of "fishing for people" as an 

expression of the presence of the Kingdom of God is not just a matter of words spoken, or of 

grandiose claims made--far more than that. It is a matter of action, of deeds done, of ministry 

to the deepest real needs and problems of humanity, of willing struggle against the powers of 

evil and uncleanness, even of willing opposition to the leaders of organized religion for the 

sake of the truth of God. And, because he has called his disciples to share with him in his 

mission of "fishing for people," this description of the ministry of Jesus is intended to be 

exemplary for the mission and ministry of his disciples. 

The first of these "thumb-nail sketches" of Jesus' ministry occurs on the banks of the 

Sea of Galilee. This Sea is for many a modern-day tourist, one of the most beautiful sites in 

all of Israel. The Sea is some 630 feet below sea level, even though it appears to be a 

mountain lake. It is thirteen miles in length, from north to south, and is eight miles wide at its 

greatest breadth, shaped somewhat like a pear. Much of the ministry of Jesus took place on 

its northern and northwestern shores. For Mark the beginning of Jesus' calling of his disciples 

took place there, as Jesus was "going along beside the Sea of Galilee." 

France comments that “Mark, Matthew and John refer to this relatively small inland 

stretch of fresh water as qa,lassa, thalassa, ‘sea,’reflecting local usage based on the Old 

Testament tr,N

92 


“Jesus made his base in the lakeside town of Capernaum. Despite his title (10:47; 

14:67; 16:6), he does not seem to have spent much time in Nazareth (6:1-6 is the only visit 

recorded in Mark). As a small village in the hills Nazareth offered very limited scope for 

proclamation of the good news, whereas the lake (or rather its west and north sides; the east 

and south were outside the province of Galilee), with its prosperous fishing industry and an 

active trade route running through Capernaum to the neighboring tetrachy of Philip, was the 

focus of the province’s life. It is striking, however, that there is no record of Jesus ever visiting 

the two Hellenistic cities which dominated the province politically, Sepphoris (just four miles 

from Nazareth) and Tiberias (not far down the lakeshore from Capernaum). It was among the 

more traditionally Jewish population of the lakeshore that Jesus sought, and found, a 

response to his message of the kingdom of God.” (P. 95) 

It is obvious that Jesus, even though the King, had not come to play the role of a 

politician, mingling with the political officials in the centers of power. Rather, he had come to 

play the role of a shepherd-king, a teacher and healer of the common people of his day–that is 

what he was doing there on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. 

The oldest (probably the "original") manuscripts of Mark's Gospel end with the 

statement of the young man in the tomb that the risen Jesus "is going before" his disciples into 

Galilee once again, and that there they "will see him." That is, the risen Jesus will be seen by 

his disciples as they move out with him in his on-going “fishing ministry” as the risen Lord. 

This basic mission, or “fishing expedition” of Jesus and his disciples will not be ended by his 

death; he will be raised up from among those who are dead, and will go before his disciples, 

back to Galilee--evidently to lead them in the continuation of this "universal fishing mission" 

that began there. See Mark 14:28 and 16:7. That ministry which began with his physical 

presence among his disciples, will continue following his death and resurrection, with his risen, 

spiritual presence guiding them “to the ends of the earth.” 

93 

"Simon" is a personal name found frequently among the Greeks, but it is a Semitic 

name,!w[mv, Shime(on, which has been taken up by the Greeks, and put into Greek letters, 

Si,mwna, Simona (accusative form). In the Greek New Testament, there are some nine 

different bearers of this name; but here it refers to the "Simon" who would later be given the 

name "Peter" by Jesus, and become the most prominent of his disciples. The name is rooted 

in the Jewish Bible at Genesis 29:33; but it may well be that its popularity in the time of 

Jesus was due to the great influence of Simon Maccabeus, who died in 135 B.C., one of the 

five brothers of Judas the Maccabee--see 1 Maccabees 2:3, 65. Also there was the earlier 

Simon, a Chief Priest, who is given extravagant praise in Ben Sirach 50, and who served from 

219-196 B.C. 

94 

The name in the accusative case, �ÁíäñÝáí, Andrean, "Andrew" is a common Greek 

name, which was taken up by the Jews as a name for their children. This fact should be 

instructive as to the nature of first century Israel's population. It has been claimed that the 

disciples of Jesus were unlearned "peasant-class" people, who could speak only one 

language--Aramaic. But it is obvious from their names that the common people of Galilee 

were at least bi-lingual, using both Hebrew (or Aramaic) and Greek names for their children. 


74

95 96 97 

the brother of Simon, throwing circular (nets) in the sea--for they were fishermen. 

94 


For all of the references to Andrew in the New Testament, see Matthew 4:18; 10:2; 

Mark 1:16, 29; 3:18; 13:3; Luke 6:14; John 1:41, 45; 6:8; 12:22, and Acts 1:13. 

France comments that “...The Greek name vAndre,aj, Andreas (and that of their 

associate Fi,lippoj, Philippos, Philip, also from Bethsaida, John 1:44...suggests a family 

open to Hellenistic influences, but this would be nothing unusual at this period in Galilee either 

(Martin Hengel, Judaism, 1.61-65, gives ample evidence of the frequency of Greek names in 

Palestine generally by this period).” (P. 95) 

95 

The genitive form of the name �ßìùí, �ßìùíïò, “of Simon,” is read by Sinaiticus, 

Vaticanus, L, Minuscules 565, 700, 892 and 2427. 

It is changed to the phrase tou/ Si,mwnoj, tou Simonos, literally “of the Simon,” by 

Alexandrinus, Delta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 1241 and many other 

Greek manuscripts. 

It is changed to read simply the genitive masculine pronoun, auvtou/, autou, “of him,” or 

“his,” by Bezae, W, Gamma, Theta, Minuscules 28, 33, 579, 1424, 2542, many other Greek 

manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin Manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac, the 

Peshitta Syriac and some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic. 

It is changed to read auvtou/ tou/ Si,monoj, autou tou Simonos, literally “of him, the 

Simon,” by K, Lectionary 2211 (see), many other Greek manuscripts and the Harclean 

Syriac. 

None of the variants change the meaning of Mark, but are attempts by later copyists 

and translators to enhance the original text. Again it is apparent that copyists and translators 

did not feel themselves bound to a literal, exact copying of the words of the original, but felt the 

freedom to slightly “edit” that text, without changing its meaning. 

Andrew does not play a prominent role in the story of Jesus; he is remembered chiefly 

as being "the brother of Simon (Peter)." In John 1:40-41, the story is told of how Andrew was 

instrumental in introducing his brother Simon to Jesus–a very important action for the future of 

the disciples of Jesus, among whom Simon (Peter) was destined to become very prominent. 

96 

See the next footnote for a definition of the accusative plural participle 

�ìöéâÜëëïíôáò, amphiballontas, literally “throwing around,” which is read by Sinaiticus, 

Vaticanus, L, Minuscule 33, and a few other Greek manuscripts. There are variant readings 

at this point. 

The phrase avmfiba,llontaj ta. di,ktua, amphiballontas ta diktua, literally “throwing 

around the nets,” is read by Bezae, Theta (see), Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, the 

first writer of 565, a few other Greek manuscripts, the entire Latin tradition (see), and the 

Peshitta Syriac. 


75

96 


The phrase ba,llontaj avmfi,blhstron, ballontas amphiblestron, literally “throwing a 

throw-around-net,” is read by Gamma, Family 1 of Minuscules (see), 579, 700 (in a different 

order of words, see), 892, 1241, 2542 (in a different order of words, see), and some other 

Greek manuscripts. 

The phrase avmfiba,llontaj avmfi,blhstron, amphiballontas amphiblestron, literally 

“throwing around a throw-around-net,” is read by Alexandrinus, W and the “Majority Text.” 

The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but represent attempts by 

later copyists and translators to explain the rather enigmatic original language of Mark, which 

simply says “throwing around.” Like those copyists and translators, we too supply an 

additional word in our translation. 

97 

Framce calls the verb avmfiba,llw, amphiballo “a shorthand term for fishing by means 

of an avmfi,blhstron, amphiblestron...the circular casting net thrown out either from the boat 

or by a man wading into the lake.” (P. 95) E. Schweizer notes that these nets had rocks tied 

to their circular edges, and thus "When thrown into the water the net is drawn together at the 

bottom and encloses the fish as in a pouch." 

Mark directs the attention of the reader to the occupation of those whom Jesus first 

called to be his disciples. They were not from the elite, "upper" classes of Israel; rather, they 

were from the common, "working-classes" of people, from among the comparatively 

insignificant, "little" people of his day. Even today, there are still people who live beside the 

Sea of Galilee, making their living through commercial fishing in Galilee's waters. 

France notes that “The addition h=san ga.r a`liei/j, esan gar halieis, ‘for they were 

fishermen,’ should be unnecessary for anyone who knows the meaning of avmfiba,llw, 

amphiballo (but perhaps some of Mark’s readers, from a more urban background, did not?); 

its inclusion serves, however, to prepare the way for the declaration of their new role as a`liei/j 

avnqrw,pwn, halieis anthropon, ‘fishermen of people.’” (P. 96) 

Wilhelm H. Wuellner’s book, The Meaning of "Fishers of Men" (Philadelphia: The 

Westminster Press, 1967), devotes more than 250 pages to a study of this theme. He has two 

chapters which discuss "Fishing in Greek and Roman Times," and "Fishing in Biblical 

Palestine." He states that “At the time Rome took over part of the Near East, fishing seems to 

have been a big business, and a profitable one...In Hellenistic [‘Greek’] times...a greater care 

is taken in the planning and executing of fishing activities; there is greater economic efficiency 

through the centralization of fishing activities into a regular, in some places, large-scale, 

industry and commerce; large capital investments were required to make this new fishing 

method possible and profitable. The tax collectors of the New Testament were such men of 

means, besides others, who provided the capital investment.” (P. 21) 

Wuellner points out how there was an ever increasing demand for fish as a staple food 

item in the expanding Hellenistic cities. "Besides bread, processed fish...was the main food 

staple for the masses in town and country alike." (P. 21) Wuellner states that there were two 


76

98 99 

1.17 And the Jesus said to them, "Come--behind me! And I will cause you to become 

97 


classes of people involved in the fishing industry. First there were the owners of boats and 

fishing equipment, who would be comparable to the land-owners; then there were the "masses 

of unskilled hired hands, working for the state or privately owned systems, who lived miserably 

in large labor-camp-like villages under tight control." (P. 22) It is of this latter class that an 

ancient Egyptian scribe states, “The fish-catcher is more miserable than any [other] 

profession.” 

It is obvious from the language of Mark 1:16-20 that at least Jacob and John came 

from the wealthier class of those who owned boats and equipment, and hired the poorer 

fishermen and sailors to work under them. We should perhaps include Simon and Andrew as 

coming from this class likewise, although nothing is said of this in the text. In a description of 

Bethsaida and Tarichaea, two small villages at the northern end of the Sea of Galilee, 

Wuellner states that Bethsaida means literally, "Fishville," or "Huntsville." “As the capital of 

Gaulanitis, the territory of the tetrarch Philip [one of Herod the Great's four sons, who, upon 

Herod's death, took over the northeastern area of his kingdom], it lay near the mouth of the 

Jordan at the north end of the Sea of Galilee, which there, shallower than elsewhere, was ‘the 

richest fishing-ground [where] the most valuable [fishing was found] on the whole lake’... 

Bethsaida, like Tiberias and Magdala on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and like most 

Palestinian coastal towns on the Mediterranean Sea, had at best a Jewish minority population 

augmented by recent immigrants invited by the respective tetrarchs to help build up industry 

and commerce for rich tax revenues...Located only a few miles away in the adjoining Galilean 

tetrarchy of Herod is Magadan or Magdala, identified by the Talmud as the ancient migdalnunaiya, 

literally, ‘Fish Tower’...and which by the Greek-speaking residents of Galilee was 

referred to as Tarichaea, derived from tarichos which means ‘processed fish.’ Delicatessen 

fish were exported from here beyond the boundaries of Palestine.” (Pp. 30-31) 

Wuellner speculates that, “...If the men, called into discipleship by Jesus away from 

their employment, were in age his contemporaries or even older, it is quite likely then for them 

to have watched from childhood on the commercial, industrial, and cultural buildup of 

Bethsaida since its beginning as Philip's capital. They may have been one of the first to 

accept the invitation Philip must have issued to Galileans and non-Jews alike to help in the 

development of the rich resources of the area for the benefit of Philip's treasury and the social, 

economic opportunity beckoning to the economic and cultural pioneers.” (P. 32). 

Thus these earliest disciples of Jesus were not called from the "upper classes" of 

Israelite society, but rather from the middle or lower classes, from among the hard-working 

people of Galilee, who were deeply involved in the fishing industry and its commerce. 

Wuellner holds that, “By comparison with the capitalistic few, the artisans, craftsmen, and 

merchants of Galilee were relatively poor. But compared with the serfs and tenants, the small 

business-man was relatively well off. Moreover, the supply and demand of staple foods and 

other commodities led to...a period of unprecedented prosperity in first-century Palestine. 

That fishermen, who traditionally had the reputation...of getting rich through their nets, shared 

in this prosperity is all the more likely, for they profited from the commercial value not only of 

regular fish as staple food for the masses of the urban population but also of delicatessen fish 

for export near and far to the tables of an affluent upper-class society through-out the Near 

Eastern provinces of the Empire.” (P. 46) 

77

98 

The adverb Äå�ôå, Deute serves as the plural form of the adverb deu/ro, deuro, which 

serves as an imperative, and means literally, “Here!” or “Hither!” It then has the effect of an 

invitation or summons, "You people come!,” or “Come on!" to the place indicated. (France, p. 

96) It is much like the call of someone to others, "Here!" Compare its use in 2 Kings 6:19; 

Matthew 11:28; 22:4; 25:34 and Mark 6:31. It is the divine command which comes to 

humanity through Jesus. “Simon and Andrew are being called to follow Jesus as their leader, 

in a relationship which went beyond merely formal learning to a full-time ‘apprenticeship.’” 

(Ibid.) 

As Luccock notes, "'Jesus came preaching, to crowds. He also came inviting [people], 

one by one." (P. 659) Anderson comments, "But Jesus is more than rabbi. He calls whom he 

chooses; the rabbi waits for disciples to seek him out. Jesus teaches not only in synagogues 

but on his travels in the fields and by the lake shore. His disciples include strange folk: 

women and children, tax collectors, and sinners, whom no rabbi would countenance." (Pp. 87- 

88) 

France is in agreement with this, stating that “It is misleading...to express this 

relationship in terms of a rabbi and his talmidim, ‘students.’ Martin Hengel has argued 

persuasively that Jesus’ call to his disciples fits the model rather of the ‘charismatic leader’ 

inaugurated by Elijah’s call of Elisha (1 Kings 19:19-21)...Rabbis did not call their followers; 

rather, the pupil adopted the teacher. Jesus’ peremptory [‘positive,’ ‘absolute’] summons, with 

its expectation of radical renunciation even of family ties, goes far beyond anything that would 

be familiar in normal society. It marks him as a prophet rather than a rabbi.” (P. 96) 

The very first thing that Jesus did, following his announcement that the Kingdom has 

drawn near [as possibility], was to issue this command, accompanied by a promise: “Come! 

And I will cause you to become fishers of people.” It is the divine command to individuals to 

enter into that Kingdom and its out-reaching (“fishing”) task side by side with him. Jesus 

began to "gather his congregation," a called out body of people ("church") that was destined to 

become the source of Good News to the ends of the earth, as Jesus and his disciples “threw 

st 

the nets of the Kingdom of God” out into the cosmopolitan society of 1 century Galilee. 

Immediately following the adverb Äå�ôå, Deute, “Come!” comes another adverb, �ðßóù, 

opiso, which we have translated "behind (me)." VOpi,sw, Opiso means, in answer to the 

question "Where?", “here” or "behind." Strangely, Jesus is pictured as using two adverbs 

together: "Here!–Behind me!" as his command / invitation to people. 

Jesus commands or calls no one to go where he himself has not first gone. If he calls 

upon his disciples to "take up a wooden execution-post and follow him," that execution-post 

has already been borne by him. If he calls his disciples to love, and forgive, and make difficult 

sacrifices for the Kingdom of God, he calls for nothing that he himself has not first 

accomplished in much greater measure. If he calls his disciples to enter into this “world-wide 

fishing expedition,” he has been the first “Great Fisher” in this universal fleet. 

No wonder that Hebrews 2:10 speaks of Jesus as the avrchgo,n, archegon, "pioneer" 

or "originator" of our faith. He is the "one who begins," the one who supplies the impetus, the 

one who walks before us in the pathway. His disciples do not need to be afraid of “not 


78

100 101 102 103 

'fishers of people.’" 1.18 And immediately, having left the nets, they followed him. 

98 


knowing how to fish”–since they have the Great Fisherman himself as their fishing-guide. He 

goes before us. Again, compare Mark 14:28 and 16:7, with their appropriate footnotes, where 

this matter of the risen Lord Jesus’ "going before" his disciples becomes of primary 

significance for the conclusion of Mark, and for the future of Jesus’ followers following his 

resurrection. 

99 

The phrase ðïéÞóù �ì�ò ãåíÝóèáé, poieso humas genesthai, means literally “I will 

make (or ‘create’) you people to become...” Jesus promises to be with his disciples, enabling 

them, equipping, “making them” into that which he calls them to become. His followers have 

to do their part, of course. But all the while, he will be working in them, enabling them. 

Compare Philippians 2:12-13. 

100 

The masculine plural accusative noun �ëéå�ò, halieis means "those who fish,” or 

“fishermen." Simon and Andrew both were "fishermen"--that is, they earned their livelihood by 

fishing in the waters of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus takes that obvious fact concerning who they 

are, and uses it as a metaphor--he will take these people, and transpose their present 

occupation into a "higher key"--instead of those who fish for fish in the Sea of Galilee, he will 

make them to become a`liei/j avnqrw,pwn, halieis anthropon, “fishermen for people” in the 

"Sea of Humanity.” 

Jesus “...Saw what others saw, men at work in fishing boats. But he saw more. He 

saw Simon and Andrew in all their potentialities, not only as they were but as they might be, 

saw them as possible forces in the kingdom of God...These words fishers of men, addressed 

to fishermen, also express the great truth that the abilities, the capacities, the personalities, 

with which men have been endowed or which they have acquired, are not to be thrown away, 

but carried into the service of God. Jesus gave to men a new goal for old powers, a new 

employment for old skills." (Luccock, pp. 657-58) 

The metaphor is striking and unusual. But from his use of this metaphor, it becomes 

obvious that Jesus is involved in a mission of "fishing for people," and he wants to enlist others 

to follow him in this great, universal task. "He called disciples to fish, to bring [people] into the 

kingdom, to save them. It was an active vocation of outreach, the skillful capturing of the lives 

of [people]. As over against other employments in the life of the Jewish religious community, 

he did not call them primarily to study, or to be rabbis and to teach, but to fish, to win [people]." 

(Luccock, p. 658) If the call to “fish for people” had selfish ends in view, i.e., catching them for 

the good of the fishermen, that would be a very different thing from what Jesus intends. He 

wants to “catch people” for the Kingdom of God, for eternal life. The “nets” are the “nets of 

heaven,” and the “catching” is only for the good of those who are caught. 

Jesus does not want his followers to be “spectators,” who simply watch the work that 

others do. He wants them to be participants, to join with Him in the great, universal task of 

reaching out to, and “catching” people for the Kingdom of God. 

As Wuellner points out, the metaphor of "fishing" was commonly used throughout the 

ancient Near East as a description of the task of kings, prophets, priests, judges, warriors, 


79

100 


shepherds, and wisdom teachers. The wise man, Socrates, "throws out his net" in his 

speaking and teaching, seeking to entrap the finest young men of Athens, and to bring them to 

truth and understanding through his teaching (see Plato's Dialogue, The Sophist). 

Wuellner holds that the picture of YHWH as a great "fisher" means that YHWH 

eventually "catches" the wicked in his great net of judgment; but that even more than that, 

YHWH reaches out to "catch" people in his mercy and love, to turn them from destruction, and 

to enable them to truly be his people. 

For this metaphor of YHWH’s “fishing for people,” and his use of others in this work, 

see Jeremiah 16:16-18, “I am now sending for many fishermen, says YHWH, and they shall 

catch them (the idolaters); and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt 

them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks. For my eyes are 

on all their ways; they are not hidden from my presence, nor is their iniquity concealed from 

my sight. And I will doubly repay their iniquity and their missing-of-the-mark, because they 

have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable idols, and have filled my 

inheritance with their abominations.” 

It is uncertain just exactly what is meant when Jesus says that he will cause his 

disciples "to become fishers of people" here in this brief “thumb-nail sketch.” But it becomes 

clear from the reading of Mark as a whole that Jesus himself is pictured as the "great fisher," 

who spends his life and ministry, reaching out to, ensnaring all who will hear his word, drawing 

them in to himself, transforming their lives by his forgiveness, teaching, and guidance into 

humble, self-giving people who can share in his mission in the world. What he intends for his 

disciples is that they too will share in his ministry, in his reaching out to people, to "catch" them 

with divine truth, and thereby to make them sharers in the Kingdom of God. As France puts it, 

“...The aim will be to gain more disciples, to rescue people from rather than catch them for 

judgment...” (P. 97) 

Wuellner discusses the possible meaning of this metaphor used by Jesus. His 

conclusion is that Jesus and the Twelve are meant to embody the "New Israel," fulfilling the 

divine task intended for the Old Israel, of being the "light of the world," and bringing YHWH's 

universal salvation to the entire world of humanity. “Jesus and his [people]-fishing partners 

represent within Israel what the true Israel, the New Israel, the Israel of God...should be, and 

always has been (not historically, but theologically, symbolically): the medium and means by 

which 'knowledge of salvation'...light and life...were to be spread to all.” (P. 157) 

101 

Once again we meet this expression êá� å�è�ò, kai euthus, "And immediately...", so 

typical of Mark's Gospel of action and immediacy. See footnotes 55, 115, 123, 148, 153, 210 

and 215. 

102 

The phrase ô� äßêôõá, ta diktua, “the nets,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 

Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, W, Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 892, 

1241,1424, 2427, 2542, Lectionary 2211, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate 

and some manuscripts of the Old Latin. 

80 

(continued...)

102 


It is changed to read ta. di,ktua auvtw/n, ta diktua auton, literally “the nets of theirs,” by 

Alexandrinus, Family 1 of Minuscules, the ”Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscripts f, l, the 

Syriac tradition, the Sahidic Coptic and some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic. 

It is changed to read ta. li,na, ta lina, “the sail-cloths,” by Minuscule 700. 

It is changed to read pa,nta, panta, “everything,” by Bezae and the majority of the Old 

Latin witnesses. 

These later variants do not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrate the freedom 

felt by later copyists and translators to slightly change the original in order to interpret and 

emphasize what they believe to be the meaning of the text. 

France comments that avfe,ntej ta. di,ktua, aphentes ta diktua, ‘leaving the nets,’ and 

still more leaving their father in verse 20, symbolizes the renunciation involved in following 

Jesus. He takes precedence over livelihood and family. In practical terms there were clearly 

limits to this renunciation, at least for some disciples: John 21:3 suggests that Simon retained 

the use of a boat and fishing tackle when occasion required (and the frequent use of a boat in 

Mark’s story suggests that someone in the group still owned one), and in verse 29 we shall 

find the house of Simon and Andrew still available for their family, and used apparently as 

Jesus’ base in Capernaum; nor did Simon sever all links with his family (1:30-31; compare 1 

Corinthians 9:5, where it is stated that he, Cephas, or Peter, was accompanied on his 

journeys by his wife), despite his sweeping claim in 10:28 (“we have left everything and 

followed you!”). But the abandonment of the nets does represent a decisive change of lifestyle; 

from now on their fishing will be of another kind.” (P. 97) 

103 

Here the verb �êïëïýèçóáí, ekolouthesan, “they followed,” is used, which means 

"to follow," "to accompany," "to go along with." This is one of the basic ways of describing 

what it truly means to be a "Christian"--it means to be one of those who "follow" Jesus, who 

become his "disciples," "students in his 'School'," "fishers for people in his world-wide fishingfleet.” 

France comments that “From now until Gethsemane Jesus appears in the narrative 

constantly accompanied by his disciples, and their training and development will be one of the 

main focuses of the story. They may, and often will, fail him and disappoint him, but their role 

is crucial to the achievement of his mission, for it is through this flawed and vulnerable group 

of people that God’s kingship will be established. And it is tracing their development as Jesus’ 

disciples, both in its successes and in its more frequent failures, that Mark will expect his 

readers to find the basis, whether by example or by warning, for their own discipleship.” (P. 

94) 

Later, France comments that “Mark gives no explanation for the ready response of 

these four men to the call of a total stranger. It is, presumably, a mark of the evxousi,a, 

eksousia, ‘authority’ of Jesus (which wil be the focus of the subsequent narrative: 1:22, 27; 

2:10) that he could make an outrageous demand without explanation and receive instant 


81

104 105 106 

1.19 And advancing a little further, he saw Jacob, the one of the Zebedee, and 

103 


obedience. But the information of the Fourth Gospel that these men had been with Jesus 

previously as members of the group around John the Baptist (John 1:35-42) in the period 

before John’s imprisonment (John 3:24) adds a further illuminating dimension.” (Pp. 97-98) 

Perkins comments on verses 16-20 that “Jesus’ first disciples are fishermen from 

Capernaum...This story depicts a divine calling, such as that of Elisha, the disciple and 

successor of the prophet Elijah, who called him away from plowing the fields (1 Kings 19:19- 

21)...The fact that these man drop both occupation and family obligations to follow the one 

who summons them demonstrates that their call comes from God. The disciples are pictured 

as prosperous enough to own houses and employ hired hands to assist in the fishing 

enterprise. In a traditional society, such a break with family and occupation is extraordinary. 

Yet, Mark indicates that Peter and Andrew left immediately to follow Jesus...If the labor of the 

sons [Jacob (‘James’) and John] was critical to the fishing enterprise in which the two families 

were engaged, then such a departure might appear to put the welfare of the whole family at 

risk...Jesus gives his disciples a share in his own mission (3:14-15; 6:7-12, 30).” (P. 539) 

It is difficult to fully agree with Perkins at this point. The fact that people drop all other 

responsibilities to follow someone who has called them does not demonstrate that their call 

comes from God. Whether that call comes from God will have to be seen in where that call 

leads them. We think of the followers of Jim Jones, or of David Koresh, who honestly felt their 

call was from God, but who were led into self-destruction as a result of following that call. Of 

course, it is quite different with those who hear and follow the call of Jesus–their lives are 

transformed into vessels of mercy and goodness, and they become the agents of God in 

building his Kingdom on earth–they are never led into self-destructive or oppressive actions. 

104 

Geulich notes that the phrase ‘proceeding a little further’ (proba.j ovli,gon, probas 

oligon) indicates proximity between the two sets of brothers and corresponds to their 

relationship as ‘partners’ (koinwnoi,, koinonoi) according to Luke 5:10.” (P. 51) 

105 

Commonly translated into English "James," the Greek name �ÉÜêùâïí, Iakobon (in 

the accusative) is the Hebrew personal name bq[y, Ya(aqobh being pronounced and written 

in Greek. In fact, there is no such name as "James" in the Greek New Testament. It is 

sometimes asked why and how the Hebrew name "Jacob" has become "James" in the 

English Bible. Can it be that this is a reflection of the influence of the "King James" dynasties 

in both Scotland and England on the English versions of the New Testament? Can this be 

another reflection of centuries of an unthinking anti-Semitism which seeks to make "Jewish" 

things more acceptable to western thinking? 

This name is of course a typical Israeli name from the first century, rooted in the Book 

of Genesis’ portrayal of Isaac’s son Jacob, whose name was changed to “Israel,” and whose 

descendants are the “Jews.” In the New Testament there are no less than six different 

individuals who wear this name "Jacob." 

82

107 108 

John, the brother of his–and (he saw) them in the boat, repairing the nets. 1.20 And 

109 110 

immediately he called them. And leaving the father of theirs, Zebedee in the boat with the 

111 112 

hired workers, they departed behind him. 

106 

The name Æåâåäáßïõ, Zebedaiou in Greek has been taken from the Hebrew name 

ydbz, Zabdi, literally “My Gift,” but also found in the forms hydbz, Zebadyah, and whydbz, 

Zebadyahu, both of which probably mean “My Gift Is YHWH,” and also in the form laydbz, 

Zabdi)el, which means “My Gift Is God.” This rather common name is found used in a 

number of passages in the Jewish Bible (see Joshua 7:1, 17, 18; Nehemiah 11:17; 1 

Chronicles 8:19; 27:27) but is only found in the New Testament with reference to this 

person, the father of Jacob and John. 

107 

The Greek name �ÉùÜííçí, Iowannen (accusative), “John,” has been taken over 

from the Hebrew name !nxwy, Yochanan, which means "YHWH Has Been Gracious." This 

common Hebrew name is found used for some thirteen different people in the Hebrew Bible, 

and there are some six different "Johns" to be found in the New Testament. 

108 

That the brothers were in the boat, repairing the nets, means that they worked at the 

hard, daily tasks of the typical "fishermen" on the Sea of Galilee. 

109 

Here again the phrase kai. euvqu,j, “and immediately,” occurs. 

110 

With the simple phrase �êÜëåóåí á�ôïýò, ekalesen autous, "(And) he called them," 

Mark pictures the beginning of their life-long pilgrimage as "disciples of Jesus." This is the 

beginning of the divine “calling” to humanity through Jesus, and those who hear and respond 

to this “call” become the “called-out body,” the “Church.” 

Dogmatic views that the church of Jesus did not begin until after his death and 

resurrection, following his coronation and sending of the Set-apart Spirit on the Day of 

Pentecost (as recorded in Acts 2), are forced to overlook or minimize this teaching of Mark 1. 

But nowhere in the New Testament is Acts 2 called “the birthday of the Church.” That 

occasion can much better be described as the great day of the Church’s “revitalization” or 

empowerment with the Spirit in a new and wonderful way–but not the time of its “birth” or “first 

existence”. Compare footnote 62 on Mark 1:10. 

111 

France comments that “The inclusion of the misqwtoi,, misthotoi, ‘hired workers’ 

further reinforces the real-life scenario; this sort of additional narrative detail, ignored by the 

other evangelists, is typical of Mark.” (P. 98) 

The fact that their father was left in the boat with the hired workers tells us something 

concerning the economic condition of these first disciples of Jesus. Often pictured as coming 

from the very lowest strata of first-century Galilean society, it may be much more realistic to 

look upon them as members of the "middle class," as coming from a family able to own its own 

boat, and able to hire others to work for them in their fishing industry. 

83 

(continued...)

111 


Luccock commented that these earliest disciples of Jesus "'...Burned their boats behind 

them,' like invaders, rendering it impossible to do anything but go on. They left no way of 

retreat open. It was not the kind of venture of which they could say, 'We will try this for a 

while, and see how it works out.' They followed. There was a finality about it." (P. 659) 

Luccock is overstating the case here--for would not the father’s industry still be there 

with the possibility of return, or at least the fishing industry in which they had worked in event 

of their father’s death? And does the text say anything about “burning their boats”? 

Nonetheless, far too many of us who claim to be disciples of Jesus in the present modern 

world have failed to "burn our bridges behind us," leaving for ourselves convenient "escape 

hatches" just in case things don't work out. These earliest disciples weren’t doing that. 

Anderson commented that these earliest disciples of Jesus "...Exchange their family 

and family ties for the new family of God...For a Church that in its mission knew about the 

renunciation of the means of subsistence and the severance of family bonds, these two brief 

'call-stories' would have been a graphic reminder of the cost of Christian discipleship." (P. 88) 

112 

The phrase �ð�ëèïí �ðßóù á�ôï�, apelthon opiso autou, “they went away after 

him,” is changed to read hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/|, ekolouthesan auto, “they followed him,” by 

Bezae, W, Minuscule 1424 and the entirety of the Latin tradition. The variant reading does 

not change the meaning of Mark, but is another example of the later copyists and translators 

feeling the freedom to slightly change the original being copied / translated, using synonyms 

for what was found in that original. 

Literally, "They departed �ðßóù, opiso, ‘after’ or ‘behind’ him." Compare footnote 98. 

It is the same adverb used there. Their leaving their former occupations, and their earlier 

relationships, to enter into a new, uncertain future, following behind or after Jesus, quickly 

became exemplary for Christian self-understanding. As Swete pointed out, the "archetype" of 

this kind of leaving all else behind to follow a new teacher is found in 1 Kings 19:19-21, in the 

story of Elisha’s following Elijah (p. 16). 

What does it mean to become a "disciple of Jesus"? It means to leave behind our 

former manner of life, and to walk out into a new and uncertain future, following the leadership 

of this same Jesus. And, as is obvious from what Jesus has said earlier to Simon and 

Andrew, it means to be caused to become "fishers of people," to have their lives and their 

former occupations "transposed into a higher key." It is to be devoutly hoped that this same 

experience can happen in our fellowship and worship in our own time--that all of us, like these 

first disciples of Jesus in the long ago, will hear his call to become "fishers of people," and step 

out quickly and boldly to follow him wherever he leads. What about you in your life? Will you 

follow where he leads you? 

84

PRAYER 

Lord Jesus, the little country town of Frisco has suddenly grown up, all around us. In 

fact, Frisco has become our “Sea of Galilee,” with thousands and thousands of new residents, 

living all around us, coming here to find new lives, ready to put down new roots in this 

community. 

And You have called us in this congregation to become “fishers of people.” That’s the 

way your Church has always been built–when people hear Your call to “Come–and follow 

You,” and as you cause them to become Your agents in reaching out to others. We are not 

sent to “catch” people for our own advantage, to use or abuse them in any way. You want us 

to “catch” people for the Kingdom of God, in order for them to be enriched and blessed by 

knowing You and Your way of life. You are offering to be their King, their High Priest, with full 

forgiveness for every sin; You are giving them a new reason and purpose in life, something 

that will transform their lives in the most meaningful way possible. You are imparting 

life–eternal life–that conquers the fear of death. 

Lord Jesus, we pray today that You will work in our lives, and in the life of this church-causing 

us to become effective “fishers of people.” Teach us how to love others–even those 

who differ greatly from us. Give us countenances that radiate Your love and acceptance. 

Touch our tongues, giving us the ability to speak in such a way as to win others to Your 

Kingdom. Especially, Lord, guide us into such a life-style that we will never cause others who 

know us best, and see our actions, to be turned away from Your Kingdom. 

Help us, Lord Jesus, to make Central Christian Church a fishing vessel, with every one 

of us throwing out our nets into the sea of Frisco and its environs. Overcome our timidity, our 

shyness; give us boldness to speak of You in loving ways to our neighbors and friends. O 

Lord, make us to become “fishers of people”! Amen. 

Benediction: Lord Jesus, as we leave this place of worship, let us go out into our world 

to continue our worship, as we reach out to our neighbors and friends, fishing for them, to 

catch them for you in the nets of the Kingdom of God! What a benediction it will be for each of 

us, if we can reach out to one new person during this coming week, to share with them our 

faith, and to welcome them into Your Kingdom! So be it! 

85

ONE FULL DAY IN THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 

Mark 1:21-38 

Teaching in the Synagogue in Capernaum, 

bringing cleansing and freedom to human hearts; 

when church is over, the ministry continues: 

healing ministry, private devotion, and expanding mission 


1.21 Êá� å�óðïñåýïíôáé å�ò Êáöáñíáïýì� êá� å�è�ò ôï�ò óÜââáóéí [å�óåëè�í] å�ò ô�í 

óõíáãùã�í �äßäáóêåí. 1.22 êá� �îåðëÞóóïíôï �ð� ô� äéäá÷� á�ôï�� í ã�ñ äéäÜóêùí á�ôï�ò 

�ò �îïõóßáí �÷ùí êá� ï�÷ �ò ï� ãñáììáôå�ò. 

1.21 And they enter into Capernaum. And immediately on the Day of Rest [having 

entered] into the synagogue, he was teaching. 1.22 And they were being amazed at his 

teaching, for he was teaching them like one having authority, and not like the religious experts. 

1.23 êá� å�è�ò �í �í ô� óõíáãùã� á�ô�í �íèñùðïò �í ðíåýìáôé �êáèÜñô� êá� 

�íÝêñáîåí 1.24 ëÝãùí, Ôß �ì�í êá� óïß, �Éçóï� ÍáæáñçíÝ� �ëèåò �ðïëÝóáé �ì�ò� ï�äÜ óå ôßò 

å�, � �ãéïò ôï� èåï�. 1.25 êá� �ðåôßìçóåí á�ô� � �Éçóï�ò ëÝãùí, Öéìþèçôé êá� �îåëèå �î 

á�ôï�. 1.26 êá� óðáñÜîáí á�ô�í ô� ðíå�ìá ô� �êÜèáñôïí êá� öùí�óáí öùí� ìåãÜë� 

�î�ëèåí �î á�ôï�. 

1.23 And immediately there was being in the gathering-place of theirs a person with an 

unclean spirit. And he cried out 1.24 saying, "What do we have in common, Jesus, you 

Nazarene? You came to destroy us. I know you, who you are--the Set-apart One of the God." 

1.25 And the Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Shut up! And come out, out of him." 1.26 And 

convulsing him, and crying out with a loud voice, the unclean spirit came out, out of him. 

1.27 êá� �èáìâÞèçóáí �ðáíôåò �óôå óõæçôå�í ðñ�ò �áõôï�ò ëÝãïíôáò, Ôß �óôéí ôï�ôï� 

äéäá÷� êáéí� êáô� �îïõóßáí� êá� ôï�ò ðíåýìáóé ôï�ò �êáèÜñôïéò �ðéôÜóóåé, êá� �ðáêïýïõóéí 

á�ô�. 1.28 êá� �î�ëèåí � �êï� á�ôï� å�è�ò ðáíôá÷ï� å�ò �ëçí ô�í ðåñß÷ùñïí ô�ò Ãáëéëáßáò. 

1.27 And they were astonished, everyone, so that they argued with one another, 

saying, "What is this? A new teaching, with authority. He even gives orders to the unclean 

spirits, and they obey him." 1.28 And his fame immediately went out everywhere, into the 

whole surrounding country of the Galilee. 

1.29 Êá� å�è�ò �ê ô�ò óõíáãùã�ò �îåëèüíôåò �ëèïí å�ò ô�í ï�êßáí �ßìùíïò êá� 

�ÁíäñÝïõ ìåô� �Éáêþâïõ êá� �ÉùÜííïõ. 1.30 � ä� ðåíèåñ� �ßìùíïò êáôÝêåéôï ðõñÝóóïõóá, 

êá� å�è�ò ëÝãïõóéí á�ô� ðåñ� á�ô�ò. 1.31 êá� ðñïóåëè�í �ãåéñåí á�ô�í êñáôÞóáò ô�ò 

÷åéñüò� êá� �ö�êåí á�ô�í � ðõñåôüò, êá� äéçêüíåé á�ôï�ò. 

1.29 And immediately, coming out of the synagogue, they came into the house of 

Simon and Andrew, with Jacob and John. 1.30 Now then the mother-in-law of Simon was 

lying down, having a fever. And immediately they speak to him concerning her. 1.31 And 

approaching, he raised her, having taken hold by the hand. And the fever left her, and she 

was ministering to them. 

86

1.32 �Ïøßáò ä� ãåíïìÝíçò, �ôå �äõ � �ëéïò, �öåñïí ðñ�ò á�ô�í ðÜíôáò ôï�ò êáê�ò 

�÷ïíôáò êá� ôï�ò äáéìïíéæïìÝíïõò� 1.33 êá� �í �ëç � ðüëéò �ðéóõíçãìÝíç ðñ�ò ô�í èýñáí. 

1.34 êá� �èåñÜðåõóåí ðïëëï�ò êáê�ò �÷ïíôáò ðïéêßëáéò íüóïéò êá� äáéìüíéá ðïëë� �îÝâáëåí 

êá� ï�ê �öéåí ëáëå�í ô� äáéìüíéá, �ôé �äåéóáí á�ôüí. 

1.32 But then evening having come, when the sun went down, they were bringing to 

him all the ones being sick and the demon-possessed. 1.33 And the whole city was already 

being gathered together at the door. 1.34 And he healed many being sick with various 

diseases, and he cast out many demons, and he was not allowing the demons to speak, 

because they had recognized him. 

1.35 Êá� ðñùú� �ííõ÷á ëßáí �íáóô�ò �î�ëèåí êá� �ð�ëèåí å�ò �ñçìïí ôüðïí ê�êå� 

ðñïóçý÷åôï. 1.36 êá� êáôåäßùîåí á�ô�í �ßìùí êá� ï� ìåô� á�ôï�, 1.37 êá� å�ñïí á�ô�í êá� 

ëÝãïõóéí á�ô� �ôé ÐÜíôåò æçôï�óßí óå. 1.38 êá� ëÝãåé á�ôï�ò, �Áãùìåí �ëëá÷ï� å�ò ô�ò 

�÷ïìÝíáò êùìïðüëåéò, �íá êá� �êå� êçñýîù� å�ò ôï�ôï ã�ñ �î�ëèïí. 

1.35 And very early in the night, having arisen, he went out and departed into a desert 

place, and there he was praying. 1.36 And Simon, and those who were with him, hunted him 

down, 1.37 and they found him. And they say to him that, "All (people) are seeking you." 1.38 

And he says to them, "Let us go elsewhere, into the neighboring market-towns, in order that I 

may proclaim there also. For in order to do this I came out." 


113 

Before going on with this study, please ask yourself the following questions: 

1. What has modern archaeology revealed concerning first-century Capernaum? 

Describe the main findings of the Franciscan archaeologists there. 

2. Verse 21 has words placed in brackets in our translation, indicating that ancient 

manuscripts have variant readings at this point. What does this mean? How certain can we 

be today concerning the text of Mark? 

3. What about the ancient synagogue that has been uncovered by archaeologists in 

Capernaum. What is its date? Did Jesus go to synagogue service on the Jewish Sabbath, or 

seventh-day of rest? Did he share in its worship? Did Jesus act any differently on the seventh 

day than he did every other day? 

4. Why were the Jewish worshipers in the synagogue "astonished" or "amazed" at the 

teaching of Jesus? What was the difference between his teaching and the teaching of the 

Jewish religious experts? 

5. What does the word "spirit" mean? What is an "unclean spirit"? Do you believe in 

"spirits," especially in "unclean spirits"? Can you be a devout Christian and not believe in such 

things? What about "ghosts," and the "Holy Ghost"? What does the Bible mean by the "Holy 

Spirit"? What is the “Good News” of Mark concerning "spirits," especially concerning "unclean 

spirits"? These questions are of great importance for modern understanding of Mark. Can we 

87 

(continued...)

113 


believe Mark's message, if we no longer accept Mark's "psychology" (or "pneumatology" i.e., 

teaching concerning spirits)? 

6. What does the strange shift from plural to singular in the language of this person 

with an unclean spirit indicate? 

7. Many a modern reader is deeply troubled by Mark's pointed references to persons 

with "unclean spirits." They would rather that Mark had left this element out of its story. What 

happens to the "Good News" when the unclean spirits are left out? Notice should be taken 

that whereas the phrase "unclean spirit" occurs eleven times in Mark, it occurs only five times 

in Luke, two times in Matthew, and never in John (twice in Acts; twice in Revelation; 

nowhere else). Has John told the same "Good News" without mentioning "unclean spirits"? 

8. What does Mark say concerning the content of Jesus' teaching? Does it separate 

between deed and word? 

9. Does Mark commit the "all fallacy" in this brief vignette, or "thumb-nail sketch" as it 

seeks to inform us concerning the ministry of Jesus? 

10. When Jesus left the synagogue service, did his "service" end? 

11. Was Simon married? Did he own a home? Was it a prominent home? Where 

was it located, according to the Franciscan archaeologists in modern Capernaum? What 

exciting discoveries have they made concerning Simon's house, and the later house-church 

that it became? 

12. Is Mark picturing Jesus as a "Great Physician"? What is the task of those who 

have received his healing? 

13. We have struggled with Mark's description of the "unclean spirits." Now, we read 

Mark's description of people who are "demon-possessed." Again, this language greatly 

troubles modern readers. What about yourself? Do you believe in "demons," and in "demonpossession"? 

When your child suffers from something akin to epilepsy, do you call for an 

exorcist, or take the child to a medical doctor? What are the real "demons" that plague our 

world today? Are they little black winged creatures that fly into our nostrils and plant eggs of 

evil in our stomachs? Mark mentions demons some 16 times; Matthew has about the same 

number; Luke has some 24 mentions; but surprisingly, the Gospel of John does not mention 

the demons at all--except where the Jews accuse Jesus of having a "demon." What does this 

mean? Can you tell the "Good News" without mentioning the "demons"? Obviously John 

thought you could. What do you think? 

14. Did Jesus limit his ministry to Jewish synagogues (or ‘gathering-places’), one day in 

seven? Or rather, was his ministry an everyday, every place affair? What does this mean 

concerning the ministry of the Christian Churches in our time? 

88 

(continued...)

113 


15. What does Mark tell us about the ministry in which we should be engaged in our 

modern world? 

16. What kind of "mission and ministry" was Jesus involved in? What have been the 

out-workings of that wonderful ministry and mission begun in Galilee by Jesus in the days of 

his flesh? And what have been the out-workings of that mission and ministry as the risen Lord 

has accompanied his disciples in the continuation of that Galilean ministry to the ends of the 

earth? How would you describe it? 

France comments on 1:21-38 that “This short collection of scenes in and around 

Capernaum is apparently constructed within the framework of a single twenty-four hour 

period...This ‘day in Capernaum’ combines within it all the main features of Jesus’ Galilean 

ministry...It thus forms a graphic overview of the general character of that ministry.” (Pp. 98- 

99) We agree, and outline the ministry of Jesus as follows: 

1. There is powerful teaching in the public place of worship, but the kind of teaching 

that is far more than just words–the teaching of Jesus is “with authority,” and it casts out the 

evils that afflict human lives (verses 21-27). That’s why the followers of Jesus have always 

been “teachers,” deeply interested in the education of humanity, building schools, and 

colleges, and universities wherever they have gone, and doing everything in their power to 

cast out the evils that afflict human beings, believing that the truth of the Good News will 

overcome everything false or misleading. 

Yes, Jesus cast out the demonic forces that possess and pervert human life, 

accomplishing what the Torah of Moses and the Levitical Priesthood of Israel were unable to 

accomplish. That’s why his disciples have been unafraid to confront any and every evil force 

in history–from mental illness to demonic possession, from leprosy to AIDS, from Nazi myths 

of Aryan Supremacy to the similar claims of the Ku Klux Klan or the Black Muslims, from the 

worship of the Devil to the proud intellectual claims of Atheism, claiming the cleansing and 

forgiveness that knows no limits, and that can transform the most hopeless of human beings 

into the cleansed, forgiven people of God. 

2. There is healing, that goes on in the homes as well as in public. Jesus is depicted 

by Mark as the “Great Physician,” who has come to reach out to all who are sick and suffering, 

whether from severe forms of mental illness, or dominating addictions, or any type of disease 

that plagues human beings. Jesus healed the sick of all sorts of sickness and disease. That’s 

why his disciples have gone out into all the world, committing themselves to a battle to the 

finish, not only against all demonic possession, but also against every kind of sickness and 

disease, believing that God wants health for all his people, and that what Jesus devoted his 

life to, they also should devote their lives to. 

That’s why, wherever the followers of Jesus have gone, they have built clinics and 

hospitals and centers of healing and health, seeking to do all in their power to bring 

both physical and mental healing to the nations. What a ministry! 

89 

(continued...)

114 115 116 

1.21 And they enter into Capernaum. And immediately on the Day of Rest 

113 


3. There is prayer, that causes Jesus to depart from the crowds into a deserted place, 

to enter into communion with God. Mark lets his readers know that Jesus depended upon 

God constantly in prayer, at the very time of his busiest teaching and healing, and at a time 

when his popularity was soaring. That’s why the followers of Jesus have built chapels, altars, 

and centers of worship wherever they have gone, depending upon prayer and communion with 

God as the source of their power as they have gone out on their “fishing mission,” bringing 

teaching and healing to the nations. 

It is crucially important that the nations of the earth be taught, and that the evil forces 

that afflict them be cast out. But it is even more important that the nations of the earth get 

their lives in touch with God and his purposes. 

4. There is constantly expanding outreach, that goes beyond present successes, 

with the earnest desire to reach still others. It would have been easy enough for Jesus to just 

have settled down in Capernaum, where he was being so well received, and people were 

coming from all directions, bringing people to share in his cleansing and healing. Both the 

people of Capernaum, and Jesus’ own band of followers thought that was the only wise thing 

to do. But Jesus’ eyes were set on something far greater and larger than that. He wanted to 

reach all the people of Galilee–and ultimately all the peoples of the earth, with the good news 

of the Kingdom of God and its rich benefits. That’s what he had “come out” for–that’s what he 

wanted to accomplish. 

All of this happened in that one twenty-four hour period that began when Jesus and his 

band of followers entered into the gathering-place in Capernaum. And in the work of Jesus on 

that one day, we begin to understand what Mark means by the "Good News,” and the 

“coming of the Kingdom of God." We no longer have to wait for some distant future in longing, 

deferred hope. Already the hoped-for future has drawn near as possibility. The Kingdom of 

God is already, here and now, breaking into our present world, into our own lives, offering us 

powerful, authoritative teaching, that leads to the casting out of all evil; it offers us healing and 

health, its cleansing and wholeness of mind and body, and a vibrant relationship with God. It 

calls us to mission, beyond our boundaries, to the ends of the earth. That’s the ministry of 

Jesus, and of all who choose to follow him. What a powerful ministry! 

114 

France notes that “The framework of this pericope [verses 21-28] is a sabbath visit to 

the synagogue, where Jesus’ teaching leaves the congregation amazed by his evxousi,a, 

eksousia, ‘authority,’ so that his reputation spreads far and wide...Teaching and exorcism 

seem to be interdependent aspects of that evxousi,a, eksousia, ‘authority’...” (P. 100) 

The name of the town, Êáöáñíáïýì, Kapharnaoum, is spelled in this way by 

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, W, Delta, Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 

565, 700, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the entire Latin tradition, some manuscripts of 

the Sahidic Coptic, the Bohairic Coptic and Origen (who died 254 A.D.). It is spelled 

Kapernaou,m, Kapernaoum by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Family 1 of 

Minuscules, and the Majority Text. The original spelling is closer to the Hebrew, and the later 

90 

(continued...)

114 


spelling reflects a lack of appreciation for this Semitic original, Kephar Nachum, “Village of 

Nachum.” 

The plural "they" refers to Jesus and the four fishermen who have just been called to 

follow Jesus beside the Sea of Galilee. As France notes, “The newly gathered ‘Jesus circle’ 

already operates as a defined group, so that the plural verb eivsporeu,ontai, eisporeuontai, 

‘they enter,’ needs no expressed subject.” (P. 101) The first thing they do after leaving their 

jobs to follow Jesus, is to go to church. 

Capernaum was a small village located on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. 

France notes that Capernaum “was a significant lakeside settlement, sufficiently important to 

have a detachment of Roman troops (Matthew 8:5-13), a customs post (Mark 2:14), and a 

resident official described as basiliko,j, basilikos, ‘royal’ (John 4:46). Its population at the 

time may have been as high as 10,000...” (P. 101) 

Today, directly to the west of Capernaum is a small forest of eucalyptus trees; a short 

distance to the northwest is the "Mount of the Beatitudes," the traditional site of the Sermon on 

the Mount. Capernaum and its environs hold fond memories for Christian pilgrims, who view 

this area as the site of much of the ministry of Jesus. The site has been extensively studied 

by Franciscan archaeologists. Its ancient ruins include one of the most well preserved ancient 

synagogues in all of Israel. 

Just south of the ancient (fourth century A.D.) two-storied synagogue, archaeologists 

have uncovered the remains of an octagonal house-church, which may well have been the 

house of Simon (Peter), and which later came to be used as a Christian Church (see footnote 

152 on Mark 1:29). There are numerous relics of the ancient village, including masonry from 

an earlier synagogue, and all sorts of stone implements such as flour mills and oil-presses that 

were built, sold, and used by the ancient inhabitants of Capernaum. 

115 

The phrase å�óðïñåýïíôáé å�ò Êáöáñíáïýì� êá� å�è�ò, eisporeuontai eis 

Kapharnaoum, kai euthus, literally “they are entering into Capernaum; and immediately...” is 

omitted by the Sinaitic Syriac. We see no reason for this omission of the location of Jesus’ 

ministry, and consider it simply a mistake on the part of these translators. 

Once again we hear this "vocabulary of immediacy" (êá� å�è�ò, kai euthus, “and 

immediately”) which is so common to Mark's Gospel (occurring some 40 times). 

116 

Strangely, the phrase in Greek, ôï�ò óÜââáóéí, tois sabbasin, can be translated "on 

the Days of Rest," as if this were referring to numerous occasions on which Jesus regularly 

went into the synagogue. But this "plural sounding" Greek word is meant to refer to the 

singular "Day of Rest" or "Sabbath" of the Jews. The phrase in Hebrew, tbvh ~wy, yom 

hashabbath means “the day of rest"; while the noun by itself, tbv, shabbath, simply means 

“rest,” or "cessation," and can refer either to a regular weekly day that is set aside for "rest," or 

to a monthly festival, or even to an entire year that is so used. The Greek translation of this 

noun (in the accusative) is normally ô�í �ìÝñáí ô�í óáââÜôùí, ten hemeran ton sabbaton, 


91

117 118 119 

[having entered] into the synagogue, he was teaching. 1.22 And they were being 

116 


literally “the day of the rests,” or perhaps “the day of the weeks.” Here Mark uses the phrase 

ôï�ò óÜââáóéí, tois sabbasin, literally “on the rests,” and it may be that the plural is used 

instead of the singular because of a failure to understand the meaning of the plural !wtbv, 

shabbaton in Hebrew. Compare 1 Maccabees 2:38, where this same phrase ôï�ò óÜââáóéí, 

tois sabbasin occurs, referring to a particular Day of Rest. 

117 

Some early Greek manuscripts of Mark leave out these words "having entered," while 

other manuscripts contain them. But there are other variations in the Greek manuscripts at 

this point, and it makes the reading of this second sentence in verse 21 at least somewhat 

uncertain. See footnote 119 for the textual evidence. 

118 

The ancient synagogue at Capernaum which has been excavated extensively by 

modern archaeologists is an impressive building, built upon a man-made platform in the most 

prominent location in the ancient town. The roofs of the ancient houses that have been 

excavated on its eastern and southern sides hardly reached up as high as the level of the 

stone pavement of the synagogue itself, which stood in an imposing location, overlooking the 

town. The building was composed of two main parts--the synagogue proper, or prayer hall on 

the west, with its center of worship facing towards the south, towards Jerusalem. Then there 

was a courtyard to the east, along with a storeroom. Within the synagogue proper, there was 

a central nave, flanked by two rows of columns, which meant that there were two side aisles. 

Along the west and east sides of the synagogue were stone benches upon which those 

attending could sit. This ancient synagogue has been dated at a time at least two centuries or 

more after the time of Jesus, and is therefore not the same synagogue into which Jesus 

entered--although it can at least tell us something about the shape of the kind of "church 

building" which Jesus himself attended. Modern archaeology has determined that this 

synagogue was built upon the same foundation as was the earlier one from the time of Jesus. 

Perhaps we should think in terms of an earlier, probably simpler building, in approximately the 

same location. See the footnotes on Mark 1:29, for further information concerning ancient 

Capernaum. 

Luccock points out that by this statement, Mark pictures Jesus' "...habit of worship and 

the deep way in which he shared in the religious heritage of Israel." (P. 660) Swete notes that 

"The synagogue teaching of Christ seems to have been characteristic of the earlier part of His 

ministry: we hear no more of it after Mark 6:2." (P. 17) But later, in the Book of Acts, we will 

see Luke’s depiction of the expanding ministry throughout Asia Minor and into Greece as 

almost without exception beginning with teaching in the Jewish synagogues that were located 

throughout those areas. 

119 

The phrase å�óåëè�í å�ò ô�í óõíáãùã�í �äßäáóêåí, eiselthon eis ten sunagogen 

edidasken, “having entered (or, ‘entering’) into the gathering-place [‘synagogue’], he was 

teaching,” is read by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, W, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33 

(with a different word-order), 2427, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscript t and the 

Harclean Syriac. Bezae, Theta, Minuscule 700, the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin 

manuscripts and the Harclean Syriac (with markings to indicate the reading was not found in 


92

120 121 

amazed at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not like 

119 


the exemplar being followed) have the additional word auvtou,j, autous, i.e., “he was teaching 

them.” The phrase is read in a different order, �äßäáóêåí å�ò ô�í óõíáãùã�í, edidasken eis 

ten sunagogen “he was teaching in(to) the gathering-place,” by the first writer of Sinaiticus 

(see; the verb is read evdi,daxen, edidaksen, obviously a mistake), Ephraemi Rescriptus (with 

a different word-order), L, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, a few other Greek 

manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac (see), some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and Origen 

(who died 254 A.D.). It is changed to read eivj th.n sunagwgh.n auvtw/n evdi,dasken, eis ten 

sunagogen auton edidasken, “in(to) the gathering-place of theirs he was teaching,” by Delta, 

Minuscule 892 (see) and the Peshitta Syriac (see). The variant readings do not change the 

meaning of Mark, but there may have been a problem in the primitive text at this point, which 

the later copyists and translators have dealt with in their own manner. 

120 

The verb �äßäáóêåí, edidasken (see the preceding footnote) is in the "imperfect" tense, 

meaning a continuous action--not "he taught," but "he was teaching." Once again Mark uses 

the "imperfect" tense, �îåðëÞóóïíôï, ekseplessonto, not "they were amazed," but "they were 

being amazed (i.e., again and again)." By the use of the imperfect tenses, Mark wants the 

readers to know that this was a customary matter with Jesus, not simply a "one time event." 

Mark emphasizes that there was something completely out of the ordinary, something 

marvelous and astounding, about the teaching of Jesus. This is the first of many statements 

in Mark's Gospel that point to this characteristic of Jesus and his message--and we may well 

conclude that Mark means that a divine self-revelation was occurring in Jesus and his word. 

See Mark 16:5 and 8 with their footnotes. Compare also Mark 11:18. 

Anderson states, "...The fact that Mark uses this verb five times, and other words 

expressing amazement very frequently...indicates that it is not merely a historical 

reminiscence, but a favorite theological motif of the Evangelist's. As the one in whose 

teaching God's power is breaking through and new miracles are happening...Jesus must 

evoke astonishment." (P. 90) 

Mark uses a number of different words to describe the astonishment, amazement, and 

trembling fear that accompanied the teaching and deeds of Jesus: "to be amazed, overwhelmed" 

(�îåðëÞóóïíôï, ekseplessonto), 1:22; 6:2; 7:37; 10:26; 11:18; "to wonder, 

marvel" (�èáýìáæïí, ethaumazon), 5:20; 15:5, 44; "to wonder greatly" (�îåèáýìáæïí, 

eksethaumazon), 12:17; "to be astounded" (�èáìâÞèçóáí, ethambethesan), 1:27; 10:24, 

32; "to be astounded out [i.e., of one's senses]" (�îåèáìâÞèçóáí, eksethambethesan), 9:15; 

"to be amazed" (�îßóôáóèáé, eksistasthai), 2:12; 5:42; 6:51; compare "to be afraid, become 

frightened" (�öïâÞèçóáí, ephobethesan), 4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:32; 10:32; 11:18; and 

"terrified" (�êöïâïé, ekphoboi), 9:6. 

In the light of all these words, there can be no doubt that Mark intends to characterize 

the response to Jesus' teaching and actions in terms of amazement, wonder, astonishment, 

and trembling awe--as Bertram in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (III, p. 6) 

stated, "The expressions of fear and astonishment therefore serve to emphasize the 


93

the religious experts. 122 


revelational content and thus the Christological meaning of numerous Synoptic scenes of 

Jesus." 

Lane comments that "Jesus' word, presented with a sovereign authority which permitted 

neither debate nor theoretical reflection, confronted the congregation with the absolute claim 

of God upon their whole person. Jesus' teaching recalled the categorical demand of the 

prophets rather than scribal tradition...In contrast with rabbinic exposition, with its reference to 

the tradition of the elders, here was prophecy. The authority with which Jesus spoke 

presupposes a commission and authorization from God inseparable from the proclamation of 

the kingdom drawn near." (Pp. 72-73) And that teaching was far more than just words–it 

included dynamic action, in confronting the evil forces that plague human beings, and casting 

them out. There is more to the religion of Jesus than just talk–it involves dynamic action, 

getting involved in the overthrow of the evil forces that so devastate our fellowmen. 

France comments that “...The general statement that his evxousi,a, eksousia, ‘authority’ 

differentiated his teaching from that of the grammatei/j, grammateis, literally ‘writers,’ 

[‘religious experts,’ see footnote 122] suggests that he is already expressing some of the 

radical ideas, boldly contradicting accepted halakhic [Jewish rabbinic traditional] teaching, 

which will appear later in relation to e.g., the sabbath (2:23-3:6), the purity laws (7:1-23), or 

divorce (10:2-12). Grammatei/j, grammateis will be mentioned frequently in the gospel, 

almost always as opposed to Jesus (and from 8:31) linked with the presbu,teroi 

[presbuteroi, ‘elders,’ ‘officials’] kai. avrcierei/j [kai archiereis, ‘and ruling priests’] to form the 

group who brought about his death...They represent the old regime, challenged by the fresh 

new teaching of Jesus...” (P. 102) 

121 

Anderson points out that "Mark lays great emphasis on the fact that Jesus taught. The 

verb is used of him sixteen times in the Gospel, and on eleven occasions he is described as 

'teacher.' In comparison with the other Gospels, however, Mark records relatively very little of 

the actual content of Jesus' teaching...Perhaps above all [Mark] wanted to show that when 

Jesus taught, things did not stay as they were, but God himself was on the move against all 

evil forces of the world." (P. 89) 

France notes that “Mark uses dida,skw, didasko, ‘teach’ (verses 21, 22) and didach,, 

didache, ‘teaching’ (verses 22, 27) to describe Jesus’ typical activity (and dida,skaloj, 

didaskalos, ‘teacher’ as a title for him) more often than the other gospels, despite their 

greater length, and whereas Matthew and Luke allow Jesus to be addressed as dida,skale, 

didaskale (or ràbbi,, rabbi) only by outsiders (and Judas). Mark includes the title freely as 

one appropriate for Jesus’ disciples to use. Teaching is therefore clearly for Mark an essential 

part of Jesus’ messianic mission, and one which is uniquely appropriate to him.” (Pp. 101-02) 

122 

"The religious experts" is a translation of the Greek, ï� ãñáììáôå�ò, hoi grammateis, 

which means literally, "the scribes," or "the writers." In Greek society, this noun was used to 

describe "secretaries" or "clerks" who held high office in the Greek city-states. But among the 

Jews of the first century, it meant "experts in Jewish law," or "scholars well-versed in the laws 


94

123 

1.23 And immediately there was being in the synagogue of theirs a person with an 


of Israel." They, together with the high priests and elders formed the "Sanhedrin," the highest 

legal body in Israel. 

It is their writings and traditional sayings and rules that have been recorded in the 

Jewish Mishnah. Their teaching is largely legalistic in nature; it is centered in the laws and 

rules that should govern Israelite society. Their teaching is of a traditional nature--it involves 

quoting other teachers and authorities out of the past, and making fine, legal distinctions for 

the many different problems and changing situations faced by orthodox Jews. The 

"Pharisees" or "Separatists" formed the large group of Jewish people who dedicated 

themselves to the fulfillment and embodiment of the legal traditions handed down by these 

"religious experts." 

The "authority" of the religious experts was a derived authority, one that rested upon a 

traditional body of teaching that had been handed down from one generation to another. The 

"authority" of Jesus, by contrast, was an "immediate" authority, one that inhered in him 

personally--in who he was. Instead of quoting the traditions and commandments of others, 

Jesus displays the personal authority to command--he exhibits an unrestricted right to speak; 

his word is powerful and both demands and deserves obedience on the part of those who 

hear. It is far more than just “words.” It is active in driving out all evil forces. Those who 

heard Jesus teaching recognized a much higher, a "King-like" or "God-like" sovereignty in his 

words. Of course, for Mark, Jesus was indeed a "King," and his teaching corresponded to his 

nature--he taught with royal, divine authority, that would endure no evil. 

Mark means, then, that Jesus has a divinely given power and authority to act and to 

teach. His power and authority are not derived from others; he is not dependent upon 

traditional teachings, or upon the "sayings of the fathers." He is "The Anointed One," and the 

"Lord"--who teaches all who hear him with divine authority. Those hearing him, and watching 

his actions, could clearly see the difference between Jesus, with his Lordly, authoritative 

teaching that simply and openly declared the truth, and did what the truth demands–without 

resort to quotation of rabbinic authorities, and without the tangled web of reasoning so often 

found in the teaching of the rabbis. 

Werner Foerster states, "This is to be understood in the light of the current feeling that 

there were no longer any prophets. Rabbinic exposition [that is, the teaching of the religious 

experts] was simply exposition and not prophecy, i.e., it did not speak with direct authority, with 

�îïõóßá, eksousia [the Greek noun used here in Mark 1:22 and 27]. VExousia, eksousia (= 

twvr, reshuth [the Hebrew equivalent of �îïõóßá, eksousia, also meaning ‘authority’]) 

presupposes a divine commission and authorization which is also power, and the special 

feature in this �îïõóßá, eksousia is that it is inseparable from the proclamation that the 

kingdom of God is near. With the presence of the Bearer of this authority, of this power to 

heal and to forgive sins, the kingdom is also present." (Theological Dictionary of the New 

Testament II, p. 569) 

95

124 125 126 

unclean spirit. And he cried out 1.24 saying, "What do we have in common, Jesus, you 

123 

Here again Mark’s common phrase kai. euvqu.j, kai euthus, “and immediately” occurs. 

The second word in this phrase, euvqu,j, euthus, “immediately,” is omitted by Alexandrinus, 

Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, W, Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules, the ”Majority Text,” the 

entire Latin tradition and the Syriac tradition. The word is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, 

Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 579, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Coptic 

tradition and Origen (who died 254 A.D.). The omission does not change the meaning of 

Mark. But the evidence is so evenly divided that a decision as to whether the word was found 

in the original, or is a latter addition to the original text, is difficult to make. 

124 

What does Mark mean by "a person with (or ‘in’) an unclean spirit"? France comments 

that “Mark uses pneu/ma avka,qarton, pneuma akatharton and daimo,nion, daimonion with 

equal frequency, and clearly as synonyms (see 6:7 with 13; 7:25 with 26); pneu/ma avka,qarton, 

pneuma akatharton corresponds to the term ruach tum)a, used frequently in rabbinic 

writings in the same sense (compare Zechariah 13:2 ha'Þm.Juh; x;Wr, ruach hattume)ah).” 

(P. 103) 

The Greek phrase �í ðíåýìáôé �êáèÜñô�, en pneumati akatharto, literally, “in a spirit 

unclean," because of the multitude of different meanings that can be given to the noun 

��u/m�, pneuma, can be translated in a variety of ways. The noun ��u/m�, pneuma can 

mean "wind," or "breath," or the "spiritual part" of a human being, in contrast to the fleshly, 

material part. In this last sense, it refers to the inner life of a person, the source of insight, 

feeling, and will, the “innermost being.” P��u/m�, pneuma can be used with reference to God 

himself, as a mysterious "Spiritual Being" in contrast to "physical beings" that can be perceived 

by the physical senses, and that are limited to specific times and places, as God the Spirit is 

not. In a related way, the word can refer to both good and evil "spiritual beings," such as 

heavenly messengers and hellish "demons." 

Because of the nature of this word ��u/m�, pneuma, there is always an element of 

uncertainty in our minds when dealing with it. We are rarely exactly sure how to translate it. 

But beyond the problems of translation, the fact is, we are always involved in a mysteriously 

difficult matter when we seek to describe the "interior life" of human beings, let alone of the 

divine. We speak of the "spirit" of a group; or of the "spirit" leaving the body at death. We 

speak of God's "Spirit" as being present with us; and we also speak of a "spirit of evil" that 

surrounds and overwhelms peoples and situations. We speak of the "Set-apart Spirit" being 

present in certain unique experiences, or deep within our hearts. 

But all of these expressions, by their very nature, are intangible and mysterious, as well 

as being difficult to describe precisely. That is why we use this word ��u/m�, pneuma, or 

"spirit." It is the kind of word that is fitted to describe that which is mysterious and intangible, 

but nonetheless experienced and real. When we use this kind of language, we are confessing 

our conviction that there is more to reality than just what "meets the eye," more than simply 

"matter in motion." There is a divine Spirit, a supernatural power and intelligence that we 

sense in our religious experience. There is also more to a human being than just a physical 

body that moves--there is within human beings a mysterious "spiritual" reality that defies 


96


description, but that is known and real, and of far greater value than simply bones and flesh 

and hair. 

And there are people who are overcome by, and under the influence of, "an unclean 

spirit" or "unclean spirits"--they have lost control of their lives, they are under the dominating 

influence of destructive, harmful forces. Instead of directing their lives to positive, pure, 

morally upbuilding goals, they move relentlessly towards negative, immoral, destructive 

pursuits. They hurt themselves and those around them. That "inner reality," the "spiritual 

being," instead of being a force for good, and truth, and purity, has become "unclean." 

How do you explain such realities--especially when it involves someone in your own 

family, such as your own child? What would you honestly say if it were your teen-aged son 

who took a rifle with him to school, and murdered his fellow students? Would you say he was 

“criminally insane,” or “possessed by a demon”? One thing is sure, you would know that a 

terribly evil spirit of some sort was in control of your son. 

Today we describe certain people as being "alcoholics," or "sexual perverts," or "drug 

addicts," or "mentally ill,” or “socio-paths” or “criminally insane.” In the first century, people 

such as the author of this Gospel, did not use such descriptions--they had no such 

vocabulary. Rather, they described such people as "possessed," as "having a demon," or an 

"unclean spirit” dwelling within them. 

The Jewish world in the first century had come under the powerful influence of Persian 

religion--with its "God of Light," and its "God of Darkness," with its heavenly angels and hellish 

demons--and the Jewish people, including Jesus, and the writers of the New Testament, 

oftentimes were influenced by, or used the language of, that Persian world-view as they 

sought to describe the reality of evil around them. Here, once again, we must consider the 

human, culturally influenced element that is always present in the biblical writings, and the fact 

that the biblical writings are a product of their time and their environment, as well as being the 

vehicles of the eternal, never failing Word of God. 

Swete notes that the phrase "unclean spirit" had already been used in the Jewish 

Bible, at Zechariah 13:2, and he pointed out that "unclean" and "uncleanness" are both 

commonly used in the Book of Leviticus "...for the ceremonial pollution which banishes from 

the Divine presence. This idea of estrangement from God probably predominates in the 

present phrase." (P. 19) Zechariah 13:1-2 states: "On that day a fountain will be opened to 

the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and 

uncleanness. On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be 

remembered no more, declares YHWH of the Armies. I will remove both spokespersons and 

the spirit of uncleanness from the land..." It would seem that in the light of this passage, Mark 

may well mean that in the ministry of Jesus, that "day" of divine cleansing from uncleanness, 

and divine removal of the "spirit of uncleanness" had indeed come to Israel. 

But however we may describe such phenomena, and however inadequate and inexact, 

and culturally conditioned our descriptions of these realities may be (and we include, still are 

today, in the first decade of the twenty-first century), such happenings are dreadfully, painfully 


97


real. Everything in human history is not sweetness and light. There is evil--real, destructive, 

powerful evil--that can overtake our inner being, and overwhelm every impulse for goodness 

and truth and purity. There is a "spirit of uncleanness" that can take over our inner lives. 

There are those who claim that these biblical stories about people being “possessed 

with an unclean spirit” are no longer relevant and meaningful in the modern world–but when it 

is our child, or a fellow student in our school, who suddenly turns to murdering his parents and 

young people of his own age, we recognize that our modern age is just as subject to such 

“spirits of uncleanness” as was the ancient world. And, we may add, our modern world is just 

as astounded, and perplexed as was the ancient world–as we don’t know how to deal with this 

kind of situation. We call in our psychiatrists and psychologists, we attempt to remedy the 

situation by mind-altering drugs, we lock people up in penitentiaries for the criminally insane– 

but we have no sure-cures. Religious institutions sometimes call for their expert “exorcists,” 

who have reputations for casting out evil spirits, but their rituals are likewise largely ineffectual, 

and those who claim to have the power of exorcism usually operate in “safe environments” 

such as religious revivals or large churches, not daring to demonstrate their power in the 

mental hospitals or penitentiaries. 

The Good News of Mark is that all the powers of evil--in whatever way they may be 

described--have met their match in Jesus. In him, there is a teaching that brings cleansing 

and freedom to human hearts. And the fact of modern religious experience is just that: the 

person who "turns around" and puts deep-seated confidence in Jesus and his teaching, finds 

both cleansing and deliverance from all those "unclean spirits" that inhabit their inner being. 

Mark wants its readers to know that in Jesus, through his powerful, authoritative teaching, 

those who have been considered helplessly "unclean," and under the powerful control of 

unseen, spiritual forces of impurity, can find divine cleansing for, and the setting free of, their 

innermost beings. That’s good news–very good news. 

Luccock commented, "Here is the first case of demoniac possession which Jesus 

meets. It is a difficult problem and one on which complete light will probably never be thrown. 

It takes us into a world that is far from our habits of thought. And yet our world of today, in 

which many forms of mental sickness and neurosis are a growing and terrifying concern, ought 

not to seem too far away from these records of Jesus' command over mental afflictions. The 

world into which Jesus came was 'a demon-haunted world.' Belief in the reality of demons 

was a fact of the mentality of the time and place. To Mark they were real. Were they real to 

Jesus? We cannot plumb his mind, but it seems probable [however, see our treatment of 

Mark 7:1-23, where it is shown how Jesus, when teaching concerning the origin of evil and 

uncleanness in human character, taught emphatically that it is ‘internal’ rather than ‘external’]. 

His way of dealing with them, however, was far different from the usual procedure. The 

symptoms, so far as they can be diagnosed today, seem in most cases like hysteria, in some 

like paralysis, in some like epilepsy. 

"The important point is that Jesus did cure cases of demon possession. This 'Is one of 

the best supported facts' [quoting B. Harvie Branscomb]. It is a fact of measureless hope and 

meaning to our world and to all ages. For our world too is, in a real and tragic sense, 'a 

demon-haunted world.' Men and women are haunted by fear, worry, anxiety, insecurity, 


98

127 128 129 130 131 

Nazarene? You came to destroy us. I know you, who you are --the Set-apart One 


inordinate self-concern, and all the ills these can bring [we can add today, the threat of ‘terror’]. 

Jesus brought the power of God and of faith, and freed people from the domination of evil 

spirits. For even if the evil was ascribed to wrong causes, the malady was very real. Jesus 

restored the soul and renewed, a right spirit in [people]. He can still renew a right spirit. He 

can still speak in the power of God to minds burdened, distressed, and sick." (P. 661) 

Yes, that’s mighty good news. And the fact of religious experience is that even the 

hardened criminal on death row who genuinely turns his or her life over to Jesus and his 

teaching can find that cleansing, just as have drug addicts of all sorts all over the world. There 

is nothing in history so powerful in the cleansing of unclean spirits as conversion to Jesus, and 

allowing his Spirit to cast out all the forces of evil from our lives. 

125 

The interrogative word ��,, Ti, “What?” has the exclamation v��,, Ea, “Ah,” 

interpolated (from the parallel passage in Luke 4:34) into the text immediately before it, by a 

corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Families 1 and 13 of 

Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the ”Majority Text,” the Harclean Syriac and Origen (who died 254 

A.D.). The additional word is not read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, W, 

Theta, the first writer of Minuscule 28, Minuscules 565, 2427, 2542, a few other Greek 

manuscripts, the entire Latin tradition, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Peshitta Syriac or the Coptic 

tradition. This is an example of later copyists and translators “enhancing” the original text 

through bringing in additional material from a parallel Gospel–but, without changing the 

meaning of Mark. This is also an example of the tendency among readers of the Gospels to 

“harmonize” the individual Gospels,” a misleading procedure which results in minimizing the 

individuality and theological teaching of the four different original books. 

126 

The question, "What do we have in common?" is literally in Greek, Ôß �ì�í êá� óïß, Ti 

hemin kai soi, "What to us and to you?" This is a common Semitic idiom that means "What 

do we share in common?" But it is also found in Classical Greek in the same sense. France 

calls the phrase “an Old Testament formula of disassociation (e.g., 2 Samuel 16:10; 19:22). 

When addressed to an actual or potential aggressor it has the force ‘Go away and leave me 

alone’ (Judges 11:12; 1 Kings 17:18). The demon assumes, without any word yet from 

Jesus, that his mission must be avpole,sai h`ma/j, apolesai hemas, ‘to destroy us’; there is 

instant recognition that they are on opposite sides.” (P. 103) 

127 

France notes that the title Nazarhno,j, Nazarenos, for Jesus is used consistently by 

Mark and occasionally by Luke, whereas Matthew, John, and usually Luke use Nazoraioj, 

Nazoraios. (Pp. 103-04) 

Lane comments that "The disturbance which Jesus brings was expressed in the excited 

response of this man, who sensed in Jesus a threat to his very existence." (P. 73) Luccock 

stated that "This question, first recorded as the frightened shriek of the disunited forces of evil, 

is the cry of evil power in all centuries and in all languages. It is still being vociferously and 

angrily shouted today. It is the cry of greed. ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus? Mind your 

business. Our business is our own. Get back to Palestine. Get back to the Bible. Get back 

to the church. Get back anywhere, so long as you do not interfere with our profits.’" (P. 661) 


99

127 


Or, we can hear the cry of the Nazi authorities to the German Roman Catholic priests 

and Lutheran ministers– “Get back to your churches, and quit trying to tell us how to 

administer the policies of the Third Reich. Stay where you belong, and keep out of political 

matters.” Or, we can hear the cry of Southern Plantation owners to the ministers who dared to 

criticize their practices of slavery, and the buying and selling of human beings–“Keep your 

noses out of our business affairs. Stay in your church buildings, and in the Bible–and quit 

trying to meddle in economics, upsetting the status-quo.” 

It is always that way–people in power want to keep control of things like they are, when 

things are in their favor. They don’t want the burning light of Jesus’ demanding Word to be 

focused on them and their practices. We agree that priests and ministers ought to stay in the 

Bible–but the problem is that the Bible sends them out into their societies, to demand justice 

and right-relationships in every aspect of human life–and the true servants of God cannot 

escape that mission. 

128 

Anderson comments that "The plural us suggests either that the demoniac is spokesman 

for the whole world of demons or that he is split in himself." (P. 91) Even though the inner 

being of this person is controlled by an unclean spirit, still it recognizes the true identity of 

Jesus the Nazarene. His mission in the world is to destroy all the forces of evil that control 

and hurt and make humanity impure within. Perhaps the entire message of Mark can be 

summed up in terms of the statement of this unclean person. Jesus is the one who came to 

destroy all the divisive, harmful forces of evil that manipulate and tarnish and ruin human life, 

separating humanity from its rightful Creator God, and "splitting up" humanity deep within. 

Jesus has come to do battle to the finish, and to win an eternal victory over evil. Evil, 

and evil forces--however conceived, however described--whether in literal terms of a 

supernatural "devil" or "satan," along with evil angelic "demons," or whether in terms of such 

powerful forces of evil as Nationalism, Racism, Materialism, Communism, Hedonism, etc.-they 

have all met their match, their conqueror, in Jesus, God's chosen King and Victor. To 

hear his Good News, and to turn around from all evil, putting confidence in him and in his 

authoritative teaching, is the divine pathway to victory over evil. That's the Good News of 

Mark. 

It is possible that this sentence, here taken as a declaration, can also be read as a 

question, "Did you come to destroy us?" Taylor notes that "The destruction of evil powers in 

the Messianic Age was widely expected...The possessed man is conscious of a sense of 

menace in the person and teaching of Jesus and implicitly recognizes Him as the Messiah." 

(P. 174) 

129 

There is a strange ambiguity in the language of this person with an unclean spirit. The 

singular is combined with the plural in an unusual way: "He cried saying, 'What do we have in 

common...? You have come to destroy us. I know you, who you are....'" This person (or 

persons) has lost any real inner unity, and is so divided within as to have become multiple 

personalities. 

100 

(continued...)

132 133 134 

of the God." 1.25 And the Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Shut up! And come out, out of 


How many times does this happen in our own lives? We don't know why we do what 

we do--we feel as if we are a stranger to ourselves, we don't act like ourselves. Or, much 

more seriously, we truly become divided within, we lose our sense of unity, we lose hold of 

who we are and what we are doing. We become "possessed" by impure and destructive 

powers that control us and drag us down to ruin. Is this only some ancient superstition? Or is 

it not terrifyingly real and possible for us even today, in our "enlightened twenty-first century"? 

The Good News of Mark is that Jesus is Victor over all of these evil powers and forces that 

distort and pervert our lives. 

130 

The verb ï�äÜ, oida, a perfect verb with a present meaning,”I know,” is changed to 

oiv,damen, oidamen, “we know,” by Sinaiticus, L, Delta, Minuscule 892, the Bohairic Coptic 

and Origen (who died 254 A.D.). Since the unclean spirit is depicted as both a single and 

multiple personalities, the plural verb is appropriate. The variant reading does not change the 

meaning of Mark. 

131 

Heinrich Seesemann comments in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament II, 

pp. 117-18, that "The demons have a knowledge of Jesus...By supernatural knowledge they 

can see the purpose of His coming. Hence, realizing that their very existence is threatened, 

they seek to defend themselves against Jesus by declaring His true name and nature...This is 

not to be taken as a confession, but as a defensive formula." France in like manner holds that 

“Exorcists were believed to gain power by possession of the demon’s name (see...5:7-9)...and 

perhaps the demon here attempts, to no avail, to reverse the process.” (P. 104) 

132 

The phrase used on the lips of the person with an unclean spirit is unusual: Jesus is 

described as "The Set-apart One of God." That is, the "unclean" spirit recognizes and 

confesses Jesus as the source of divine purity (and therefore as the absolute enemy of all that 

is impure and demonic). Anderson comments that "...The idea was widespread at the time 

that exact knowledge of the other's name brought mastery or control over him. But here, of 

course, it does not come off for the demon: against even this stratagem the power of Jesus is 

irresistible." (P. 91) France comments that the use of Set-apart One “has an obvious 

appropriateness as contrasting Jesus’ holy character with that of his opponent (avka,qarton, 

akatharton, ‘unclean’), and it links Jesus with the pneu/ma a`,gion, pneuma hagion, ‘Set-apart 

Spirit,’ whose presence is to mark his messianic ministry (1:8)...” (P. 104) 

Taylor held that the phrase, "The Set-apart One of God," is "...not a known Messianic 

title, but, as its record shows, neither is it a common primitive Christian designation." See 

Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; (also o`,sioj, hosios in Acts 2:27; 13:35), John 6:69; Luke 1:35; 1 John 

2:20. 

In the Jewish Bible, when used of individuals other than God, the phrase has 

connotations of special sanctity and purpose--Aaron, the High Priest is so called in Psalm 

106:16, and Elisha is described "a set-apart man of God" in 2 Kings 4:9. Compare also 

Daniel 4:13 and 23, where heavenly messengers and servants are called "set-apart ones." 

101 

(continued...)


YHWH God is called "The Set-apart One" in numerous places in the Jewish Bible--see 

2 Kings 19:22; Job 6:10; Psalms 71:22; 78:41; 89:18; especially in Isaiah--1:4; 5:19, 24; 

12:6; 17:7; 29:19, 23; 30:11, 12, 15; 31:1; 37:23; 40:25; 41:14, 16, 20; 43:3, 14, 15; 45:11; 

47:4; 48:17; 49:7, 7; 54:5; 55:5; 57:15; 60:9, 14. Also, Jeremiah 50:29, 51:5; Ezekiel 39:7; 

Hosea 11:9; Habakkuk 1:12, and 3:3. 

There can be little doubt that in the language of the Jewish Bible, "Set-apart One" has 

divine connotations, and to describe someone as "The Set-apart One of God" means that 

such a person holds an unusually close relationship to God, both in terms of personal "setapartness," 

and in terms of mission. Should we understand the unclean spirit as recognizing 

in Jesus the great High Priest and Prophet in whose presence and message uncleanness and 

evil meet their divine Victor? Otto Procksch states that "Jesus plainly confronts the unclean 

spirit as a bearer of the [Set-apart Spirit]; there is a mortal antithesis between [Set-apart Spirit] 

and [unclean spirit] which the demons recognize. The predicate [‘The Set-apart One of God’], 

however, implies more than that Jesus is the popular Messiah, for there is no reference here 

to His national position, but to his pneumatic [‘spiritual’] nature. As [the Set-apart One of God] 

He is the firstborn and inaugurator of the [spiritual] age which will destroy the kingdom of 

demons." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament I, pp. 101-02) 

133 

The masculine singular, present active nominative participle ëÝãùí, legon, “saying,” 

is changed to the phrase kai. eiv /pen, kai eipen, ”and he said,” by W, the Old Latin Manuscripts 

b, c (see) and e. The participle is omitted by the first writer of Sinaiticus and also by the first 

writer of Alexandrinus. The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark. 

134 nd 

The 2 person singular, aorist passive imperative verb used by Jesus is Öéìþèçôé, 

phimotheti, which means literally, "be tied shut," or "be muzzled." France comments that “‘Be 

muzzled’ is simply a vivid, colloquial way of saying ‘Shut up!’” (P. 105) In Mark 4:34 Jesus 

uses this same verb in speaking to the roaring sea. 

Mark wants its readers to know that Jesus is not in any way "in league" with the powers 

of evil, nor does he need to make any use of their help or witness. Rather, as the great divine 

Victor over all the powers of evil, he speaks and they are silenced. His power and authority, 

as seen in both his teaching and his actions, is that of the Creator God who wins eternal 

victory over all the unseen forces of impurity and evil. This is who Jesus is. Taylor 

commented that "The decisiveness of tone used by Jesus is part of the curative method, but it 

also marks His strong sense of indignation aroused by demon-possession and His 

unwillingness to permit the testimony of the possessed." (P. 175) 

France comments that “There is notable lack of ‘technique’ about this as about all the 

exorcism stories in the gospels when compared with the few extra-biblical exorcism 

accounts...There is no incantation, no ritual, no ‘props’ of any kind, simply an authoritative 

word of command...It will become clear in 1:34 and 3:11-12 that Jesus’ motive in silencing the 

demons was to prevent them from revealing who he was. This reticence may be explained 

simply by the desire to avoid being authenticated by such undesirable witnesses, or it may be 

part of the wider theme of Jesus’ secrecy, seen in his commanding silence on the part of those 

whom he had healed or who had witnessed his healings (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), and even 


102

135 136 137 138 

him!" 1.26 And convulsing him, and crying out with a loud voice, the unclean spirit 


requiring the disciples not to reveal his Messiahship (8:30) or his glory revealed in the 

transfiguration (9:9)...If at least part of the reason for secrecy was to avoid premature and 

misdirected popular adulation, the christological revelations by the demons would certainly be 

a potential embarrassment. In this passage, however, that issue is not prominent, and the 

‘muzzling’ of the demon is rather a necessary part of the exorcism, putting a stop to its defiant 

shouting.” (Pp. 104, 105) 

Luccock commented, "Jesus has to do with everything that affects people. Nothing 

human is foreign to him. He is concerned with every burden that rests heavily on human 

shoulders and cuts cruelly into them, all that concerns the welfare of God's children--the hours 

and conditions of labor; housing (Jesus was concerned with the housing situation in 

Jerusalem, in his denunciation of those who devour widows' houses), law, civil rights, 

amusements--the whole varied spread of human life. There is a ready answer to anyone who 

tells the preacher, as he brings the teaching of Jesus into social questions, to 'mind his own 

business.' It is to say, 'People are my business. I was put into it a long time ago by my 

Master, and I cannot quit it without betraying him.'" (P. 662) 

135 

The phrase �î á�ôïõ, eks autou, “out of him,” is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 

Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the ”Majority Text” and 

Origen (who died 254 A.D.). It is changed to read evk tou/ avnqrw,pou pneu/ma avka,qarton, ek 

tou anthropou, pneuma akatharton, literally, “out of the person, spirit unclean,” by Bezae, 

W, Theta (see), the margin of Minuscule 565 (see), a majority of the Old Latin witnesses and 

a number of manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. It is changed to read avp v auvtou/, ap’ autou, 

“from him,” by L, Minuscules 33, the first writer of 565, 579, 700, 892, 1424, 2427, 

Lectionary 2211, some other Greek manuscripts, and the Old Latin Manuscript f. The variant 

readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrate the freedom felt by copyists / 

translators to make such slight changes to the text being copied / translated. 

Anderson comments that "...In Jewish and Hellenistic exorcism-stories magical 

manipulations, like extracting the demon from the nose of the demoniac with a ring, feature 

largely. Here by contrast the word of Jesus alone leads to the banishment of the demon." (P. 

91) Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities VIII, 45-49, tells the story of a certain Eleazar, who 

was trained in the ancient art of the expulsion of demons, taught by Solomon of old. Josephus 

held concerning Solomon that “..God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons 

for the benefit and healing of [human beings]. He also composed incantations by which 

illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by 

demons drive them out, never to return. 

“And this kind of cure is of very great power among us to this day, for I have seen a 

certain Eleazar, a countryman of mine, in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, tribunes and a 

number of other soldiers, free men possessed by demons, and this was the manner of the 

cure: he put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the 

roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his 

nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into 

him, speaking Solomon's names and reciting the incantations which he had composed. Then, 


103

came out, out of him. 139 

135 


wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power, Eleazar placed 

a cup or foot-basin full of water a little way off and commanded the demon, as it went out of 

the man, to overturn it and make known to the spectators that he had left the man. And when 

this was done, the understanding and wisdom of Solomon were clearly revealed..." (Loeb 

translation) 

Lane points out that "In contrast to contemporary exorcists, who identified themselves 

by name or by relationship to some deity or power, who pronounced some spell or performed 

some magical action, Jesus utters only a few direct words, through which his absolute 

authority over the demonic power that had held the man captive was demonstrated." (Pp. 74- 

75) 

136 

The nominative neuter singular aorist participle óðáñÜîáí, sparaksan means "having 

torn," "having pulled to and fro," "having convulsed." Compare a very similar usage of this 

same verb in Mark 9:26. France comments that “The destructive power of the demon is 

displayed at the time of its expulsion. The convulsion and the loud cry...are a mark of 

desperate, but ineffectual, resistance.” (P. 105) 

137 

The nominative neuter singular aorist participle öùí�óáí, phonesan, “having cried 

out,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Minuscules 33, 579 (see), 892, 1241, 2427, a few 

other Greek manuscripts and Origen (who died 254 A.D.). It is changed to the synonym 

kra,xan, kraksan, “having shouted,” by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Theta, Families 

1 and 13 of Minuscules and the “Majority Text.” The variant reading does not change the 

meaning of Mark, but again demonstrates the freedom felt by copyists to slightly change the 

text being copied. 

138 

Schweizer commented that "The loud scream of the departing demon demonstrates the 

intensity of the battle and the magnitude of the victory, whereas the amazement [see the next 

verse, with its footnote 140] which came over the people shows that they experienced 

something of the presence of God." (P. 52) 

139 

The entirety of verse 26, êá� óðáñÜîáí á�ô�í ô� ðíå�ìá ô� �êÜèáñôïí êá� öùí�óáí 

öùí� ìåãÜë� �î�ëèåí �î á�ôïõ, kai sparaksan auton to pneuma to akatharton kai 

phonesan phone megale ekselthen eks autou, “And having convulsed him, and having 

cried out with a loud voice, the unclean spirit came out, out of him,” is changed to read kai. 

evxh/lqen to. pneu/ma spara,xan auvto.n kai. avne,kragen fwnh|/ mega,lh| kai. avph/lqen avp v 

auvtou/, kai ekselthen to pneuma sparaksan auton kai anekragen phone megale kai 

apelthen ap’ autou, literally, “and it went out, the spirit, having convulsed him, and he cried 

out in a great voice and it went out from him,” by Bezae (see), W, the Old Latin Manuscripts e, 

a, and a corrector of ff (see). This variant reading is little more than another way of wording 

the same statement, and does not change the meaning of Mark; but it demonstrates the 

freedom felt by these later copyists and translators to make such changes to the original text. 

The picture is drawn by this first century author in terms of the Persian / Jewish belief in 

supernatural "spirits" or "demons" that inhabit the inner being of individuals, and which can be 


104

140 141 142 

1.27 And they were astonished, everyone, so that they argued with one another, 

139 


"cast out" from individuals by those with "spiritual power." The Jews had many such 

"exorcists" (see Matthew 12:27 and Acts 19:13). The question for faith is not whether or not 

the reader accepts this first-century description of "spirit possession" or "demons" as the literal 

truth about the source of human uncleanness; rather, the question for faith is whether or not 

the readers will accept this Jesus as the Victor over all forces of evil, and trust him for victory 

over the evil and uncleanness in their own lives, whatever their view concerning the nature of 

"the demonic,” or whatever their way of describing such evil forces. 

140 rd 

The 3 person plural, aorist passive verb �èáìâÞèçóáí, ethambethesan means "they 

were astounded," "they were amazed." Georg Bertram, in an article on this word in 

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament III, pp. 3-6, states that "The terror of [human 

beings] is...a typical element in a revelation or epiphany [unveiling, or appearance of a divine 

being]. The use of qambei/n, thambein is thus a sign that for the author the account relates to 

a theophany [an appearance of God]. Thus in Mark 9:15 the astonishment of the people is a 

means used by the narrator to describe the coming of Jesus as an epiphany of the Lord for 

believers. Expressions of fear and astonishment...serve to emphasize the revelatory content 

and christological significance..." (P. 6) That is, Mark wants its readers to know that the 

people of Capernaum were overwhelmed with the conviction that a divine revelation was 

occurring in their midst, as they witnessed the authoritative teaching and victorious actions of 

Jesus over the powers of evil and uncleanness. 

141 

Here again (compare footnotes 27, 149, 165, 168 and 185), Mark commits the “all 

fallacy.” We should not take this language literally, to mean that there was not one person in 

Capernaum who wasn't astonished at the teaching of Jesus, just as we should not understand 

that every person in Jerusalem and in Judea came out to the Jordan River to be immersed by 

John. And we should keep in mind constantly the "human element" in all of the biblical 

documents. We are dealing with the divine Word of God that comes to us through the biblical 

documents, and that was embodied and fulfilled in Jesus; but we are also dealing with the 

human authors, who 

use their own language and methods of description, and who do not suddenly speak a nonhuman, 

heavenly language as is claimed for the Koran and for the Book of Mormon. 

142 

The phrase ðñ�ò �áõôï�ò, pros heautous, literally “towards themselves,” is read by 

Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, W (see), Theta, Families 1 and 13 of 

Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the ”Majority Text” and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses. It is 

changed to auvtou,j, autous, “them,” by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Minuscule 2427. It is 

changed to pro.j auvtou,j, pros autous, “to them,” by L, Minuscule 892, Lectionary 2211 and 

some other Greek manuscripts. The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but 

are a different way of saying the same thing. They show that the later copyists did not feel 

themselves obligated to repeat verbatim (exactly, word-for-word) what was found in the 

original being copied, but could use slightly different language to say the same thing. 

105

143 

saying, "What is this? A new teaching, with authority. He even gives orders to the unclean 

144 145 146 147 148 

spirits, and they obey him." 1.28 And his fame immediately went out everywhere, 

143 

The phrase Ôß �óôéí ôï�ôï� äéäá÷� êáéí� êáô� �îïõóßáí, Ti estin touto; didache 

kaine kat’ eksousian, “What is this? A teaching, a new one, with authority.” is read by 

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Minuscules 33, 2427, Family 1 of Minuscules (see), the first writer 

of Minuscule 28 (see), the first writer of Minuscule 565 (see) and Minuscule 579 (see); 

these last witnesses followed by “see” read kainh. au`,th, kaine haute, “a new one, this...” It is 

changed to read ti, evsti tou/to� ti,j h` didach. h` kainh. au`,th� o`,ti kat v evxousi,an, ti esti 

touto; tis he didache he kaine haute; hoti kat’ eksousian, “What is this? What is the 

teaching, the new one, this? Because with authority....,” by Alexandrinus (see), Ephraemi 

Rescriptus, Family 13 of Minuscules (see), the margin of Minuscule 565 (see), the ”Majority 

Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses and the Peshitta and Harclean 

Syriac. It is changed to read ti,j h` didach. evkei,nh h` kai,nh au`,th h` evxousi,a o`,ti, tis he 

didache ekeine he kaine haute he eksousia hoti, “What the teaching, that one, the new 

one, this one, the authority that...” by Bezae, W (see), a majority of the Old Latin witnesses 

(see) and the Sinaitic Syriac (see). It is changed to read ti, evstin tou/to� didach. kainh. 

au`,th� o`,ti kat v evxousi,an...ti estin touto; didache kaine haute, hoti kat eksousian..., “What 

is this? A teaching, a new one, this, because with authority...” by Theta and Minuscule 700 

(see). This abundance of variant readings does not change the meaning of Mark, but seems 

to indicate a problem in the primitive text that has led to the various attempts at wording. 

Metzger calls attention to this "welter of variant readings," and holds that Mark's original 

"abruptness invited modifications, and more than one copyist accommodated the phraseology 

in one way or another to the parallel in Luke 4:36." (A Textual Commentary on the Greek 

New Testament, p. 75) It is easy to overstate this matter by such characterizations–there is a 

“welter of variant readings,” but in fact they all say the same thing, although in slightly differing 

ways. 

The people of Capernaum are depicted by Mark as recognizing the "newness" of the 

teaching of Jesus, and the "authority" that is inherent in it. Lane comments, "There had been 

no technique, no spells or incantations, no symbolic act. There had been only the word. 

There was no category familiar to them which explained the sovereign authority with which 

Jesus spoke and acted. Their astonishment is reflected in the question..." (P. 76) 

France comments that “The congregation thus discern an integration in the different 

aspects of Jesus’ ministry, in which authoritative teaching and authority over demons cohere 

into a single evxousi,a, eksousia, ‘authority,’ which is unprecedented...To teach people ouvc w`j 

oi` grammatei/j, ouch hos hoi grammateis, ‘not like the religious experts,’ is impressive 

enough, but when ‘even’ demons cannot resist him there is grater cause for suzh,thsij, 

suzetesis, ‘arguing,’ ‘debate.’ Thus the issue ‘Who is Jesus?’, which will increasingly 

dominate Mark’s narrative, is already raised acutely in his first public appearance.” (P. 106) 

144 

That is, the people of Capernaum are pictured as recognizing in Jesus just exactly what 

the person with an unclean spirit(s) had said concerning him. Jesus is the one who has 

absolute authority over all the forces of evil. Schweizer stated that "Jesus was distinguished 


106

into the whole surrounding country of the Galilee. 149 


from others not because he taught something completely different, but because he taught with 

such authority that things happened. [People] were moved to action and sick persons were 

healed...This is how Mark uses the story of a miracle (compare 4:35-41) to show the special 

'dimension' in which Jesus taught. In his word heaven actually breaks in and hell is abolished. 

His word is action." (P. 50) 

145 

The nominative feminine singular noun �êï�, akoe, here translated "fame," can also be 

translated "report," "rumor," "account," or even "preaching." Somewhat strangely, it can also 

be translated "the ear," or "the faculty of hearing," "the act of hearing," or "listening." 

146 

Compare footnotes 55, 115, 123, 151 and 157. 

147 

The phrase êá� �î�ëèåí, kai ekselthen, “and it went out,” is read by Sinaiticus, 

Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, W, Delta, Theta, Minuscules 33, 579 (see), 

700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2427, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts and the Bohairic Coptic. It 

is changed to evxh/lqen de,, ekselthen de, “but then it went out...” by Alexandrinus, Families 1 

and 13 of Minuscules, the ”Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscript f and the Harclean Syriac. 

The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but is simply another way of saying 

the same thing. 

148 

The phrase å�è�ò ðáíôá÷ï�, euthus pantachou, “immediately everywhere,” is read 

by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Family 13 of Minuscules, 

Minuscules 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, some manuscripts of the Sahidic 

Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). It is changed to simply ��u,�, euthus, “immediately,” 

by Alexandrinus, Bezae, the ”Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin 

witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac and Harclean Syriac. It is changed to read simply ðáíôá÷ï�, 

pantachou, “everywhere,” by W, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts b, 

e, q and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). The entire phrase is omitted by the first writer of 

Sinaiticus, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 700, 1241, 1424, 2542, 

some other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript c, a corrector of ff, a corrector of r, 

the Sinaitic Syriac and a few manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic. The variants do not change 

the meaning of Mark, but probably indicate a problem in the primitive text, that has been 

handled by later copyists and translators in their varying ways. For this language of 

immediacy see footnotes 55, 101, 115, 123, 153, 210 and 215. 

France notes that “The wide spread of Jesus’ reputation in Galilee will be a recurrent 

theme (see 1:33, 37, 45; 2:1-2; 3:7-9)...For now Jesus is a local celebrity.” (P. 106) 

149 

Here again Mark commits the "all fallacy" (compare footnotes 27, 141, 165, 168 and 

185), making another over-statement. For those who hold to the view of a magically inspired 

Bible (like the Koran, or the Book of Mormon), such over-statements or exaggerations are 

difficult problems. But for those who recognize the human element in all of the biblical 

documents, such human foibles are only to be expected. 

107 

(continued...)

150 151 152 153 

1.29 And immediately, coming out of the synagogue, they came into the 


So here, in Mark, we have a very human document, which describes the ministry and 

mission of Jesus in terms of a first-century Jewish world-view, that has been deeply influenced 

by Persian / Jewish dualistic views of the nature of "unclean spirits." But this very human 

document points not to itself, or its author, but to Jesus of Nazareth, in whom all the powers of 

evil have been conquered forever. Whatever our view of the nature of the human spirit, and 

the source of its uncleanness and perversion, let us not miss the importance of this Good 

News--there is eternal hope for cleansing and freedom through the word of this great Victor 

sent from God to destroy all the forces of evil. Jesus of Nazareth--this one who is both human 

and divine--is the "Set-apart One of God" who brings authoritative teaching into the world that 

is more than empty words--it is victorious power, that casts out all evil. Even today, for those 

who are willing to "turn around," and "put their confidence in the Good News," he is still the 

source of cleansing and freedom from every sort of human evil. 

Wherever he and his teaching are being proclaimed today, in the twenty-first century, 

there the miracle of new life and cleansing continues to take place--driving out the demonic 

forces of Atheism, and Materialism, of Fear and Mistrust, enabling fallen people whose lives 

have become the habitation of all sorts of "unclean spirits" to be cleansed and freed, thereby 

becoming empowered to walk in the power of the Spirit of God. That is why even a South 

American Drug Lord such as General Noriega, can find new life and hope, even though 

imprisoned in a Federal Penitentiary. It is why the convicted criminal Eldredge Cleaver can 

find the strength to return to America, confessing his crimes, and begin a new life of love for 

his enemies instead of his former hatred and violence. It is why there can be hope for people 

on death-row for pre-meditated murder, and why they can still find the way to forgiveness, new 

life, and hope, even if the death penalty is imposed on them. Jesus and his teaching have the 

power to cast out all the demonic forces of evil, and impart new life. 

It is happening in Red China, as confessing Christians in their house churches witness 

to the power and relevancy of the risen Lord Jesus. It is the power that has overcome militant 

atheism in the former Soviet Union and its Republics, leading to the great renewal of faith and 

hope in the place of hopelessness and despair. It is happening in the Fiji Islands, in South 

America, and in Africa. It is also happening in Western Europe, and in America--wherever his 

spiritual presence and his authoritative teaching are responded to in penitence and faith. 

What cleansing, freeing power is available to our world--and to each of us. How 

blessed and fortunate America will be if we will once again let Jesus walk through our streets, 

and if we will let his authoritative teaching resound throughout our beloved country, fulfilling its 

victorious mission. We are not the helpless slaves of the evil forces that inhabit us and 

surround us. Jesus has won the victory over all the satanic forces in history–and we are his 

people, loved by him, forgiven by him, empowered by him for new life. 

150 

In Mark 1:21-28, we have seen Mark's description of Jesus' authoritative teaching 

that brings cleansing and freedom from unclean spirits. More than fifteen times in Mark the 

teaching ministry of Jesus is mentioned. Yet Mark (in sharp contrast to Matthew and Luke, 

and then later, to John) says very little about just what it was that Jesus taught. Rather, what 

Mark emphasizes is that Jesus' teaching was more than words. It was a message that was 


108

150 


acted out in deeds of love, in healing, and in the casting out of demons. When Jesus taught, 

things happened. People were moved to action; sick people were healed; the possessed 

were set free, the unclean were made clean. As Schweizer stated, "In his word heaven 

actually breaks in and hell is abolished. His word is action." (Pp. 50-51) 

Jesus had not come simply to talk, and discuss, to "share insights," and enter into 

public debate. No he had come to live out his message, to enact his word, to be what he 

preached. Such teaching always has been, and is today, the only teaching that has authority 

and power. And so, in verses 29-39, Mark gives its readers another "thumb-nail sketch" of 

the ministry of Jesus. After describing the incident in the synagogue in Capernaum, Mark 

describes how Jesus left the synagogue and its public worship, but then continued his healing 

ministry at a private home in Capernaum. 

France comments that “A single exorcism is followed by a single healing, before the 

more general summary of Jesus’ performance of both types of miracles in verses 32-34. Both 

accounts therefore serve as specific examples to illustrate the wider exercise of Jesus’ 

evxousi,a, eksousia, ‘authority’ in relation to human affliction. They are, however remarkably 

different stories. One deals with demon possession and the other with physical illness. One is 

very public while the other takes place in private. The synagogue incident is told in dramatic 

terms, with loud cries and authoritative commands and an astonished crowd left wrestling with 

the question of this new teacher’s credentials; the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law, however, 

has a domestic simplicity which is quite matter-of-fact, concluding with the serving of a meal... 

Mark does not allow us to picture Jesus as a traveling ‘healer’ with a set technique, but as a 

man of evxousi,a, eksousia, ‘authority,’ who responds as may be appropriate to differing needs 

as he meets them.” (P. 107) 

151 

Once again (as in at least 25 other places in Mark) we meet Mark's "vocabulary of 

immediacy"--no wonder that this Gospel has been described oftentimes as the "Gospel of 

Action." Compare footnotes 55, 115, 123, 146 and 157. France comments that “Mark’s 

mention of a direct sequence from the synagogue to the house of Simon and Andrew means 

that in his narrative scheme it is still the sabbath... 

“Already here we find him disregarding the conventional form [i.e., no healing on the 

sabbath], albeit in private. The people in general will correctly wait until sunset, and therefore 

the end of the sabbath, to bring their sick for healing (verse 32), but in private in the house 

Jesus does not wait, and there is apparently no one to object.” (P. 107) 

152 

See footnote 114 on Mark 1:21. Mark has just given the "thumb-nail sketch" of 

Jesus' visit to the synagogue in Capernaum in 1:21-28, and has told how his "fame" has gone 

out into Galilee. Now Mark gives us another such thumb-nail sketch, which pictures what 

happened when Jesus and his disciples left church, when they went home from the public 

worship service. Their worship didn't end there; rather, it was only beginning. And, as we will 

see in our study of Mark, this kind of healing ministry, characterized by the struggle against all 

forms of evil that enslave human beings, didn't end on Saturday evening, when the sun went 

down. Rather, Jesus healed and cast out unclean spirits on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc.not 

just on the Day of Rest. 

109

154 

house of Simon and Andrew, with Jacob and John. 1.30 Now then the mother-in-law of 

153 

Here once again, there are variant readings in the ancient manuscripts of Mark, making it 

apparent that there was some confusion in the earliest manuscripts concerning the exact order 

of the first half of verse 29. The phrase Êá� å�è�ò �ê ô�ò óõíáãùã�ò �îåëèüíôåò �ëèïí, Kai 

euthus ek tes sunagoges ekselthontes elthon, “And immediately out of the gathering 

having gone out, they came...” is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, 

L, Minuscule 33, the ”Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta Syriac (see), the Harclean 

Syriac and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). It is changed slightly to read Kai. euvqu.j evk th/j 

sunagwgh/j evxelqw/n hv/lqen, Kai euthus ek tes sunagoges ekselthon elthen, “And 

immediately out of the gathering-place having gone out he came...” (i.e., changing from the 

plural description of Jesus and his disciples to a description of Jesus in the singular), by 

Vaticanus, Theta (in a differing word order), Minuscule 1424 (in a different word order), 

Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 565, 579, 700, 2427, a few other Greek 

manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript f and some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. It is 

changed to read evxelqw/n de. evk th/j sunagwgh/j hv /lqen, ekselthon de ek tes sunagoges 

elthen, “having gone out, out of the gathering, he came...” by Bezae, W, a majority of the Old 

Latin witnesses and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). The variant readings do not change the 

meaning of Mark, but reveal the freedom felt by later copyists and translators to slightly reword 

the text being copied / translated, in order to enhance its reading. Compare Mark 1:21 with its 

footnote 104, and 1:27 with its footnote 128. For this language of immediacy, see footnotes 

55, 101, 115, 123, 148, 210 and 215. 

154 

In the little booklet entitled A Visit to Capharnaum, written by Stanislao Loffreda, there 

is a discussion of the archaeological finds that relate to the home of Simon Peter. Just to the 

south of the ancient synagogue that has been uncovered (see footnotes 114 and 118 on Mark 

1:21), there are the remains of a number of houses that date from the first century B.C. until 

the seventh century A.D. Loffreda states that, "Being close to the shore, the houses may have 

belonged to fishermen. Actually fishing hooks were found in one of these houses. One can 

easily reconstruct rooms, rectangular in plan, crowded around small courtyards with ovens. 

Life was not easy to those fishermen; we wonder how they could stand the heat of this area, 

packed as they were in such narrow rooms with light roofs. 

"Yet, the excavation of such poor dwellings reserved to us the most exciting discovery. 

In fact one of these houses...has been identified as the house of St. Peter." (P. 28) The 

pavement floor of the house was repaved with lime several times, and the roughly built walls 

were plastered at least three times. "The numerous pieces of plaster rescued in the 

excavations bear clear witness to the sacred character of this house. One hundred and thirtyone 

inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namely: in Greek (110), 

Aramaic (10), Estrangelo [an archaic, cursive form of Syriac, with bold, rounded characters, 

prevailing in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D.] (9) and Latin (2)...The name of Jesus appears 

several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, the Most High, God. An inscription in Estrangelo 

mentions the Eucharist...There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of 

different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus. The name of St. Peter occurs at least twice: 

his monogram is written in Latin but with Greek letters." (Pp. 30, 34) 

110 

(continued...)

155 156 157 

Simon was lying down, having a fever. And immediately they speak to him concerning 

158 159 160 

her. 1.31 And approaching, he raised her, having taken hold by the hand. And the 


In later time (the fourth century A.D.) this ancient house was enlarged, given a new 

ceiling, and added onto with additional rooms; then it was separated from the rest of the town 

by an enclosure. A century later (c. 450 A.D.), "All the private houses of the 'insula' were 

destroyed and a Church was built upon their ruins...The plan of the Church consists of a 

central octagon, built exactly on the foundations of the venerated house, and enclosed by 

another octagon." (P. 37) The ancient church had an apse [the end of a church which 

contains the altar], a baptistery, and a beautiful mosaic floor, in the center of which is a large 

peacock. As early as the beginning of the fifth century, the pilgrim Eteria noted that this was 

the site of Peter's house, and that it had been enlarged for use as a "house-church." 

Loffreda's conclusion is that "This house was built about the first century B.C. It 

became a center of religious gatherings [a house-church] already in the second half of the first 

century A.D. Judeo-Christians [called contemptuously by the Jews the Minim], who were so 

numerous and lived continuously in Capharnaum, kept alive this tradition; their graffitos on the 

plastered walls of the [house-church] testify to their faith in Jesus, the Christ, the Lord, the 

Most High God, and to their veneration for St. Peter. After Constantine the Great, non-Jewish 

Christians were also able to visit this sacred house. These took over the sanctuary in the 

middle of the fifth century and built a splendid octagonal church with baptistery on the same 

spot." (P. 42) 

France comments that the house of Simon and Andrew “seems likely to have been 

Jesus’ ‘home’ in Capernaum...Thus, while Mark may well have developed the literary use of 

‘the house’ as a symbol of privacy and instruction, he seems to have based it on an actual 

family home where Jesus was known to have been resident...The identification of this house 

as underlying the octagonal Byzantine building uncovered by the Franciscans near the 

synagogue in Capernaum, while not proven, is entirely plausible.” (P. 107) 

155 

The text envisions Simon as a married man, who lives in the same house with his 

mother-in-law. An interesting related text in the New Testament is to be found in 1 

Corinthians 9:5, where Paul asks the question, "Do we not have the authority to lead about 

[on our missionary journeys] a sister, a wife, just like the rest of the ambassadors [‘apostles’], 

and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas [the Aramaic name of Simon, which means ‘Rock’ 

as does the Greek name Petros]?" Here again there is strong documentation for the fact of 

Simon Peter's being married--quite different from the picture of a divinely mandated "celibacy" 

for all ordained ministers (or priests). 

156 

The noun pu,r, pur means "fire." The feminine singular present active participle used 

here is taken from this noun; it is ðõñÝóóïõóá, puressousa, literally "being fiery," and from 

this, "being feverish," "suffering with a fever,” not a very specific diagnosis. 

157 

Compare footnotes 55, 115, 123, 146 and 151. 

158 

Why did the disciples of Jesus immediately tell him concerning Simon's mother-in-law? 

Because they sensed correctly that this would be of concern to Jesus, that this sort of problem 


111

161 162 163 

fever left her, and she was ministering to them. 


lay at the heart of his ministry. Do we today feel that same thing with reference to the 

disciples of Jesus–that they will just naturally be interested in all sorts of human suffering? 

159 rd 

The 3 person singular aorist indicative verb �ãåéñåí, egeiren, “he raised,” has an 

ambiguity within it that becomes significant for Biblical Theology. It can mean "raise" in the 

sense of raising a person who is lying down, whether for sleep or because of sickness. But it 

is also the same verb that is used for the "raising" of those who have died. Thus the "raising" 

of the sick becomes symbolic of the eternal "raising" of those who have died. 

160 

The genitive feminine singular pronoun auvth/j, autes, “her (hand),” is interpolated into the 

text here by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, 

Minuscule 33, the ”Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some manuscripts of the Old Latin, the 

Peshitta Syriac and the Harclean Syriac. The pronoun is not found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 

L, or Minuscule 2427. Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark. 

The phrase �ãåéñåí á�ô�í êñáôÞóáò ô�ò ÷åéñüò, egeiren auten kratesas tes cheiros, 

“he raised her having taken hold of the hand,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L and 

Minuscule 2427. It is changed to read evktei,naj th.n cei/ra krate,saj (kai. evpilabo,menoj, W) 

hv,geiren auvth,n, ekteinas ten cheira kratesas (kai epilabomenos, W) egeiren auten, 

“stretching out the hand, having taken hold (and laying hold, W), he raised her,” by Bezae, W, 

the Old Latin Manuscripts b and a corrector of r. The variant reading does not change the 

meaning of Mark, but is simply another way of saying the same thing, revealing the freedom 

felt by these later copyists and translators to make such slight changes to the original being 

copied / translated. 

161 

Following the word “fever,” the adverb euvqe,wj, eutheos, “immediately,” is interpolated 

into the original text by Alexandrinus, Bezae (in a different word-order), Uncial Manuscript 

0130, Family 13 of Minuscules, the ”Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate (in a different wordorder), 

some manuscripts of the Old Latin (in a different word-order) and by the Syriac 

tradition. The adverb is not found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, W, 

Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1424, 2427, 2542, a 

few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript e nor the Coptic tradition. Whether 

read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark. 

162 

The language is not meant literally, as if Mark meant to say that the fever actually "went 

away" to some other locality. 

163 rd 

Literally, äéçêüíåé, diekonei, the 3 person singular imperfect indicative active verb 

means “she was ministering (‘deaconing’) to them." France comments that “The 

completeness of the cure is emphasized by the clause...no period of convalescence was 

needed.” (P. 108) This a true example of what the Kingdom of God is all about. Jesus 

ministered to Simon's mother-in-law, so that she could in turn minister to others. This kind of 

ministry sets up an endless chain that reaches out to the ends of the earth, and that reaches 

down into the most disease-ridden pockets of humanity. 

112 

(continued...)

164 

1.32 But then evening having come, when the sun went down, they were bringing to 

165 166 167 168 

him all the ones being sick and the demon-possessed. 1.33 And the whole city was 

163 


It is a basic law of the Kingdom: as each has received, so should each give. Those 

who have been ministered to, should in turn become ministers to others. It is important to note 

that the very first example of the disciples of Jesus entering into “ministry” is the example of a 

woman. We easily think of the wonderful ministry of “Mother Teresa” in the twentieth century, 

and thousands upon thousands of other self-sacrificing women of God who have followed in 

those same footsteps. 

France comments that “Jesus’ healing method contrasts with the exorcism of the 

previous scene. Now Mark records no words of Jesus, but rather physical touch. Mark’s 

records of physical healings frequently mention Jesus touching the patient (1:41; 5:41; 6:5; 

7:32-33; 8:23-25) or being touched by them (3:10; 5:27; 6:56); in exorcisms, by contrast, 

where the issue is not primarily physical but spiritual, touch is not mentioned (except after the 

exorcism has been completed, 9:27).” (P. 108) 

164 rd 

The 3 person singular aorist indicative verb �äõ, edu, “it went down,” from the verb 

du,nw, duno, is changed into another aorist form of the same verb, ev ,dusen, edusen, “it set,” or 

“it went down,” by Vaticanus, Bezae, Minuscules 28, 1424, 2427, and a few other Greek 

manuscripts. The first, more difficult form of the verb, is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 

Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the 

“Majority Text.” This is another example of later copyists acting as “editors,” choosing helpful 

synonyms to substitute for the more difficult language found in the exemplar being copied, but 

without changing the meaning of that text. 

The words used to describe the time of day when this ministry of Jesus occurred are 

rather cumbersome (compare footnote 175). Can this be the sign of an eye-witness 

attempting to describe in word pictures a vividly remembered event? Does it reflect Jewish 

aversion to the forbidden work of healing on the Day of Rest? Since the Jewish "Sabbath" 

("Day of Rest") would have ended with the setting of the sun, the forbidden "work" of "carrying" 

the non-ambulatory people to Jesus would now, following the close of the Day of Rest, be 

permissible under Jewish traditional law. 

165 

Attention has previously been called to Mark's committing of the “all fallacy." See 

footnotes 27, 141, 149, 168 and 185. We should not press this language to mean that 

absolutely every sick person in Capernaum was healed; nor should we understand verse 33 

as meaning that not one person in Capernaum was absent from the crowd gathered at the 

door of Simon's house, even though Mark's unguarded language can be taken in this sense. 

Rather, it is obvious that Mark is not precise and exact in his use of "all" and "the whole city," 

but on occasion uses exaggeration and overstatement in his story-telling. We have no 

problem accepting this in an ordinary human document; but it is another matter if the 

document is claimed to have literally come down from God, "verbally inspired" in such a way 


113

165 


that there can be no mistake, no inaccuracy in any way (such as claimed for the Muslim Koran 

and for the Book of Mormon). 

166 

The phrase êáê�ò �÷ïíôáò, kakos echontas, literally, "(the ones) badly having," is 

an idiomatic way (found in other languages such as Spanish) for describing human sickness of 

all sorts. Immediately following this phrase, the words no,soij poiki,laij, nosois poikilais, 

“with various sicknesses,” is intepolated into the original text by Bezae, the majority of Old 

Latin witnesses, some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and the Sinaitic Syriac (see). The 

interpolation does not change the meaning of Mark, but is an example of later copyists and 

translators seeking to enhance the original being copied / translated, taking up a phrase to be 

found later in the original text. Compare footnote 172. 

167 

The phrase êá� ôï�ò äáéìïíéæïìÝíïõò, kai tous daimonizomenous, “and the demonpossessed,” 

is omitted by W, a corrector of the Old Latin Manuscript r, a few manuscripts of 

the Latin Vulgate and the Sinaitic Syriac. The first writer of Sinaiticus extends the omission 

through the word no,soij, nosois, “diseases,” in verse 34. We see no reason for this 

omission; however, it does not change the meaning of Mark. 

Compare footnotes 109, 113, 114, 120, 124, and 134 for a discussion of "unclean 

spirits." The Greek plural accusative participle äáéìïíéæïìÝíïõò, daimonizomenous can be 

translated "being demonized," or "being possessed by a devil." The Greek noun ��,mw�, 

daimon ("demon") means "a god," or "a goddess." It is used to mean "the Deity," but also 

"fate," "destiny," "fortune" (whether good or bad). It was the word used in Classical Greek to 

indicate that an "unknown supernatural factor" was at work in human history. Another 

meaning of this word is "one's genius," "one's lot or fortune." Again, the word is used in 

Classical Greek to refer to "the souls of people of the golden age," who were viewed in Greek 

mythology as forming the link between gods and human beings. Finally, this same word is 

used to refer to "an evil spirit," "a devil." It was common in many of the Greek philosophical 

systems to hold that indwelling deities or demons possess certain people, clothing themselves 

with human bodies, and there kindling evil desires. 

"According to popular belief demons are...'shades' which appear in all kinds of places, 

especially the lonely, at all possible times, especially at night, and in the most varied forms, 

especially those of uncanny beasts...Happenings are often mysterious until it is recognized 

that a demon is at work...The belief in possession is also a part of popular belief..." (Werner 

Foerster, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament II, pp. 6-7) He further states, "In 

popular Greek belief the ��,mw�, daimon is a being, often thought of as a spirit of the dead, 

endowed with supernatural powers, capricious and incalculable, present in unusual places at 

particular times and at work in terrifying events in nature and human life, but placated, 

controlled or at least held off by magical means. Philosophy tried to fashion these notions into 

the conception of the ��,mw�, daimon as a divine force..." (P. 8) 

France comments that “...We have no indication that Jesus himself went out looking fro 

patients. The language is always of their either being brought to him or taking the initiative in 

approaching him themselves. He was not engaged in a ‘healing campaign’; healing and 


114

169 170 171 

already being gathered together at the door. 1.34 And he healed many being sick with 

167 


exorcism, important as they were in his total ministry, arose not so much by design as from a 

natural response to need as he encountered it, boosted by people’s desire to benefit from his 

unique evxousi,a, eksousia, ‘authority.’” (P. 109) 

168 

This is another example of Mark’s committing the “all fallacy.” See footnotes 27, 141, 

149, 165, and 185. France comments that “There is no doubt an element of exaggeration in 

the phrase o` ,lh h` po,lij, hole he polis, ‘the whole city,’ as in the pa,ntaj, pantas, ‘all,’ of the 

previous verse. In view of the close proximity of the houses excavated in Capernaum, the 

number who could be gathered physically pro.j th.n qu,ran, pros ten thuran, ‘at the door,’ on 

any one occasion would be relatively limited.” (P. 109) 

169 

The feminine singular perfect passive participle �ðéóõíçãìÝíç, episunegmene, means 

literally, "having been gathered together upon.” The noun "synagogue" means a "leading 

together," or an "assembly,” or “gathering." Jesus is pictured as "holding church" after church 

is over. It is a matter of Jesus' reaching out to the unchurched, in a non-church environment, 

in order to bring healing and the Good News of God’s Kingdom to all people. If the modern 

church desires to further the ministry of Jesus, such an example as this can prove to be of 

great importance. 

170 

The phrase �í �ëç � ðüëéò �ðéóõíçãìÝíç ðñ�ò ô�í èýñáí, en hole he polis episunegmene 

pros ten thuran, literally “was being whole (of) the city having been gathered 

together upon towards the door,” is read by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi 

Rescriptus, Bezae (see), L, Theta, Minuscules 33, 579 (see), 892, 1424, 2427, Lectionary 

2211, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate and some of the Old Latin witnesses. 

It is changed to read � ðüëéò �ëç �ðéóõíçãìÝíç �í ðñ�ò ô�í èýñáí, he polis hole 

episunegmene en pros ten thuran, literally, “the city whole had been gathered together was 

being towards the door,” by Alexandrinus, Uncial Manuscript 0233, Families 1 and 13 (see) 

of Minuscules, and the “Majority Text.” It is changed to read h` po,lij o`,lh sunhgme,nh hv/n 

pro.j ta.j qu,raj, he polis hole sunegmene en pros tas thuras, literally “the city whole 

gathered together was being towards the doors,” by W, Minuscules 28, 565 (see), 700, 2542 

(see) and a few other Greek manuscripts. The variant readings do not change the meaning of 

Mark, but do demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists to make just such slight changes 

to the original wording of the text being copied, in an attempt to make it easier to read. 

There are many people in our modern society who have been so turned off by the 

organized church and its formal worship services, that they simply will not attend such 

services. But they will come to some "neutral" locality--to a shopping center, to a movie 

theater, or to the home of a friend--and, in such a non-threatening environment, will be open to 

religious fellowship and teaching, especially to receive healing and help in their most pressing 

needs. How the 21st century church needs to learn from this example of Jesus. Important 

guide-lines for the church's purchase of property, and buildings, can be drawn from this text. 

115 

(continued...)

172 173 

various diseases, and he cast out many demons; and he was not allowing the demons to 

170 


171 

France comments that the use of pollou,j, pollous and polla,, polla, both meaning 

‘many,’ here is in apparent tension with the pa,ntaj, pantas of verse 32. Perhaps the number 

was too great to allow all to be dealt with immediately (hence the continuing search for Jesus, 

verse 37...” (P. 110) 

172 

The phrase ðïëëï�ò êáê�ò �÷ïíôáò ðïéêßëáéò íüóïéò, pollous kakos echontas 

poikilais nosois, literally “many badly having with various diseases,” is shortened to read 

ðïëëï�ò êáê�ò �÷ïíôáò, polloous kakos echontas, “many badly having,” by L and 

Minuscule 892. It is shortened even more to simply autouj, autous, “them,” by Bezae. The 

variant readings do not change the meaning of the original, but are attempts by later copyists 

to abbreviate a rather wordy text. 

Compare footnote 166. Here the same Greek phrase, "badly having" is used; but then 

the additional words are added, "with all sorts of diseases" (the source, we think, of the variant 

reading found in footnote 166). The Greek noun used here, íüóïéò, nosois, simply means 

"with diseases" or "with illnesses." France notes that the phrase poiki,laij no,soij, poikilais 

nosois, “various diseases,” “indicates a comprehensive healing ministry...The range of 

healings recorded in this gospel alone indicates a broader view of Jesus’ healing power: 

‘fever,’ ‘leprosy,’ ‘paralysis,’ ‘a withered hand,’ ‘a flow of blood,’ a deaf and dumb man, two 

blind men, and a recently dead girl, are all specifically mentioned.” (P. 110) 

173 

The phrase êá� äáéìüíéá ðïëë� �îÝâáëåí, kai daimonia polla eksebalen, literally 

“and demons many he cast out,” is changed to read tou.j daimo,nia ev,contaj evxe,balen auvta, 

avp v auvtw/n, tous daimonia echontas eksebalen auta ap’ auton, literally “the ones demons 

having he cast out them from them,” by Bezae, and a corrector of the Old Latin Manuscript ff. 

The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but is a rather “wordy” (and we 

think, unsuccessful) change by a later copyist and translator intended to enhance the original 

text. 

116

speak, because they had recognized him. 174 

174 

The accusative singular masculine pronoun auvto,n, auton, “him,” is read by the first 

writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Uncial Manuscript 0130, the ”Majority Text,” the Latin 

Vulgate, some manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Peshitta Syriac and a few 

manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic. It is expanded to auvto.n Cristo.n eiv /nai, auton Christon 

einai, literally, “him Anointed One to be,” by Vaticanus, L, W, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, 

Minuscules 28, 33 (probably), 565, 2427, some other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin 

Manuscript l, some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, the Harclean Syriac (with markings to 

indicate the reading was not found in the exemplar being copied / translated), a few 

manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic. It is changed to read to.n Cristo.n 

auvto,n, ton christon auton, literally “the Anointed One him,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus (with 

a different word-order), Family 13 of Minuscules (with a different word-order), 700 (with a 

different word-order), 1424 (with a different word-order), Lectionary 2211 (with a different 

word-order), + eiv/nai, einai, “to be,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Family 13 of Minuscules, 

Minuscules 700, 892, 1241, 1424 and a few other Greek manuscripts. It is changed to read 

auvto.n kai. evqera,peusen pollou.j kakw/j ev,contaj poiki,laij no,soij kai. daimo,nia polla. 

evxe,balen, auton kai etherapeusen pollous kakos echontas poikilais nosois kai daimonia 

polla eksebalen, literally, “him, and he healed many people badly having with various 

diseases, and demons many he cast out,” by Bezae (where Bezae makes up for previous 

omissions; compare verse 34a). The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, 

but are apparently attempts by later copyists and translators to enhance the meaning of the 

original. 

France comments that “The addition of Cristo.n ei=nai, Christon einai, literally 

‘Anointed One to be,’ or the like at the end of the verse has wide attestation, but such an 

addition to the rather bald [‘they knew him’] would be a natural correction, derived from the 

Lucan parallel, whereas it is improbable that the more explicit [‘Anointed One to be’] would be 

omitted from a wide range of text-types if it were original.” (P. 108) 

Here the difficult problem of "demon possession" is raised by Mark. See the discussion 

of "unclean spirits" found in footnotes 124 and 139. As explained in those footnotes, in 

seeking to understand Mark's description of human sickness, disease, mental illness, spiritual 

uncleanness, and demon possession, we must take into consideration the first century culture 

in which Mark was written, and the current understanding of sickness, both physical and 

mental, as well as the Persian and Jewish "dualistic" conception of their origin in an evil "god 

of darkness," acting through "unclean spirits" and "demons." Whenever we deal with these 

matters, we get into an area that is very difficult and controversial, but nonetheless very 

important for our understanding of Jesus and the Good News. 

While there always have been, and still are today, those who deny the reality of 

physical sickness or mental illness (such as Mary Baker Eddy and the religion of “Christian 

Science,” along with many Eastern religions), it seems clear today that physical and mental 

sickness are a dreadful reality, no matter how their origin is described. And, at the same time, 

whether we attribute the origin of "spiritual uncleanness" to harmful "spirits" or "demons," or 

whether we consider this view an outdated ancient superstition, still, the reality of inner 

brokenness and uncleanness cannot be legitimately denied, especially when it comes home to 


117

175 176 177 

1.35 And very early in the night, having arisen, he went out and departed into a 

174 


us, and one of our beloved family members experiences such problems. 

The tragic fact of human experience in all cultures and centuries is that humanity is 

plagued with "spiritual uncleannesses," and quickly becomes controlled and dominated by evil 

forces--whether those forces are described in terms of “unclean spirits,” or "demons," or in a 

more sophisticated way in terms of "demonic influences" such as the worship of possessions, 

or power, or pleasure, rather than the worship of God, or in terms of the powerful forces of 

Materialism, Nationalism, Racism, etc. that have so haunted our twentieth century. What 

Mark states, using the language of first-century Israel, with its influence by Persian "dualistic" 

categories, is that Jesus is the answer to all human sickness, disease, spiritual uncleanness, 

and possession by demonic forces--whatever their nature. 

We might say today that the "demon-possessed" who were being brought to Jesus 

were in reality “epileptics,” or the "mentally ill," who today crowd our state institutions. Or, we 

might describe them as the "drug addicts," or the "prostitutes," or the "criminally insane" who 

fill our prisons. But whatever our manner of description, the fact of our faith is that Jesus 

comes to serve just those people considered the most hopeless and helpless by human 

society. He welcomes them into his presence, and he ministers to them with his healing 

power. And in so doing, Jesus sets the example for his disciples in every age and place. The 

disciples of Jesus ought to commit themselves unreservedly to the welcoming and healing 

ministry of their Lord--whatever the demands of such a ministry, and wherever that ministry 

may lead them. Only so can they be true to the example of their "Great Physician" of 

humanity. 

Concerning Jesus' refusal to let the demons speak, acknowledging him, compare 

footnote 134 on Mark 1:25. It is obvious that Jesus was constantly tested and tempted with 

regard to the nature of his ministry--would he resort to "black magic," or depend upon 

"supernatural manifestations," or call upon those demonic forces for their aid, in order to 

further his ministry? His answer is uniformly, "No." Jesus, as pictured in Mark, treats the 

"witness" of these mysterious demonic forces as completely worthless. He will have nothing to 

do with them–he casts them out, and treats them as having no role at all to play in his ministry, 

other than his loving ministry to those afflicted by them. 

175 

France comments that “The individual accounts of exorcism and healing in verses 

23-31 are followed by a more general account, still placed on the same day in Capernaum, but 

offering a broader impression of Jesus’ ministry of deliverance. Other such summary 

passages (compare verse 39; 3:10-12; 6:53-56) will continue to remind us that the specific 

incidents related are only a few samples from Jesus’ total Galilean ministry, and the recurrent 

mention in this part of the gospel of his widespread reputation and of the persistent crowds 

who followed him around (1:28, 37, 45; 2:2; 3:7-9, 20; 4:1; 5:21, 24; 6:14-15, 31-34; 7:24; 

8:1-3; 9:14-15, 30) will underline his popularity as a teacher and healer.” (P. 108) 

He also notes that verses 35-39 “bring us to the end of the 24-hour period begun in 

verse 21. The scene is still Capernaum (or rather a quiet place near the town), but the focus 

is now wider.. While the inhabitants of Capernaum want Jesus to stay, and the disciples 


118

178 179 180 

desert place, and there he was praying. 1.36 And Simon, and those who were with 

175 


apparently share that hope, Jesus’ sense of mission compels him to leave an apparently 

fruitful and popular ministry in order to extend his proclamation of the kingdom of God through 

the rest of Galilee. We are thus introduced to the dominant pattern of Jesus’ Galilean ministry 

as one of itinerant preaching; Capernaum will be his base, but he will be seen in most of 

Mark’s narrative up to chapter 10 as constantly on the move. 

”Here for the first time we meet a recurrent theme of the gospel, that of the difference 

between Jesus’ program and his disciples’ (and still more other people’s) expectation. It is not 

just that he is one step ahead of them; his whole conception of how God’s kingship is to be 

made effective is quite different from theirs. While they would naturally pursue the normal 

human policy of taking advantage of popularity and building on success on their own home 

ground, following Jesus will increasingly involve them in having to learn a new orientation. In 

this case, indeed, there is no hint yet that Jesus’ onward drive will lead to anything other than 

growing popularity and response, but simply that the scope of his vision is broader than theirs. 

It will not be long, however, before a more ominous note begins to be heard.” (P. 111) 

176 

Compare footnote 164, where it is noted how "cumbersome" the language of Mark is in 

its description of the time of day when the healing ministry of Jesus occurred. Now, a similar 

thing is true of Mark's description of the time of day when Jesus prayed, in its attempt to be 

very exact with regards to the time of day involved in the story (we would say, “before dawn”), 

involving a “duality,” as two phrase are used where one would do. France comments that “The 

specific mention of sunset is not otiose, since sunset marked the end of the sabbath and 

therefore the time when patients could be carried about and Jesus could legitimately 

undertake healing,” i.e., without violating Jewish law concerning no work on the Day of Rest. 

France comments that prwi> e;nnuca li,an, proi ennucha lian, which we have 

translated “very early in the night,” “is a clumsy but graphic phrase meaning ‘Very early next 

morning, while it was still quite dark.’ ;Ennuca, ennucha, is the neuter plural of the rare 

adjective e;nnucoj, ennuchos, ‘at night,’ used as an adverb...The picture of Jesus seeking out 

a quiet place for extended prayer before the next phase of his mission sets an important 

perspective for the crowded narrative which will follow.” (P. 111) 

177 

The phrase �î�ëèåí êá� �ð�ëèåí, ekselthen kai apelthen, “he went out and he 

departed,” is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, 

L, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0130, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 2427, 

the ”Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac, the 

Harclean Syriac, and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). It is shortened to �ð�ëèåí, apelthen, “he 

departed,” by W, a few other Greek manuscripts, the majority of the Old Latin witnesses, and 

the Peshitta Syriac. It is shortened to �î�ëèåí, ekselthen, “he went out,” by Vaticanus, 

Minuscules 28, 565, a few other Greek manuscripts, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic 

and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, 

but evidently are attempts by later copyists and translators to enhance the somewhat “wordy” 

original text by eliminating unnecessary words. 

178 

France comments that “An ev,rhmoj to,poj, eremos topos, ‘desert place,’ here is 


119

181 182 183 184 

him, hunted him down, 1.37 and they found him. And they say to him that, "All 

178 


clearly to be distinguished from h` ev,rhmoj, he eremos, ‘the desert’ or ‘the wilderness’ in 1:1- 

13. It is close to Capernaum, presumably some secluded spot out of the town; the fact that 

the disciples could find him suggests that they may already have been in the habit of meeting 

there. Such retreats from the public arena are a recurring feature of the narrative, 

interspersed between periods of public exposure and the pressure of the crowds (compare 

1:45; 3:13; 6:31-32, 46; 7:24; 8:27; 9:2, 30-31).” (P. 112) 

179 

There is a unique appeal in the thumb-nail sketch of verses 29-34 that appeals to social 

activists. Here is the kind of ministry in which they want to be engaged--right in the center of 

town, where people live, dealing with the nitty-gritty problems and destructive forces that 

paralyze and distort and pervert human character. But sometimes those social activists forget 

the real source of their ministry, and become almost "irreligious." They cease to pray, or 

meditate; and they quickly become little more than "do-gooders" who lose all spiritual power. 

Jesus' example is quite different from this. He is pictured as being deeply involved in 

social ministry--as reaching out to all the oppressed, suffering peoples of society, beyond the 

walls of the religious institution, to heal and cast out all the forces of evil. But he does not lose 

touch with the source of all genuine power. Right at the time of his busiest ministry, he goes 

out into a deserted place, to spend precious time in prayer to God the Father, the one in 

whose strength and power all his ministry was done. 

We could entitle this section of Mark "Public Worship, Healing Ministry, Private 

Devotion, and Expanding Mission"--because all of these elements are closely combined in 

Mark's description of Jesus' ministry. Jesus enters into the Jewish gathering-places, to share 

in the "public worship" of the Jewish people of his day. He takes an active role in teaching and 

healing within the confines of the religious establishment. But his ministry does not end there. 

When he "leaves church," he continues his healing ministry right in the center of town, at the 

door of a private home, where the crowds of ordinary people who might not be found in church 

gather--there he commits himself to ministering to their deepest needs. But still, he does not 

get lost in that social concern and ministry. He also recognizes and acknowledges his own 

deep need for prayer, for spiritual nourishment. And even with this, he is not satisfied--but 

insists on going onward, reaching out beyond present attainments, to reach still others who 

are as yet unreached. What a wonderful, demanding pattern for our own ministries. 

180 

There are some interpolations into the original text at this point. The definite article o`, 

ho, “the (Simon),” is interpolated by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Uncial 

Manuscript 0130 and the Majority Text. The words o` te, ho te, literally “the and...” are 

interpolated by K, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 1424, and 

some other Greek manuscripts. The single word te, te, “and,” is interpolated by the first writer 

of Bezae (a corrector changes it to to,te, tote, “then”). The text without any interpolations is 

read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, W, Minuscules 33, 579, 892, 2427, Lectionary 2211 and a 

few other Greek manuscripts. The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but 

do reveal the freedom felt by later copyists to make just such slight changes to the original text 

being copied. 

120

185 186 

(people) are seeking you." 1.38 And he says to them, "Let us go elsewhere, into the 

181 

The verb êáôåäßùîåí, katedioksen, “he hunted down,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 

Theta, Minuscules 28, 565, 700, 2542, many other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate and 

some manuscripts of the Old Latin. It is changed to the third person plural form of the same 

verb, êáôåäßùîaí, katedioksan, “they hunted down,” by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi 

Rescriptus, Bezae, K, L, W, Gamma, Delta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 

33, 579, 892, 1241, 1424, 2427, Lectionary 2211, many other Greek manuscripts, and the 

majority of the Old Latin witnesses. The variant reading does not change the meaning of 

Mark, but makes explicit the fact that the “hunting down” included more than only Simon. 

The verb “he hunted down” may well imply a sort of "consternation" on the part of 

Simon (and the other disciples of Jesus, if the variant reading is followed). It is most often 

used of a "hostile pursuit," a "hunting down." "What in the world is he doing? Here we are, 

surrounded by people in need of his ministry, and he is nowhere to be found." Many of us 

today would agree with that attitude. Why waste time in prayer, or in religious devotions, when 

there is religious work to be done? But the fact is that much more valuable "work" will get 

done by the person who comes to those tasks renewed and refreshed by prayer and personal 

devotion, than by the workaholics who forget who they are, and whose they are. 

182 rd 

The 3 person plural, aorist indicative active verb å�ñïí, heuron, “they found,” is 

read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Minuscules 892, 2427, and the Old Latin Manuscript e. It 

is changed to the masculine plural aorist participle eu`ro,ntej, heurontes, “having found,” by 

Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0130, Families 1 and 13 of 

Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.” It is changed to read o`,te eu`/ron, hote 

heuron, “when they found,” by Bezae. The variant readings do not change the meaning of 

Mark, but are attempts by later copyists and translators to slightly re-word the original text, 

making it clearer to understand. 

183 

The conjunction ��,, kai, “and...” is omitted by the same witnesses mentioned in 

footnote 163 as making interpolations into the original text. Again, this variant does not 

change the meaning of Mark, but is only part of the same attempt to slightly re-word the 

original. 

184 

The phrase êá� å�ñïí á�ô�í êá� ëÝãïõóéí, kai heuron auton kai legousin, “and they 

found him and they are saying...” is shortened to read simply le,gontej, legontes, “saying,” by 

W and the Old Latin Manuscripts b and c. The variant reading does not change the meaning 

of Mark, but is simply an attempt by a later copyist and translators to abbreviate the somewhat 

“wordy” original text. 

185 

Compare footnotes 27, 141, 149, 165 and 168 for references to the “all fallacy" in 

Mark. Here, Mark pictures the disciples of Jesus as committing that same fallacy. Surely 

what is meant is that "many people" were seeking Jesus--not that literally "everybody" was. 

186 

The phrase æçôï�óßí óå, zetousin se, “they are seeking you,” is changed to read óå 

æçôï�óßí, se zetousin, ‘you they are seeking,” by Alexandrinus, K, Gamma, Family 13 of 

Minuscules, Minuscules 565, 892, 1424, Lectionary 2211, many other Greek manuscripts 

and the Old Latin Manuscripts a and f. The change in word order does not change the 


121

187 188 

neighboring market-towns, in order that I may proclaim there also. For in order to do this I 

189 

came out." 

186 


meaning of Mark, but is simply a matter of “taste” concerning proper word order, leading these 

copyists and translators to make this slight change in the original being copied and translated. 

France comments that “We are not told why [‘all are seeking you’], but may reasonably 

assume that what is sought is a continuation of the teaching, healing, and exorcism which 

have marked Jesus’ powerful impact on the life of Capernaum. The disciples assume, and the 

people are demanding, that things should continue as they have so impressively begun. But 

Jesus has other priorities; his primary mission is not to be a wonder-worker but to proclaim the 

kingdom of God.” (P. 112) 

187 

The phrase �÷ïìÝíáò êùìïðüëåéò, echomenas komopoleis, which we have 

translated “neighboring market-towns,” is changed to read evggu.j ko,maj kai. eivj ta.j po,leij, 

eggus komas kai eis tas poleis, literally “near villages and into the cities...” by Bezae, and 

the entire Latin tradition. The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark. The 

noun kwmo,polij, komopolis means literally "a city that has only the position of a ko,mh, kome 

[‘village,’ ‘small town’] as far as its constitution is concerned." (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich- 

Danker, p. 461, quoting Schuerer) It is used for the small villages of Galilee that would be 

known as "market-towns." 

France comments that “The next focus of Jesus’ mission is to be proclamation in [the 

neighboring villages]. Kwmo,polij, komopolis “is a settlement which is more than a village, 

but cannot claim the status of a po,lij, polis, ‘city,’ but New Testament usage of kw,mh, 

kome, and po,lij, polis, is not politically sophisticated, the terms sometimes being used 

interchangeably...Mark has just referred to Capernaum as a po,lij, polis, ‘city,’ (1:33), which 

suggests that he regards it as the most significant settlement of its area; the use of 

Kwmo,polij, komopolis here for its neighbors therefore perhaps serves to indicate that, while 

not mere kw,mai, komai, they are of a lower status than Capernaum...Jesus is therefore 

moving from the center of local influence into a rather more ‘grassroots’ ministry.” (Pp. 112- 

13) 

188 

France comments that the phrase i[na...khru,xw, hina kerukso, “in order that I might 

proclaim,” “picks up the opening description of Jesus’ mission in 1:14-15; the good news 

needs to be heard, and people summoned to respond, as widely as possible. This is the 

specific purpose of Jesus’ mission.” (P. 113) 

189 st 

The 1 person singular, aorist indicative active verb �î�ëèïí, ekselthon, “I came 

out,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Theta, Minuscules 33, 579, 

2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts. It is changed to read evlh,luqa, elelutha, “I have 

come,” by W, Delta, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 892, 1424, many other 

Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac margin and 

st 

the Bohairic Coptic (in part). It is changed to read the 1 person singular perfect indicative 


122

189 


active evxelh,luqa, ekselelutha, “I have come out,” by Alexandrinus, Bezae, K, Gamma, 

Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 700, 1241, Lectionary 2211, many other Greek 

manuscripts and the Harclean Syriac. It is changed to read avpesta,lhn, apestalen, “I was 

sent (authoritatively),” by Minuscule 2542. The variants do not change the meaning of Mark, 

but do demonstrate the freedom of later copyists and translators to substitute synonyms for a 

verb found in the original. 

Jesus did not "come out" simply to begin a ministry in one particular location, and then 

settle in to become the "local chaplain." No, he had his eyes set on a much broader goal than 

that. It is apparent from the theology that emerges from the New Testament that for Jesus 

the goal is no less than the ends of the earth. France comments that the phrase “I came out” 

is in fact ambiguous, and may refer only to his coming out from Capernaum, or perhaps refers 

to his coming out of Nazareth. “But an instructed Christian reader is likely to see more in it 

than that, and the similar use of [‘I came’ and ‘he came’] in Jesus’ words in 2:17; 10:45 to 

express his essential mission suggests that Mark may have in mind already the concept of the 

‘coming into the world’ of the pre-existent Son of God...which is such a prominent feature of 

the Fourth Gospel (compare John 8:42; 16:27-28). Luke 4:43 apparently takes it in this 

sense.” (P. 113) 

The divine voice heard at Jesus' immersion in the Jordan (1:11) has commissioned 

Jesus to be the universal King, the High Priestly sacrifice for all of God's people, and the 

"Suffering Servant" who serves as a "Light to the Nations." If Jesus is to take this calling 

seriously, it must involve a great deal more than a ministry of social concern in one small 

market-town in eastern Galilee. No sooner than the work gets started, Jesus is pictured as 

insisting on moving on further into new fields of ministry. And so, in his footsteps, his followers 

have gone out into every nation, in every continent, seeking to further the kind of works to 

which he devoted his ministry, for the past 2,000 years–and are still continuing to do so. 

123 

(continued...)

189 


PRAYER 

Lord Jesus, we remember how you grew up in the Jewish faith –attending public 

worship services in the Jewish synagogue every week, sharing with others in the reading of 

the Bible, and in seeking to understand the will of God for human life. We remember how you 

taught in the Jewish synagogue, with such powerful authority, both by word and by deed, 

casting out the unclean spirits that plague human existence. 

And when the public worship services were ended, and you went home to share in the 

hospitality of your disciples–your ministry didn’t end, but continued on–as you reached out to 

those in the families of your disciples who were sick, healing them, enabling them to minister 

to others. How we would love to have been there–especially as evening came on that Day of 

Rest–and the sick and mentally ill and victims of evil were brought to you at the door of that 

house, and you labored on into the night, healing the sick, and casting out the demonic 

powers that afflicted the common people of your day. No, you didn’t limit your ministry to 

religious buildings, or to only one day a week, or to active members of the religious 

community–you ministered every day, reaching out to, and serving everyone within the reach 

of your loving hand and heart. 

But you never became so caught up in ministering to others that you forgot the source 

of your power. Very early in the morning, you arose, to get off by yourself, and spend time in 

prayer to God your Father. What a powerful example you have set for us–ministering to 

others, but always keeping in close contact with God, the source of all spiritual power. 

And we remember how, even in the midst of great popularity, and the thronging crowds 

who were coming to you, you led your disciples out into an ever expanding circle of 

proclamation and ministry. Your mission was not just to your homeland of Galilee–but you 

had in mind a universal mission to the ends of the earth. 

O Lord Jesus, teach us and guide us by your example. Let us love to gather together 

for public worship, as we share in teaching one another. But when the public worship service 

is over, let our ministry to all others we can possibly reach begin. Commit us, O Lord, to just 

such a ministry as you had there in Galilee, your homeland. And as we minister to others, let 

us never lose contact with God, in quiet, private prayer, the only source of power for ministry. 

And when we are successful in one ministry, let us never be satisfied–but let us set our eyes 

on the greater world around us, to reach out with the proclamation of the Good News to the 

124

very ends of the earth. Today Lord, we pray that we will have the wisdom to follow in your 

footsteps of ministry. 

We pray today, Lord Jesus, for healing of Sam Kemp’s body, and give thanks for the 

good news that the malignancy has not spread. We pray for the coming of full and lasting 

peace in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Israel, between the Jews and the Arabs–both Christians 

and Muslims. We give thanks for the overthrow of the Taliban, and of Saddam Hussein, and 

we pray for a speedy overthrow of all terrorist organizations, in order to bring about a new day 

of healing and peace. Let that day come speedily is our prayer. Amen. 

125

THE SECRET WORK OF OUR GREAT HIGH PRIEST 


1.39 êá� �ëèåí êçñýóóùí å�ò ô�ò óõíáãùã�ò á�ô�í å�ò �ëçí ô�í Ãáëéëáßáí êá� ô� 

äáéìüíéá �êâÜëëùí. 1.40 Êá� �ñ÷åôáé ðñ�ò á�ô�í ëåðñ�ò ðáñáêáë�í á�ô�í [êá� ãïíõðåô�í] 

êá� ëÝãùí á�ô� �ôé �Å�í èÝë�ò äýíáóáß ìå êáèáñßóáé. 1.41 êá� óðëáã÷íéóèå�ò �êôåßíáò ô�í 

÷å�ñá á�ôï� �øáôï êá� ëÝãåé á�ô�, ÈÝëù, êáèáñßóèçôé� 1.42 êá� å�è�ò �ð�ëèåí �ð� á�ôï� � 

ëÝðñá, êá� �êáèáñßóèç. 

1.39 And he came proclaiming into their gathering-places, into the whole Galilee, and 

casting out the demons. 1.40 And a person with severe skin disease comes to him, begging 

him [and kneeling down], and saying to him that, "If you wish, you are able to cleanse me." 

(41) And, filled with compassion, having reached out his hand to him, he touched and says to 

him, "I [so] wish. Be cleansed." (42) And immediately the severe skin disease went out from 

him, and he was cleansed. 

1.43 êá� �ìâñéìçóÜìåíïò á�ô� å�è�ò �îÝâáëåí á�ôüí 1.44 êá� ëÝãåé á�ô�, �Ïñá 

ìçäåí� ìçä�í å�ð�ò, �ëë� �ðáãå óåáõô�í äå�îïí ô� �åñå� êá� ðñïóÝíåãêå ðåñ� ôï� 

êáèáñéóìï� óïõ � ðñïóÝôáîåí Ìùûó�ò, å�ò ìáñôýñéïí á�ôï�ò. 1.45 � ä� �îåëè�í �ñîáôï 

êçñýóóåéí ðïëë� êá� äéáöçìßæåéí ô�í ëüãïí, �óôå ìçêÝôé á�ô�í äýíáóèáé öáíåñ�ò å�ò ðüëéí 

å�óåëèå�í, �ëë� �îù �ð� �ñÞìïéò ôüðïéò �í� êá� �ñ÷ïíôï ðñ�ò á�ô�í ðÜíôïèåí. 

1.43 And, having become disgusted with him, he immediately drove him away, 1.44 

and he says to him, "See that you should say nothing to nobody, but rather, go, show yourself 

to the priest, and offer for the cleansing of yours the things Moses commanded, for a 

testimony to them." 1.45 But then he, having gone out, began to proclaim many things, and to 

make known the matter, so that no longer was he able to enter openly into a city; but rather, 

he was being outside, in deserted places. And they were coming to him from all directions. 


190 

Here again, ask yourself the following questions before continuing with these study 

notes. 

1. What is a "leper," and what is the disease called "leprosy"? What is the point of 

Mark's thumb-nail sketch of Jesus' willingly cleansing this person of his leprosy? What does 

this imply concerning Jesus' relationship with the Jewish Temple and its Levitical priesthood? 

2. "If you wish..." "Perhaps..." What does this kind of language say concerning our 

dogmatic certainties? Is this an example of the kind of faith we all need to have? 

3. What is the biblical background of this word "compassion"? What do you make of 

the variant reading "having become angry"? 

4. What is Jesus' attitude towards this out-cast, unclean, untouchable person? 

126 

(continued...)

191 192 193 194 195 

1.39 And he came proclaiming into their gathering-places, into the whole 

190 


5. Why does Mark describe this compassionate Jesus as becoming disgusted with the 

healed person, and driving him away? 

6. If Jesus purposely disregards the law concerning not touching an unclean person 

such as this “leper,” why does he command the cleansed man to obey the law concerning 

going to the priest? And if Jesus is truly greater than the Jewish Temple, and its Levitical 

priesthood, why does he instruct this former leper to go through the Temple's rituals? If Jesus 

has brought a "New Covenant," why does he instruct this person to follow the commandments 

of the "Old Covenant"? Was Jesus deliberately trying to tell the Jewish priests who he was? 

7. If Jesus wanted people to know who he was, why the command for silence, and why 

the emphasis on secrecy in Mark? 

191 

France includes this story in 1:40-45 along with the materials that follow in 2:1-3:6, 

entitling the section “Controversial Aspects of Jesus’ Ministry.” He comments that “A feature 

which links the various stories in this section is the increasing awareness that not everyone 

welcomes Jesus’ teaching and activity, and the section will conclude with the remarkable 

revelation of a consequent plot on his life (3:6). Opposition is explicit in 2:6-7, 16, 18, 24; 3:2, 

6...The inclusion of 1:40-45 under this same heading of ‘controversial aspects of Jesus’ 

ministry’ may seem less obviously appropriate, but the language Mark uses, and especially 

the enigmatic eivj martu,rion auvtoi/j, eis marturion autois, ‘for a testimony to them,’ serves 

to prepare for the more direct confrontations to follow, while the excessive popularity which 

results from this incident (verse 45) inevitably brings Jesus to the notice of those who will find 

him a threat.” (P. 114) 

192 rd 

The 3 person singular, aorist indicative active verb �ëèåí, elthen, “he came,” is read 

by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Theta, Minuscules 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts 

and the Coptic tradition. 

It is changed to the imperfect verb hv/n, en, “he was being,” by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi 

Rescriptus, Bezae, W, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the ”Majority Text,” 

the entire Latin tradition and the Syriac tradition. 

The phrase evn tai/j sunagwgai/j, en tais sunagogais, “in the gathering-places,” is 

also added to this variant verb by Gamma, Minuscule 700, many other Greek manuscripts, 

the Latin Vulgate and some of the Old Latin Manuscripts. 

The variants do not change the meaning of Mark, but are attempts by later copyists and 

translators to enhance the original text. 

193 

In verse 38 Jesus is quoted as saying, "Let us go elsewhere...in order that I may 

proclaim..." Now Mark describes him as "coming proclaiming." The 1 person singular, 1 

st st 

aorist subjunctive active verb êçñýîù, kerukso, means "I might announce," "I might make 

known" (as a herald), "I might preach," "I might proclaim.” It has earlier been used to describe 

the work of John the Immerser--see Mark 1:4, 7. It is also the verb from which the participle 


127

196 197 198 

Galilee, and casting out the demons. 1.40 And a person with severe skin disease 

193 


comes that is chosen by Mark to describe Jesus' own work in Mark 1:14, "Then after this John 

was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming [khru,sswn, kerusson] the Good News of 

God..." 

194 

The phrase å�ò ô�ò óõíáãùã�ò, eis tas sunagogas, “into the gathering-places,” is 

changed to read evn tai/j sunagwgai/j, en tais sunagogais, “in the gathering-places,” by the 

manuscripts noted in footnote 192. 

In verses 21-28 Mark has described Jesus' entrance into the synagogue in 

Capernaum. Now Mark tells its readers that what Jesus had done in Capernaum was true of 

the other market-towns into which he entered. He went immediately into their synagogues, the 

gathering-places for Sabbath worship of the Jews; and there, within the Jewish religious 

establishment, Jesus proclaimed (the Good News of God's present action and close-by 

Kingdom). 

195 

In spite of its somewhat odd sound in English, this is what the Greek text states. He 

came preaching "into" their synagogues, and "into" all Galilee. 

196 

Mark does not use the word pa/n, pan, “all,” here as it has earlier where we have 

criticized the writing as committing the "all fallacy"--see footnotes 27, 141, and 185. Here 

Mark states literally, "into whole the Galilee," which in English means "into the whole region of 

Galilee." Of course, this language too can be misconstrued by a rigid literal understanding. 

197 

The phrase êá� ô� äáéìüíéá �êâÜëëùí, kai ta daimonia ekballon, literally, “and the 

demons casting out,” is omitted by W. Compare footnotes 109, 113, 114, 120, 124, 134, and 

159. 

However we may view these "thumb-nail sketches" of Mark's Gospel, and however 

many questions we may have concerning Mark's description of what happened, the fact is 

that Mark is describing a compassionate ministry that reaches out beyond the confines of the 

sanctuary of public worship, to serve people, all people, whatever their need or condition. 

That's ministry. It's ministry to the people, to all the people, wherever they are, 

whatever their needs, whatever their position in life. It's not a ministry that's limited to 

synagogues or temples or church buildings, or that's confined to set hours, or to one day in 

seven. It's ministry to people at the point of their need, whenever, and wherever they are 

found. And that's why, in the train of Jesus, there have come the hospitals, the infirmaries, the 

orphanages, the clinics, the rest-homes, the mental hospitals, the counseling centers, the 

medical schools, the colleges and universities of every sort and variety, leading the disciples of 

Jesus to learn the skills and practices that have brought healing and wholeness to human 

beings. Jesus set the way. It's a ministry of getting down on the human level, where people 

live, sharing in their hurts and sorrows, using every God-given skill to meet those needs. 

That's our tradition, our ministry. And that's why the disciples of Jesus have taken it as 

their responsibility to attack every evil that afflicts humanity, to do all in their power to cast out 


128


all the demons and unclean spirits, to bring to an end all the evil forces that afflict human 

existence. Jesus set the example. He led the way. He is indeed "The Great Physician," the 

one who never rested or quit when others were hurt or were in need. Yes, Jesus taught and 

preached the love of God. But he did far more than to just speak words, and leave it at that. 

He embodied that love of God in loving ministry to human need. 

What Mark wants its readers to know is that in that ministry, the Kingdom of God was 

and is present. The "Master Teacher," the one who came to teach us the truth about 

ourselves, and about our God, was also the "Great Physician," the one who reached out to the 

untouchables with his healing touch, the one who came to bear our hurts, our pains, our 

sicknesses, and to destroy all the dark, sinister forces of evil--that's the one Mark wants its 

readers to know. 

God's chosen King has come into this world. He has brought near the Kingdom of God, 

and he has called people--common, ordinary, lower middle-class working people--into that 

Kingdom, to share in its blessings and in its mission. He has called us to "turn around," and to 

"put our confidence" in the Good News. He has called us to become "fishers of people," 

following his leadership. And he has embodied in his wonderful ministry the kind of ministry 

that he gives to each of us--a ministry that binds up the hurts of humanity, struggling against 

all uncleanness, and fighting against every demonic force that oppresses human beings--and 

that relates us all to our God and Father as his people. He leads us to share in the public 

worship of the gathered people of God. But he also leads us out from public worship, to enter 

into an endless ministry of compassion to all who hurt, ministering to every pressing human 

need. At the same time, he teaches by his example how we should always be dependent 

upon the heavenly Father in prayer, as the source of our strength and power. And he never 

lets us be satisfied with what we have achieved--but always presses us forward and onward, in 

a mission that will never end until every person on earth has been reached for him. 

The wonderful thing about all of this is that this same Message, this same Good News, 

is ours today. It comes to you and to me, challenging each of us to participate in the blessings 

of the Kingdom of God, and to enter into its on-going ministry to the ends of the earth. What 

will our decision be? 

198 

The nominative masculine singular adjective ��o,�, lepros comes from the verb 

le,pw, lepo, which means "to scale or peel off," and has the basic meaning of "scaly," 

"scabby," "not smooth on the surface." (Michaelis, Theological Dictionary of the New 

Testament IV, pp. 233-34) It can be used to describe uneven, rocky ground; but it is also 

used of the skin disease "leprosy" (our English word has been taken over directly from the 

Greek), in which the skin commonly becomes very rough and scabs are formed. As France 

notes, “...This man will have been suffering from a disfiguring skin complaint which was 

thought to be contagious...Leprosy was one of the most dreaded diseases, and regarded as 

practically incurable...” (P. 116) 

The Jewish Bible has a large section--two entire chapters, Leviticus 13-14--devoted 

to this matter of "leprosy" and its relationship to the priestly rituals of cleansing in the 

Tabernacle and Temple. The "bottom line" of the matter is that in Israel, while certain priestly 


129

199 200 201 202 

comes to him, begging him [and kneeling down], and saying to him that, "If you wish, 

198 


rituals of cleansing were provided for in the Temple ritual, the disease was considered largely 

"incurable," and people with leprosy were treated as "untouchables." The person with such an 

infectious disease had to wear torn clothes, let his hair be uncombed, cover the lower part of 

his face, and continually cry out, “Unclean! Unclean!” while in public. As long as he or she 

had the infection they remained unclean. They had to live alone; they had to live outside the 

camp. (Leviticus 13:45-46) See also the Mishnah tractate Negaim, where the various 

details given in Leviticus 13-14 are elaborated upon, concerning the various symptoms of the 

“leprosy” disease, as they appear in people, garments and houses. 

Because of this, as France notes, “An encounter with a leper raises not only the 

problem of illness but also that of the Levitical laws of purity. Jesus’ willingness to touch the 

man suggests a lack of concern with ritual purity, or at least a deliberate preference for 

meeting need over ritual correctness, which points forward to the controversy over his 

involvement with telw/nai kai. a`martwloi,, telonai kai hamartoloi, ‘tax-collectors and 

missers-of-the-mark’ in 2:16-17. But at the same time he insists that the cured leper must 

correctly observe the Old Testament purification rites, eivj martu,rion auvtoi/j, eis marturion 

autois, ‘for a testimony to them.’ There is thus a delicate balance in this [passage], which sets 

up an intriguing tension with regard to Jesus’ attitude to the ritual law.” (Pp. 115-16) 

What the Jewish law, with its Temple's priestly rituals, was unable to accomplish, this 

great High Priest, Jesus of Nazareth, was able to accomplish with only a touch and a word, 

and he commands the cleansed person to go to the priest and show him what has happened 

to him. 

According to Mark and the other Gospels, in Jesus, the "untouchables" and those with 

supposedly "incurable diseases," found divine acceptance and immediate healing. Jesus is 

indeed, according to Mark, "The Great Physician," or "The Great High Priest," in whom all 

humanity's most dreaded enemies have met their match. Not only those with unclean spirits, 

and those possessed by powerful demonic forces, but even those with the most nauseating 

and feared of diseases, found acceptance and healing with Jesus. And while Jesus did not 

want the story of what he was doing to be heralded throughout Galilee (since his increasing 

popularity was threatening to stifle his ministry), he did want the officiating priest in the Temple 

in Jerusalem to be aware of what was happening. 

199 

France notes that “No indication of place is given, but a lepro,j, lepros, ‘person with 

incurable skin disease,’ would necessarily be outside normal habitation (Leviticus 13:46).” 

(P. 116) The phrase in Hebrew is hn< ßx]M;l;( #Wxïmi, michuts lammachaneh, “outside the 

camp”; in Greek it is e;xw th/j parembolh/j, ekso tes paremboles, with identical meaning. 

200 

The phrase kai. gonupetw/n kai,, kai gonupeton kai, “and kneeling and...,” is read by a 

corrector of Sinaiticus, L, Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 565, 579, 892, 1241, 

2542, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate (see), and some of the Old Latin 

witnesses (see). 

130 

(continued...)


Only the first two words, êá� ãïíõðåô�í, kai gonupeton is read by the first writer of 

Sinaiticus. 

The phrase is omitted by Vaticanus, Minuscule 2427 and some manuscripts of the 

Sahidic Coptic. 

Only the one word, êá�, kai, “and,” is read by Bezae, W, Gamma, a few other Greek 

manuscripts and the majority of the Old Latin witnesses. 

The reading kai. gonupetw/n auvto.n kai,, kai gonupeton auton kai, and kneeling (to) 

him and...” is read by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Uncial Manuscript 0130, Family 

13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the ”Majority Text” and the Old Latin Manuscript q (see). 

The evidence is so evenly divided that a confident decision as to how the original 

manuscript read is impossible--and so the words are included in the text, but are placed within 

brackets, to indicate their questionable nature. We suspect that there may have been a 

problem in the earliest text, and that later copyists and translators have had to deal with it as 

best they could. However, the variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark. 

France notes that “The leper approached (e;rcetai pro.j auvto.n, erchetai pros auton, 

‘he comes to [or, ‘towards’] him) to within touching distance (verse 41), in defiance of the 

taboo.” (P. 116) 

201 

France notes that “The piling up of participles (parakalw/n...gonupetw/n...le,gwn, 

parakalon...gonupeton...legon, ‘begging, falling on knees, saying’) is typical of Mark’s 

prolixity [‘tendency to use unnecessary words’]; it results in a sense of strong, urgent appeal.” 

(P. 117) 

202 

This statement reminds the reader of a similar statement made by the King of Nineveh in 

Jonah 3:9, in response to Jonah’s harsh, ringing proclamation that within 40 days Nineveh will 

be destroyed. The King responds, "Who knows--the God may turn and may have 

compassion; and he may turn back from (the) heat of his anger--and we will not perish." 

(Compare Joel 2:14) The Lacocques comment on this statement of the King of Nineveh: "It 

is a tremendous step, a formidable wager to say that perhaps all is not said in the prophet's 

oracle. Maybe death is not the final word. 'Yes, all may be, all is possible; nothing is either 

too atrocious to be impossible in the world and in history, nor too sublime to be impossible in 

human conscience and action...At Nineveh's gates, saved by its repentance, this is the lesson 

taught by God to Jonah whose soul strived after automatic certainties. These are pulverized 

by the fiery fugue of Perhaps.'" (The quotation is from Neher, p. 71) 

The same kind of feeling is expressed by this person with the severe skin disease. 

Pronounced "untouchable" and "incurable" by the official religion of his day, he still dares to 

approach this great High Priest; he dares to think that perhaps all has not been said by the 

orthodox thinkers of his day. "If you wish...you are able. Who can place a limit on what is 

possible?" There is expressed here a stubborn, audacious insistence on coming directly to 

the divine mercy and compassion, that will not allow itself to be put off by the current official 


131

203 204 205 

you are able to cleanse me." 1.41 And, filled with compassion, having reached out his 


religious orthodoxy. Schweizer states, "Although there is here by no means any clear 

knowledge of the real nature of Jesus, true faith is seen in the complete dependence upon 

him, in the courage to put trust in Jesus' unlimited power, and in the humble consciousness 

that everything depends upon Jesus' will..." (P. 57) 

How many untold applications can be made of this in our own day. The official line was 

for a long time that AIDS (or hard-drug addiction, or sexual perversion such as child 

molestation) is virtually incurable, and that there is no real hope for people with such 

conditions. But who knows what can be done, if those people come humbly to the Great 

Physician, asking for his healing and cleansing? There are those doom-sayers who predict 

that the so-called "Main-Line Denominations" have reached their end, that their soon-coming 

demise is unavoidable, that the time of evangelism and church growth is past for us, that we 

simply have no future. There are the prophets of “Doomsday,” who claim that nuclear 

holocaust is the inevitable future for planet earth, and that there is no way to avoid the coming 

great World War III. Others speak of the inevitability of the collision of our planet with a giant 

comet or meteorite, that will result in the final destruction of our world. But who knows what 

can happen, if we humbly come to Jesus, asking for his help? There are many individuals 

who have such low self-images as to think their life is worthless, that they have no future, that 

there is nothing but darkness and hopelessness for them–why not suicide? But who knows--if 

this Great Physician and King wishes--what new days of hope and usefulness can be theirs? 

The statement of this person with the severe skin disease is anything but a dogmatic, 

legalistic approach. Rather, it is personal; it is rooted in a quest for mercy, for compassion; 

and it expresses itself in the humble request for divine healing. It has no magical ritual to 

depend upon, no set form of words to force the hand of Jesus. It simply casts itself upon the 

compassion and mercy that it believes are present in him. As France comments, the 

statement reveals “an unquestioning assumption of Jesus’ ability to cure his condition. Jesus’ 

reputation (verse 28) has reached even to this man cut off from society, and it is such that 

even leprosy, normally assumed to be incurable, comes under his [‘authority’]...” (P. 117) 

203 

"Those in charge of the priestly rituals of the Temple may have given up on people like 

me; orthodox religion may turn its head, looking upon me as an 'untouchable' and as an 

'incurably hopeless wretch.' But you, Jesus, are different. You give hope to the hopeless, you 

reach out your hand to touch the untouchables. I've heard of your healing power, and of your 

optimistic compassion. I know that you are able to cleanse me." Does Mark offer this to its 

readers as a good example of what "having faith" or "placing confidence" in Jesus, or 

“believing” really is? Indeed–why else would Mark have included it? 

204 

The conjunction ��,, kai, “and,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, 

Minuscules 892, 2427, the majority of the Old Latin witnesses, some manuscripts of the 

Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). 

It is changed to o` de. Ihsou/j, ho de Iesous, “but then the Jesus...” by Alexandrinus, 

Ephraemi Rescriptus, L (in a different order), W, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0130, Families 1 

132 

(continued...)

204 


and 13 of Minuscules, the ”Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses, 

the Syriac tradition, a few manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic (in part). 

The variant reading is an effort by later copyists and translators to enhance the original 

text, making its meaning clearer, without changing that meaning. 

205 

The masculine singular aorist passive participle used here, ��i,�, 

splagchnistheis, “being filled with compassion,” or “having compassion,” is changed to the 

very opposite passive participle, ovrgisqei,j, orgistheis, “being filled with anger,” by Bezae and 

the Old Latin Manuscripts a, a corrector of ff and a corrector of r. 

This variant reading changes the meaning of Mark, picturing Jesus as becoming angry 

with, rather than having compassion for this leprous person. 

While this should not on the basis of the textual evidence be considered the original 

reading, in verse 43 the original text of Mark does describe Jesus as "having become 

disgusted" with this person. See 1:43 with its footnote 214. 

Lane holds that "In spite of its slight manuscript support, [‘filled with anger’] should be 

read. It is scarcely conceivable that if [‘filled with compassion’] were original any scribe should 

have substituted the offensive [‘filled with anger’]." (P. 84) Taylor agrees with this assessment 

of the evidence, as do many other New Testament students. France, for example, states that 

even though the reading ovrgisqei,j, orgistheis is not widely attested...it is so striking and 

‘improbable’ that a correction to the ‘safer’ ��i,�, splagchnistheis would be very 

natural, whereas it is hard to see why anyone would introduce ovrgisqei,j, orgistheis, ‘filled 

with anger.’” (P. 117) 

Metzger comments that “It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original 

text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why ovrgisqei,j, orgistheis (‘being angry’) would have 

prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to ��i,�, splagchnistheis (‘being 

filled with compassion’), but not easy to account for the opposite change. On the other hand, 

a majority of the Committee was impressed by the following considerations. (1) The character 

of the external evidence in support of ovrgisqei,j, orgistheis is less impressive than the 

diversity and character of evidence that supports ��i,�, splagchnistheis. (2) At 

least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3:5) or indignant (10:14) 

have not prompted over-scrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the 

reading ovrgisqei,j, orgistheis either (a) was suggested by evmbrimhsa,menoj, 

embrimesamenos of verse 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic 

(compare Syriac ethracham, ‘he had pity,’ with ethra’m, ‘he was enraged’).” (Pp. 76-77) 

The participle ��i,�, splagchnistheis, means literally to be acted upon by 

the inward parts of the body--such as the liver, lungs, spleen, womb, "entrails," or "loins." All 

of these internal organs were viewed by the ancients as the place of origin for "impulsive 

passions" such as anger, fear, anxious desire, or love. But in Classical Greek, "at any rate in 

the pre-Christian period, [the Greeks did] not view the ��a, splagchna as the seat of 


133

206 207 208 209 

hand to him, he touched and says to him, "I [so] wish. Be cleansed." 1.42 And 


heart-felt mercy, as in later Jewish and the first Christian writings." (See Koester, Theological 

Dictionary of the New Testament, VII, p. 549) 

In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a pre-Christian Jewish document, this 

verb ��,zomai, splagchnizomai is used to translate the Hebrew Bible's ~ymxr, 

rachamiym, which means literally "wombs," and which is used for the "motherly feeling" or 

"compassions" of YHWH for his people. Koester holds that "The usage of the Testaments of 

the Twelve Patriarchs is continued [in New Testament usage]. But outside the original 

parables of Jesus there is no instance of the word being used of men. It is always used to 

describe the attitude of Jesus and it characterizes the divine nature of His acts...The verb 

��,zomai, splagchnizomai has become solely and simply an attribute of the divine 

dealings...Jesus is theologically characterized here as the Messiah in whom the divine mercy 

is present." (Pp. 553-54) 

We agree with this assessment–but add that the attitude according to the textual 

evidence is not unanimous–and that while Jesus is compassionate toward the sufferer, he is 

also depicted as being angry with him. It is a two-fold attitude, one of both compassion and of 

anger. Could it be that Jesus recognized the responsibility of this person for his own disease, 

and sensed that his attitude would once again get him back into serious trouble once he was 

cleansed? 

France, accepting ovrgisqei,j, orgistheis, “being filled with anger” as the most likely 

original reading, comments that “Mark certainly wants us to understand that Jesus was 

emotionally affected by the encounter, but does not explain why. The most likely explanation 

is, perhaps, that the suffering caused by the disease, both physically and socially, moved 

Jesus not only to compassion but to anger at the presence of such evil in the world; perhaps 

also over the insensitivity of the social taboo. That the anger was not directed against the man 

himself is implied by the immediate compassionate response.” (P. 118) 

206 

The phrase á�ôï� �øáôï, autou hepsato, literally “of him he touched,” is read by 

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Minuscules 892, 2427, Lectionary 2211 and a few other Greek 

manuscripts. 

It is read in the reverse order, �øáôï á�ôï�, hepsato autou, “he touched him,” by 

Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 

33 and the “Majority Text.” 

It is changed to á�ôï� �øáôï á�ôï�, autou hepsato autou, literally “of him he touched 

him,” by Bezae, the Latin Vulgate and some of the Old Latin witnesses. 

The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but are simply alternative 

ways of saying the same thing. They demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists and 

translators to make such changes to the original text. 

134 

(continued...)

206 


France comments that “The phrase evktei,naj th.n cei/ra auvtou/, ekteinas ten cheira 

autou, ‘having reached out the hand of his,’ is ‘redundant’ with �øáôï, hepsato, ‘he touched’ 

...but by including it Mark draws attention dramatically to the significance of this particular 

touch. Jesus often touched a patient in the course of healing, but leprosy, unlike most other 

diseases, carried ritual uncleanness, and to touch a leper would be to become unclean oneself 

(quite apart from the fear of physical contagion)... 

“Here need takes precedence over convention (even when firmly based in the Old 

Testament). It is, of course, a nice point whether to touch the leper did in fact render Jesus 

unclean when the touch was itself the means of his cure. The touch which should have made 

Jesus unclean in fact worked in the opposite direction.” (P. 118) 

207 

The dative singular pronoun á�ô�, auto, “to him,” is omitted by Sinaiticus, W, Family 

1 of Minuscules, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts c, a corrector of ff, 

the Peshitta Syriac, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and some manuscripts of the 

Bohairic Coptic. 

Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark. The omission may 

have been caused by the eye of the copyist skipping from the omega at the end of the 

pronoun á�ô�, auto, “to him,” to the omega at the end of the verb qe,lw, thelo, “I wish.” 

208 

See the article on the adjective kaqaro,j, katharos by Hauck in Theological Dictionary 

of the New Testament III, pp. 413-31. 

In primitive religions all around the world, religious thought is deeply influenced by the 

idea of certain things that are filled with power--"taboo." That which is filled with power is to be 

shunned and avoided, and, if contacted, causes the person involved to become "unclean." 

This originally had to do with "demons" which were thought to dwell in things and people, and 

which caused those touching them to become unclean. Later, it had to do with the divine, with 

gods--and the need for human beings to "cleanse" themselves in order to come into the 

presence of the divine. 

Hauck points out that in Greek religion these ancient ideas "of a dangerous force which 

makes unclean" are reflected. "The gods are regarded as exalted forces which are friendly to 

man. The demand for cultic [religious ritual] purity is dominant...Rules originally designed as a 

protection against the demonic threat now become cultic regulations for the proper respecting 

of the holy nature of the gods. Hence a mass of cultic rules is fashioned, and the purity of the 

one concerned is assured by preparatory dedications...But along with cultic purifications the 

Greek world has also a private system which diligently seeks by purification and abstinence... 

to ward off demonic influences... 

"Philosophical thinking in particular helps to separate the concept of cleanness from the 

cultic sphere and to set it in the spiritual sphere of personal morality. Even in the cultic sphere 

the demand for moral purity is finally recognized as a presupposition for drawing near to deity." 

(Pp. 415-16) 

135 

(continued...)


“The Old Testament, too, reflects the same general development. Traces of primitive 

thinking may be found in the view that birth, death, and sex life are linked with the demonic 

and bring defilement...Uncleanness is not just a lack of cleanness. It is a power which 

positively defiles. In particular, anything associated with a foreign cult, or hostile to Yahweh, is 

unclean. This is the primary origin of the Old Testament law of meats. Animals are 

disqualified [considered ‘unclean’] which were once totem animals or animals dedicated to a 

god...The laws of cleanness reflect the conflict of the religion of Yahweh against earlier or 

surrounding paganism...Some purifications are preparatory. They set man in the necessary 

state of holiness for encounter with God. Some are expiatory. They restore forfeited purity by 

lustrations [ritual washings]." (P. 416) 

But, as Hauck points out, "As the holiness of Yahweh acquires moral content, so the 

ritual purity demanded of believers becomes a symbol of inner moral purity." And, "While the 

concept of ritual purity is strong in the cultus [religious ritual], the ethical side is developed by 

the prophets. This can give rise to a clash of values. The prophets rate ethical purity far 

above that which is purely cultic [compare, for example, Isaiah 1:15-17, and Psalm 51:2]. 

Hence the prophets prepare the way for the religion of Jesus. The requirement of cultic purity 

had inner value and justification as a symbol pointing to something more profound. The fault 

of later Jewish religion was to give this requirement preference over the more inward concerns 

of religion, and to prove incapable of expelling the primitive element. This led to a fatal 

distortion and ossification." (P. 417) 

Hauck goes on to point out that "It is of the essence of New Testament religion that the 

older, ritual concept of purity is not merely transcended, but rejected as non-obligatory. The 

idea of material impurity drops away. Religious and moral purity replaces ritual and cultic 

[purity]. Hellenistic Judaism presses on to a spiritual concept of purity, but it still recognizes 

and maintains the ancient demands. Jesus, however, opposes the older view of cleanness 

(compare the prophets)." (Pp. 423-24) 

"According to the judgment of Jesus the ritual or cultic purity sought by the Jews is quite 

inadequate, since it is concerned only with externalities, Matthew 23:25-26; Luke 11:41. The 

purity of the New Testament community is personal and moral by nature. It consists in full 

and unreserved self-offering to God which renews the heart and rules out any acceptance of 

what is against God. Those who are pure in heart in this way are called to participate in the 

kingdom of God, Matthew 5:8. This purity of heart is far above the cleanness of hands which 

was so greatly valued by the Pharisees." (P. 425) 

Indeed, according to Mark's Gospel, Jesus claimed that "Nothing outside a person can 

make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that makes 

him 'unclean'...For from within, out of people's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, 

theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All 

these evils come from inside and make a person unclean." (Mark 7:15, 20-23) 

Here, as Jesus speaks to and touches this "unclean" person considered to be an 

"untouchable" person by orthodox Judaism, "cleansing" occurs simply through the spoken 

word and touch of Jesus. In this divine act of forgiveness and cleansing, all the Jewish rituals 


136

210 211 212 

immediately the severe skin disease went out from him, and he was cleansed. 


of cleansing and purification are fulfilled and overcome by the personal touch of the Great 

High Priest, combined with his word of cleansing. Here, in Jesus, the Great High Priest, 

something far greater and far more powerful than Judaism with its Temple and Levitical 

priesthood is present in human history. This is what Mark wants its readers to know. 

Lane comments, "The treatment of Jesus consisted of a gesture and a pronouncement. 

The touch of Jesus was significant from two points of view. From the perspective of the leper 

it was an unheard-of act of compassion which must have moved him deeply and strengthened 

him in his conviction he had not asked for help in vain. From the perspective of Jesus' 

relationship to the cultic and ritual system, it indicated that he did not hesitate to act in violation 

of its regulations when the situation demanded: 'the ceremonial law gives place to the law of 

love when the two come into collision.'" (P. 86; quoting van der Loos) 

C. G. Montefiore stated, "Here we begin to catch the new note in the ministry of Jesus: 

his intense compassion for the outcast, the sufferer, who, by his sin, or by his suffering...had 

put himself outside respectable Jewish society." (Quoted by Taylor, pp. 187-88) 

209 

Following the conjunction ��,, kai, “and,” the phrase eivpo,ntoj auvtou/, eipontos 

autou, literally, “having said, he,” (i.e., “while he was speaking”) is interpolated into the original 

text by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0130, Family 1 of 

Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the ”Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin 

witnesses and the Harclean Syriac. 

The text without this interpolation is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, L, W, 

Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 565, 892, 2427, Lectionary 2211, a few other Greek 

manuscripts, the majority of the Old Latin witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Peshitta Syriac 

and the Coptic tradition. 

The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but is a phrase added by 

later copyists and translators in order to enhance the text. 

210 

Once again we hear the "language of immediacy" so characteristic of Mark (occurring 

some 25 times). 

211 

Compare Mark 1:25-26. This severe skin disease is described in language that could be 

understood as viewing the disease as a personal being that can "enter into" and "go out from" 

the individual. It is a way of viewing human sickness and disease that is closely related to 

"spirit" and "demon" possession. France calls this a “vivid anthropomorphism,” that is, it 

describes a non-human entity in human terms, suggesting that “the symptoms of the disease 

could be seen to vanish, leaving the man visibly kaqaro,j, katharos, ‘clean’ (for a similarly 

immediate cure of leprosy see 2 Kings 5:14...) Jesus’ healings (except in 8:22-26) are 

immediate, and even the disfigurement of leprosy is no exception.” (Ibid.) 

212 

The phrase �ð�ëèåí �ð� á�ôï� � ëÝðñá, êáé, apelthen ap’ autou he lepra, kai, 

literally, “it went away from him, the leprosy, and...” is omitted by the Sinaitic Syriac. We see 


137

213 214 215 

1.43 And, having become disgusted with him, he immediately drove him away, 

212 


no reason for this omission, and consider it simply a mistake made by the Sinaitic Syriac 

translator. However, the omission does not change the meaning of Mark. 

213 

The subject of the following phrase is not given in the Greek text, and the personal 

pronouns used are somewhat ambiguous, although apparently Jesus is the subject of the 

sentence. In Greek, "the severe skin disease" (� ëÝðñá, he lepra) is feminine, and there can 

be no mistake that according to Mark, Jesus was driving away the person whom he had just 

cleansed from his skin disease, and we are caused to wonder, “Why?” “Why would the 

compassionate Jesus have acted in this way?” Or, “Why would Mark depict Jesus in such an 

unfavorable light?” 

214 

The masculine singular aorist middle participle �ìâñéìçóÜìåíïò, embrimesamenos, 

means "snorting," as an expression of anger and displeasure, "scolding," or "censuring." 

France notes that in Classical Greek this verb is used to denote “hardly controlled animal fury.” 

(P. 118) Compare similar usage in John 11:33, 38. As France observes, “Together with 

euvqu.j evxe,balen, euthus eksebalen, ‘immediately he cast (him) out,’ it does not suggest gentle 

treatment.” (Ibid.) Taylor holds that "Strong feeling that 'boils over' and finds expression 

appears to be indicated." (P. 188) 

Again Mark uses his characteristic language of immediacy. 

But why should Jesus become angry or disgusted and "boil over" with regards to this 

person whom he has just cleansed? This "thumb-nail sketch" forces us to raise this question, 

but does not give us an answer--and we are left to supposition. 

Is it because this person is an irresponsible, irreligious person, who has brought his 

disease upon himself by his own filth and immorality? Does Jesus foresee that the cleansing 

will be in vain, because of the habits and personality of this person? 

Lane suggests that "The anger can be understood as an expression of righteous 

indignation at the ravages of sin, disease and death which take their toll even upon the living, 

a toll particularly evident in a leper. As such, Jesus' encounter with the leper brings him once 

more into the sphere of the demonic. It is, perhaps, in this perspective that elements in the 

narrative which seem more appropriate to an exorcism [‘casting out’] narrative than to an 

account of healing are to be explained." (P. 86) 

215 

The lengthy phrase, êá� �êáèáñßóèç. êá� �ìâñéìçóÜìåíïò á�ô� å�è�ò �îÝâáëåí á�ôüí, 

kai ekatharisthe. Kai embrimesamenos auto euthus eksebalen auton, “and he was 

cleansed. And having snorted at him, immediately he cast it out,” is omitted by W, the Old 

Latin Manuscripts b, aur (see), c (see) and e (see). Perhaps this omission was caused by the 

eye of the copyist / translators skipping from the initial kai,, kai, “and,” to the kai,, kai, “and” at 

the beginning of verse 44. The omission does change the meaning of Mark, getting rid of the 

difficult statement about Jesus’ “snorting” like a horse, evidently in anger, and we can 

understand how the later copyist and translators would gladly omit the statement, acting on the 

principle, “If you don’t agree with it, or don’t like it, omit it.” 


138

216 

1.44 and he says to him, "See that you should say nothing to nobody, but rather, go, show 


The verb used here, �îÝâáëåí, eksebalen, “he threw out...” is the same verb (different 

tense) as that used at Mark 1:12, "And immediately the Spirit drives him out into the 

wilderness." See footnote 68 on that verse. Just as is true there, this language is violent in 

nature. Jesus is pictured as being angry, and driving this person out of his presence, even 

though he has just granted him compassionate cleansing. Lane holds that Jesus' anger and 

"driving him away" is "intelligible as an expression of Jesus' exasperation because he foresaw 

the disobedience of the man." (P. 87) 

216 

The phrase with the double negative, ìçäåí� ìçä�í å�ð�ò, medeni meden eipes, 

literally, “to no one nothing you should say,” is read by Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, 

Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscule 2427 (with a different word-order), the ”Majority 

Text” and the Harclean Syriac. 

It is changed to ìçäåí� å�ð�ò, medeni eipes, “to no one should you speak,” by 

Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, L, W, Delta, Uncial Manuscript 0130, Family 13 of 

Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2542, Lectionary 2211 and some 

other Greek manuscripts. 

The evidence is fairly evenly balanced, and the decision that the omission is later is 

based on the fact that it is the easier reading, and it would be much more likely that copyists 

and translators would omit the difficult double negative, rather than that they would add it. For 

other instances of Mark’s use of the double negative, see 5:3; 11:2, 14; 14:25; 15:4-5. 

Why this strange command with the double negative, to "say nothing to nobody"? In 

the preceding "thumb-nail sketch" of verses 21-28, Jesus has been pictured as telling the 

unclean spirit to "Shut up." (Mark 1:25; see footnote 134; also 1:34, with its footnote 174) 

Mark wants its readers to know that Jesus is not in any way “in league” with the powers of evil, 

nor does he need or want to make any use of their help or witness. Rather, as the great divine 

victor over all the powers of evil, he speaks and they are silenced. 

But now, as soon as this person with a severe skin disease has been "cleansed" by 

Jesus, he is forbidden to tell anyone what has happened. Why? Scholars have called this an 

example of Mark's "Messianic Secret," and have built wide-ranging theories concerning the 

reason for Jesus' command for silence. 

The reason that we find most convincing is very simple. Jesus has come to be God's 

chosen King, and to grant the forgiveness and cleansing that only God's great High Priest can 

grant. But he knows that people cannot understand what all of this divine mission involves-and 

that they will quickly jump to the conclusion that he is only another of the self-styled 

“Anointed Ones,” or "Messiahs" that come to make grandiose claims, and that want to lead 

Israel into an armed uprising against its Roman conquerors. 

But, of course, that is not at all the intention of Jesus. And so, even though he does the 

works of the Anointed One, and grants High-Priestly cleansing and forgiveness, he wants no 

one to jump to any conclusions concerning the nature of his mission and ministry, until it has 


139

217 

yourself to the priest, and offer for the cleansing of yours the things Moses commanded, for 

218 219 

a testimony to them." 1.45 But then he, having gone out, began to proclaim many 


become fully evident that he has come to be a "Suffering Servant" King (see Mark 8:31; 9:31, 

and 10:32-34), and the kind of “High Priest” who offers up his own body as God's sacrifice for 

human "redemption" or "setting free" (see Mark 10:45). Until this is understood, any so-called 

testimony to him as "King" and "High Priest" will simply be misleading and harmful to his 

cause. Is this not reason enough for his command to "keep silent"? 

Taylor stated, "In fact, the Messianic Secret lies behind almost every narrative in Mark 

...But it is not a hypothesis imposed on the records from without, but an element integral to the 

tradition itself. Jesus imposed silence because of the nature of Messiahship as He conceived 

it to be. To Him it was not primarily a matter of status but of action. In His own estimation 

Jesus is Messiah in His works of healing, His exorcisms, His victory over Satanic powers, His 

suffering, dying, rising, and coming with the clouds of heaven. Messiahship is a destiny; it is 

that which He does, that which the Father is pleased to accomplish in Him and which He fulfills 

in filial love. It is for this reason that He silences the demoniacs and commands His disciples 

to tell no man His secret till after the Resurrection. The Messiah already, He would not be the 

Messiah until His destiny was fulfilled. We may agree that it is necessary to read the Story in 

terms of doctrine; but the doctrine is that of Jesus Himself." (P. 123) 

France comments that “It may in any case be questioned how realistic Jesus’ command 

was: a cured leper restored to society was not an everyday occurrence, and the question of 

how it had happened could hardly be avoided...The pragmatic reason for this secrecy is clearly 

spelled out in verse 45; publicity of this sort resulted in excessive, and probably misdirected, 

popular enthusiasm which was a serious hindrance to Jesus’ mission...” (P. 119) 

217 

Lane comments, "The procedure to be followed was set forth in Leviticus 14:2-31, and 

involved different offerings depending on whether the man was poor or prosperous. In the first 

century the man had first to show himself to a priest in his place of residence, after which he 

must go to Jerusalem to be pronounced clean and to make the prescribed sacrifices." (P. 87) 

France likewise comments that “The one exception to the secrecy Jesus demands is to 

go to the priest and complete the necessary procedure for the restoration of a healed leper to 

society...This [cleansing] was a lengthy procedure, requiring eight days, not to mention the 

period taken to travel from Galilee to Jerusalem and back (even if there was a priest in the 

locality, the offering must be made in the temple in Jerusalem; see Mishnah Negaim 14 for 

the rabbinic regulations)...There must therefore be a time lag between verses 44 and 45, even 

though Mark’s flowing narrative suggests that the explosion of popularity was immediate... 

”Despite Jesus’ own lack of concern for ritual purity in verse 41, he here insists on the 

correct observance of the Old Testament regulatons...Indeed it was in the man’s own interest 

to fulfil his legal obligations, to provide formal proof of the cure and thus to be allowed back 

into society.” (P. 119) 

218 

Lane comments, "Jesus' demand that the man comply with Mosaic regulation is qualified 

by the words 'for a testimony to them.' This phrase may be interpreted differently depending 


140

220 221 222 223 

things, and to make known the matter, so that no longer was he able to enter 


on whether the testimony is considered to be positive or negative in character, and whether 

the people or the priests are in view. In keeping with the somber tone of the narrative it seems 

necessary to interpret...'as a testimony against them'...It is better to understand 'them' as the 

priests, for it is they who must examine the man to determine whether the leprosy has been 

removed. 

"Jesus' statement then means that if the priests establish that healing has taken place 

and accept the sacrifice for cleansing but fail to recognize the person and power through 

whom healing has come, they will stand condemned by the very evidence which they have 

supplied. The healing of the leper demonstrated that God had done something new. If they 

neglect this sign or deliberately refer this gracious act to an evil origin, the accomplished 

sacrifice will testify against them on the day of judgment. It was, therefore, imperative that the 

man comply with Jesus' instruction. It was necessary on his own behalf, but more important, 

he was to provide the evidence of the new thing God was doing, which if met with unbelief 

would serve as incriminating evidence against the priests." (P. 88) 

Schweizer notes that "The fact that Jesus abides by the commandment in Leviticus 

14:1ff. should shield him from suspicion of pushing the law of God aside in a revolutionary 

manner...This may be the reason why Mark placed this story before 2:1-3:6." (P. 58) 

France states that “...It is likely that here, too, the phrase eivj martu,rion auvtoi/j, eis 

marturion autois, ‘for a testimony (or ‘witness’) to them,’ has a note of confrontation, the 

[‘them’] being the priestly establishment represented by the one ièreu,j, hiereus, ‘priest’ 

mentioned in verse 44. It will be some time before Jesus himself appears in Jerusalem, but 

the arrival of the cured leper will serve advance warning of the activities of the Galilean 

prophet. It has also been seen in a more positive sense, ‘as a proof that, despite my 

reputation, I do expect people to observe the law’ [quoting Chapman], but that would seem 

premature at this point in the narrative...and misdirected, since the conflict over the law will 

arise with the scribes and Pharisees, not with the priests.” (P. 120) 

219 

The present active infinitive verb used here is êçñýóóåéí, kerussein, the same verb 

used for the "proclaiming" of John the Immerser (Mark 1:4, 7), and for the "proclaiming" of 

Jesus himself (Mark 1:14, 38, 39). Not all "proclamation" is properly informed, or acceptable 

proclamation. 

220 

The accusative neuter plural adjective ��,, polla, “many things,” is omitted by 

Bezae, W, and the entire Latin tradition. This, we think, is an obvious attempt at enhancement 

of the original text by removing a difficult word. However, the omission does not change the 

meaning of Mark. 

221 

The present active infinitive verb äéáöçìßæåéí, diaphemizein means "make known by 

word of mouth," "spread the news about." 

222 

Literally, ô�í ëüãïí, ton logon, “the word,” or “the story” (in the accusative case), i.e., of 


141

224 225 226 227 228 

openly into a city; but rather, he was being outside, in deserted places. And they 


what had happened to him through Jesus. This disobedient "proclaimer" "proclaims the 

word"--but still, it is an improper proclamation, since Jesus has forbidden his telling anyone 

what has happened. Lane notes that "'To proclaim' ...and 'to spread the word'...are technical 

terms signifying the Christian mission in Acts 8:4-5; 9:20; 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:2." (P. 88) 

223 

Many times it is emphasized that with Jesus, or with YHWH, "All things are possible." 

But here is the description of Jesus' being "unable" to openly enter into the villages of Galilee. 

Compare a very similar statement in Mark 6:5. The divinely chosen King and High Priest is 

also a limited human being, for whom some things are impossible. 

224 

The adverb öáíåñ�ò, phaneros means "openly," "publicly." Its opposite is "secretly," 

"hiddenly." This statement of Mark should be given proper consideration in any discussion of 

the so-called "Messianic Secret." The result of this forbidden "proclamation of the word" was 

that people jumped to the very kind of conclusion that Jesus wanted to avoid. And, instead of 

being able to go quietly about his High-priestly mission, Jesus was besieged by peoples 

clamoring for a conquering Messianic leader. 

225 

The phrase öáíåñ�ò å�ò ðüëéí å�óåëèå�í, phaneros eis polin eiselthein, “openly into 

a city to enter in,” is read by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, W, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0130, 

Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 2427, the ”Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, 

some of the Old Latin Manuscripts and the Harclean Syriac. 

It is read in a different order, å�ò ðüëéí öáíåñ�ò å�óåëèå�í, eis polin phaneros 

eiselthein, “into a city openly to enter in,” by Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, 

Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 892, 2542, Lectionary 2211 and some other Greek manuscripts. 

It is read in the order öáíåñ�ò å�óåëèå�í å�ò ðüëéí, phaneros eiselthein eis polin, 

“openly to enter in into a city,” by Bezae, a corrector of the Old Latin Manuscript ff and by the 

Clementine Latin Vulgate. 

The order in which the words are read makes no difference for the meaning of Mark; 

but the differences demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists and translators to slightly 

adjust the text being copied / translated in order to enhance its reading. 

France comments, “The fact that the next few pericopes [short sections of Mark] will be 

set in town suggests either that Mark was consciously exaggerating, or that he does not intend 

the episodes to be taken as being in chronological sequence.” (P. 121) Compare footnote 79. 

226 

The imperfect verb �í, en, literally, “(he) was being,” is omitted by Vaticanus, 

Minuscule 2427, and the Old Latin Manuscripts b and c. This is probably a mistake, for 

without the verb the statement is an incomplete sentence. 

227 

The adverb �îù, ekso means "outside." "Those outside" is a synonym for 

"foreigners.” It may be intended by Mark that whereas the people with severe skin disease 

were forced to live "outside" the cities in Israel (compare Leviticus 13:46, and see footnote 


142

were coming to him from all directions. 229 

227 


199), now Jesus, the great High Priest whose touch and word granted healing to just those 

"outsiders," is himself forced to live "outside." We are reminded of Hebrews 13:12-13, with its 

play on the word “outside.” 

228 

The masculine dative plural noun �ñÞìïéò, eremois, translated "in wildernesses" or "in 

deserted places" has been found already in the singular at Mark 1:3, 4, 12, 13 and 35. It does 

not give any indication of location other than the fact that it is open country, “desolate places” 

in which there are few inhabitants--it means the opposite of "in the city," or of densely 

populated areas. Compare the preceding footnote. 

229 

The implication of Mark is that this "popularity" of Jesus was contrary to his wishes. 

France comments on verses 39-45, “Thus in a few quick strokes Mark has painted a powerful 

picture of Jesus’ ‘success’ and of the problems it is already beginning to cause.” (P. 121) 

By means of this "thumb-nail sketch," Mark wants to tell its readers that Jesus of 

Nazareth--the one divinely chosen to be the universal King, the sacrificial High Priest, and the 

Suffering Servant-like Spokesperson who brings justice and light to the nations--is not by any 

means what Israel's population expected or thought. Simply to acknowledge him as King or 

as High Priest is not enough. First, his way to suffering, to death, and to resurrection must be 

shown by Mark, and understood by the reader. Only then, in the light of his willing suffering, 

death, and victorious resurrection, can he be seen for the King and High Priest and 

Spokesperson he truly is. He had, says Mark, all the marks of God’s chosen King and High 

Priest--but those "marks" were misleading, unless seen in the context of his entire life and 

ministry, especially in the light of his suffering, death, resurrection and on-going ministry such 

as was begun in Galilee. 

Lane comments on this entire passage, that it "Establishes the surpassing nature of the 

salvation which Jesus brings, for while the Law of Moses provided for the ritual purification of a 

leper it was powerless to actually purge a man of the disease. In all of the Old Testament 

only twice is it recorded that God had healed a leper (Numbers 12:10-15, Miryam, the sister of 

Moses; 2 Kings 5:1-27, Naaman, the Syrian General), and neither of those healings had 

anything to do with priestly rituals in the temple. Perhaps that is why the rabbis affirmed that it 

was as difficult to heal the leper as to raise the dead. 

“The cleansing of the leper indicates the new character of God's action in bringing 

Jesus among men. Salvation transcends cultic and ritual regulations, which were powerless to 

arrest the hold that death had upon the living, and issues in radical healing." (P. 89) Lane is 

right. Here Mark pictures the great High Priest of God, in whom the unique healing power of 

YHWH God is present in human history, touching the untouchables, healing the incurables, 

accomplishing what the priesthood and rituals of Israel were unable to accomplish. Truly 

YHWH, God of Israel, was present in this one--even if in a hidden, not yet recognizable way. 

It would only be after the successful completion of his self-sacrifical journey to Jerusalem, 

where he would be rejected and put to death by the Jewish leaders and the Romans, and then 

his resurrection from among the dead, and his continuing, on-going ministry together with his 

disciples, that his High Priesthood could be understood. 

143

PRAYER 

Risen Lord Jesus, we remember the great love and compassion that you had for people 

with leprosy–the people considered the most unclean, the “untouchables” of the first century 

world. They could not enter the Jewish synagogues or the Temple, or even the towns and 

villages, but had to live “outside”–beyond the reaches of normal society. The priestly religion 

with all its sacrifices considered them hopeless, and felt that there was nothing that could be 

done for them. But you did not share in that pessimism. You reached out to them, touching 

the untouchables, bringing healing and cleansing into their desperate lives. What the priests 

in the Temple in Jerusalem were unable to accomplish, you were able to do with only a word 

and a touch. You can cleanse and purify our twisted, unclean hearts; you can drive out the 

powerful forces of evil that haunt and control us; you can bring healing and cleansing and 

newness of life to the most disease-ridden, hopeless people in the world. You are the great 

High Priest, who brings healing, hope and new life to all the suffering peoples of this earth. 

Lord, we confess that we are oftentimes just like the people of your time–sharing their 

pessimism, and their belief that certain people are hopelessly unclean and beyond any help. 

Many of us have felt that way about the victims of AIDS, and the criminally insane. We are 

afraid to get near them, and we do not believe that there is any hope for them. We feel the 

same way about sexual molesters, or drug pushers and their victims who have become 

addicted to hard drugs, or the radical extremist Muslims, the terrorists. We say, deep in our 

hearts, “lock them up in prison, and throw the key away.” We don’t want to have anything to 

do with them, and the farther away they are from us, the better we like it. 

We confess, Lord Jesus, that we have let our pessimism overcome our faith in you. 

You are the greatest optimist that has ever lived. You believed that every evil force in human 

history could be overcome forever–that there is no disease, no uncleanness, no human 

condition that will not yield to the power of your love, and your ability to forgive and cleanse. 

You, Lord Jesus, are truly the great High Priest, whose cleansing power knows no limits. 

What religious rituals and human abilities cannot accomplish, you both can and do 

accomplish, through your cleansing sacrifice of your own life, and through your powerful 

presence in human history. 

It’s no wonder that people came from all directions to see you, and hear your teaching, 

and feel your touch. We today want to join in that number. We want to come to you, and 

learn your powerful teaching, and feel your cleansing touch. 

As we experience your acceptance and cleansing, give us the courage to reach out to 

everyone around us, sharing the Good News of your forgiveness and cleansing with them all. 

Let us never consider anyone hopeless, or untouchable, when they are the very people for 

whom you died. O Lord, help us to enter into this great ministry of acceptance and cleansing 

as we seek to be your people, in our time and place. Amen. 

144

eksousia - InDepth Bible Commentaries by Dr. David Darnell

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?