Title. The title which this book bears in ancient documents appears in different forms. In the oldest of our Greek MSS., it is simply ‘According to Mark’; in those a little later it is ‘The Gospel according to Mark’; in others later still it is ‘The Holy Gospel according to Mark.’ We do not know when the records of Christ’s life first came to have the distinctive name of ‘Gospels.’ It may have been at a very early period, not very long indeed after they got into circulation; as may be gathered perhaps from the way in which they are spoken of in ancient lists of the N. T. books, and by writers like Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, and Clement of Alexandria, belonging to the end of the second century or the beginning of the third. We have no reason to suppose that it was given them by their authors; nor can we say that it was believed by early Christian writers to have been so given. One of the best of the Greek Fathers, Chrysostom of Antioch, declares that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not ‘write their names.’ The designation was attached to the books by the scribes to whom we owe the MSS.; and it expresses their belief, or the traditional belief, regarding the authorship of these records. In the present case it means not that the book was composed after Mark’s manner merely, or on the basis of matter furnished by Mark, but that Mark himself was the author of the Gospel in this particular written form.

i. 1-8. Introduction. The second Gospel is the Gospel of action, and it has that character from its first statement. It opens in a way remarkable for its brevity, simplicity, and directness. It takes the shortest course to the heart of its subject—the good news of the actual advent of Messiah. It dispenses with all but the briefest and most obvious introduction. In the eight verses which serve that purpose it gives the historical event in which the fulfilment of the Divine promise began to declare itself, and in which the writer finds the point of issue for his narrative.

There is a difference therefore, which at once catches the eye, between this Gospel and the other three in the way in which their common theme is approached. Matthew starts with our Lord’s genealogy, birth, and infancy. Luke likewise takes in hand the question of his descent, and reports both the circumstances of his birth and the incidents of his childhood and youth. John begins with his pre-existence, and carries us back to the eternal antecedents of his mission in the flesh. Mark, on the other hand, does not take us behind the appearance of the Forerunner.

In what he says of this Forerunner, too, he follows his own course. Matthew gives with some circumstance not only the burden, but also the effects of John’s preaching. With considerable detail Luke reports the incidents of the Baptist’s birth. In like manner John sets the career of the second Elias in the front of his version of the Gospel, expounding both the purpose for which he was sent by God and the testimony which he bore to Jesus. But Mark passes by most of these things, as he passes by the story of our Lord’s earliest years, and fixes at once on the Baptist’s preaching. Having it in view to give an account of Christ’s public ministry and official work, he seeks no other starting-point than the immediately antecedent event, viz. his baptism at the hands of John. It is as a preparation for this that he gives his picture in small compass of the man, his mission, and his doings in the wilderness of Judzea.

1. The opening verse stands by itself. It forms the heading for the narrative as a whole, or, it may be, for the paragraph occupied with the Forerunner. It announces the subject with which the book is to be engaged, and the point at which it has its historical commencement. The subject is ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ,’ that is, the good news concerning Jesus Christ, the Messiah, long looked for, but now come and seen of men in the fulfilment of his Divine vocation. When John made his appearance, proclaiming one mightier than himself who came after him, the glad tidings of the realization of God’s promise and Israel’s hope began to be made good.

gospel. This familiar word, with all its dear associations, comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon ‘Godspell,’ which means God-story. It represents a Greek word which signifies in the oldest literature a present or reward given for good news, later a sacrifice or thank-offering for the same, and later still the good news itself. In the Greek translation of the O.T. it is applied generally to any kind of ‘good news’ (e.g. 2 Sam. iv. 10; 2 Kings vii. 9), and specifically to the prophetic announcement of the coming of the Messianic kingdom (e.g. Isa. Ixi. 1-2). In Sthe N.T. it is closely related to the great idea of the kingdom of God, and means definitely ‘the good news of Messiah’s kingdom’ (Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14, &c.). The present passage is the only one in the four evangelic narratives in which the particular phrase ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’ is found. Elsewhere in these records it is simply ‘the gospel,’ or ‘the gospel of God’ (Mark i. 14, R.V.), or ‘the gospel of the kingdom.’ In the Gospels themselves the prevailing idea of the phrase ‘the gospel’ is that of the good news proclaimed or brought in by Christ. In the Epistles it is that of the good news about Christ. But even in the Gospels the term is at times connected in a significant way with the person of Christ, as e.g. in the words ‘for my sake and the gospel’s’ (Mark viii. 35; cf, x. 29); and in this opening verse of Mark we see the transition from ‘the good news brought by Christ’ to ‘the good news regarding Christ.’ The word is used by Paul more frequently and with greater variety of application than by any other N.T. writer. It occurs but once in Peter (1 Pet. iv. 17), once in the Apocalypse (xiv. 6), twice in Acts (xv. 7, xx. 24), four times in Matthew, eight times in Mark, never in James, never in Luke’s Gospel, never in John’s Gospel or Epistles, never in Hebrews, but some fifty-eight times in the Epistles ascribed to Paul.

of Jesus Christ. The person whose ministry is to be the subject of Mark’s narrative is designated at the outset with some fullness. He has first the personal name ‘Jesus’—a name common enough among the Jews, identical with the O.T. Jehoshua (Num. xiii. 16 A.V.), Joshua (Exod. xxiv. 13, &c.), or Jeshua, the form which it had after the Exile (Neh. vii. 7), which means probably ‘Jehovah-salvation.’ This is followed by the official name ‘Christ,’ the N.T. representative of the Hebrew word for ‘Anointed One,’ ‘Messiah.’ Those who held office in Israel were anointed to it, e.g. the priest (Lev. iv. 3, v. 16, vi. 15; Ps. cv. 15). But in the O.T. the king is specially spoken of as anointed (1 Sam. xxiv. 7, 11; Ps. ii. 2; Isa. xliv. 1, &c.), and in Daniel (ix. 25) Messiah is described as ‘prince.’ So the term ‘Messiah’ or ‘Christ’ became a theocratic name, expressing the idea that he who was to come to restore Israel was to come in the character of a king, and one of David’s line. In the Book of Enoch, perhaps about the close of the second century B.C., and in the later non-canonical literature of Judaism, it is used of the Messianic king. This official sense, however, gradually fell away, and the term ‘Christ’ became a personal or proper name like Jesus. As such it is used for the most part in Acts and the Epistles. In the Gospels, except in a few passages, especially in the beginnings, it still retains its technical sense, and is best rendered ‘the Christ.’

Son of God. To the personal and official names is added a third designation, not ‘Son of David’ or ‘Son of Abraham’ as in the opening of Matthew’s Gospel, but ‘Son of God.’ This is omitted indeed in some very ancient MSS., but the testimony in its favour is strong enough to entitle us to regard it as a part of the genuine text. It is an important title. It occurs (not to speak of equivalent forms, ‘the Son,’ ‘the only begotten Son,’ ‘my beloved Son,’ &c.) some nine times in Matthew, four times in Mark, six times in Luke, and ten times in John. It is used of Christ both by others and by himself. In the first three Gospels there is but one case in which the definite phrase ‘the Son of God’ is applied by him directly to himself (Matt. xxvii. 43); but there are various instances in which it is applied indirectly, or in terms of similar meaning. It expresses his peculiar relation to God, a relation of oneness, yet with a difference; just as the title ‘the Son of man’ expresses his peculiar relation to man. These two names, as used in the N.T., have their roots in the O.T., the one in the figure of the ‘Son of man’ in Daniel, the other in the son of Jehovah addressed in the second Psalm. Both occur also in the non-canonical writings, and are to be interpreted in their light. In this opening statement the evangelist gives his own view of the great subject of his narrative. Here, therefore, the title designates that subject as the Messiah, but (as Meyer rightly puts it) ‘in the believing consciousness of the metaphysical sonship of God.’ To Mark, writing after the ministry, the death, and the resurrection, the person whose life he records is the Messiah, but also one related to God by nature, having his being from God as a son has his being from his father. [Salmond, 1906]

2-4. How are these verses to be connected with each other and with the first verse? Some take the first three verses together as forming the title to the book or to its first section, and suppose the narrative proper to begin with verse 4. But this gives a cumbrous superscription. Others link verses 1 and 4 together, and deal with verses 2, 3 as a parenthesis. In that case the form of the statement would be—‘The beginning of the gospel (and all in accordance with ancient prophecy as seen in Malachi and Isaiah) took place when John came baptizing and preaching.’ This arrangement is even more awkward than the former. Others solve the difficulty by inserting a ‘was’ for which there is no warrant, as if the paragraph ran thus—‘The beginning of the gospel was as it is written in prophecy.’ But the verses run in orderly succession, and are to be arranged as in the R.V., not as in the A.V. The first verse stands by itself as title. The narrative then begins at once with verse 2, and proceeds connectedly and continuously thus—‘Just as it is written in ancient prophecy that one should come before the Messiah to prepare the way for him, so did John appear baptizing and preaching.’

2. in Isaiah the prophet. Unlike Matthew, Mark seldom introduces the word of prophecy. Here, however, he departs from his usual practice, and brings in two quotations. This he does with the view of showing that the events in which he recognizes ‘the beginning of the gospel’ took place in accordance with the voice of prophecy, and formed part of the Divine plan. The true reading here, as the testimony of ancient documents decisively proves, is not ‘in the prophets,’ as the A.V. has it, but ‘in the prophet Isaiah,’ as the R.V. puts it. While Mark gives two distinct quotations, one from Malachi and another from Isaiah, he names only the latter prophet as authority or source. So in Matt. xxi. 4, 5 we find a quotation referred to ‘the prophet,’ which combines words of Zechariah with words of Isaiah (Zech. ix. 9; Isa. lxii. 11).Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. Omit with the R.V. the words ‘before thee’ in the A.V. The first quotation is from Mal. iii. 1. In adapting it to his purpose here the evangelist makes certain changes in it. The ‘before me’ of Malachi becomes ‘before thy face,’ and is transferred from the second clause to the first. Thus the ‘messenger’ who, according to the prophet, is sent before Jehovah, is said here to be sent before the Messiah. What is spoken in Malachi by Jehovah regarding himself, is spoken here by the Lord concerning His anointed. The work ascribed to the ‘messenger’ in the prophecy is a work of preparation for the sudden coming of Jehovah in judgment to His temple. The work ascribed to the Forerunner in the Gospel is that of religious preparation for the advent of the object of Israel’s hope. In the words ‘who shall prepare thy way’ we have a figure taken from the custom, necessary in days when roads were few and ill kept, of sending on an official to make the ways passable, when a monarch was to go on a journey or to make a royal progress. As officers of state made roads ready for the visits of kings, so the ‘messenger’ was to make spiritual preparation for the coming of the Lord’s anointed. [Salmond, 1906]

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight. The second quotation is from Isa. xl. 3. It gives the same idea as the former, but with greater fullness, and again with some modification of the original. The definition of locality, which in the prophecy describes the scene of the preparation of the Lord’s ways, is omitted here. In the prophecy the voice is that of a herald of Jehovah; in the Gospel it is the voice of John with reference to Christ. The passage in Isaiah has the return from Babylon in view. It proclaims the glorious news of that deliverance, and gives the call to have all things ready for Jehovah when He brings His people out of exile through the desert to their land. The kingdom of God in Israel was to have its completer realization in the Messianic kingdom, and events in the history of Israel became typical or representative of events in the history of Christ and his kingdom. So the great national deliverance was taken to point forward to the greater Messianic deliverance, and the incident of the call to a material preparation in the former case is interpreted here as typical or representative of the Forerunner’s summons of the Jews to a spiritual preparation in the latter. [Salmond, 1906]

The best reading here is that which is represented neither by the ‘John did baptize… and preach’ of the A.V., nor by the R.V. as above, but by this—‘John who baptized (John the baptizer) came upon the scene in the wilderness preaching.’ This, which is on the whole the best accredited reading, is most in harmony with the fact that the quotations have nothing to say of a baptism. It also puts the preaching and the baptizing in their proper relations; whereas ‘baptized and preached’ puts that first which was second. Thus the sentence designates John by the thing which distinguished him from others, viz. his baptizing, and proceeds to state how he performed the part of forerunner, viz. by preaching.

John: the Hebrew Johanan, which means probably ‘Jehovah-grace,’ ‘the Lord is gracious.’ John was kinsman to Jesus and older by some six months.

came: the word so poorly rendered ‘did baptize’ in the A.V. means ‘appeared,’ ‘came upon the scene.’ Till now John had lived in seclusion ‘in the deserts’ (Luke i. 80). At last he comes forth, ‘the time of his shewing unto Israel’ having arrived, and his emergence marks a great stage in the history of the kingdom of God.

in the wilderness. Thus simply is the scene of John’s ministry described. It was well enough known to need no more precise definition. In Matthew it is ‘the wilderness of Judea’ (iii. 1). In the O.T. it is ‘the wilderness’ (Joshua xv. 61), or ‘the wilderness of Judah’ (Judges i. 16), its eastern side along the Dead Sea being also called Jeshimon, the ‘desolation,’ the ‘horror,’ the ‘devastation’ (1 Sam. xxiii. 19, 24). The name seems to have been given to the stretch of territory extending from Tekoa to the Dead Sea, having the Jordan on its outskirts—a tract of country not utterly bare and profitless, but useful in parts as pasture-ground and suitable for the nomad, yet generally broken, barren, rugged, treeless, and waterless save for a well here and there, and in parts dreary, savage, and forbidding.

preached: the word means literally proclaimed, announced like a herald, and it may have this sense in verse 7.

the baptism of repentance, that is, the baptism characterized by or implying repentance. ‘Repentance’ was the great word on John’s lips, and what he pressed on men was not baptism generally or for its own sake, but the kind of baptism which befitted the approach of the Messianic kingdom and prepared men for the Messiah himself (cf. Matt. iii, 7-10). In the belief of the more spiritual Jews, the sin of the people was the cause of the delay of Messiah’s advent; and John’s baptism was a baptism that involved the sense and confession of sin and carried with it the obligation to repent. The ‘repentance’ here in view is expressed by a different word from that used in a few passages elsewhere, viz. Matt. xxi. 29, 32, xxvii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 10, &c.; Heb. vii. 21. In these the word (metameleia) means sorrow for sin. Here the term (metanoia) means much more than that—neither on the one hand mere grief or regret for sin, nor on the other only a change of life which need be no more than outward reformation, but a change of mind, a change of one’s views of himself and God and all things, carrying with it a change of life. It is one of the many words which received a new, deeper, more spiritual significance in Christianity.unto remission of sins: John’s baptism, therefore, was not administered for its own sake, but with a view to forgiveness. Nor again is it said that it effected forgiveness by some virtue in itself, but that it looked to remission of sins as its end. It is to be observed, too, that John’s idea of repentance was essentially the O.T. idea, not yet the Christian—a repentance which meant a change in harmony with the moral requirements of the law, not the spiritual renewal connected with faith as faith is explained in the N.T. [Salmond, 1906]

And there went out unto him all the country of Juda, and all they of Jerusalem. Mark’s picture of the man and his work is less complete than Matthew’s or Luke’s. But it is very graphic, and it has some points of its own. It fixes attention on the success of John’s ministry by enlarging on the crowds attracted by it. It speaks as if the whole population—and not only the country-folk from all parts of the Judæan territory, but even the people of Jerusalem—had come to him collectively (the ‘all’ belongs to this sentence, as in the R.V., not to the ‘were baptized,’ as in the A.V.), meaning by that strong statement that the mass of the people had done so. We see by Matthew and Luke with what intrepid faithfulness he spoke to their consciences.

and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan. Matthew says simply ‘in Jordan’; Mark, writing for those not familiar with the Holy Land, is more precise. In most cases the name is ‘the Jordan,’ and it is usually taken etymologically to mean ‘the descender.’ Other explanations, however, are given. In ancient times some thought it meant ‘the river Dan,’ or ‘the river of two sources, Jor and Dan,’ and some now understand it to mean ‘watering-place.’ Earth’s surface can show few rivers to match this one, either in historical associations or in peculiarity of physical features. The Jordan has been connected with the greatest events in the story of Israel—with memorable passages in the careers of Gideon, Elijah, Elisha, David and others, and with the crowning consecration of the baptism of our Lord. It flows through one of the most singular depressions—‘a rift more than 160 miles long, and from 2 to 15 broad, which falls from the sea-level to as deep as 1,292 feet below it at the coast of the Dead Sea, while the bottom of the latter is 1,300 feet deeper still’ (G.A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 468). Its course is so sinuous that it travels at least 200 miles in a direct line of sixty-five miles. It is thus described by one who made his adventurous way along it by boat. ‘The river… curved and twisted north, south, east, and west, turning in the short space of half an hour to every quarter of the compass, seeming as if desirous to prolong its luxuriant meanderings in the calm and silent valley, and reluctant to pour its sweet and sacred waters into the accursed waters of the bitter sea’ (Lynch, Narrative, p. 211).

baptized. The term was a familiar one in ancient Greek, and was used in a variety of applications. It means literally to dip in or under water, to immerse, but also to lave, wash, &c. The usual form of baptism in ancient times and in these Eastern countries was by immersion. In some cases something short of total immersion may have been employed, as perhaps in the instance of the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost. At an early period in the history of the Church, as we gather from the interesting writing known as the Didaché or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, it was allowable to pour water upon the head when facilities for immersion failed; and at an early period pouring, affusion, or aspersion was practised in the case of the sick. This became the established custom for all in the Western Church after the thirteenth century. But in the Eastern Church immersion has been the general practice from the first on to our own day. In that vast communion generally, and in the orthodox churches of Russia in particular, triple immersion is the order, that is, three distinct acts of dipping, in the names severally of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To these churches baptism by a single immersion, whether in the case of modern Baptist, Roman Catholic, or any other, is no baptism.confessing their sins. The verb is a strong one, expressing perhaps the freedom and the openness of the act. It was not a private confession to John himself. [Salmond, 1906]

And John was clothed with camel’s hair. Everything about John was in keeping with his ascetic character, his likeness to Elijah, and the seriousness of the call to repentance which he addressed to stiff-necked Jews. His attire consisted of a short, coarse tunic made of a rough cloth woven of camel’s hair (not of camel’s skin), such as is still used in the East for raiment and for the covering of tents. It was the sort of garment that was worn by the prophets of old (Zech. xiii. 4), and by Elijah in particular (2 Kings i. 8).

and had a leathern girdle about his loins. The girdle was needed to keep the loose robe right for purposes of toil or rapid movement. It was a part of their attire on which men laid much store. It was often made of costly material, silk, cotton, fine linen, and ornamented with silver or gold. In John’s case the girdle corresponded with the coat. It was of skin, like the girdle of rough, untanned leather which is still worn by the Bedouin, the poor labourer, and the dervish.

and did eat locusts. His food was only what the desert could provide. These locusts have been mistakenly supposed to be the luscious pods of the locust-bean, called by the monks of Palestine ‘St. John’s bread.’ They are the creatures well known for their destructive work on all kinds of herbage and leafage. The species of locust allowed by the law to be eaten are given in Lev. xi. 22. They are still eaten by the Bedouin Arabs and the poorer classes, whose habit is to tear off the wings and legs and eat the body, roasted or boiled, with a sprinkling of salt.and wild honey. It is a question whether the honey here in view is, the tree-honey or the bee-honey. The phrase used in the Greek is one applied to a sweet gum that exudes from certain trees, like the palm and the fig, and for this reason some of our best scholars think the tree-honey must be meant here. But most take it to be the wild honey, which is said to be produced in great quantities in the rugged district in question. ‘The innumerable fissures and clefts of the limestone rocks which everywhere flank the valleys,’ says Dr. Tristram, ‘afford in their recesses secure shelter for any number of swarms of wild bees; and many of the Bedouin, particularly about the wilderness of Judæa, obtain their subsistence by bee-hunting, bringing into Jerusalem jars of that wild honey on which John the Baptist fed in the wilderness’ (The Land of Israel, p. 88). In the O.T. it is described as found in the hollows of rocks (Deut. xxxii. 19), or in trees, as in the pathetic case of Jonathan (1 Sam. xiv. 25-27). It was not permitted to be used in any offering to God, as being liable to ferment (Lev. ii. 11). [Salmond, 1906]

And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I. It is again the preaching, not the baptizing, that Mark signalizes in John; and the essence of the preaching that made the Baptist’s real function is the announcement of another greater than John himself, the One who had been definitely in view as destined to come after him. It is not explained here in what the greater might of this One consists, but the context suggests that it was in the superiority of the baptism with which he was to baptize. The verb implies, too, that the announcement recorded here was not one that John made on a single occasion, but one that he continued to make as he preached.

the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy (or, qualified) to stoop down and unloose. The sandal, which covered only the sole, was fastened by a thong or strap. It was the duty of slaves of the lowest rank to carry, fetch, and remove the master’s sandals. To untie the thong was, if possible, a still more servile duty. Notice the graphic turn given to Mark’s simple statement by the introduction of the act of stooping in order to do the untying: so little was the preacher in comparison with his Subject. He held himself inferior in power and dignity, unfit even to do the most menial service to that greater One. [Salmond, 1906]

I baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. With whatever awe it was regarded by the Jews, and whatever significance belonged to it, his baptism, John was eager to declare, was as inferior to that which was to succeed it as he was himself less than that Other. The one baptism worked by water, speaking of the need of repentance and serving as the sign of an inward change; the other was the reality effecting that change. The latter was this because it was a baptism ‘with (or in) the Holy Ghost,’ one that worked by the instrument, or moved within the sphere, of the Spirit, and so could reach the inner life, and apply influences there to touch the springs of thought and action with purification and renewal. Speaking from the O.T. standpoint, John could not mean by ‘the Holy Ghost’ all that we understand by that great term. In the O.T. the Holy Ghost is only on the way to be the personal Agent who is made known to us in the N.T. The ‘spirit of God,’ the ‘spirit of the Lord,’ the ‘spirit of holiness’ there is the power or energy of God that appears as the life-giving principle of the world, the source of the gifts of soldier, king, artificer, prophet; presented also in higher aspects, especially in the poetical and prophetical books, and with a nearer approach to personal qualities, as the guide and helper of men, the inspiration of their life, and the endowment of Messiah (cf. Gen. i. 2; Exod. xxxi. 3; Judges iii. 10; Job xxvi. 13, xxxiii. 4; Ps. civ. 30; Isa. xi. 2, xlii. 1, lix. 21, Ixi. 1, lxiii. 10, Mic. iii. 8). Prophecy spoke of an effusion of the Spirit upon all flesh as one of the features of the Messianic age (Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Joel ii. 28). The precise nature and affinities of John’s baptism have been much discussed. Ceremonial ablutions have been common to many religions. The Jews had their own particular ablutions and purifications by water, as in the consecration of priests (Exod. xxix. 4), the cleansing of lepers, &c. (Lev. xiv. 8, &c.). They had also a special application of the rite of ablution in the case of proselytes, these being received on the footing of circumcision, the offering of a sacrifice, and the cleansing which preceded the presentation of the oblation. It is still an unsettled question, however, whether this third point in the ceremonial had a place before the destruction of Jerusalem; and the washing in question was also one that was performed by the offerer on himself. Further, in the words of the great prophets and also in some of the Psalms, the terms in which these ceremonial ablutions were expressed had become figures of moral processes and results (Isa. i. 16; Ezek. xxxv. 25; Zech. xiii. 1; Ps. li. 4). The course of development which issued in John’s baptism lay along these lines. It differed from previous baptisms or ablutions in its requirement of the deep, inward change meant by repentance, in the open confession of sin which went with it, in its having all sins in view, and not merely certain special offences, in its being applicable to Jews as well as Gentiles, and in its function as a preparation for the kingdom of God. It differed from the Christian baptism which followed it in the specific connexion of the latter with faith in Jesus Christ and with the gift of the Spirit. [Salmond, 1906]

9-11. The Baptism: cf. Mark iii, 13-17; Luke iii, 21, 22. This paragraph deals with the baptism of Jesus. That meant his ordination to his public ministry. In that act the ministry of John had its culmination. It was an event of such moment that all the evangelists report it, John in part and indirectly (John i. 29-34), Matthew at most length. Mark’s account of it is brief, but vivid and circumstantial, giving time, place, and result.

9. in those days: i.e. the time when John was announcing the advent of the Messiah and baptizing the people. Luke (iii. 23) tells us that Jesus ‘when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age.’ That was the age appointed ‘under the Levitical law for the beginning of the service of every Levite who ‘came to do the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens in the tent of meeting’ (Num. iv. 43, 47).

Nazareth of Galilee is named as the place from which Jesus now came, and in which he had hitherto been residing in seclusion and meek obedience. Mark’s plan does not require him to introduce Bethlehem and the days of the infancy. Nazareth, now known among the Arabs as en-Nasira, seems never to have risen to any importance, and it is not mentioned either in the O.T. or in Josephus. It was planted on one of the limestone hills of the Lebanon, some 1,600 feet high, where the range dips down into the Plain of Esdraelon. It occupied a secluded position, hidden in a basin of the hills, off the main lines of traffic, yet at no great distance from Jerusalem, Capernaum, Tiberias, and other places of note. It was not so remote as to cut its inhabitants off from the strong, active, varied life of Northern Palestine. Travellers tell us of the superb panorama that opens out to the eye from the heights about it and above it. It is reported to be now a somewhat thriving town.

baptized …in Jordan: lit, ‘into Jordan,’ a phrase never used again in the N.T., pointing probably to immersion as the mode. The precise locality of the baptism of Jesus is much debated. The traditions of the Latin and Greek churches agree in placing it not far from Jericho, but they differ otherwise, the tradition of the Greek church connecting it with a site two or three miles below that to which the Latin tradition points. John speaks of the Baptist baptizing in ‘Bethabara (or Bethany) beyond Jordan,’ and again ‘in Aenon, near to Salim’ (i. 28, iii. 23). Hence some would put it at a day’s journey from Nazareth, north-east of Jacob’s Well—at the ancient ford near Succoth, or at a more southern ford not far from Jericho. Col. Conder places the Bethabara of John i. 28 at the ford Abarah, just north of Beisan, and thinks that the better reading Bethany points to the idea that the scene of the baptism was near Bashan. But this is little more than conjecture. And as to Ænon and Salim, though Eusebius and Jerome speak of the latter as eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis, we do not know the real position either of the one or of the other.

Christ’s submission to John’s baptism has been affirmed by some to negative his sinlessness. How could one, it has been asked, who had no consciousness of sin seek ‘the baptism of repentance’? How could one, who had no confession of sin to make, approach with any propriety an ordinance which required open confession of sin, and looked to remission of sin? It might be difficult to answer that question if John’s baptism related only to confession and forgiveness of sin. But its scope was wider. Its largest relation was to the kingdom of God, and its ultimate significance lay in the preparation for that. Christ came to establish that kingdom among men, and this ordinance was the definite dedication of himself to the service of that kingdom. His baptism was the act by which he separated himself from the position of a private Jew and from his previous life, and took up the Messianic office as the vocation to which all else had to be subordinate. Further, as he subjected himself to the common law of growth in his physical, intellectual, and ethical being, he was to advance from one stage of holy perfection to another in the fulfilment of that vocation. And this ordinance meant the consecration of himself to a moral task implying an ever-deepening obedience, an ever-expanding spiritual achievement, an ever-enlarging victory over all that could compete with his Father’s will or compromise the interests of His kingdom. [Salmond, 1906]

And straightway. Mark uses here one of his favourite words, variously rendered, as e.g. ‘straightway,’ ‘immediately,’ ‘forthwith.’ The act of baptism was followed by two events which made it memorable and significant—the illapse of the Spirit and the Divine attestation of the Sonship of Jesus.

coming up out of the water. The connexion implies that at once on being baptized, Jesus came out of the stream and had the experiences here recorded.

he saw the heavens rent asunder: or better, ‘in the act of rending.’ The expression is a striking one, better given as ‘rending’ than as ‘opened’ (A.V.). The verb is the one that is used of the sharp dividing of a multitude (Acts xiv. 4, xxiii. 7), and of the rending or tearing of a piece of old cloth (Luke v. 36), the breaking of a net (John xxi. 11), the rending of the veil of the temple, and the rending of the rocks (Matt. xxvii. 51). Compare the opening of the heavens in the case of Stephen (Acts vii. 56), and in that of Peter’s vision (Acts x. 11).

and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him. Luke expresses it so—‘and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him.’ It may not mean perhaps that the Spirit took the actual form of a dove, but that something was seen which had a dove-like appearance. So on the occasion of the Pentecostal effusion there was a visible form which had the appearance of cloven tongues of fire. The words imply that there was some real outward phenomenon, and not merely a subjective vision. But the appearance may not have seemed extraordinary, or have conveyed the impression of something out of course to any but John and Jesus; just as the voice heard at a later period was understood indeed by Jesus, but seemed like thunder to the bystanders (John xii. 29). It was the objective sign to the Forerunner that he whom he baptized was indeed the Messiah. It was also a sign to our Lord himself, as a comparison of the Synoptical Gospels suggests, that the hour for taking up his official ministry was come. The dove has a place in the familiar imagery of the O.T. (Ps. lxviii. 13; Song of Sol. ii. 12). It was, as it still is, a symbol of such qualities as innocence, gentleness, tenderness. The dove-like form, therefore, of the descent may point to these as the qualities of the gift bestowed on the Messiah for his work. Did this descent of the Spirit, however, really communicate anything to Jesus? Some would say that it meant the entrance of the Logos, the Eternal Word, into the man Jesus; which is certainly to say too much. Others, going to the opposite extreme, would say that as Christ had the Divine nature he could need no new impartation of the Spirit beyond what he already had. But the words, especially in view of John iii. 34, indicate a real communication of the Spirit, one that had special relation to his Messianic work, and one that was to be permanent (John i. 33). It was indeed by the Spirit in him that he grew in wisdom and in favour with God and with man. It was by the Spirit in him that in perfect righteousness he fulfilled the conditions of his preparation in the long years of his privacy. It was by the Spirit in him that he became conscious more and more of his true relation to God, and of the mission appointed him by his Father. But he stood now at the age of his maturity, and the time of his entrance on the actual discharge of his mission. For his special vocation he received a special anointing of the Holy Ghost, an endowment by the Spirit with the powers needed for his work. [Salmond, 1906]

and a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son. With the descent of the Spirit came an uttered testimony to the Sonship of Jesus. The term ‘beloved’ (cf. Gen. xxii. 2; Isa. xlii. 1), which in the Epistles is used of the Christian man, appears to be limited in the Gospels to Christ, as God’s Son in a peculiar sense. Even in the parables, where it seems to be applied to men, it is used with reference to Christ (Mark xii. 6; Luke xx. 13). It is not found in John’s Gospel, but is equivalent to the ‘only-begotten’ which is the phrase there. It occurs as a title of Messiah in the non-canonical Jewish books, such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Ascension of Isaiah, &c. Here the address ‘my beloved Son’ designates Jesus as the Messiah, yet not in respect of office only, but with the further idea of his peculiar relation to God.

in thee I am well pleased: or, ‘on thee I set my favour.’ A term of grace, the equivalent of an O.T. phrase expressing the perfection of the Divine satisfaction and complacency. Cf. Isa. xlii. 1, lxii. 4.

It is Jesus himself, not John, that is said here, as also in Matthew and Luke, to have seen the great sight of the heavens rending, and the Spirit descending in dove-like form. From the Fourth Gospel (i. 32) we learn that the Baptist also saw these sights. There is nothing to indicate that they were seen by others as these two saw them. So it was to Jesus himself that the voice was addressed. Not even in the Fourth Gospel is it said to have been heard by John or any other. It was a witness to Jesus himself, bringing to his human consciousness the assurance of his relation to God. He had at a much earlier date the sense that God was his Father, and that it belonged to him to be concerned with his Father’s business or house (Luke ii. 49). This is the first of three voices addressed to Jesus at great turning-points in his mission, the others being at the Transfiguration (Mark ix. 7) and on the occasion of the coming of the Greeks (John xii. 28). These events took place immediately on his baptism. One thing is added by Luke, which is of the deepest interest. He is the evangelist who tarries most on the prayers of our Lord, and he tells us that it was when Jesus was praying (iii. 21) that he saw the sights here reported. Solemn prayer also had its place in the choice of the Twelve (Luke vi. 12), the Transfiguration (Luke ix. 29), and the Agony in Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 39). [Salmond, 1906]

And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth. The inauguration of Jesus by baptism, the descent of the Spirit, and the endorsement of the heavenly voice, are followed by the Temptation. This mysterious passage in the course of discipline under which the Son of God put himself for our sake is recorded with extreme brevity by Mark. To him it is only introductory to his proper subject—the public ministry. It is omitted by John. It is given at some length by Matthew and Luke, and with some differences; of which the most important is in the order of the successive temptations. But if Mark’s account is brief, it has a character of its own. He alone gives the graphic touch about the wild beasts, and it is remarkable how many points he crowds into his short summary—the date, the occasion, the impelling influence, the scene, the duration, the agent, the circumstances of terror and of support.

The time of the event is given even more precisely than by Matthew and Luke. By the use of his favourite term ‘straightway’ Mark indicates how close upon the inaugural glories came the onset of temptation. The occasion is stated to have been an influence of the Spirit. God, who tempts no man as He himself cannot be tempted of evil, nevertheless leads us at times into temptation, and Christ is here declared to have been brought into the strange and painful circumstances of temptation by the same Spirit who had just descended upon him with his special gifts and still abode with him. The other evangelists speak of him as being ‘led’ (Luke iv. 1) or ‘led up’ (Matt. iv. 1) by the Spirit. Mark selects a stronger word, ‘driveth forth.’ Looking to such references to the Spirit as those in 1 Kings xviii. 12 (the Spirit carrying Elijah whither Obadiah knew not), Ezek. viii. 3 (the Spirit lifting the prophet up between earth and heaven), Acts viii. 39 (Philip caught away by the Spirit of the Lord), 1 Cor. xiv. 2 (speaking mysteries in the Spirit in an unknown tongue), Rev. i. 10 (John being in the Spirit on the Lord’s day), some conclude that Mark’s words indicate that Jesus was in a condition of ecstasy in which the ordinary movements of sense and mind were in abeyance, while others take them to mean that he was transported by a rapid translation from one place to another in the way affirmed of certain prophets and evangelists. The former supposition is probable in itself, though it does not lie in the words; the latter goes even further beyond the scope of the statement. What is meant is that Jesus was impelled by a constraining influence which he recognized to be of the Spirit—that he was borne on not by his own will, but by a Divine impulse.into the wilderness. All three Synoptists give the scene simply as ‘the wilderness,’ without further specification. It is natural, therefore, to understand by it just the wilderness already spoken of. Yet the narrative suggests a movement from the locality in which John was baptizing to another—to a different ‘desert’ or to a different part, a remoter and lonelier part, of the same wilderness of Judæa. The latter is the more probable supposition. Some, however, think the great Arabian desert is in view—the stern district east of Jordan, associated with the activities and experiences of Moses and Elijah. But this is unlikely, both by reason of the distance from the scene of the Baptism and because there are no such defining terms as we should expect in such case. Tradition has connected the scene with a hill Jebel Kuruntul, called Mons Quarantania (with reference to the forty days), which has been compared to the Rock of Gibraltar, and is described as rising like a ‘perpendicular wall of rock, 1,200 or 1,500 feet above the plain,’ that is, the plain of the Jordan, somewhat west of Jericho. The district in which this hill stands is wild enough to suit the circumstances. But the tradition does not seem to be older than the time of the Crusades. The most that can be said is that the place of the Temptation was probably not far distant from that of the Baptism, and that it was somewhere, therefore, on the western side of the Dead Sea. ‘Those denuded rocks,’ says Pressensé, ‘that reddened soil scorched by a burning sun, that sulphurous sea stretching like a shroud over the accursed cities, all this land of death, mute and motionless as the grave, formed a fitting scene for the decisive conflict for the Man of Sorrows.’ [Salmond, 1906]

And he was in the wilderness forty days. Mark’s words would naturally imply that he was tempted all the space of time that he spent in the wilderness. In this Mark agrees with Luke (iv. 2). But Matthew speaks of the temptations which he records as if they came upon Jesus only at the end of this period. The probable conclusion is that he was tempted all through the period of the fasting, and that at its close, when he was worn and exhausted, he was met by three special and concentrated forms of temptation. It may be that during the fast of forty days temptation came to him in the form of uncertainty as to his vocation, doubts regarding the dove-like form, and the reality of the heavenly voice attesting his Sonship.

tempted of Satan. The three evangelists agree in pointing to an objective agent in the temptation, distinct from the tempted One’s own mind. Matthew and Luke speak of this agent as ‘the devil,’ i.e. the accuser (cf. Rev. xii. 10) or slanderer, also named Abaddon in Hebrew, and Apollyon (= destroyer) in Greek. Mark uses the Hebrew name, Satan, the ‘adversary’ (Job ii. 1). By these names Scripture designates a personal spirit of evil, who is represented as the enemy of God and Christ, the prince of demons, the author of temptation, working by persecution, deceit, and guile for the estrangement of men from God. Much of the popular idea of the Tempter is due not to Scripture, but to medieval theology, Milton’s Paradise Lost, and Dante’s Divine Comedy. Yet much is said of him in the Bible, and more by far in the N.T. than in the O.T.

and he was with the wild beasts. Mark alone mentions this. Travellers speak of the number of wild beasts—cheetahs, boars, jackals, wolves, hyenas, &c., still to be met in the deserts of the Holy Land, especially in the neighbourhood of convenient wadies (see Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 240). Fanciful meanings have been devised for this companionship. Some have suggested an analogy with Daniel in the lion’s den; others have imagined the statement to be introduced in order to suggest a parallel between Jesus and the First Adam in Paradise. It may be intended to sharpen the picture of the desolateness of his position. It may simply be meant to express the fact that he suffered from another danger besides Satanic temptation—that of ravenous, encompassing beasts. It may suggest that ‘their presence, their yells of hunger, their ravening fierceness, their wild glaring eyes, had left as it were an ineffable and ineffaceable impression of horror in addition to the terror and loneliness of the wilderness as such’ (Plumptre).

and the angels ministered unto him. This is not noticed by Luke, who tells us simply that the devil ‘departed from him for a season’ (iv. 13). Matthew records that, when the devil left him, ‘angels came and ministered unto him’ (iv. 11). According to him, therefore, these ministrations took place at the end of the temptations. Mark does not say explicitly at what point they came in. But his change in the tenses came (past) … were ministering (imperfect) indicates that they were repeated, or that they went on during the course of temptation. What form these ministrations took—whether that of support for his exhausted physical nature, or spiritual help, or, as Meyer thinks, protection against Satan and the wild beasts—is not stated. It is possible that the point of the whole statement is in the contrast with the appeal of the Tempter to the assurance given in the O.T. (Ps. xci. 11) of angelic care and protection. Mark says nothing of the fasting during the forty days, nor does he give the three forms of temptation recorded in Matthew and Luke. Neither does he indicate in what the temptation consisted. It may have had its occasion, as Keim suggests, in the weight of reflection pressing on the mind of Jesus when he first gave himself of purpose to his Messianic vocation. It lay, we may reverently suppose, in the conflict of thoughts regarding that vocation, in the competition between different ways of accomplishing it. In Matthew and Luke the essence of each of the three specific forms of Satanic assault appears to be placed in the inducement to get to the end of his mission by a short and secular course, by power and display, by the preference of the ways of the world and the devil to those of his Father. [Salmond, 1906]

i. 14, 15. Official preaching of Jesus in Galilee. Mark appears to overleap a considerable space of time, amounting probably to a good many months, and to omit a number of events—the return of the Baptist, the call of the first disciples, the marriage at Cana, the visit to Capernaum, the cleansing of the Temple, and others, for the knowledge of which we are indebted to the Fourth Gospel (John i. 29—iii. 30). He omits the early ministry in Judea, and the visit to Galilee recorded in John ii, and proceeds at once to the visit to Galilee which was signalized by his first public preaching. This may be the same as that which took him through Samaria as reported by John (chap. iv). The relation of the events recorded in the Gospels at this stage, however, is not certain. But it is clear that the imprisonment of the Baptist made a crisis in events, according to Mark, and formed the occasion for the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. The work begun by the Baptist could not be suffered to come to nought.

14. Now after that John was delivered up: that is, to prison. The imprisonment of John receives only incidental mention in the Fourth Gospel (John iii. 24). Luke notices the circumstances shortly before he reports the Temptation (iii. 19, 20). Matthew and Mark report them at greater length (Mark being fuller and more graphic than Matthew), but at a later stage in their narratives (Matt. xiv. 3-5; Mark vi. 17-20).

Jesus came into Galilee. Matthew’s word is departed (A.V.), or, better, withdrew (R. V.), suggesting that he saw that it was no longer safe to remain near the scene of John’s labours. In Galilee indeed he was under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, the man who put the Baptist to death; but he was nearer the territory of Herod Philip, and farther removed from the suspicions and hostilities of the official classes in Jerusalem.preaching the gospel of God. From John iv. 1, 2 we may infer that the earlier ministry of Jesus had been more like the Baptist’s. Now he takes up the definite work of evangelical preaching, and it is to be observed that all the evangelists represent him as beginning his official ministry not with miracle, but with preaching. The manner of his preaching is not described by Mark, but in Luke (iv. 17-21) we get a vivid picture of it. Mark gives us, however, a pregnant summary of its matter. His subject was ‘the gospel of God’ (not ‘the gospel of the kingdom of God’ as in A. V.), that is, the good news received from God. It was a message of pure mercy which God commissioned him to declare. [Salmond, 1906]

and saying, The time is fulfilled. In putting these glad tidings before men he had a great announcement to deliver and an urgent call to make. The first point in the statement was that ‘the time,’ the definite period which in the purpose of God was to elapse before the entrance of the Messianic kingdom, was now completed, so that nothing in the counsel of God, the training of Israel, or the condition of the nations, stood in the way of that great event. This is stated neither by Matthew nor by Luke. It is a link of connexion between Mark and Paul (Gal. iv. 4; Eph. i. 16).

and the kingdom of God is at hand. The second point in the evangelical announcement. It is given also by Matthew, but is omitted by Luke. Here we meet one of the characteristic terms of the N.T.—‘the kingdom,’ ‘the kingdom of heaven’ (or ‘of the heavens’) as usually in Matthew and as only in him, ‘the kingdom of God’ as in Mark and Luke and Paul, the ‘heavenly kingdom’ (2 Tim. iv. 18), ‘the kingdom of Christ.’ The idea of a kingdom, which is thus described in respect of its heavenly origin and spiritual character, has its root in passages like Dan. ii. 44, and in the whole O.T. conception of a Divine rule, a reign of Jehovah and His Messiah, which was to make the blessedness of Israel and of earth. The term expresses something different from the organized body called the church visible, and even from the church invisible. It expresses the perfected theocracy, the realization of the prophetic idea of the rule of God on earth, purged of the political notions, the national limitations, and the fantastic millenarian conceits with which the O.T. note had become encrusted in Judaism.

repent ye. The first article in the call founded on the announcement. Jesus took up John’s word when the latter was silenced, and began with the note of repentance, though he had more to give.

and believe in the gospel. The second article in the call, and one recorded only by Mark. The phrase ‘believe in the gospel’ is peculiar. The ‘gospel’ is to be taken here in the general sense. The words mean, therefore, ‘believe in the good news announcing that the kingdom of God is really at hand.’ The belief or faith to which the N.T. gives so essential a place is usually belief in a Person, trust in Christ himself. The ‘belief’ in view here is the initial belief in a testimony, in something said of an object or a person. It was not till a later stage that Jesus began to preach himself as the object of faith. Yet the difference between John’s message and Christ’s begins to open here. In the latter it is not repentance only, but repentance and faith, So Paul’s gospel was one in which he taught, ‘testifying both to Jews and to Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Acts xx. 21). The land of Galilee, in which Jesus was now delivering his message, and which has so large a place in the Gospel story, is mentioned only six or seven times in the O.T. There it is ‘the Galilee,’ i.e. the Circle, once more specifically the ‘Galilee of the nations’ (Isa. ix. 1). In it our Lord had his home, to it most of his early followers belonged by birth or by residence, and with it so many of the most memorable scenes in the Gospel story were connected that it has been justly termed ‘the birthplace of Christianity.’ In our Lord’s time it was the most northerly of the three provinces into which Palestine west of Jordan was divided. During the entire course of our Lord’s life it was under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. After his removal it was placed under the rule of the Herod Agrippa who is mentioned in Acts xii. Its area seems to have varied, but it covered very much the territories assigned to the tribes of Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun and Issachar, and it included many notable towns. Its people were a strong and independent race, with marked characteristics. It was a land of beautiful and diversified scenery, a land of hill and stream, of lakes and forest, of meadow and pasture, of orchard and grain field. Josephus dilates in glowing terms on its fertility. He speaks of the Plain of Gennesaret as ‘that unparalleled Garden of God’ (Jewish War, III. iii. 2, 3, x. 8). When he refers to the populousness of the province he uses language that seems exaggerated. But it is certain that it was peopled more thickly than we can now well imagine, that it yielded vast quantities of oil and wheat and barley, and that it made great wealth by its extensive fisheries. ‘It was to Roman Palestine what the manufacturing districts are to England, covered with busy towns, and teeming villages, and thriving fisheries’ (Maclear). [Salmond, 1906]

i. 16-20. The call of four disciples, Simon and Andrew, James and John. Compare the narratives in Matt. iv. 18-22; Luke v. 1-11. This meeting, though recorded at this point by Mark, may not have been the first meeting between Jesus and these men. The Fourth Gospel (chap. i. 35-42) gives another account of a call of disciples, from which we learn that Andrew and Simon had been followers of the Baptist, that Andrew met Jesus the day after John’s testimony to him as the Lamb of God, and that he was the means also of bringing Simon to Jesus.

16. And passing along by the sea of Galilee. The scene of the call was by the beautiful sheet of water on the shores of which so many of Christ’s words were spoken and so many of his deeds done. Its O.T. name is ‘the sea of Chinneroth’ or ‘the sea of Chinnereth’ (Num. xxxiv. 11; Joshua xi. 2; 1 Kings xv. 20). In 1 Macc. (xi. 67) and in Josephus it is Gennesar (Jewish War, II. x. 7, &c.). In the N.T. it has more than one form—in Matthew and Mark ‘the sea,’ ‘the sea of Galilee’; in Luke usually ‘the lake,’ once ‘the lake of Gennesaret’ (v. 1); in John ‘the sea of Tiberias’ (xxi. 1), ‘the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias’ (vi. 1). This last name connects it specially with the city called Tiberias, which was built by Herod Agrippa and called after the Emperor Tiberius. From Joshua xix. 35 we gather that there was a fenced city of the name of Chinnereth, in the tribe of Naphtali, of which, however, no trace remains. The name Gennesaret is supposed by some to be taken from a Hebrew word meaning ‘harp,’ with reference to the shape of the lake. But more probably it is an original Canaanitish word adopted by the Hebrews. The lake is about 12½ miles long and 8 miles wide at its broadest part. It is about 150 feet deep, and lies (according to Sir Charles Warren) some 600 feet beneath the level of the sea. The river Jordan enters it at the north and passes out of it at the south end. The lake is of rare beauty, like a smaller Loch Lomond or Lake of Lucerne. Canon Tristram speaks of the first view one gets of it as like that of the Lake of Geneva from the crest of the Jura range.

he saw Simon and Andrew. To this pair of brothers, sons of a Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17) or John (John i. 42, xxi. 15-17) belonging to Bethsaida (John i. 44), but having their home then in Capernaum (Mark i. 29), Christ’s call came first. They had no doubt been so far prepared for it by their connexion with the Baptist, probably also by previous intercourse with Jesus, and by their religious disposition. Can we doubt that they were of the select class of devout and expectant Israelites who looked in faith and wistfulness for the fulfilment of O.T. promise and prophecy? ‘Simon’ is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, which is also given more literally as ‘Symeon’ (Acts xv. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1, R.V. margin). In the synoptical Gospels it is the name usually given to this disciple on to the time of the choosing of the Apostles, when it is superseded by ‘Peter.’ ‘Andrew’ is a Greek name, but one used also by Hebrews.casting a net in the sea: for they were fishers. The phrase as it is put by Mark is simply ‘casting about’—a simple and forcible description of what they were doing at the time. The hand-net is in view here, as distinguished from the ‘draw-net’ or ‘drag-net,’ which was used for fish swimming in shoals (Matt. xxii. 47) and was trailed along the bottom of the deep. The ‘hand-net’ was used in the way of throwing it about, dipping it down, now here and now there, on one side of the boat and on the other. These men were called then just as they were engaged in their ordinary, lawful employments. [Salmond, 1906]

And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me. The phrase, ‘Hither after me,’ expresses a call to become followers in the sense of disciples.and I will make you to become fishers of men. They were summoned to a new kind of work—analogous to their present work, but of a higher order. For this higher service the experience which they had of the fisherman’s work no doubt was also in some measure a preparation—in respect of the qualities of patience, alertness, activity, watchfulness, keenness of eye, promptitude in seizing the occasion. [Salmond, 1906]

And straightway. Their response was instant and complete. There was that in the call and in the caller himself that checked all questioning and won unhesitating obedience.they left the nets, and followed him. ‘Left’ is better than the ‘forsook’ of the A.V. The effect of the call was such that they left the nets just as they were, without giving them a thought, and went straight to him. [Salmond, 1906]

And going on a little further: or, ‘going forward a little.’

he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother. A second pair of brothers for the second call. In the synoptical Gospels, where these two are named together, James (the Jacob of the O.T.) is named first (except in Luke ix. 1, where there is a special reason for the change)—an order which, particularly when coupled with the explanation that John was ‘his brother,’ suggests that James was the elder brother or the more important person.

who also were in the boat: that is, in their own boat. ‘Boat’ is better than the ‘ship’ of the A.V. The call came to them just a little after it was addressed to Simon and Andrew; and it reached them, too, just as they were busy with their ordinary work.mending the nets. Not actually fishing as was the case with the other two, but making the nets all right for the work. [Salmond, 1906]

And straightway he called them. No pause was given them to think what Simon and Andrew were doing, and there was no delay on their part.

and they left their father Zebedee in the boat. In their case the obedience, therefore, was, if possible, even more striking. Their father was with them (no mention is made of Salome, the mother), but they left work, property, and parent.with the hired servants, and went after him. It is precarious to infer, from the mention of ‘hired servants’ in this case, that there was any difference in social position between the two pairs of brothers. But it implies that Zebedee did not belong to the wholly poor. [Salmond, 1906]

i. 21-28. Jesus in the Synagogue. With this paragraph compare the account in Luke iv. 31-37. We have here Mark’s statement of the first impression made by Christ’s teaching, his first reference to the scribes, and his first report of a miracle.

21. And they go. Better than ‘they went’ of the A.V. The original pictures Jesus and his newly-found disciples making their way at once from the scene of his call and of their former work. Matthew (iv. 12) tells us that on leaving Nazareth Jesus came and dwelt in Capernaum, and Luke that he came down to Capernaum after the Sabbath on which he expounded Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth. Mark connects the visit to Capernaum with the call by the sea. But this does not necessarily mean that there had been no previous visit.

into Capernaum. From Mark i. 29; John i. 44 it appears that this was Simon and Andrew’s present place of abode. It was natural for them, therefore, to go there. But this was to go where two of them at least, and probably all four, would be among those who knew them best, and where the change that had occurred with them would at once attract notice. Capernaum, in its more proper form Capharnaum, is not mentioned in the O.T. It came to be spoken of as Christ’s ‘own city’ by reason of the close connexion he had with it during his ministry. He predicted its total overthrow on account of its unbelief (Matt. xi. 23). So completely was it ‘brought to the dust’ that after the investigations of many years and many hands its very site remains still uncertain. Some place it at Tell Him, at the north-west corner of the lake, some three miles south of the point where the Jordan enters. Remains of a city of some importance are found there. Others locate it at Khan Minyeh, some three miles south of Tell Ham, near the sea and not far from where the great Damascus road passed; others still put it further to the west and south, near the fountain Mudawarah or Mudawerah, where (and indeed only there) are found remains of the coracine or cat-fish, of which Josephus says it ‘was produced in the fountain called Capharnaum which waters the plain of Gennesar.’

and straightway on the sabbath day. This is the first exercise after the call and the first exercise of the ministry of Jesus after it.he entered into the synagogue: he made his way at once to the synagogue. It was the natural place to turn to. It gave the opportunity of speaking to the people in a simple and recognized way. The chief purpose of the synagogue was instruction in the law, and this was not left in the hands of officials only. Freedom of speech, under certain reasonable conditions, was allowed, and any one, especially a rabbi, might be called on by the ‘ruler of the synagogue’ to expound. As an institution it belongs probably to the period of the Exile. It fulfilled certain objects which were not otherwise provided for. It acted as a ‘counterpoise to the absolute officialism of the sacerdotal service’ (Morrison). Its services were very different from those of the Temple, consisting of prayer, the reading of the O.T., and exposition. Mark speaks of ‘the synagogue’ (so also Luke vii. 5), either because it was the only one (and Capernaum though large enough to be called a city, might yet not be very large), or because it was the one specially associated with Jesus. Luke (vii. 5) tells us that the centurion whose servant Jesus was asked to heal built a synagogue which the Jews of Capernaum speak of as ‘our synagogue.’ Much of our Lord’s early work took the form of synagogue-teaching. Mark makes no mention of such teaching after the occasion when those in ‘his own country’ took offence at the wisdom of his teaching in the synagogue (vi. 1-6). [Salmond, 1906]

And they were astonished. A strong word expressing an amazement that carried them out of themselves.

at his teaching. A better rendering than ‘doctrine,’ the thing in view being the manner rather than the matter of his exposition.

for he taught them as having authority. What amazed them was not so much the things said as the way in which they were said. Their professional teachers, when they opened up the Law or the Prophets, spoke as those do who have no clear fountain of knowledge in themselves and no inward witness to the truth of what they asserted. They spoke with frequent appeal to external authority, to the words of some great rabbi, to tradition, dogmatically but not convincingly. But Christ spoke with the tone of certitude, with the note of an inherent authority, as one who had knowledge in himself and a message direct from God. His words left the hearers in no doubt, and made themselves felt at once as true. This was a new thing indeed to these Jews.and not as the scribes: the ‘scribes,’ called also ‘lawyers,’ ‘doctors of the law’ (Luke v. 17), were the powerful body to whom the Jews looked up as their recognized teachers, and with whom our Lord consequently came into constant and deadly conflict. They were the class who had built up, and who also continued to expound and apply, that vast system of traditional law which Jesus said ‘made void’ the word of God, and which gave to the external and mechanical the place which belonged to the spiritual. No doubt there were different kinds of scribes. Among them there may have been men with better insight into religion and the Divine law. But as a class they had become in Christ’s time pedantic, hair-splitting, dictatorial. [Salmond, 1906]

And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. Mark proceeds to relate the mighty work done in the place, and it is perhaps on account of this work that he introduces what he says of the teaching in the synagogue. A representative place is given by Mark to the healing of the possessed. Luke describes this man as having ‘a spirit of an unclean devil.’ Mark speaks of him as being ‘in (so the word literally is) an unclean spirit’—a phrase recalling those terms of grace ‘in Christ,’ ‘in the Spirit,’ ‘in the Holy Ghost.’ But the demon is also spoken of as in the man, and as coming out of him. The words express the completeness of the hold which the malady had of its victim. It was as if man and demon had become one, the one absorbed in the other. In the N.T. ‘unclean spirit’ and ‘demon’ are interchangeable terms.

and he cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? The spirit is represented as sensible at once of the incongruity of Christ’s presence. What is there, he asks, in common to us and thee, so that thou shouldst come here and have aught to do with us?

art thou come to destroy us? The sense of incongruity is also the sense of hostility; to ‘destroy the works of the devil’ was the purpose of the sending of Messiah (1 John iii. 8).I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. Once again, and only once again, is this particular title given to Jesus in the N.T., viz. in John vi. 69 (according to the best text and the R.V.). But cf. also 1 John ii. 20; Rev. iii. 7, and in the O.T., such a passage as Ps. cvi. 16 (of Aaron). Here it may have the force of a Messianic title. It does not appear that Jesus had as yet either done or said aught affecting the case or disturbing the spirit. His presence is enough; it is at once recognized to be a power inimical, before which evil can have no place. The term ‘holy’ here probably expresses not precisely his absolute personal sinlessness, but the broader idea of one who is consecrated wholly to God. [Salmond, 1906]

And Jesus rebuked him. The word is translated ‘threatened’ by Wycliffe, following the Vulgate. In the N.T., it occurs only in the Synoptists (with the exception of 2 Tim. v. 2; Jude 9), and has the sense of chiding, rating, charging sharply.saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. The word rendered ‘hold thy peace’ means literally ‘be muzzled,’ as it is used in 1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18. It is a strong figure of enforced silence. The rebuke is directed against two things—the outcry (with all that it meant) and ‘the invasion of the man’s spirit by an alien power’ (Swete). [Salmond, 1906]

And the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. The charge was instantly obeyed, yet not without hurt. The spirit tore, or rather convulsed the sufferer. The word means to tear in a literal sense, to lacerate, but also to throw into convulsions. [Salmond, 1906]

And they were all amazed. The effect on the people is expressed here by a verb which is used in the N.T. only by Mark, and which conveys the idea of astonishment passing into awe.

insomuch that they questioned among themselves. They could not take the matter in, but turned to each other with perplexed and agitated words.

saying, What is this? A new teaching! A picture of amazement breaking into excited exclamation—far better given by the R.V. than by the A.V. It is the unwonted style of teaching that first astonishes them.

with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits.
But they have a second reason for their amazement—the authority of his word. This, too, was something new. The practice of the exorcist was not unknown among the Jews of these times (cf. Acts xix. 13). But he worked painfully by magical incantations or laboured formulae. Here was one who used no such arts, but simply spoke, and it was done.and they obey him. ‘Yes, and they obey him!’ Here was the wonder—the instant response. [Salmond, 1906]

into all the region of Galilee. The fame of this great work spread like wildfire far beyond the immediate scene. How far? The words may mean either ‘into all the surrounding district of Galilee’ (Wycliffe, the Vulgate, &c.), or ‘into all the country bordering on Galilee’ (Tyndale, Meyer, &c.). The latter is more in accordance with usage and also with Matthew’s statement that ‘the report of him went forth into all Syria’ (iv. 24). Luke gives ‘into every place of the region round about’ (iv. 37). The problem presented by cases like this of the man in the synagogue is yet unsolved. Lunacy and epilepsy were common diseases in the East, and the phenomena described here and in similar instances resemble those exhibited by known diseases of a mental or physical kind. Hence it is argued that what we have here is simply an example of the Eastern way of attributing abnormal experiences and extraordinary disorders to supernatural causes, and that nothing more is meant than what we should call fits of epilepsy or onsets of fierce lunacy. Modern inquiry, however, tends to see greater mysteries than before in certain forms of psychical ailment, and in some of the cases recorded in the gospels there is the peculiar feature of the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. [Salmond, 1906]

i. 29-31. The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; cf. Matt. viii. 14, 15; Luke iv. 38, 39.

29. And straightway. Miracle follows upon miracle, without pause and without the loss of any opportunity.the house of Simon and Andrew. From the synagogue the company returned to the house from which they had gone forth. Matthew and Luke speak of it as the house only of Simon or Peter. Mark calls it ‘the house of Simon and Andrew.’ As Simon was a married man, the house may have been his, while his brother dwelt with him. With these are named also James and John, so that there were four witnesses of the scene. [Salmond, 1906]

Now Simon’s wife’s mother. The first of the miracles, therefore, that followed the great representative deed in the synagogue was one wrought on a sufferer closely connected with one of the first disciples.

lay sick of a fever. She was prostrate with this ailment when they returned. Luke gives a more professional description of it—‘holden with a great fever’ (R.V.). Malarial fever, travellers tell us, is rife even in the present day in the plain in which Capernaum was situated.and straightway they tell him of her. They had waited for his return, it seems, and at once appeal to him when he appears. [Salmond, 1906]

and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up: so prompt was his response, and so simple his act.

and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. The cure was complete. There was nothing of the lassitude and incapacity of ordinary convalescence. The patient was able at once to go about her ordinary domestic duties. She spread her board, probably the usual sabbath meal, and the company partook. We read of her as at a later period accompanying Peter on his apostolic journeys (1 Cor. ix. 5). [Salmond, 1906]

i. 32-34. A cluster of miracles of healing; cf. Matt. viii. 16, 17; Luke iv. 40, 41.

32. And at even, when the sun did set. The people have been keeping themselves in check till all risk of infringing the sabbath law is past. The setting sun makes them certain that the sabbath is ended. Throwing off all restraint they now crowd about him with their sick of many kinds.and them that were possessed with devils. Rather ‘with demons.’ The word ‘demon’ represents the Greek daimon — a term with an interesting history. In the Homeric poems it usually means a god. Very early, however, a distinction was drawn between gods and demons, the latter being understood (as in the poems of Hesiod) to be beings between gods and men, ‘invisible tenants of earth,’ the souls of men of the happy golden age. Other Greek writers applied the term to the ghosts of the men of the silver age—a race contemptuous of the gods. Thus it came to have a sinister meaning. It was when it had this idea of an evil being contrasting with the gods that it was taken over by the Greek-speaking Jews. So in the N.T., in the diminutive form daimonion, it means in most cases an evil spirit, the agent of the devil. [Salmond, 1906]

And all the city was gathered together at the door. A picture of ‘the flocking up to the door which preceded, and the surging, moving mass before it’ (Swete). [Salmond, 1906]

And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils (demons).As Mark puts it, he healed many of both classes of sufferers. Matthew (and Luke also in effect) speaks of all the sick and many of the possessed. The idea probably is that he patiently healed all who were brought to him of whatever class.and he suffered not the devils (demons) to speak, because they knew him. Some of the best manuscripts add ‘to be the Christ’; cf. Luke iv. 41. The Evangelist sees the supernatural, therefore, in the case. It is the recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus, not necessarily of more. Jesus put the ban upon their utterance. He would not have his cause hastened or influenced by such testimony. [Salmond, 1906]

i. 35-39. Retirement, followed by his first circuit in Galilee; cf. Luke iv. 40-42, also Matt. iv. 23-25.The healer who had met the appeals of multitudes is himself seen now in the attitude of a suppliant. In solitary communion with his Father he seeks what he needs after the exertions and excitement of the first two days of his ministry.

35. And in the morning, a great while before day. So early that it was yet quite dark.

into a desert place. Not merely a solitary place (A.V.), but a desert place, ‘probably one of those bare and barren spots stretching away north and west of Capernaum’ (Morrison).and there prayed. This was the reason of his withdrawal, and no doubt also of his choice of such a place. He required rest for his soul, opportunity for reflection on his mission, preparation for the work now before him, which might be next day and the next as it had been these two days. [Salmond, 1906]

And Simon and they that were with him followed after him. They were filled with anxiety when they found him gone they knew not whither. Could he have left them for others, or have preferred some other place as the scene of his ministry? They shewed their anxiety by the haste with which they followed after him. The word is a strong one—’they pursued after him.’ [Salmond, 1906]

and say unto him, All are seeking thee. The anxiety was not confined to the disciples. It was shared by all who were on the spot from Capernaum or elsewhere. Luke says explicitly that ‘the people,’ the mob, sought him. If he left them it was not that they did not need him or that he had no opportunity among them. [Salmond, 1906]

Let us go elsewhere. In his reply to their appeal and expostulation he says nothing of his own need of rest or communion with God. He speaks only of his mission, and of that as one not limited to one place, even were it Capernaum.

into the next towns: lit. ‘village-towns,’ probably small country towns, whether walled or not, intermediate between villages and cities. Josephus speaks of the thickly planted towns and the multitude of populous villages in Galilee (Jewish War, III. iii. 2)came I forth. This wider preaching, he says, was the object of his coming forth. This may refer simply to his having left Capernaum and its immediate vicinity. Interpreted, however, in the light of John’s use of the term (cf. viii. 42, xiii. 3), it will point rather to his mission from the Father. [Salmond, 1906]

And he went into their synagogues… casting out devils (demons). His words had their effect on Simon and the others. Thus did he begin his first circuit of Galilee, still making his ministry, however, a synagogue ministry. [Salmond, 1906]

i. 40-45. The case of a leper. Cf. Matt. viii. 2-4; Luke v. 12-16. Leprosy appears to have been a somewhat common disease among the Jews (Luke iv. 27). In the O.T. it is mentioned first in connection with the signs by which Moses was to establish his Divine commission (Exod. iv. 6); then in the cases of Miriam, Naaman, Gehazi, Uzziah, the lepers of Samaria (2 Kings vii. 3), and others. It was the subject of minute regulations in the Levitical law (Lev. xiii), in which perhaps seven distinct varieties of the disease are recognized. In the N.T. three cases are reported—the man healed here by the touch and will of Jesus, the ten lepers at the village (Luke xviii. 12), and Simon the leper (Matt. xxvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3). These, however, are only selected instances; cf. Matt. x. 8, xi. 5; Luke vii. 22. What this leprosy exactly was, however, is difficult to determine. The disposition is to distinguish between the leprosy of which we read in the Bible and the disease known by the same name in ancient and also in modern times. The latter, which at least in one of its forms may be identified with elephantiasis, is one of the most terrible maladies of which flesh is heir—a very old disease, known in India at least as far back as 1400 B.C., and in Egypt since 1550 B.C., which got into England before the times of the Crusades and lingers still in considerable parts of Europe as well as in the far East. The former is supposed to have been a skin-disease sufficiently loathsome but less terrible than the other. The name leprosy may have been given, as appears probable, to a whole class of diseases with which uncleanness was associated. So its removal is described in the N.T. as a cleansing. The ailment in view in most, if not all, of the biblical passages, may perhaps have been a skin-disease known as psoriasis, which was offensive and distressing, but not by any means incurable.

40. And there cometh to him a leper. This case is selected for record either because it was the first of its class, or because of the impression it made and the change it occasioned in our Lord’s method (cf. i. 45). Luke brings it in after the Draught of Fishes, Matthew after the Sermon on the Mount. Luke speaks of the man as ‘full of leprosy’—one in whom the disease reigned from head to foot.

beseeching him, and kneeling down to him. Matthew tells us that he ‘worshipped him’; Luke that he ‘fell on his face.’ Neither Matthew nor Mark mentions whence he came. Luke says ‘out of one of the cities.’ The man’s faith in the power of Jesus is the notable thing.If thou wilt. He had no doubt of his ability. He was not so sure that it came within the range of his purpose or mission to concern himself with the outcast class of lepers. His doubt was speedily and mercifully removed. [Salmond, 1906]

moved with compassion. Leprosy provoked feelings of repulsion, not of sympathy. The man had come near, in spite of the Levitical restrictions, near enough to be reached; and Jesus, disregarding the physical loathsomeness and the ceremonial uncleanness, stretched forth his hand, and touched him. The touch was what was needed to assure the man in his great faith. Jesus, therefore, first touched him and then spoke the healing word. And the result was the instantaneous departure of the leprosy. [Salmond, 1906]

43, 44. strictly charged him. The expression is a very strong and picturesque one, used of the ‘muttering of chafed and fretted animals,’ and conveying here a certain note of severity.and straightway sent him out, and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man. Why this immediate dismissal, with so strong an injunction to silence? Because, if the man were demonstrative, he might be the occasion of creating a dangerous popular enthusiasm among the people, and of increasing the kind of fame which Jesus saw himself to be acquiring—a fame which had more regard to the physical side of his work than to the spiritual, and which might prejudice his proper course. [Salmond, 1906]

shew thyself to the priest. The cure was not perfectly complete till the ceremonial disability and the social ban were removed. This was done by the priest, to whom it belonged to pronounce one clean or unclean. See Lev. xiii, xiv.

offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded. The man was not to disregard the Hebrew law, but to seek the ceremonial purification in the way which it prescribed (Lev. xiv. 1-32).for a testimony unto them. To whom? To the people generally? Hardly so, for it was not his object that they should then know all about it. To the priests? Probably, for the work would be a witness to them that a Prophet, perhaps Messiah himself, was among them. [Salmond, 1906]

and began to publish it much. The man obeyed the injunction only so far. He ‘went out’ indeed, but was loquacious and demonstrative instead of silent. The result was that the Healer’s work was interfered with; he could no more preach in towns, but had to betake himself to ‘desert places.’ Even there the people kept coming to him. [Salmond, 1906]