Mark 1 - My Thoughts

When we read Mark’s Gospel, we’re reading one of the most important ywritings in the entire Bible. It doesn’t always seem that way. Mark is the shortest of the four Gospels, and Matthew has been given the place of primacy, you might say, as the Gospel that leads off the New Testament; the story of Jesus. For a long time it was believed that Mark was an abridged version of Matthew, but in fact, it’s almost universally accepted now that Mark is the oldest of the four Gospels we have in the Bible and that in reality Matthew is more of an expansion of Mark. We don’t know exactly when Mark was written. I’ve seen estimates that suggest as early as 45AD, but I’d say it’s later than that, at around the year 60AD. But there’s no doubt that it’s probably about 20 years older than Matthew and Luke. Mark is a “source” document. It seems clear that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as the source for many of the stories about Jesus they chose to share. (We’re not studying Matthew and Luke, or studying sources in particular, but in passing it’s also accepted that Mark is not the only source for Matthew and Luke. There are several others that we can discern when we read and compare the various Gospels, so we know that there were a lot of stories and traditions about Jesus, many of which have probably been lost over the course of the centuries.) What this means is that of the writings we have available to us, Mark (with the exception of some of Paul’s early letters, such as the Thessalonian letters) is the oldest Christian writing we have, and the oldest account of the life and ministry of Jesus. So Mark gives us some insight into the early church and how it perceived Jesus and his ministry.

 

Because it’s so short, Mark moves at a frenetic pace. Jesus almost seems to take on the persona of an action figure. In spite of (and perhaps because of) being the shortest Gospel, Mark is often seen as the most accurate description of Jesus’ life and ministry. There’s certainly no filler, and very little obvious theological reflection. Matthew and Luke both seem to have “agendas”         (Matthew to share the story with the Jewish church; Luke with the Gentile church) and they “adjust” the story to make it more accessible to their intended audience. Mark simply seems to tell the story. There’s always something happening in his story. Jesus has very little “down time” in Mark’s Gospel. He moves from one event to another to another. In the first Chapter alone, for example, there are references to no fewer than six different and dramatic events in Jesus’ life.

 

As we move into the first Chapter, it’s probably worth noting what we don’t find. Mark does not include a story about Jesus’ birth; Mark does not offer a genealogy tracing Jesus’ ancestry; Mark does not speak of Jesus being pre-existent with God (as John does.) The early years of Jesus’ life seem to be of little interest to Mark, which suggests that interest in these events seems to have developed later – as people became more aware of Jesus’ life, they became more interested in Jesus’ origins, but at first it was really just Jesus’ life and teachings that really mattered. This point about who Jesus was and why he came is made in Mark’s very first words. There are no birth stories or genealogies – “this is the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Straight and to the point.

 

One of the more interesting things that happens in Mark’s Gospel right from the start is that Mark makes a mistake. So many people want to think of the Bible as being absolutely perfect and without error, but Mark 1:2 demonstrates that there are mistakes made by the authors of the Bible. In v.2, Mark says “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” The problem is that he then offers this quote: “I will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way …” Those words actually come from Malachi 3:1. Mark then goes on to offer a quote from Isaiah (“a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”) Clearly he got the prophets mixed up and conflated two different prophetic writings into one. It’s interesting to me that some translations of the Bible essentially choose to fix this by changing the words that introduce the quote (so it becomes in the King James Version, for example, “as it is written in the prophets.”) But Mark attributed the entire quote specifically to Isaiah. Some Christians would be scandalized to discover that there’s an error in the biblical text, but I think it makes the writing both more human and more authentic; perhaps even more accessible by reminding me that this was written by someone who is as fallible as I am. To me, at least, it doesn’t detract from the importance or the basic “truth” of what’s written.

 

Since Mark doesn’t deal with Jesus’ birth, Jesus is introduced in a different way. In Matthew and Luke there are angelic announcements made to Mary and Joseph. Mark includes no references to angels or to Jesus’ parents. For Mark, the one who announces Jesus is John the Baptist. John is always portrayed as a prophetic figure, so by focussing on John the Baptist right from the start of the Gospel, Mark is clearly making the point that Jesus is the fulfilment of prophecy. He begins the story; he identifies Jesus. Whatever came before in Jesus’ life seems unimportant to Mark (and also to Paul, which again suggests that the earliest Christian communities had little interest in Jesus’ ancestry, birth or childhood.)

 

Mark tells us that even before Jesus came on the scene John was already engaging in a ministry of baptism – “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin.” While the New Testament calls this “baptism” it was more likely an early form of Tvilah. Tvilah is a Jewish ceremony which is very similar to baptism in which a person is immersed in water for the purposes of purification. Unlike Christian baptism, it gets repeated regularly as needed whenever a person might become unclean, whereas normally Christian baptism is seen as a one time event. The way in which Mark words his description of John’s baptism makes it appear that the baptism is a form of Tvilah, but not exactly Tvilah. Tvilah would be required for specific purposes. (There were specific reasons a person might become unclean.) John’s baptism seems to have been more general – “for the forgiveness of sin” implies more than simply ritual uncleanness. Jesus’ own baptism by John is mentioned almost as an afterthought by Mark. It’s skipped over very quickly, used only as a means to have an affirmation from heaven declaring Jesus to be God’s Son. Luke similarly skips over Jesus’ baptism very quickly, while Matthew adds some details – most significantly John objecting to Jesus being baptized at all. John’s Gospel never mentions Jesus being baptized. This is evidence that the Christian community was not comfortable with the idea of Jesus being baptized – why would Jesus require “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin?” By the time John’s Gospel was written the issue was just ignored and swept aside.

 

The story does raise the question of why the followers of Jesus continue to engage in water baptism – since John himself declares water baptism to be his baptism, while Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. The simplest answer to that question is that Christians are normally baptized with water because Christ was baptized with water. John does, however, emphasize Holy Spirit baptism. If we can set aside some of the more recent “baggage” that’s come to be associated with that term (the idea that only some Christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit; that those who are can speak in tongues, etc.) it seems that historically the term simply meant coming to a sincere and repentant faith in Jesus which invited the Holy Spirit to guide one’s life. As in the other Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is driven into the wilderness for 40 days to be tempted by Satan, although Mark doesn’t offer any description of what form the temptation took.

 

Up to this point, we’ve looked at only 13 verses of Mark’s Gospel – which demonstrates how “to the point” Mark is with the story – Matthew and Luke take several chapters to get us to the point of Jesus being baptized by John.

 

The remainder of Mark 1 moves at an even more frantic pace. It begins with John being arrested, which is apparently the sign for Jesus to begin his ministry. Mark says that Jesus came to proclaim “the good news of God.” That is an interesting choice of words. Remember that Mark began by referring to “the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Now, Mark has Jesus proclaiming “the good news of God.” Are they the same thing? Some translations (particularly the NIV) seem to make a distinction by translating “the good news of Jesus Christ” as “the good news about Jesus Christ.” That would imply that the translators perhaps see the opening 13 verses as simply introducing us to Jesus (the good news about him) with the rest of the Gospel being his message (the good news of God.) But the NIV translation is wrong. “του Ιησού Χριστού” in v.1 definitely means “of Jesus Christ,” just as “του Θεού” in v.14 means “of God.” I think Mark is possibly making a theological point about Jesus, saying that subsequent to his baptism Jesus could in some way be equated with God. That makes the next section of Chapter 1 more easily understood.

 

Mark tells us that Jesus immediately begins to teach in the synagogue – but taken in isolation that leaves me with the question of why he was even allowed to do so. What status did he have that would have entitled him to teach in the synagogue of Capernaum? He wasn’t from Capernaum. But after his baptism he seems to have possessed some sort of inherent authority that others recognized in him. In the story, there is also a “man with an unclean spirit” in the synagogue, although exactly what that means isn’t described. There’s an interesting exchange which begins to set up one of the great mysteries of the New Testament. Jesus is unconcerned with the unclean spirit until it claims to know who he is – calling him “the Holy One of God.” At that, Jesus orders the unclean spirit to remain silent and then essentially performs an exorcism, driving the unclean spirit out of the man. Again, this draws me back to the relationship between Jesus and God. Jesus’ ministry isn’t just directed to the flesh and blood, brick and mortar world around him, but his authority also extends to the unseen world around him; to the spiritual realm. Jesus will do God’s work in both realms. So the Gospel is not just the story of Jesus doing good works, it’s a part of the whole history of God acting against the evil spiritual forces of the universe. This is the first step toward Jesus becoming a sort of cosmic super-hero, if I could use that term, doing battle against the ungodly forces that will confront him.

 

Jesus then performs a healing miracle, curing Simon’s mother in law (remember that Simon is Peter) of a fever. At this point the Chapter moves into warp drive. The whole city gathers around him, and he heals them and exorcises them and once again tells the demons (who are apparently the only ones who know who he really is) not to speak. You get a sense of Jesus being almost frantic now: “’Let us go on to the neighboring towns,’” he said, “’so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.’ And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons.”

 

The last story of Chapter 1 is the story of a leper who comes to Jesus to be healed. The leper expressed his faith in Jesus and Jesus then does the unthinkable – he touches the leper to heal him. By that act, Jesus made himself ritually unclean. Jesus told the leper to abide by the law by going to the priest and making the necessary offering, but also not to speak of what had happened. But the man did speak, and Jesus became such a celebrity in a sense that he had to stay away from large places. In that, however, there’s also a sense of Jesus keeping the law himself. Having become unclean by touching the leper, Jesus would not have been allowed under the law to enter the cities. So removing himself to the country where the people would have to come to him was the only way that Jesus could continue his ministry. So while the leper may not have done what Jesus asked, it was also the leper’s disobedience to Jesus that prevented Jesus from becoming a law breaker by entering the city while unclean.

 

So Chapter 1 is a fast-paced account of the beginnings of Jesus’ ministry that establishes the spiritual authority he possesses. That;s an important way to start because in Chapter 2 we’re going to see the first of Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees, and it’s the events of Chapter 1 that basically establish Jesus as having the right to teach about God and to contradict the teachings of the Pharisees.