Mark 1 - Pulpit Commentary vs Calvin John

Mark 1

Mark 1:1

Verse 1. - The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. These words mean, not the title of the book, but the commencement of the narrative; and so they depend upon what follows, namely, "as it is written" (καθῶς for ὠς), "even as it is written." The words "the gospel of Jesus Christ" do not signify the book which St. Mark wrote, but the evangelical teaching of Jesus Christ. St. Mark means that the gospel announcement by Jesus Christ had such a beginning as had been predicted by Isaiah and Malachi, namely, the preaching of John the Baptist, and his testimony concerning Christ, to be fully laid open by the preaching and the death of Christ. The preaching of repentance by the Baptist was the preparation and the beginning of the evangelical preaching by Christ, of whom John was the forerunner. It has been well observed that St. Matthew and St. John begin their Gospels from Christ himself; but St. Matthew from the human, and St. John from the Divine, generation of Christ. St. Mark and St. Luke commence from John the Baptist; but St. Luke from his nativity, and St, John from his preaching. The words, the Son of God, are rightly retained in the Revised Version, although they are omitted by some ancient authorities.

Mark 1:2

Verse 2. - Even as it is written in the prophets. The weight of evidence is here in favor of the reading "in Isaiah the prophet." Three of the most important uncials (א, B, and L), and twenty-six of the cursives, have the reading "Isaiah." With these agree the Italic, Coptic, and Vulgate versions. Of the Fathers, Irenaeus quotes the passage three times, twice using the words "in the prophets," and once "in Isaiah the prophet." Generally the Fathers agree that "Isaiah" is the received reading. The more natural reading would of course be "in the prophets," inasmuch as two prophets are quoted; but in deciding upon readings, it constantly happens that the less likely reading is the more probable. In the case before us we can hardly account for "Isaiah" being exchanged for "the prophets," although we can quite understand "the prophets" being interpolated for "Isaiah." Assuming, then, that St. Mark wrote "in Isaiah the prophet," we may ask why he mentions Isaiah only and not Malachi? The answer would seem to be this, that here the voice of Isaiah is the more powerful of the two. But in real truth, Malachi says the same thing that Isaiah says; for the messenger sent from God to prepare the way of Christ was none other than John, crying aloud and preaching repentance as a preparation for the receiving of the grace of Christ. The oracle of Malachi is, in fact, contained in the oracle of Isaiah; for what Malachi predicted, the same had Isaiah more clearly and concisely predicted in other words. And this is the reason why St. Mark here, and other evangelists elsewhere, when they cite two prophets, and two or more sentences from different places in the same connection, cite them as one and the same testimony, each sentence appearing to be not so much two, as one and the same declaration differently worded.

Mark 1:3

Mark 1:4

Verse 4. - John came, and preached the baptism of repentance. John came, that is, that he might rouse the people to repentance, and prepare them, by the outward cleansing of their bodies, to receive the cleansing of their souls through Christ's baptism, which was to follow his. So that the baptism of John was the profession of their penitence. Hence they who were baptized with his baptism confessed their sins, and thus made the first step towards the forgiving mercy which was to be found in Christ; and the seal of his forgiveness they were to look for in his baptism, which is a baptism for the remission of sins to all true penitents and faithful believers. Christ's baptism was, therefore, the perfection and consummation of the baptism of John.

Mark 1:5

Mark 1:6

Verse 6. - Clothed with camel's hair. This was a rough, coarse garment, characteristic of the doctrine which John taught, namely, penitence and contempt of the world. Camels abounded in Syria. And a leathern girdle about his loins. Not only the prophets, but the Jews and the inhabitants of Syria generally, used a girdle to keep the long flowing garment more closely about them, so as to leave them more free for journeying or for labour. Thus our Lord says (Luke 12:35), "Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning." And he did eat locusts and wild honey. The insect called the locust (ἀκρὶς) was permitted to be eaten (see Leviticus 11:22). It was used as food by the common people in Judaea. The Arabs eat them to this day; but they are considered as a common and inferior kind of food. They are a sign of temperance, poverty, and penitence. The wild honey (μέλι ἄγριον) was simply honey made by wild bees, either in the trees or in the hollows of the rocks. Isidorus says that it was of an inferior flavour. Both these kinds of food were consistent with the austere life and the solemn preaching of the Baptist.

Mark 1:7

Verse 7. - The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. This was the menial office of the slave, whose business it was to take off? and put on the shoes of his master, stooping down with all humility and respect for this purpose. Thus John confessed that he was the servant of Christ, and that Christ was his Lord. In a mystical sense the shoes denote the humanity of Christ, which by its union with the Word became of the highest dignity and majesty. St. Bernard says, "The majesty of the Word was shod with the sandal of our humanity."

Mark 1:8

Verse 8. - I baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with [or in] the Holy Ghost. It is as though he said, "Christ will pour his Holy Spirit so abundantly upon you, that he will cleanse you from all your sins, and fill you with holiness and love and all his other excellent graces." Christ did this visibly on the day of Pentecost. And this he does invisibly in the. sacrament of Holy Baptism, and in the rite of Confirmation, which is the completion of the sacrament of Baptism. John baptized with water only, but Christ with water and the Holy Spirit. John baptized the body only, Christ baptizes the soul. By how much, therefore, the Holy Spirit transcends the water, and the soul excels the body, by so much is Christ's baptism more excellent than that of John, which was only preparatory and rudimentary. If it be asked why it was needful that our Lord should be baptized with John's baptism, the best answer is that given by Christ himself, "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness;" it becometh us - me in receiving this baptism, and you in imparting it. Christ was sent to do the whole will of God; and as in his circumcision, so in his baptism, "he was made to be sin for us, who knew no sin."

Mark 1:9

Mark 1:10

Verse 10. - Straightway (εὐθέως) coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened (σχιζομένους); literally, rent asunder. The word εὐθέως occurs more than forty times in this Gospel, and is so characteristic of St. Mark that, in the Revised Version, it is uniformly rendered by the same English synonym, "straightway." He saw. Elsewhere we are told (John 1:32) that St. John the Baptist saw this descent. The earliest heretics took advantage of this statement to represent this event as the descent of the eternal Christ upon the man Jesus for personal indwelling. Later critics have adopted this view. But it need hardly be said here that such an opinion is altogether inconsistent with all that we read elsewhere of the circumstances of the Incarnation, and of the intimate and indissoluble union of the Divine and human natures in the person of the one Christ, from the time of the "overshadowing of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Highest." The Spirit descending upon him at his baptism was not the descent of the eternal Christ upon the man Jesus. It was rather the conveyance to one who was already prepared for it as God and man, of office and authority as the great Prophet that should come into the world. St. Luke says particularly (Luke 3:21) that it was when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, that the Holy Spirit descended upon him; plainly showing us that it was not through the baptism of John, but through the meritorious obedience and the prayer of the Son of God, that the heavens were "rent asunder," and the Holy Spirit descended upon him.

Mark 1:11

Mark 1:12

Verse 12. - Driveth him (ἐκβάλλει); literally, driveth him forth. That Holy Spirit, which not long before he had received at his baptism, impelled him with great energy; so that of his own accord he went forth, armed with Divine power, into the desert, that there, as in a wrestling-place, he might contend alone with Satan. There Christ and antichrist met, and entered upon the conflict upon the issue of which our salvation depended.

Mark 1:13

Verse 13. - Forty days tempted of Satan. St. Mark gathers up the whole temptation into this one sentence; and the passage would seem to imply that the three temptations recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke were not the only trials through which our Lord passed during those forty days, although they were no doubt the prominent and the most powerful assaults upon our Redeemer. And he was with the wild beasts (μετὰ τῶν θηρίων). This shows the extreme solitude of the place. It shows also the innocence of our Lord, that there, in that wild and desolate district, amongst lions, and wolves, and leopards, and serpents, he neither feared them nor was injured by them. He dwelt amongst them as Adam lived with them in his state of innocence in Paradise. These wild beasts recognized and revered their Creater and their Lord. And the angels ministered unto him. This, as we learn from St. Matthew (Matthew 4:11), was after his temptation and victory. Some have thought that Jesus became known to the devil as the Son of God, by the reverence and adoration of the angels. Thus Jesus showed in his own person, when alone he had striven with Satan and, had overcome him, that heavenly comfort and the ministry of angels are provided by God for those who overcome temptation.

Mark 1:14

Verse 14. - Now after that John was put in prison (μετὰ τὸ παραδοθῆναι); literally, was delivered up. This was our Lord's second coming into Galilee. Galilee had been specially designated as the scene of the Divine manifestation (see Isaiah 9:1, 2). The land of Galilee, or of Zebulun and Naphtali, had the misfortune to be the first in the sad calamity which fell upon the Jewish nation through the Assyrian invasion; and, in order to console them under this grievious affliction, Isaiah assures them that, by way of recompense, they, above the rest of their brethren, should have the chief share in the presence and ministry of the future promised Messiah. It seems probable that our Lord remained some time in Judaea after his baptism. From thence he went, with Andrew and Peter, two of John's disciples, into Galilee, where he called Philip. And then it was that he turned the water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. This was his first coming out of Judaea into Galilee, related by St. John (John 1:43, etc.). But the Passover brought him back into Judaea, that he might present himself in the temple; and then occurred his first purging of the temple (John 2:14). Then came the visit of Nicedemus to him by night; and then he began openly to preach and to baptize (John 3:26), and thus incurred the envy of the scribes and Pharisees. Therefore he left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee; and this is the departure here recorded by St. Mark and by St. Matthew (Matthew 4:12). Hence it came to pass that it was in Galilee that Christ called to himself four fishermen - Andrew and Peter, James and John.

Mark 1:15

Verse 15. - The time is fulfilled; that is, the time for the coming of Messiah and of his kingdom. The kingdom which had been shut for so many ages was now to be reopened by the preaching and the death of Christ. The time is very accurately indicated. St. Matthew tells us (Matthew 4:12) that "when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;" and then presently afterwards he adds, "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." The time and place are also accurately specified by St. Peter (Acts 10:36, 37), where he tells Cornelius that "the word of peace, preached by Jesus Christ, was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached." It was necessary that these circumstances should be carefully detailed, because they were among the proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus. Elias must come first; and he had come in the person of the Baptist, although the prophecy probably awaits its full accomplishment in the actual reappearance of the great prophet of Israel before the second coming of our Lord. Repent ye, and believe the gospel. These words may be regarded as a summary of the method of salvation. Repentance and faith are the conditions of admission into the Christian covenant. Repentance has a special reference to God the Father, and faith, to Jesus Christ the eternal Son. It is in the gospel that Christ is revealed to us as a Saviour; and therefore we find Jesus Christ, as the object of our faith, distinguished from the Father as the object of our repentance. Repentance of itself is not sufficient - it makes no satisfaction for the Law which we have broken; and hence, over and above repentance, there is required from us faith in the Gospel, wherein Christ is revealed to us as a propitiation for sin, and as the only way of reconciliation with the Father. Without faith repentance becomes despair, and without repentance faith becomes only presumption. Join the two together, and the faithful soul is borne onwards, like a well-balanced vessel, to the haven where it would be.

Mark 1:16

Verse 16. - Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee; a better reading is (καὶ παράγων), and passing along. Our Lord came up from the south, passing through Samaria, till he reached Cana of Galilee. He then passed along by the seashore towards Capernaum; and on his way found the four disciples whom he had previously nominated, but who were now engaged in their calling of fishermen. St. Mark then relates the circumstances of their call in the exact words of St. Matthew, which were in all probability those of apostolical tradition ('Speaker's Commentary'). It will be seen that St. Mark's account, in this introductory portion of his Gospel, is very concise, and that there are many things to be supplied from the first chapter of St. John; as, for example, that after our Lord's baptism by John, and afar his fasting and temptation in the desert, the Jews sent messengers to the Baptist, to inquire of him whether he were the Christ. John at once confessed that he was not the Christ, but that there was One even then among them, though they knew him not, who was indeed the Christ And then, the very next day after, Jesus came to him, and John then said to those around him, "Behold the Lamb of God!" Upon this two of John's disciples at once betook-themselves to Jesus. The first was Andrew, who forthwith brought his own brother Simon, afterwards called "Peter," to our Lord. Again, the day after the, our Lord called Philip, a fellow-citizen with Andrew and Peter, of Bethsaida. Then Philip brought Nathanael. Here, then, we have some more disciples nominated, who were with Jesus at the marriage in Cana of Galilee. Then Jesus retched again into Judaea; and those disciples "nominate," as we might call them, went back for a time to their occupation of fishermen. Meanwhile our Lord, while in Judaea, wrought miracles and preached, until the envy of the scribes and Pharisees constrained him to return again into Galilee. And then it was that he solemnly called Andrew and Peter, and James and John, as recorded by St. Mark here. So that St John alone gives some account of the events of the first year of our Lord's ministry. The three synoptic Gospels give the narrative of his public ministry, commencing from the second year. He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea. (βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον ἐν τῇ θαλάσση). Such was the text underlying the Authorized Version; but a better reading is (ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσση). St. Mark thinks it unnecessary to mention the net at all; though doubtless it was the ἀμφίβληστρον, or casting-net. When our Lord likens his gospel to a net, he uses the figure of the drag-not (σαγήνη), a net of a much larger size. But whether it be the casting-net or the drag-net, the comparison is a striking one. It is plain that, in the pursuit of his calling, the fisherman has no power to make any separation between the good fish and the worthless. He has little or no insight into what is going on beneath the surface of the water. So with the "fisher of men." He deals with the world spiritual and invisible; and how, then, can he be fully conscious of the results of his work? His work is pre-eminently a work of faith. It may be observed here that St. Mark, in this earlier part of his narrative, speaks of St. Peter as Simon, though afterwards (Mark 3:16) he calls him Peter. We may also notice here, once for all, St. Mark's constant use of the word "straightway" (εὐθέως or εὐθὺς). This word occurs no less than ten times in this chapter. In the Authorized Version the word (εὐθέως)is rendered indifferently by various English synonyms, as "forthwith," "immediately," etc.; whereas in the Revised Version it has been thought fit to note this peculiarity or mannerism in St. Mark's Gospel by the use of the same English synonym, "straightway," throughout this Gospel. The Holy Spirit, while guiding the minds of those whom he moved to write these records, did not use an overpowering influence, so as to interfere with their own natural modes of expression. Each sacred writer, while guarded against error, has reserved to him his own peculiarities of style and expression.

Mark 1:17

Mark 1:18

Mark 1:19

Verses 19, 20. - The calling of James and John, the sons of Zebedee. St. Mark here mentions that they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants (μετὰ τῶν μισθωτῶν). This mention of the "hired servants" is peculiar to St. Mark. He often follows the narrative of St. Matthew; but he adds little details such as this, here and there, which show that he knew St. Matthew's narrative to be true, and also that he was an independent witness. This circumstance here incidentally mentioned shows that there was a difference in position in life between Zebedee's family and that of Simon and Andrew. It appears that all Jews had free right of fishing in the sea of Galilee, which abounded in fish. Zebedee, therefore, whose home seems to have been at Jerusalem, had a fishing establishment in Galilee, probably managed by his partners, Andrew and Simon, during his absence. But he would naturally visit the establishment from time to time With his sons, and especially before the great festivals, when a larger supply of fish than usual would be required for the visitors crowding to Jerusalem at that time. (See 'Speaker's Commentary.')

Mark 1:20

Mark 1:21

Verse 21. - And they went into Capernaum; literally, they go into Capernaum (εἰσπορεύονται). St. Mark is fond of the historical "present "tense, which often adds life and energy to his narrative. Who go into Capernaum? Our Lord and these four disciples, the elementary Church of God, the nucleus of that spiritual influence which is to spread wider and wider unto the perfect day. It does not follow that this going into Capernaum took place on the same day. They would not have been fishing on the sabbath day. The synagogue here spoken of was the gift of the good centurion of whom we read in St. Matthew (Matthew 8:5) and St. Luke (Luke 7:2). Thus the first synagogue in which our Lord preached was the gift of a generous Gentile officer. It was an emblem of the union of Jews and Gentiles in one fold.

Mark 1:22

Verse 22. - They were astonished at his teaching (ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ). The verb in the Greek is a very strong and expressive one; it is a very suitable word to express the first impressions of utter amaze-sent produced by our Lord's "teaching." There were several things which caused his teaching (δίδαχη) to differ from that of the scribes. There was no lack of self-assertion in their teaching; but their words did not carry weight. Their teaching was based chiefly on tradition; it dwelt much on the "mint and anise and cummin" of religion, but neglected "judgment and mercy and faith." Christ's teaching, on the contrary, was eminently spiritual. And then he practiced what he taught. Not so the scribes. Thus far St. Mark's narrative bears the character of brevity and conciseness, suitable to an introduction. From this point his record is rich in detail and in graphic description.

Mark 1:23

Verse 23. - And straightway there was in their synagogne a man with an unclean spirit. According to the best authorities, the sentence in the Greek runs thus, Καὶ εὐθὺς η΅ν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν· And straightway there was in their synagogue, etc. This word "straightway" adds much force to the sentence. It marks the immediate effect of our Lord's preaching. A man with an unclean spirit. The words are literally, "a man in an unclean spirit" (ἐν πνεύματι ἀκάθαρτῳ); in his grasp, so to speak; possessed by him. There can be no reasonable doubt as to the personality of this unclean spirit (see Mark 4:24; Mark 12:41). The man was so absolutely in the power of this evil spirit that he seemed to dwell in him; just as the world is said by St. John (1 John 5:19) to lie "in the evil one" (ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ). And he cried out. Who cried out? Surely the unclean spirit, using the possessed man as his instrument. In the case of a true prophet, inspired by the Holy Spirit, he is permitted to use his own gifts, his reason, and even his own particular manner of speech; whereas here a false and lying spirit usurps the organs of speech, and makes them his own.

Mark 1:24

Verse 24. - The expression, Ἔα, incorrectly rendered Let us alone, has not sufficient authority to be retained here, though it is rightly retained in the parallel passage in St. Luke (Luke 4:34), where it is rendered in the Revised Version "Ah!" or "Ha!" If rendered, "Let us alone," or "Let alone," it must be assumed to be the imperative of ἐάω. It will be observed that this cry of the unclean spirit is spontaneous, before our Lord has addressed him. In real truth, the preaching of Jesus has already thrown the whole world of evil spirits into a state of excitement and alarm. The powers of darkness are beginning to tremble. They resent this intrusion into their domain. They feel that One greater than Satan has appeared, and they ask, What have we to do with thee? Wherein have we injured thee, that thou shouldest seek to drive us out of our possession? We have nothing to do with thee, thou Holy One of God; but we have a right to take possession of sinners. Beds says that the evil spirits, perceiving that "our Lord had come into the world, believed that they were about at once to be judged. They knew that dispossession would be their entrance upon a condition of torment, and therefore it is that they deprecate it." I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. St. Mark is very careful to bring out the hidden knowledge possessed by evil spirits, which enabled them at once to recognize the personality of Jesus (see Mark 1:34; Mark 3:11). It was given to them by him who has supreme power over the spiritual as well as the material world, to know as much as he saw fit that they should know; and he was pleased to make known as much as was needful. "But he made himself known to them, not as he makes himself known to the holy angels, who know him as the Word of God, and rejoice in his eternity, of which they partake. To the evil spirits he made himself known only so far as was requisite to strike with terror the beings from whose tyranny he was about to free those who were predestinated unto his kingdom and the glory of it" (see St. Augustine, 'City of God,' bk. 9:§ 21).

Mark 1:25

Verse 25. - Hold thy peace, and come out of him. It was necessary that our Lord should at once assert his absolute power over the evil spirits; and not only this, but also that he should show that he had nothing to do with them. Later on in his ministry it was objected to him that he cast out devils by the prince of the devils. Then, further, the time was not yet arrived when Christ was to be publicly proclaimed as the Son of God. This great truth was to be gradually unfolded, and the people were to be persuaded by many miracles. But at present they were not prepared for this, and therefore our Lord charged his apostles that they should not make him known.

Mark 1:26

Verse 26. - And when the unclean spirit had torn him; and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him (καὶ σπαράξαν αὐτὸν). The Greek word σπαράσσω may be rendered in the passive to be convulsed. It is so used by medical writers, as Galen. It could hardly here mean physically "laceration," for St. Luke (Luke 4:35) is careful to say that "when the devil had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no hurt." At all events, the expression indicates the close union of the evil spirit with the possessed man's consciousness and with his physical frame. And the manner in which he departed showed his malignity, as though, being compelled by the supreme authority of Christ to leave the man, he would injure him as far as he was able to do so. But the power of Christ prevented him from doing any real injury. And all this was done

(1) that there might be clear evidence that the man was actually possessed by the evil spirit;

(2) that the anger and malice of the evil spirit might be shown; and

(3) that it might be manifest that the unclean spirit came out, not of his own accord, but constrained and vanquished by Christ. We may observe also that the power of Christ restrained him from the use of any articulate words. While he was in possession he used the possessed man's organs of speech; but when he came out there was no articulate speech - it was nothing but a cry.

Mark 1:27

Verse 27. - What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? The now generally approved text gives a different rendering, namely, What is this? a new teaching! (Τί ἐστὶ τοῦτο δὶδαχη καινή). If this is the true reading - and there is excellent authority for it - it would mean that the bystanders inferred that this new and unexampled power indicated the accompanying gift of a "new teaching," a new revelation. Nay, more, it indicated that he who wrought these miracles must be the promised Messiah, the true God; for he alone by his power could rule the evil spirits.

Mark 1:28

Verse 28. - All the region round about Galilee; more literally, all the region of Galilee, round about; and the best readings add "everywhere" (πανταχοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Γαλιλαίας). This is, of course, said by anticipation.

Mark 1:29

Verse 29. - They came; a better reading is, he came (ἤλθεν). St. Matthew and St. Luke speak of this house as the house of Simon Peter only; but St. Mark, writing probably under St. Peter's direction, includes Andrew as a joint owner with Simon Peter.

Mark 1:30

Verses 30, 31. - Lay sick of a fever (κατέκειτο πυρέσσουσα). St. Luke (Luke 4:38) uses a stronger expression, "was holden with a great fever" (συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ). There were marshes in that district; hence the prevalence of fevers of a malignant character. There is no mention of the wife of Peter by name in the New Testament. We may infer, from the fact that his wish's mother lived with him, that he was the head of the family. St. Paul (1 Corinthians 9:5) intimates that he was a married man, and that his wife accompanied him on his missionary tours. According to the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, and of Eusebius (3:30), she suffered martyrdom, and was led away to death in the sight of her husband, whose last words to her were, "Remember thou the Lord." St. Mark here tells us that Jesus came and took [Simon's wife's mother] by the hand, and raised her up. St. Luke (Luke 4:39) says that "he stood over her and rebuked the fever." Immediately the fever left her. The word "immediately" (εὐθέως), familiar as it is to St. Mark, is here omitted by the best authorities. But the omission is of no importance; for the fact that "the fever left her," and that she was at once strong enough to "minister to them," proves that it was not like an ordinary recovery from fever, which is wont to be slow and tedious.

Mark 1:31

Mark 1:32

Verse 32. - At even, when the sun did set. It was the sabbath day; and, therefore, the sick were not brought to our Lord until six o'clock, when the sabbath ended. When the sun did set (ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλίος). St. Luke's phrase is (δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου), "When the sun was, so to speak, submerged in the sea." So in Virgil, 'Aeneid,' lib. 7:100 -

"...qua sol utrumque recurrens
Adspicit Oceanum;"

the popular idea being that, when the sun sets, it sinks into the ocean.

Mark 1:33

Verses 33, 34. - The whole city was gathered together at the door. This would probably be the outer door in the wall, opening into the street; so that this need not be regarded as a hyperbolic statement. It is evidently the description of an eye-witness, or of one who had it from an eye-witness. He healed all that had need of healing, and he suffered not the devils to speak, for the reasons. assigned at ver. 25.

Mark 1:34

Mark 1:35

Verse 35. - And in the morning, at great while before day, he rose up and went out, and departed into a desert place, and there prayed. Our Lord thus prepared himself by prayer for his first departure on a missionary tour. This would be the morning of the first day of the week. A great while before day he left the scene of excitement. That was not a time for preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. The miracles attracted attention to him, but they were not the object for which he came. They were necessary as means of stirring and awakening men's minds, and of fixing their attention upon him and upon the great salvation which he came to reveal. So he left the miracles to do their subordinate work; and he himself went into a desert place, that he might pray with more quiet and less distraction. He retired that he might escape the applause of men, which they were ready to lavish upon him after seeing so many miracles; that he might thus teach us to shun the praise of men. Let us learn from Christ to give the early morning to prayer, and to rise with the dawn of day, that we may have time for meditation, and give the firstfruits of the morning to God. The early morning is favorable for study; but it is specially dear to God and his angels.

Mark 1:36

Verse 36. - And Simon and they that were with him followed after him κατεδίωξαν the word implies an "earnest pursuing." They that were with him would doubtless include Andrew and James and John, and probably others whose enthusiasm had been kindled by Simon Peter. St. Luke, in the parallel passage (Luke 4:42). tells us that "the multitudes sought after him, and came unto him, and would have stayed him, that he should not go from them."

Mark 1:37

Verse 37. - All are seeking thee. The "thee" is here emphatic (πάντες ζητοῦσίσε).

Mark 1:38

Verses 38, 39. - These two verses indicate the extent and duration of our Lord's first missionary journey. It must have been considerable. He preached in the synagogues. This would be on successive sabbaths. According to Josephus, Galilee was a densely populated district, with upwards of two hundred villages, each containing several thousand inhabitants.

Mark 1:39

Mark 1:40

Verse 40. - The healing of the leper is recorded in all the three synoptic Gospels; but St. Mark gives more full details. From St. Matthew we learn that it took place after the sermon on the mount; and yet not at the very close of his missionary circuit, St. Luke (Luke 5:12) says that the diseased man was "full of leprosy" (πλήρης λέπρας). The disorder was fully developed; it had spread over his whole body; he was leprous from head to foot. This leprosy was designed to be specially typical of the disease of sin. It was not infectious. It was not because it was either infectious or contagious that the leper was bidden under the Jewish Law to wars others off, in the words," Unclean! un-clean!" It was in some cases hereditary. It was a very revolting disease. It was a poisoning of the springs of life. It was a living death. It was incurable by any human art or skill. It was the awful sign of sin reaching unto death; and it was cured, as sin is cured, only by the mercy and favor of God. No wonder, then, that our Lord specially displayed his power over this terrible disease, that he might thus prove his power over the still worse malady of sin. St. Mark here tells us that this leper knelt down (καὶ γονυπετῶν). St. Matthew says (Matthew 8:2) that he "worshipped him," (προσεκύνει αὐτῷ); St. Luke says (Luke 5:12) that "he fell on his face" (πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον). We thus see that the scriptural idea of worship is associated with some lowly posture of the body. But with this worship of the body, the leper offered also the homage of the soul. His prostration of himself before Christ was not merely a rendering of honor to an earthly being; it was a rendering of reverence to a Divine Being. For he does not say to him, "If thou wilt ask of God, he will give it thee;" but he says, "If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." It is as though he said, "I know that thou art of equal power with the Father, and therefore supreme Lord over diseases; so that by thy word alone thou canst remove this leprosy from me. I ask, therefore, that thou wouldst be willing to do this, and then I know that the thing is done." The leper had faith in the Divine power of Christ, partly out of his own inward illumination, and partly by the evidence of the miracles which Christ had already wrought. If thou wilt, thou east. Observe the hypothetic expression, "If thou wilt." He has no doubt as to Christ's power, but the words, "If thou wilt" show that his desire for healing was controlled by resignation to the will of God. For bodily diseases are often necessary for the health of the soul; and this God knows, though man knows it not. Therefore, in asking for earthly blessings, it behoves us to resign ourselves to the will and wisdom of God.

Mark 1:41

Verse 41. - Observe in this verse that Jesus stretched forth his hand and touched the leper. Thus he showed that he was superior to the Law, which forbade contact with a leper. He touched him, knowing that he could not be defiled with the touch. He touched him that he might heal him, and that his Divine power of healing might be made manifest. "Thus," says Bode, "God stretched out his hand and touched the human nature in his incarnation, and restored to the Church those who had been cast out, that they might be able to offer their bodies a living sacrifice to him of whom it is said, 'Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Molchisedec.'" I will; be thou clean; literally, be thou made clean (καθαρίσθητι). It is well observed here by St. Jerome that our Lord aptly answers both the petitions of the leper. "If thou wilt;" "I will." "Thou canst make me clean;" "Be thou made clean." Indeed, Christ gives him more than he asks for. He makes him whole, not only in body, but in spirit. Thus Christ, in his loving-kindness, exceeds the wishes of his supplicants, that we may learn from him to do the same, and to enlarge our hearts, both towards God and towards our brethren.

Mark 1:42

Verse 42. - Straightway - St. Mark's favourite word - the leprosy departed from him. There is no interval between the command and the work of Christ. "He spake, and it was done." His will is his omnipotence. By this act Christ showed that he came into the world as a great Physician, that he might cure all diseases, and cleanse us from all our defilements. The word "straightway" shows that Christ healed the leper, not by any natural means, but by a Divine power which works instantly. He is alike powerful both to commend and to do. St. Matthew says here (Matthew 8:3) that straightway "his leprosy was cleansed" (ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα). There is here what is called a "hypallage," or inversion of the meaning, which is, of course, that "he was cleansed from his leprosy."

Mark 1:43

Verse 43. - And he straitly charged him. The Greek verb here (ἐμβριμησάμενος) has a tinge of severity in it, "he strictly [or sternly] charged him." Both word and action are severe. He straightway sent him out (ἐξεβάλεν αὐτὸν). It may be that he had incurred this rebuke by coming so near with his defilement to the holy Saviour. Christ thus showed not only his respect for the ordinances of the Jewish Law, but also how hateful sin is to the most holy God.

Mark 1:44

Verse 44. - See thou say nothing to any man. St. Chrysostom says that our Lord gave him this charge, "to shun ostentation, and to teach us not to boast of our virtues, but to hide them." It is evident that he wished to draw the thoughts of men away from his miracles, and to fix them upon his doctrine. Go thy way, show thyself to the priest; the priest who in the order of his course presided over the rest. Our Lord sent him to the priest, that he might be seen to recognize their special office in cases of leprosy; and further, that the priest himself might have clear evidence that this leper was cleansed, not after the custom of the Law, but by the operation of grace.

Mark 1:45

Verse 45. - But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter. It seems difficult to blame the man for doing what he thought must tend to the honor of his Healer; though, no doubt, it would have been better if he had humbly obeyed. And yet it was to be expected that the knowledge of our Lord's mighty works would be published by others. In this particular instance the effect of this man's conduct was probably unexpected by himself; for it led to the withdrawal of Christ from Capernaum. The crowds who were attracted to him by the fame of his miracles would have hampered him, so that he could not have exercised his ministry; for even in the desert places they sought him out, and came to him from every quarter. It should be noticed here that this first chapter of St. Mark embraces, in very condensed form, about twelve months of our Lord's public ministry, from his baptism by John. And it is a record of uninterrupted progress. The time had not then come for the opposition of the scribes and Pharisees and Herodians to show itself. It was, no doubt, wisely ordained that his gospel should take root and lay hold of the hearts and consciences of men, as it must have done in the minds of the Galilaeans more especially, before it had to encounter the envy and malice of those who ultimately would bring him to his cross.

Mark 1

Mar 1:1.The beginning of the Gospel. Though what we have hitherto taken out of Matthew and Luke is a part of the Gospel, yet it is not without reason that Mark makes the beginning of the Gospel to be the preaching of John the Baptist. For the Law and the Prophets then came to an end, (Joh 1:17.) “The Law and the Prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, ” (Luk 16:16 .)And with this agrees most fully the quotation which he makes from the Prophet Malachi, (Mal 3:1.) In order to inflame the minds of his people with a stronger desire of the promised salvation, the Lord had determined to leave them, for a time, without new prophecies. We know that the last of the true and lawful prophets was Malachi.

That the Jews, in the meantime, may not faint with hunger, he exhorts them to continue under the Law of Moses, until the promised redemption appear. He mentions the law only, (Joh 1:17,) because the doctrine of the Prophets was not separate from the law, but was merely an appendage and fuller exposition of it, that the form of government in the Church might depend entirely on the Law. It is no new or uncommon thing in Scripture, to include the Prophets under the name of the Law: for they were all related to it as their fountain or design. The Gospel was not an inferior appendage to the Law, but a new form of instruction, by which the former was set aside.

Malachi, distinguishing the two conditions of the Church, places the one under the Law, and commences the other with the preaching of John. He unquestionably describes the Baptist, when he says, “Behold, I send my messenger,” (Mal 3:1 :) for, as we have already said, that passage lays down an express distinction between the Law and the new order and condition of the Church. With the same view he had said a little before, (which is quoted by Mark, [Mar 9:13;] for the passages are quite similar,) “Behold, I send you Elijah the Prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord,” (Mal 4:5.) Again,

“Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,” (Mal 3:1.)

In both passages, the Lord promises a better condition of his Church than had existed under the Law, and this unquestionably points out the beginning of the Gospel But before the Lord came to restore the Church, a forerunner or herald was to come, and announce that he was at hand. Hence we infer, that the abrogation of the Law, and the beginning of the Gospel, strictly speaking, took place when John began to preach.

The Evangelist John presents to us Christ clothed in flesh, “the Word made flesh,” (Joh 1:14;) so that his birth and the whole history of his appearance are included in the Gospel. But here Mark inquires, when the Gospel began to be published, and, therefore, properly begins with John, who was its first minister. And with this view the Heavenly Father chose that the life of his Son should be buried, as it were, in silence, until the time of the full revelation arrived. For it did not happen without the undoubted Providence of God, that the Evangelists leave out the whole period which Christ spent in private, and pass at once from his earliest infancy to his thirtieth year, when he was openly exhibited to the world, invested with his public character as a Redeemer; Luke excepted, who slightly touches one indication of his future calling, which occurred about his twelfth year, (Luk 2:42 .)

It had a very close connection with this object, that we should be informed, first, that Christ is a true man, (Joh 1:14,) and next, that he is “the Son of Abraham and of David, ”(Mat 1:1 ;)as to both of which, the Lord has been pleased to give us an attestation. The other matters which we have examined, relating to “the shepherds, ” (Luk 2:8 ,)the “Magi,” (Mat 2:1 ,)and “Simeon,” (Luk 2:25 ,)were intended to prove his Divinity. What Luke relates about John and his father Zacharias, (Luk 1:5 ,)was a sort of preparation for the Gospel.

There is no impropriety in the change of the person which is here made, in quoting the words of Malachi. According to the prophet, God says, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way Before Me. Mark introduces God as addressing the Son, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way Before Thee. But we see that Mark had no other intention, than to express more clearly the prophet’s meaning. Mark designates Christ the Son of God The other Evangelists testify that he was born of the seed of Abraham and David, and therefore was the Son of man, (Mat 8:20 .)But Mark shows us, that no redemption is to be expected but from the Son of God



Mar 1:14.Preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God. Matthew appears to differ a little from the other two: for, after mentioning that Jesus left his own city Nazareth, and departed to Capernaum, he says: from that time Jesus began to preach. Luke and Mark, again, relate, that he taught publicly in his own country. But the solution is easy; for the words which Matthew employs, ἀπὸ τότε, from that time, ought to be viewed as referring, not to what immediately precedes, but to the whole course of the narrative. Christ, therefore, entered into the exercise of his office, when he arrived at Galilee. The summary of doctrine which is given by Matthew is not at all different from what, we have lately seen, was taught by John: for it consists of two parts, — repentance, and the announcement of grace and salvation. He exhorts the Jews to conversion, because the kingdom of God is at hand: that is, because God undertakes to govern his people, which is true and perfect happiness. The language of Mark is a little different, The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel But the meaning is the same: for, having first spoken of the restoration of the kingdom of God among the Jews, he exhorts them to repentance and faith.

But it may be asked, since repentance depends on the Gospel, why does Mark separate it from the doctrine of the Gospel? Two reasons may be assigned. God sometimes invites us to repentance, when nothing more is meant, than that we ought to change our life for the better. He afterwards shows, that conversion and “newness of life” (Rom 6:4) are the gift of God. This is intended to inform us, that not only is our duty enjoined on us, but the grace and power of obedience are, at the same time, offered. If we understand in this way the preaching of John about repentance, the meaning will be:” The Lord commands you to turn to himself; but as you cannot accomplish this by your own endeavors, he promises the Spirit of regeneration, and therefore you must receive this grace by faith.” At the same time, the faith, which he enjoins men to give to the Gospel, ought not, by any means, to be confined to the gift of renewal, but relates chiefly to the forgiveness of sins. For John connects repentance with faith, because God reconciles us to himself in such a manner, that we serve him as a Father in holiness and righteousness.

Besides, there is no absurdity in saying, that to believe the Gospel is the same thing as to embrace a free righteousness: for that special relation, between faith and the forgiveness of sins, is often mentioned in Scripture; as, for example, when it teaches, that we are justified by faith, (Rom 5:1.) In which soever of these two ways you choose to explain this passage, it still remains a settled principle, that God offers to us a free salvation, in order that we may turn to him, and live to righteousness. Accordingly, when he promises to us mercy, he calls us to deny the flesh. We must observe the designation which Paul gives to the Gospel, the kingdom of God: for hence we learn, that by the preaching of the Gospel the kingdom of God is set up and established among men, and that in no other way does God reign among men. Hence it is also evident, how wretched the condition of men is without the Gospel.



This demoniac was probably one of that multitude, which was mentioned, a little before, by Mat 4:24. Yet the narrative of Mark and Luke is not superfluous: for they relate some circumstances, which not only present the miracle in a more striking light, but also contain useful instruction. The devil dexterously acknowledges, that Christ is the Holy One of God, in order to insinuate into the minds of men a suspicion, that there was some secret understanding between him and Christ. By such a trick he has since endeavored to make the Gospel suspected, and, in the present day, he is continually making similar attempts. That is the reason why Christ rebukes him. It is, no doubt, possible, that this confession was violently extorted from him: but there is no inconsistency between the two suppositions, that he is forced to yield to the power of Christ, and therefore cries out that he is the Holy One of God, — and yet that he cunningly attempts to shroud in his own darkness the glory of Christ. At the same time, we must observe that, while he flatters Christ in this manner, he indirectly withdraws himself from his power, and in this way contradicts himself. For why was Christ sanctified by the Father, but that he might deliver men from the tyranny of the devil, and overturn his kingdom? But as Satan cannot endure that power, which he feels to be destructive to himself, he would desire that Christ should satisfy himself with an empty title, without exercising it on the present occasion. (344)

Mar 1:22; Luk 4:32.And they were astonished at his doctrine The meaning of the Evangelists is, that the power of the Spirit shone in the preaching (345) of Christ with such brightness, as to extort admiration even from irreligious and cold hearers. Luke says, that his discourse was accompanied with power, that is, full of majesty. Mark expresses it more fully, by adding a contrast, that it was unlike the manner of teaching of the Scribes As they were false expounders of Scripture, their doctrine was literal and dead, breathed nothing of the power of the Spirit, and was utterly destitute of majesty. The same kind of coldness may be now observed in the speculative theology of Popery. Those masters do indeed thunder out whatever they think proper in a sufficiently magisterial style; but as their manner of discoursing about divine things is so profane, that their controversies exhibit no traces of religion, what they bring forward is all affectation and mere drivelling: for the declaration of the Apostle Paul holds true, that the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power, (1Co 4:20.) In short, the Evangelists mean that, while the manner of teaching, which then prevailed, was so greatly degenerated and so extremely corrupted, that it did not impress the minds of men with any reverence for God, the preaching of Christ was eminently distinguished by the divine power of the Spirit, which procured for him the respect of his hearers. This is the power, or rather the majesty and authority, at which the people were astonished.



(344) “Mais pource que Satan ne pent endurer ceste vertue et puissance, aquelle il sait estre le destruire et ruiner, il voudroit bien que Christ se contenant d'un beau titre en l'air, se reposast, et se deportast de luy rien faire.” — “But because Satan cannot endure that power and might, which he knows to be to destroy and ruin him, he would rather wish that Christ, satisfying himself with a fine title in the air, should take repose, and refrain from doing any thing to him.

(345) “En la facon d’enseigner de Jesus Christ;” — “in Jesus Christ's manner of teaching.”



Mar 1:26When the unclean spirit had torn him Luke uses a milder phrase, when the devil had thrown him down: but they agree perfectly as to the meaning; for the design of both was to show, that the devil went out of the man in a violent manner. He threw down the unhappy man, as if he had intended to tear him: but Luke says that the attempt was unsuccessful; for he hurt him nothing Not that the attack was, in no degree whatever, attended by injury, or at least by some feeling of pain; but that the man was afterwards delivered from the devil, and restored to perfect health.



Mar 1:27What new doctrine is this? They call it new doctrine, not by way of reproach, but as an acknowledgment, that there was something in it unusual and extraordinary. It is not for the sake of blame, or to lessen its credit, that they speak of it as new. This is rather a part of their admiration, that they pronounce it to be not common or ordinary. Their only fault lies in this, that they remain in their state of hesitation, (346) whereas the children of God ought to make increasing progress.

(346) “En leur doute et estonnement.” — “In their doubt and astonishment.”



Mar 1:29.They came, with James and John, into the house of Simon and Andrew. There is reason to conjecture, that Matthew does not relate this history in its proper order: for Mark expressly states, that there were only four disciples who attended Christ. Besides, when he left the synagogue, he went straight to Peter’s house; which also shows clearly, that Matthew did not observe, with exactness, the order of time. The Evangelists appear to have taken particular notice of this miracle; not that, in itself, it was more remarkable, or more worthy of being recorded, than other miracles, — but because, by means of it, Christ gave to his disciples a private and familiar illustration of his grace. Another reason was, that the healing of one woman gave occasion to many miracles, so that they came to him in great numbers, from every direction, to implore his assistance. A single word, in Luke’s narrative, presents to us more strikingly the power which Christ displayed; for he says, that Simon’s mother-in-law was held by a GREAT fever. It was a clearer and more affecting proof of divine power, that, in a moment, and by a single touch, he removed a strong and violent disease. He might have done it by the slightest expression of his will; but he touched her hand, (Mat 8:15 ,)either to mark his affection, or because he was aware that this sign was, at that time, advantageous: for we know, that he freely used outward signs, when the time required them.



Mar 1:34.He did not permit the devils to speak. There might be two reasons why he did not permit them: a general reason, because the time of the full revelation was not yet come; and a special reason, which we hinted at a little ago, that he refused to have, as heralds and witnesses of his divinity, those whose praise could have no other effect than to soil and injure his character. This latter reason is undoubtedly true: for he must have known, that the prince of death, and his agents, are in a state of irreconcileable enmity with the Author of eternal salvation and life.



Mark1:38.For on this account I came out. Luk 4:43.For on this account am I sent. These words deserve our attention: for they contain a declaration of his earnest desire to fulfill his office. But it will perhaps be asked, is it better that the ministers of the Gospel should run here and there, to give only a slight and partial taste of it in each place, or that they should remain, and instruct perfectly the hearers whom they have once obtained? I reply. The design of Christ, which is here mentioned, was agreeable to the injunction and call of the Father, and was founded on the best reasons. For it was necessary that Christ should travel, within a short period, throughout Judea, to awaken the minds of men, on all sides, as if by the sound of a trumpet, to hear the Gospel. But on this subject we must treat more fully under another passage.



Mat 8:4; Mar 1:44.For a testimony to them Some consider testimony to mean here a law or statute, as it is said in the Book of Psalms, God laid down this “ for a testimony to Israel,” (Psa 122:4.) But this appears to me to be a poor exposition: for I have no doubt that the pronoun to them refers to the priests. (496) Christ said this, in my opinion, with a view to the present occurrence: for this miracle was afterwards to be a sufficiently clear proof for convicting them of ingratitude. There is nothing inconsistent with this in the command which Christ gave to the leper to maintain silence: for he did not intend that the remembrance of the miracle which he had wrought should remain always buried. When the leper, at the command of Christ, came into the presence of the priest, this was a testimony to them, which would render them inexcusable, if they refused to receive Christ as the minister of God; and would, at the same time, take away occasion for slander, since Christ did not neglect a single point of the law. In a word, if they were not past cure, they might be led to Christ; while, on the other hand, so solemn a testimony of God was sufficiently powerful to condemn them, if they were unbelievers.



(496) According to the view which Calvin rejects, the words, which Moses commanded for a testimony to them, mean, “which Moses delivered to them, that is, to the people of Israel, as a divine ordinance.” The view which he adopts may be more clearly brought out by a different arrangement of the words. Present, for a testimony to them, that is, “to the priests,” the offering which Moses commanded. —Ed



Mar 1:45.So that Jesus could no longer enter openly into cities Hence we learn the reason why Christ did not wish the miracle to be so soon made known. It was that he might have more abundant opportunity and freedom for teaching. Not that his enemies rose against him, and attempted to shut his mouth, but because the common people were so eager to demand miracles, that no room was left for doctrine. He wished that they would all be more attentive to the word than to signs. Luke accordingly says, that he sought retirement in the deserts He avoided a crowd of men, because he saw, that he would not satisfy the wishes of the people, without overwhelming his doctrine by a superfluity of miracles. (497)

(497) “Que quant et quant il ne fist tant de miracles, que cela les empescheroit de bien penser a la doctrine;” — “without doing so many miracles as to prevent them from thinking properly about his doctrine.”